Recently I read an article lambasting or rather dissecting the role that Ubuntu has played in the Linux community and according to the author of the article titled - Ubuntu vs. Debian: What Canonical Doesn't Want You To Know , it boils down to clever marketing on the part of Ubuntu folks or in other words marketing gimmicks. In fact I see this growing dissent towards this distribution in different quarters - mind you, not from the actual users of Ubuntu who love this distribution but from people who are affiliated with or use other Linux distributions.So as a long time Ubuntu user, I asked myself this very important question. Is the Ubuntu word over-hyped ? Is Ubuntu Linux riding on the wave of good will, on top of what this word actually mean ? And finally what makes Ubuntu Linux stand apart from the rest of the Linux distributions ?
Ubuntu is a word in a South African language (Bantu) which has lots of meanings associated with it. And this word originated long before the birth of Linux. When the South African space tourist Mark Shuttleworth adopted this word for his Linux distribution, the word came to be synonymous with the Linux distribution and it gained world wide popularity.
I believe the word Ubuntu has gained as much popularity from being associated with this Linux distribution as the Linux distribution has gained from the word. In other words it is a symbiotic relationship as far as the Ubuntu word and Ubuntu Linux are concerned.
Even though I have been using Ubuntu as my main Linux distribution, I have used and still use other Linux distributions too. If you look around this site, you will find reviews of different Linux distributions as varied as PCLinuxOS, DSL, Vector Linux, Gentoo .... why just Linux, I have also reviewed a couple of non-Linux OSes such as FreeBSD and PCBSD. So my intention in raising this sensitive topic is not as much as to throw dirt at other Linux distributions rather to see why Ubuntu Linux has gained so much popularity and if it is worthy of it.
The number one incentive for me to try out Ubuntu in the first place (earlier I used to be a Fedora user) was that they were shipping (still do) free CDs of Ubuntu Linux to anyone around the world. This at a time when I had to do entirely with dial-up connection to log on to the net. Even now, in most third world countries, the word broadband Internet is synonymous with just 256 Kpbs speed and many people do not even have this luxury. So the vision of Mark Shuttleworth to hand out free CDs of Ubuntu to anybody who asked for it became a major hit world wide. In fact by doing so he made Linux free not only as in freedom but free as in beer too.
But handing out free Cds alone will not bring as much popularity as it now enjoys. After all if that were the case, all software (proprietary or otherwise) which we receive free of cost would have been as popular. So there are more reasons...
Any long time Linux user will agree with me that Debian holds a special place in their hearts. It has the largest number of packages in its repository than any Linux distribution can boast off. It is stable and can be compared at par with other Unices in its uptime. But one area where Debian developers lagged behind was in creating a separate Linux distribution or should I say a separate entity which the ordinary user could easily install and use on his desktop. Debian was and is more server oriented. I had the fortune of installing Debian on my machine a couple of months back. Even though I was able to successfully install, use and enjoy it, I had to struggle a bit in figuring out how to install it. The installation is far from newbie friendly. I would go so far as to say I found installing FreeBSD to be much more simpler than installing Debian. This is one area where the Debian developers have to direct their efforts to. And I believe something is being done to address this shortcoming. But that is not all, since it is a Linux distribution oriented to be run first and foremost on the servers, it comes with a lot of additional packages which a normal user will not have a clue as whether to install or not. So some one who needed a newbie friendly Linux distribution based on Debian had to put up with trying out Knoppix Live CD.
Ubuntu Linux, I believe addressed this need. They took all the good things that Debian has to offer - its excellent repository of packages, its superior package management, its stability and then took it one step further by fine tuning it to make it newbie friendly by making it possible to install it on to the hard disk by a mere six steps.
If you look closely, Ubuntu has made a number of refinements which make it an ideal OS for the home user. For one, it comes with all the ports closed by default. As a home user who's only interaction with the Internet is web browsing, checking mails and playing a few online games, the last thing I need are unnecessary services running on my machine. And Ubuntu Desktop has made it possible. As a comparison, I found a default Fedora desktop installation to run more than 10 services including Avahi (what ever that means). And in Ubuntu the only service listening on the tcp/udp ports is the cups printing service. Run the following command to see all the services that are listening on your tcp and udp ports to get an idea.
$ netstat -taupOr better still, run nmap to find the open ports on your machine running your favourite Linux distribution and then see how many are open in Ubuntu.
# nmap -sS <your machine IP address>Ubuntu Desktop does not ship with even a compiler. So it is impossible for a person who has access to your machine to write some malicious code, compile it and then make it to run during startup, in the process compromising your machine.
And for those who want such facilities as a compiler and ssh daemon running on your machine, it is a simple case of using apt-get to download and install the necessary packages in which case you are expected to know what you are doing and its consequences.
The point I wish to make is that Ubuntu team has been successful in addressing the need for a truly user friendly secure Linux desktop that the other major players failed to address. And the potential Linux users were quick to grab at what was offered and then form a community around it.
And while on the topic of community, One of the biggest strengths that any Linux distribution can aspire for is a large user community revolving around it. It is the community which imparts life to any Linux distribution and it aids in spreading the word about the distribution. And Ubuntu has been a success on this front. This might bring up a question in someones mind. Can a community be brought ? Not at all. It is something that happens when passion is involved. If not for passion, why then would some people spend many man hours developing scripts such as Automatix or EasyUbuntu and then share it freely with the rest of the Ubuntu users ? Why would anyone go out of their way to help in getting some things working right in Ubuntu ? Are these people on the payrolls of Ubuntu? No. It all filters down to passion. And passion my friend, cannot be brought. It is something that comes from within. In my opinion, Ubuntu has taken all the right steps in stirring this passion in its users which is why it enjoys an ever growing community.
That doesn't mean Debian doesn't have a strong community following. But the community revolving around Debian consists of an entirely different set of users. That is those who are more system administrators than ordinary users. And it is anybody's guess that normal users far out number the system administrators. I myself am a fan of Debian and I am sure that any day they bring out a newbie friendly distribution at par with what Ubuntu is now, a community will form around it and start promoting it.
Lastly, by choosing to use the packages in Debian Sid, Ubuntu has made sure that its users enjoy the latest versions of the software they have grown to love. I may also add that the hardware detection of Ubuntu is above par and is known to detect the widest range of hardware out of the box.
To sum up, these are the factors that has catapulted Ubuntu as the number one Linux distribution in terms of popularity. They are as follows:
- Distributing free Ubuntu CDs to anybody who asks for it.
- Designed with the home user in mind.
- Excellent hardware detection - a quality I believe is shared by other Linux distributions.
- A strong user community backing its growth.
- Containing the latest versions of the software packages.
- Managing to grab the average user's imagination with its association with the Bantu word Ubuntu.
Update (Aug 16 2006): My intention of writing this article was not to disparage any Linux distribution be it Debian, Fedora, SuSE or any other which I am sure enjoy its right place in the Linux community. But I strongly believe that if any Linux distribution has to excite the passion in the general public in the same level as Ubuntu has then they should discard this one size fits all principle. Which means they should delink the distribution for the ordinary masses from that for running on the servers. I believe that if these main stream (and other) linux distributions take a leaf from Ubuntu and bring out a truly newbie friendly distribution - sans sshd and other unnecessary services and without the compilers and such, I am sure they will be well recieved by the common public (average joes) who wish to run Linux on their machines.
44 comments:
Does this article further the over-hype of the word Ubuntu?
Ubutnu Rocks! It's got a good feel, a good mission, and it works.
I've seen a lot of Ubuntu trashing on Techrepublic and on Blogspot lately. It really boils down to the Old School Linux users being pissed off that newbies (like me) can install and use Linux easily. (Meaning without initially learning and using the command line.)
I've tried a bunch of distros (Fedora Core 4 & 5, Mandriva 2006, Suse 10, Slackware, Zenwalk, PC-BSD) and IMO, Ubuntu beats them all for 'out of the box' usability. It's easy to install, set up, and has you using Linux immediately, rather than figuring out how to get your hardware working.
My goal was to get off windows and learn Linux (at home, at least). Ubuntu made this possible. I can use Linux while I'm learning it, instead of having a spare box to tinker with (which is nice, don't get me wrong).
I've got no problems with other distros, and eventually I'd like to learn Slackware, Debian, or Gentoo. But for now it's Ubuntu.
One last thing: it's strange to me that the same people who want everyone to use Linux are complaining about Ubuntu's popularity and ease of use.
So we should divide Linux by Server distros and Desktop ones right?
So that means two different kernels...so the kernel would fork. OH and then if we divide Linux up...wait...what's that saying?
Oh crap, right,
A Divided House will fall.
Let's not go that direction. Desktop Linux has only recently begun to be popular and be at the point where it can be a drop in replacement for Windows. Let's let Desktop Linux mature a but more before we go tossing out things like "they should discard this one size fits all principle" and instead, wait a bit more to see how things develop. Talk like this causes more problems than it helps to solve. Trust me, I've been an active part of the community of Linux since 1995.
Finally some good and concise explanations about Ubuntu success' reasons. I was tired of generic explantions like ease of use (even, say, Fedora is easy, so what's the point?), fast installation (you don't install it on a daily basis, so what's the point?), etc.
Thank you!
Max
Another factor which works for ubuntu is that it looks good. The default font is very readable and correctly sized. Even the light brown colors are pleasing to the eye.
Apart form that it really does the basics well. Can easily connect to a ADSL modem, transfer photos from your camera, even detect the printers correctly and allows you to mangae your phone as well.
All these are hard to find in other distributions. At least in Fedora.
I was thinking about installing Debian on my new laptop to match my desktop environment, but I should probably take a serious look into installing Ubuntu. Thanks for this article which is leading me to ask my friends if they have a spare copy. B-)
FYI:
Avahi is a ZeroConf technology for Linux. For instance I have a Mac Mini as a Media Server, with iTunes shared and a HP printer shared via Apple's Bonjour technology. Avahi is used by Banshee Music Player to detect the iTunes share and can load up the Library from the Mac Mini. So my girlfriend's Ubuntu laptop can play tunes from my iTunes library over wireless. I have not tried the printer on the Ubuntu laptop yet though....
Ubuntu does a good job
of being beginner friendly
AND having big repositories
(about 19,000 packages now).
A lot of other distros
do one OR the other
but Ubuntu does BOTH.
Plus Ubuntu uses Debian package management
which is my favorite.
Some vendors are starting to preinstall Ubuntu now.
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/
Equating the presence of a compiler on the computer to a security issue is misinformed at best...
"Ubuntu Desktop does not ship with even a compiler. So it is impossible for a person who has access to your machine to write some malicious code, compile it and then make it to run during startup, in the process compromising your machine."
Like you need a compiler to let the computer do something. Ever heard of bash scripting?
Excuse me, do you really believe that without a compiler an attacker would be unable to run malicious code?
"Ubuntu Desktop does not ship with even a compiler. "
Yeah isnt it great how you tell the average user to not compile anything on his own, also by forcing him to adapt to the Ubuntu Hive way of sudo? (To not be unfair, other distributions force the user to adapt to other ways as well, such as the RPM way.)
I am sure he will learn a lot more than by compiling his own software ... *gasp* Or go through a LFS build. Sure the average user doesnt want to hassle with this - but read on.
If you want to compare Ubuntu, do so by comparing it to Windows.
But dont compare it to Distributions that put you as user under central control, such as how Slackware, Gentoo, Frugalware and several other distributions do.
The biggest asset to Linux is that you CAN change pretty every aspect of it. You dont even have to be a super coder, learn a scripting language like python ruby or even lua, and see how far you can come with it. (And stick to it to become a real expert... just please dont stick to php because its a mis design from the beginning. You will hate it after few years...)
Just one remark regarding the phrase "long time Ubuntu user". How can anyone be a long-time Ubuntu user? The first release was less than 2 years ago!
How can anyone be a long-time Ubuntu user? The first release was less than 2 years ago!
Relatively speaking, 2 years is sufficiently a long time. ;-)
@anonymous 12:13:45 PM
Like you need a compiler to let the computer do something. Ever heard of bash scripting?
which makes me ponder...
Is it possible to write a virus entirely using a bash script ?
@stuarz: do you think that is so hard to compile malicious code on other machine and then run it on victim's one?
btw.. perl is preinstalled in ubuntu, so I don't think that making evil things is so problematic..
I don't think that no compiler preinstalled is an advantage for beginner..
I like Ubuntu and I use it in daily basis and I realy like it, because of complexity.
"Ubuntu is a word in a South African language (Bantu)..."
No! Bantu is not a language, it is a word that literally means "people" in several african languages including Zulu.
>>At 8/18/2006 03:41:05 PM, Anonymous said... <<
>>> "Ubuntu Desktop does not ship with even a compiler. "
Yeah isnt it great how you tell the average user to not compile anything on his own, also by forcing him to adapt to the Ubuntu Hive way of sudo? (To not be unfair, other distributions force the user to adapt to other ways as well, such as the RPM way.)
I am sure he will learn a lot more than by compiling his own software ... *gasp* Or go through a LFS build. Sure the average user doesnt want to hassle with this - but read on.
. . . Some elitist babble about only people seeking Uber geekdom being entitled to use Linux . . .
<<<
Not everyone wants to be a geek. Ubuntu is great in that I can have a working secure system in a short time that I can get work done on. That my wife and kids can get work done on while not having to worry about the latest MS viruses. I have other systems to play with and compile stuff on, etc. If I hose the system that my wife and kids uses to write papers, play music, watch videos and communicate with her friend with I am not going be happy because they aren’t going to be happy.
If a user is seeking YOUR goal of learning and becoming a geek it isn’t had to get a regular root user account onto Ubuntu or to add the stuff need to compile onto Unbuntu, etc. You might even learn something in the process.
Remember some people use their computers as a tool to get non-geek work done with and have no desire to compile packages and learn about the underpinnings of the operating system. Unbuntu gives them that. It also gives me a way to get a good operating system up and running in a short time that doesn’t get hosed within a few weeks of the kids surfing around on the net. It allows me more time to play and learn about linux on my other boxes that I don’t mind hosing every once in a while.
By the way I am not a Unbuntu fanboy I mostly use SUSE on my regular desktop machine and Centos on a couple of servers that I admin.
Please get down off your high horse. Unbuntu is a great distro for a lot of everyday people and geeks.
"Can a community be brought ? .... And passion my friend, cannot be brought."
Brought from where? I think you mean bought. (?)
@devnet
That argument is absurd and if you've been involved with the Linux community since 1995 you know that.
Creating different server and desktop distributions would in no way whatsoever cause the kernel to fork. The kernel already runs on ten-gazillion different architechtures, from tiny little microcontrollers with 4 megs of RAM up to massive 64-processor servers. It's designed to be incredibly flexible so that it can be built to suit your requirements, whatever they may be. Ever done a 'make menuconfig'?
And besides, the kernel really has fairly little to do with this whole debate. Distributions are mainly about choosing userspace packages, creating artwork, installers, configuration tools, and all that other touchy-feely highl-level stuff.
So don't be ridiculous.
hype or not (tell me where is no hype these days..) ubuntu has helped linux on the desktop a lot. it also spread the word linux to non-computer folks who thought linux was just for servers. btw: not to offend you, but your article also rides on the wave. why not just ignore such hypes? they fade away alone..
Ubuntu is not the problem. The problem is with the elitism throughout the Linux community. I've tried out Linux multiple times over the years, if for no other reason to see what its all about. Every one of those attempts has been marred by the Nick Burns-like attitudes I've encountered when seeking support on any level. I've been a computer tech for 11 years on Windows systems (with the occasional Mac falling in my way) so I'm no slouch when it comes to working out computer issues on my own, but Linux is very different in many ways. The lack of support and the downtalking from the l33t h4x0r5 has been daunting enough to make it not worth my while.
Most computer users don't know what a kernel is, or a desktop GUI, or a compiler, and don't give a crap if you tell them. Most computer users aren't interested in rewriting the operating system to be unique for themselves, they want what someone else to do it for them (that's why Bill Gates is a philanthropist now). They want their email, they want to surf, they want to look at pictures or listen to music or play games. Ubuntu meets those needs, in a way that's easy to use, with a friendly support community, and does it COMPLETELY FREE OF CHARGE!
What was your complaint again?
I don't like Ubuntu. Feels clunky and awkward to me - even constrictive, like a tight fitting shirt with even tighter sleeves.
I'd rather use PCLinuxOS instead; I'm no champion user, I work on a Windows Help Desk so as you can imagine I'm not that familiar with all-things-Linux. Sure, I've dabbled using it on my desktop for about 6 years on and off - I love Linux - and I have a FC3 laptop running as my web server, but I'm still a n00b.
But on the desktop it's a shame I can't switch since I need to use some Windows only apps.
For ease-of-use and comfortability on the Linux desktop however, I found PCLOS much friendlier, and without the "ooh look at this popular Linux to fit the mold of everyone" thing going along with it. It runs KDE which I definitely prefer, and they've made changes to the menus that actually make sense.
Ubuntu makes me feel like I'm being baby-sat or grandma is holding my hand crossing the street or something. I'm all grown-up now, I don't want to feel like that!
Thank you for the article :)
Pablo
What a lot of people fail to realize is this, not everyone who considers using linux wants to use the command line, nor do they care about compilers and writing programs. They want a desktop that works out of the box, they want streaming media, they want flash to work, they want to play their music...etc. Not everyone is seeking to be come a linux power user. Say what you may about windows, but they at least understand that. So in that respect Ubuntu does shine.
Um one thing, if a cracker has gained enough control over your system to actually compile somthing on it, you're hosed wether you have a compiler or not. How does "rm -rf --no-preserve-root /" sound?
It looks like this discussion is sliding into binary. All I would like to say is that I've been trying to learn linux since 2000 and have tried Mandrake, Redhat, Gentoo, Knoppix... all the "newbie" friendly distro's I could find. Ubunto is finally one I'm comfortable with.
At the risk of scorn and ridicule, I started on Mac's (dos was way to arcane) moved to window 3.1 due to the fact that it was prominant where I worked and hated it. win95 was better since it had that user friendly MAC feel (remember the "been there, done that" Mac t-shirts?) and finally started to lean toward Linux. Again it
came down to User Friendliness. Over the years I tend to dive into my OSs and become quite the little demi-guru for those around me but I like to take it at my own pace. Don't throw me in the water and expect me to learn to swim. Take me to swimming lessons with a life guard and others like me and we can all have fun and help each other :)
average joe here,and you know i like ubuntu.yes allthough it might be an easy o.s. i messed it up plenty of times,i took it as part of the fun.started with 5.10 now dapper.to me messing around and learning is relaxing not to be taken so serious.BTW reading the forums is great.anybody want a copy? i got a couple spare free ones.
I like KDE and I am used to it from having used Knoppix for some time. I tried Ubuntu and did not like the Gnome user surface.
Can anyone tell me how good Kubuntu (Ubuntu with KDE) is?
First the tide came in, with people raving about Ubuntu, then it went out with just as many people complaining about it.
So, what's the story?
Ubuntu is basically Debian, but packaged slickly with many nice touches, so that things "just work" out of the box. Automatic updates, laptop suspend and power management, printing, file sharing, wireless to a large extent (although it could do with further improvements). Informative but unobtrusive dialogues popping up to help me keep an eye on things. An attractive desktop (once you've changed it from brown ;-). It isn't just the installation that is easy.
What is underneath the nice desktop, however, is basically a Debian system, with its rock-solid package management/integration and all the attention to detail that the Debian devs have put into building their system. After all, Debian is really a meta-distro at some level; you can make your own Ubuntu-like system out of it, but why do all the extra work? It only makes sense if you want to customize every last detail, really, or maybe your hardware is very old and you'd rather build up Debian than strip down Ubuntu.
Having used Linux for 13 years now, I don't have much trouble installing and configuring everything by hand. But I'd rather someone did the grunt work for me. After all, the end result is better than my single-desktop hack. None of that stops me learning about the system if I want to. And, in the unlikely event that Shuttleworth becomes an evil tyrant tomorrow, Debian proper will still be there (as will Ubuntu, thanks to the GPL).
For those who haven't tried it, Ubuntu isn't just for idiots: it is Debian for the desktop, IMHO done right.
Cheers,
James.
Ubuntu rulez!
Mark my words ... it is only a matter of time all the "Ubuntu - Humanity" thing will be shoved into the background and Mark Shuttleworth will start making money out of it. The Ubuntu site keeps claiming that Ubuntu is an OS instead of stating the essential and obvious fact that Ubuntu is a "Linux Distribution". In my words Ubuntu is a parasitis Linux Distribution feeding on Debian.
All very interesting, I'm no system admin, but I've used/tried most linux distros since 1996 starting with Red Hat. I switched to ubuntu because it just worked (on my laptop). Now all three of the computer in my home run it.
Why are you perpetuating the myth that Debian is so difficult? And also the other myth that it's good for servers, but not suitable for desktops? Until the latest version, Ubuntu used the same text-based installer as Debian.
Most people who have discovered Ubuntu (having tried Fedora, Mandrake, SUSE, etc), have in fact discovered Debian. Mepis, Xandros, Linspire, all easy to install and maintain desktop Linuxes-- all descended from Debian Sarge. Where do you think they got their ease of use? It was mostly already built in to Debian! KDE and GNOME and thousands of applications are (and have been for some time) well integrated. When Sarge was known as "testing" it was more stable than most other mainstream distros.
Installer arguments are over! IF you can read, you can install linux. Gentoo and LFS companies aside;-)
Ubuntu installer is not better because it's GUI based. The disk partitioner is not intuitive and further complicates things by setting and or suggesting the mount points, DANGEROUS IDEA for someone holding on to Windows for a dual boot machine or an existing Linux user that has a data partition.
For dedicated Linux workstations where a user can use the entire hard drive it is easy enough for Grandma to select USE ENTIRE HARD DRIVE!
The text version is the same as the GUI except your 'tab' key is the mouse, the 'space' bar is it's button.
Installing Debian is as easy as hitting tab, space and enter until you are prompted for a administrator password and a single user account, if this poses an obstacle for a user then they need to buy a composition book and some #2 pencils and rubber eraser to make an ad for Computer for Sale.
What the real pain is all the accounts I have to register to post an anonymous comment.
Good one ravi. I found the views expressed in the article "Ubuntu vs. Debian: What Canonical Doesn't Want You To Know" were not well thought-out and not much mature enough. - praveen.
I recall guidelines on venture project (that is, a new, revolutionary, strategic, resaearch, etc. project) management. Among other recommendations, it insisted on total isolation of the venture team from the rest of the company, since cultures necessary to succeed with routine business procedures and venture development are incompatible.
I see the whole "Ubuntu over-hype" issue as a violation of that recommendation. Ubuntu is for Ubuntu users. Debian is for Debian users. Debian users should not care about Ubuntu users because they are too different. Ubuntu users should not care about all things Debian because Canonical does that on their behalf.
Most people are concerned with what works for them, it's my understanding debian is one of the most "true to gnu linux ideals" distributions. Ubuntu makes it easy for newbies to install gnu linux, easy to grow, support is excellent, continuity is covered by GPL plus I believe advances are folded back into Debian. This discussion is interesting but bottom line is those who don't like ubuntu can try one of the myriad other versions of gnu linux. It would seem people are voting with there feet :) Interestingly because of the nature of the gnu linux community I believe all ubuntu has done is raise the bar which can only be good in bring more users to the table and making distributions better, competition like this can only be good.
Is Ubuntu over-hyped? God, it's more popular than boobs!
Ubuntu = The ancient African word for "Can't install Debian 'Etch'".
You folks do realise Ubuntu and Debian 'Etch' (testing) are so close, that its not funny...At the face of it, its just some fonts, the African colour theme, and that "drum beat". And of course, the use of "sudo".
I've tried both, and I have to say, I prefer the Debian one because:
(1) I learn more from Debian.
(2) Debian isn't loaded with all that extra crap (by default) that I don't use.
(3) As a result of (2), it boots and shuts down faster.
I'm not in favour of Ubuntu, only because it continues to promote that "Windows attitude to computing"...That is, if something goes wrong, most people will complain about it. You should learn something (basics) so that you can act on a problem. (if one arises!)
To become self sufficient is one of the key things in Linux.
Why I like Ubuntu (I switched from Fedora):
1. It comes on one CD, rather than half a dozen. Less to download, quicker to install.
2. The Debian repository on the backend - apt-get/synaptic is brilliant.
3. Six-monthly releases synchronised with Gnome. Quickest way to get the latest Gnome, no-fuss updating (again thanks to having a Debian core).
4. Sensible default choices of packages to install. OpenOffice there by default, Firefox rather than Epiphany. Patches to turn off that evil Nautilus 'spatial' mode long before the upstream devs finally admitted it was a mistake. With other distros I had to do a lot of customisation after install to get it usable - Ubuntu gave me a desktop that Just Worked Right.
5. A clean, professional looking package, everything from CD to logo to website. (Apart from the naked-people desktop misstep, but they did fix that). Integrated LiveCD for demoing. Good, friendly and helpful community. For the first time it was a distro I didn't feel ashamed to give to a complete Linux virgin.
6. Completely free, able to be copied and given away. Same as Debian, Fedora, Gentoo - but something other 'easy' desktop distros like Mepis, Linspire, etc, didn't have at the time.
Why did none of the other distros get there first? I dunno, it should have been either Debian or Fedora, but Ubuntu was first to pull it all together.
Well why do you think i want to learn something about Linux......
I want to write a letter, browse and check my email. The OS dont interest me. - Hehe see why there are so many windows user.....
Is it possible to write a virus entirely using a bash script?
Yes, but it needs to be explicitly run with sh, bash, dash or something or have its execute bit set - something you'll not do without thinking about it first. Unless you're daft enough to get your browser to open .sh files in sh rather than the default less, which is hard to do without thinking about it first!
No! Bantu is not a language, it is a word that literally means "people" in several african languages including Zulu.
Correct, but to clarify further Bantu is a group of African languages of which Zulu, Xhosa and Swahili among others are members.
I agree with the others who have commented saying that Debian is not hard to install. It isn't. I just recently had my first introduction to GNU/Linux through installing Ubuntu, and after about a month I decided to try Debian. They were equally easy. Once I had installed both distros, I had to spend about the same amount of time configuring each. If they're equally easy to install, I personally would just go with Debian because I trust it more. I don't like the fact that Ubuntu's future is held in the hands of a private company, Canonical.
Post a Comment