I would switch to Linux - any distro - in a heartbeat if I can find one that does these this one thing well:
I use my laptop with multiple monitors depending on where I am. Windows handles this perfectly. On all the Linux distros I tried, I always had trouble, and required some kind of editing of some text file hidden somewhere require root access or something. Horrible user experience.
If you have a nvidia card, skip the distro tools. Using nvidia-settings directly does any monitor/resolution/projector etc. combination you want. No xorg.conf hacking required.
If you have an ATI card, this is pretty much par for the course. I've spent countless hours trying to get mine to work with dual monitors. It just simply doesn't work since I have monitors with different aspect ratios (one is widescreen). Nvidia, as mentioned is a good brand of card to have as it works much more nicely on most linux distros.
I had a bad experience with Fedora about a year ago. I seem to remember the package manager wanting me to pay someone so I could listen to MP3s. Yeah, no thanks. There were various other things, but that one sticks in my memory.
I still really like Ubuntu, but several versions ago (I think around Fiesty) I realized they were headed in a direction I didn't want to follow, and I discovered Gentoo. That's where I am and that's where I'm likely to stay, though for fun I do try out other distros from time to time.
The claim that Ubuntu is somehow related to Windows is, of course, ridiculous. What's more ridiculous, though, is how the author assumes it matters which free desktop he's running. It's, basically, an open invitation for flame war.
I found the absence of any references to Debian odd. I say that because for me the choice among Linux distributions is largely a choice of what kind of package management you want to use.
One thing I related to in the article was the reference to the early days of trying Linux:
"I think the first version of Linux I ever tried was from some CD's I found in a magazine back in the mid to late 90's, I think it was version 5 of Redhat."
I like Ubuntu because I have always been more comfortable with dpkg/apt than rpm/yum. I have come to like yum alot more and find CentOS to be a fine choice for servers.
My fondness for Debian is not rational though. It was the first distribution I successfully used. Something just clicked - the install worked, the documentation made sense, apt worked pretty well.
I have dabbled with Gentoo and Slackware and can see the attraction of source based installing. Ditto with NetBSD and pkgsrc. But Debian was my "first"...
Well I'm sorry to see you brush off my opinion piece without actually addressing even a single point.
Just for clarification though: My point isn't that Ubuntu is related to Windows, my point is that it seems Ubuntu is specifically targeting ex-Windows users as prospective clients, and that this fact could explain some of its recent behavior.
And no, I dont think it matters which desktop I'm running, but I do think it matters that the Linux desktop community stay a deverse field, and if the trends we are seeing continue for a few more years that may no longer be the case.
I see your point, but I think if there was more unification, The Linux Movement" would maybe stand a chance at gaining more ground on the desktop market.
I think sysadmins and the server market would keep "Linux" as a whole from becoming a monoculture. But I think "Linux On The Desktop" would probably fare far better as a monoculture. That's my opinion, obviously. I'm generally an Operating system agnostic. I have OS X and Windows 7 dual booting on my MacBook. I'm writing this post from an old workstation running Ubuntu Jaunty (because I'm too lazy to upgrade manually and the in-place upgrade to Karmic has broken 2 of my virtual machines), I have an XP Pro workstation and OpenBSD server next to me, and a Sun Ultra 5 running Solaris on the top shelf. I play with this stuff ALL DAY LONG. Most of the other OSes I listed in this post are "a monoculture" and seem to be doing just fine.
Android is, in a way, a Linux distro that is growing strong now and is likely to grow even more now that Google is selling sexy branded phones running it. The same might be true in the future for Chrome OS (an Ubuntu derivative but a very different beast none-the-less). I don't think the evolution of Linux ends with Ubuntu.
Actually, I'm all for diversity. My points still stand, I think:
1. Ubuntu is not targeting Windows users more than any other desktop operating system does. Ubuntu tries to create a really great desktop in a world in which the overwhelming majority of desktops run windows. If Ubuntu is converting users of existing operating systems (as opposed to gaining users who have never used personal computers before) then most of them are likely to be users of Windows. The same is true for Fedora and any other desktop operating system.
2. It doesn't matter what distro you're running. It's great that you experiment with different distros and I definitely think the GNU/Linux community benefits from this diversity, but it doesn't really matter in large scale. Most computer users don't choose which operating system to use - they get it with their computer.
Fedora was never a very good distro from personal experience ( I've only tried 7-9 though ). And from that fedora really isn't any harder than another distro and is themed for similar audiences as ubuntu.
Debian and Ubuntu have one major advantage going for them package management through apt and aptitude.
His assertion that Ubuntu has made Linux a monoculture because it's up to 30% market share makes me happy.
He's dreadfully wrong, but it's nice to see a group so consensus-phobic. It means I certainly won't have to worry about a Linux monoculture any time soon.
We also won't have commercial apps running smoothly on all Linux boxes any time soon for the same reason, but lately Wine is handling that for me pretty well. Which is quite amusing, all things considered.
What do you think the Linux Desktop landscape will look like in 5 years if Ubuntu continues to rise at the same pace or even nearly the same pace that it is now?
Arguments like this guy and his friend had are the things that distro wars are made of, and it's this sort of infighting that keeps 1996..2010 from becoming "The Year Of The Linux Desktop"
As for Linux distros, I prefer highly flexible ones that start out small and powerful, but are easily customized and rolled into whatever you could possibly want. A long time ago, I thought that meant Gentoo, but I've acquired a soft spot on my heart for Arch Linux. Every install is YOUR distro, built your way.
That's great for me because I know exactly what packages I want to use for word processing, window management, web browsing, music playing, and graphics editing.
The difference, really, between some of the more bloated and popular distributions comes down to whose set of broad-sweeping assumptions do you ascribe to best.
Most computer users don't really care what program comes up for a given task. They just want it to do that task. To that end, both Ubuntu and Fedora should work just fine and I really see no need to get one's knickers in a twist over semantics like this. +1 to all who said it's flame bait.
This reads to me like the writer had an inferiority complex seed planted in his mind by a peer, and eventually ended up acting on that subconscious trigger to modify his choices even though the follow up attempt at rationally examining the claims originally made yielded nothing beyond marketing material.
30% adoption in a tiny sector does not a monoculture make, Ubuntu really just is a better mousetrap from the perspective of wanting a low maintenance Linux based environment. Any project which is open in Fedora is just as open in Ubuntu.
not flame bait, just an idiot. flame bait always has some adverts on it, or a some kind of link bait. this guy is just a communist/socialist non-thinking mental masturbate type.
24 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 67.7 ms ] threadI use my laptop with multiple monitors depending on where I am. Windows handles this perfectly. On all the Linux distros I tried, I always had trouble, and required some kind of editing of some text file hidden somewhere require root access or something. Horrible user experience.
I still really like Ubuntu, but several versions ago (I think around Fiesty) I realized they were headed in a direction I didn't want to follow, and I discovered Gentoo. That's where I am and that's where I'm likely to stay, though for fun I do try out other distros from time to time.
I found the absence of any references to Debian odd. I say that because for me the choice among Linux distributions is largely a choice of what kind of package management you want to use.
One thing I related to in the article was the reference to the early days of trying Linux:
"I think the first version of Linux I ever tried was from some CD's I found in a magazine back in the mid to late 90's, I think it was version 5 of Redhat."
I like Ubuntu because I have always been more comfortable with dpkg/apt than rpm/yum. I have come to like yum alot more and find CentOS to be a fine choice for servers.
My fondness for Debian is not rational though. It was the first distribution I successfully used. Something just clicked - the install worked, the documentation made sense, apt worked pretty well.
I have dabbled with Gentoo and Slackware and can see the attraction of source based installing. Ditto with NetBSD and pkgsrc. But Debian was my "first"...
Just for clarification though: My point isn't that Ubuntu is related to Windows, my point is that it seems Ubuntu is specifically targeting ex-Windows users as prospective clients, and that this fact could explain some of its recent behavior.
And no, I dont think it matters which desktop I'm running, but I do think it matters that the Linux desktop community stay a deverse field, and if the trends we are seeing continue for a few more years that may no longer be the case.
I'm worried what might happen if this continues for another 5 years http://www.google.com/trends?q=Fedora+Desktop,+Ubuntu+Deskto...
1. Ubuntu is not targeting Windows users more than any other desktop operating system does. Ubuntu tries to create a really great desktop in a world in which the overwhelming majority of desktops run windows. If Ubuntu is converting users of existing operating systems (as opposed to gaining users who have never used personal computers before) then most of them are likely to be users of Windows. The same is true for Fedora and any other desktop operating system.
2. It doesn't matter what distro you're running. It's great that you experiment with different distros and I definitely think the GNU/Linux community benefits from this diversity, but it doesn't really matter in large scale. Most computer users don't choose which operating system to use - they get it with their computer.
Debian and Ubuntu have one major advantage going for them package management through apt and aptitude.
I thought that this would be my biggest hurdle, but it turned out to be a non-issue as yum has exceeded my expectations, so far at least.
He's dreadfully wrong, but it's nice to see a group so consensus-phobic. It means I certainly won't have to worry about a Linux monoculture any time soon.
We also won't have commercial apps running smoothly on all Linux boxes any time soon for the same reason, but lately Wine is handling that for me pretty well. Which is quite amusing, all things considered.
What do you think the Linux Desktop landscape will look like in 5 years if Ubuntu continues to rise at the same pace or even nearly the same pace that it is now?
As for Linux distros, I prefer highly flexible ones that start out small and powerful, but are easily customized and rolled into whatever you could possibly want. A long time ago, I thought that meant Gentoo, but I've acquired a soft spot on my heart for Arch Linux. Every install is YOUR distro, built your way.
That's great for me because I know exactly what packages I want to use for word processing, window management, web browsing, music playing, and graphics editing.
The difference, really, between some of the more bloated and popular distributions comes down to whose set of broad-sweeping assumptions do you ascribe to best.
Most computer users don't really care what program comes up for a given task. They just want it to do that task. To that end, both Ubuntu and Fedora should work just fine and I really see no need to get one's knickers in a twist over semantics like this. +1 to all who said it's flame bait.
30% adoption in a tiny sector does not a monoculture make, Ubuntu really just is a better mousetrap from the perspective of wanting a low maintenance Linux based environment. Any project which is open in Fedora is just as open in Ubuntu.
http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/04/current-red-hat-linux-em...
At which point I switched to Ubuntu.
Now, that may seem a bit hasty, but I'd rather not have the FBI involved with my operating system at all, thank you.