We are still actively working on the spam issue.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:/fglt/"
m (→IRC Channel: Closed discussion, for now.) |
Topcuck420 (talk | contribs) (I'd just like to interject for a moment...) |
||
| Line 596: | Line 596: | ||
--[[User:Morpheus|Morpheus]] ([[User talk:Morpheus|talk]]) 12:38, 1 December 2015 (EST) | --[[User:Morpheus|Morpheus]] ([[User talk:Morpheus|talk]]) 12:38, 1 December 2015 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ------------ | ||
| + | |||
| + | >Here's my final verdict, | ||
| + | >Keep one (and strictly one) version of Ubuntu in the recommended distro list, feel free to disagree, but when you make another /flt/ thread, just delete it yourself. Let's keep /flt/ safe from another edit war. | ||
| + | REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does one, and strictly one, version of Ubuntu also count derivatives? If so, we currently have 2 Ubuntu distros. I say remove *buntu and keep Mint. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --Topcuck420 at REEEEE date. | ||
---------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
Revision as of 19:27, 1 December 2015
Recommended distros for beginners
I don't think Debian is a good choice for newbies. --Morpheus (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It disgusts me that you want newbies to use an infested distro that doesn't respect their privacy like Ubuntu, with their horribly out-of-date official repos filled with software patched until it's nearly falling apart, with bugs specific only to its own family, and nearly no contribution or relation with upstream. Not a single Ubuntu install has worked fine for me over 3~ years, while pretty much every other distro does work. At the point where you're willing to call that a newbie-friendly experience, you might as-well recommend them Gentoo, as even that gave me less trouble than Ubuntu usually does, and that's not even bringing up Ubuntu's relation with Amazon and how utterly horrible and in-experienced with Linux their forums are. I have installed Debian, and guess what, it's not hard at all, I've begun contemplating that "installing debian is harder than shitbuntu" is a myth, since Debian's installation is literally spamming "next" and choosing your own DE and username/password. Please stop recommending Linux that doesn't respect the user. --Topcuck1337 at blahblah date, I can't even into wiki editing.
First of all, let's break down your points.
>horribly out-of-date official repos
Isn't Ubuntu's repo more up-to-date than Debian jessie?
>Not a single Ubuntu install has worked fine for me over 3~ years
Your experience != Their experience. Don't force your experience down their throat
>It disgusts me that you want newbies to use an infested distro that doesn't respect their privacy like Ubuntu,
I understand that Ubuntu (Unity) with Amazon is bullshit. That's why the OP didn't include Unity into the list of recommended distros.
>>Please stop recommending Linux that doesn't respect the user.
>recommending Debian, which isn't "Respecting Your Freedom" according to FSF
If I were to recommend distros that respects your privacy and freedom, I'd recommend the FSF-endorsed distros instead.
--Morpheus (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
>Isn't Ubuntu's repo more up-to-date than Debian jessie? That's why you use Debian testing/SID. Stable is more suitable for servers goy.
>Your experience != Their experience. Don't force your experience down their throat That's understandable, even though said experience was consistent across multiple machines.
>I understand that Ubuntu (Unity) with Amazon is bullshit. That's why the OP didn't include Unity into the list of recommended distros. You realize, the issue is not simply Unity, it's the fact that the devs who included Amazon into the default OS are the same breed of those that maintain the repos, not to mention their repos are heavily patched, and the variants use the same repos. If the devs included Amazon spyware in the default DE, how can we be sure their patches don't include spyware too?
>If I were to recommend distros that respects your privacy and freedom, I'd recommend the FSF-endorsed distros instead. Let's see what they say about Debian.
>Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database.
>There is also a “contrib” repository; its packages are free, but some of them exist to load separately distributed proprietary programs. This too is not thoroughly separated from the main Debian distribution.
>Previous releases of Debian included nonfree blobs with Linux, the kernel. With the release of Debian 6.0 (“squeeze”) in February 2011, these blobs have been moved out of the main distribution to separate packages in the nonfree repository. However, the problem partly remains: the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware files for the peripherals on the machine.
Which can be summed up as, Debian keeps the non-free out of the default installation, but still offers it on their servers.
In comparison to Ubuntu, Fill the default OS with proprietary, telemetry, and Amazon.
Debian is relatively much more "free" compared to Ubuntu, and let's be honest, most modern hardware requires le proprietary blobs, so you're gonna have them running either way, the "free" argument that comes with Linux is reducing non-free as much as possible. With Debian does so much more than Ubuntu.
Also, in my opinion, I think the FSF's arguments against Debian are boolshiet, as they're too strict with everything anyway.
However, I believe that recommending a FSF-endorsed distro is STILL better than Ubuntu, much better actually. I would use them if only they worked with my hardware. -Topcuck1337 at blahblah date.
>You realize, the issue is not simply Unity, it's the fact that the devs who included Amazon into the default OS are the same breed of those that maintain the repos, not to mention their repos are heavily patched, and the variants use the same repos. If the devs included Amazon spyware in the default DE, how can we be sure their patches don't include spyware too?
I'm not entirely sure about this, but don't they include the source code?
>Which can be summed up as, Debian keeps the non-free out of the default installation, but still offers it on their servers.
>In comparison to Ubuntu, Fill the default OS with proprietary, telemetry, and Amazon.
>Debian is relatively much more "free" compared to Ubuntu, and let's be honest, most modern hardware requires le proprietary blobs, so you're gonna have them running either way, the "free" argument that comes with Linux is reducing non-free as much as possible. With Debian does so much more than Ubuntu.
Okay, but won't it create a problem with *especially* Broadcom-powered devices? Since without a proprietary driver enabled by default, it can't function at all.
So, to finish this up, add Debian, without removing Ubuntu first? since in your last edit you also included Mint, and Mint is an Ubuntu off-spring (unless you're talking about LMDE, which isn't "advertised" as much as the Ubuntu-based version) anyway won't it be irrelevant to delete Ubuntu?
--Morpheus (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
>I'm not entirely sure about this, but don't they include the source code?
I believe the source code can be found somewhere on the internet, but it's the same argument that goes against systemd, how many eyes do you actually think are monitoring and auditing every single patched package that goes into Ubuntu? Non-Canoncial eyes, that is. I believe it is generally good practice to abandon everything made by a developer that can justify selling their user's information to third parties.
>Okay, but won't it create a problem with *especially* Broadcom-powered devices? Since without a proprietary driver enabled by default, it can't function at all.
So with Debian, WiFi-enabled Broadcom devices are stuck in that state where they can't use networking and can't download their own drivers to fix it? Indeed I would suppose that fixing that is too much work for a novice Linux user.
>So, to finish this up, add Debian, without removing Ubuntu first? since in your last edit you also included Mint, and Mint is an Ubuntu off-spring (unless you're talking about LMDE, which isn't "advertised" as much as the Ubuntu-based version) anyway won't it be irrelevant to delete Ubuntu? To be honest, I'd go as far as removing everything Ubuntu related. Though I wonder, does LMDE include those Broadcom drivers? If so, it'd be a perfect candidate to go there instead of the Ubuntu stuff. How about Antergos? The devs aren't retarded like Manjaro ones, and Antergos works really well. --Topcuck1337, blahblah date.
>I believe the source code can be found somewhere on the internet, but it's the same argument that goes against systemd, how many eyes do you actually think are monitoring and auditing every single patched package that goes into Ubuntu? Non-Canoncial eyes, that is. I believe it is generally good practice to abandon everything made by a developer that can justify selling their user's information to third parties.
Back to the systemd argument again, eh? But your point is fair enough.
>So with Debian, WiFi-enabled Broadcom devices are stuck in that state where they can't use networking and can't download their own drivers to fix it? Indeed I would suppose that fixing that is too much work for a novice Linux user.
Assuming that Debian has a Broadcom driver inside their LiveISO/netinstall, and they give option to install it just like how Architect does, it would be possible to use networking, but I don't think they have it.
>To be honest, I'd go as far as removing everything Ubuntu related. Though I wonder, does LMDE include those Broadcom drivers? If so, it'd be a perfect candidate to go there instead of the Ubuntu stuff.
I'm not sure, LMDE is LinuxMint derived directly from Debian, assuming they are just Debian + Cinnamon + yadda yadda Mint's greeny shit, Broadcom won't be incuded.
>How about Antergos? The devs aren't retarded like Manjaro ones, and Antergos works really well.
Antergos is rolling-release, I don't think newbies would be immediately comfortable with rolling-releases. Cnchi installer was a pain though compared to Architect's.
--Morpheus (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: Debian does include non-free drivers in some images of their installation medium, but you have to dig deep to get it. And I don't think they included it by default on their main page.
>I'm not sure, LMDE is LinuxMint derived directly from Debian, assuming they are just Debian + Cinnamon + yadda yadda Mint's greeny shit, Broadcom won't be incuded. Linux Mint is not only Distro+Cinnamon+Custom programs, it also contains bugfixes and general user-experience improvement. I have found this true since some bugs that were in the Ubuntu release that X version of Mint was made out of, were non-existent in Mint. There we have reason to believe that Mint used the non-free images to build their LMDE, since obviously more than a DE and some software goes into their distro.
This is also another reason why I like Mint, obviously much more care went into it than other *buntu derivatives, since pretty much *all* of them contained the same bugs Ubuntu did. Only Linux Mint was an exception.
>Antergos is rolling-release, I don't think newbies would be immediately comfortable with rolling-releases. Cnchi installer was a pain though compared to Architect's. Why, though? A rolling-release is immediately more comfy than a standard release based distro, since you never have to re-install, and all your changes are permanent. Arch also very rarely breaks, and when it does, the Arch doods usually have a fix up on their website.
Personally, I never had issues with Cnchi, I've never used Architect, but given how popular it seems among retards in /g/, it's probably easy enough for them to use. As long as it leaves the default installation with DE and some GUI apps, then it's good enough for the newbie.
Also, how was Cnchi a pain?
PS:- I say we replace Linux Mint with LMDE, and Ubuntu with Antergos/Architect/Debian non-free live image. -Topcuck1337, blahblah date.
>Linux Mint is not only Distro+Cinnamon+Custom programs, it also contains bugfixes and general user-experience improvement. I have found this true since some bugs that were in the Ubuntu release that X version of Mint was made out of, were non-existent in Mint [citation needed]. There we have reason to believe that Mint used the non-free images [citation needed] to build their LMDE, since obviously more than a DE and some software goes into their distro.
- General UX improvement, such as Cinnamon? Even with XFCE/MATE/KDE versions, they barely make any differences with their Ubuntu counterparts. Also, see the citation needed part.
>Why, though? A rolling-release is immediately more comfy than a standard release based distro, since you never have to re-install, and all your changes are permanent. Arch also very rarely breaks, and when it does, the Arch doods usually have a fix up on their website.
- Some new users won't be comfortable with rolling-release and having to update every week, I don't know if Antergos has a GUI pacman wrapper or not. Just look at Windows, they use numbered versions and the programs use separate pseudo-rolling release for updating (it isn't integrated to a repo like Linux does) while keeping Windows' version. I am aware that we can't get the latest version because they're frozen, but hey, backport exists for a reason.
>Personally, I never had issues with Cnchi, I've never used Architect, but given how popular it seems among retards in /g/, it's probably easy enough for them to use. As long as it leaves the default installation with DE and some GUI apps, then it's good enough for the newbie.
- Architect, from my experience, is Arch installer without Antergos' shit. It basically installs Arch and DE/WM of your choice, no "default apps bullshit" except if you want to install GNOME Extras/KDE Extras/*insert DE here* Extras.
>Also, how was Cnchi a pain?
- People often complain about Cnchi, of how it frequently breaks, just look at this.
P.S. : Keep including Ubuntu, exclude Unity, add Debian, but I don't think the newbies will understand about the differences of "non-free enabled version" with the default version in Debian mainpage.
--Morpheus (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2015 (EST)
>General UX improvement, such as Cinnamon? Even with XFCE/MATE/KDE versions, they barely make any differences with their Ubuntu counterparts. Also, see the citation needed part. No citations, just my experience, I experienced a bug in booting in 14.04 stock Ubuntu and Xubuntu and even Elementary, however it wasn't on Mint. Too lazy to google around for it, and I probably wouldn't be able to find it, as this was a long time ago.
>Some new users won't be comfortable with rolling-release and having to update every week, I don't know if Antergos has a GUI pacman It does. And why wouldn't they? The pacman wrappers download the updates as soon as they come out, anyway, plus, nothing's preventing you from sticking to a stable configuration. Why bother with backports when you can always have the latest, and the old?
>People often complain about Cnchi, of how it frequently breaks, just look at this. All installers have their shortcomings, and they don't seem to have that many issues, imo, an installer like Cnchi is leagues better than the colossal mess that is Anaconda. Also, Cnchi is under active development, and bugs are always being fixed. I believe the installer is fine.
>Keep including Ubuntu, exclude Unity, add Debian, but I don't think the newbies will understand about the differences of "non-free enabled version" with the default version in Debian mainpage. >Keep including Ubuntu refer to all above points I made
>I don't think the newbies will understand about the differences of "non-free enabled version" that's why you add the link to the non-free in the post.
Also, I'm fairly certain LMDE is based on the non-free version as the value user experience the most, however, I can't test.
PS:- Remove everything Ubuntu related, add LMDE and Antergos. -Topcuck1337 at blahblah date
>No citations, just my experience, I experienced a bug in booting in 14.04 stock Ubuntu and Xubuntu and even Elementary, however it wasn't on Mint. Too lazy to google around for it, and I probably wouldn't be able to find it, as this was a long time ago.
- Seriously though, what kind of bug? When you installed Mint, the upstream maybe has fixed it.
>All installers have their shortcomings, and they don't seem to have that many issues, imo, an installer like Cnchi is leagues better than the colossal mess that is Anaconda. Also, Cnchi is under active development, and bugs are always being fixed. I believe the installer is fine.
- Anaconda is a piece of shit - I agree, Cnchi however also frequently breaks from that link I provide, we can't really sure that any installer would do fine -- so whenever I recommend an Arch(-based) distro, I always root for Architect instead.
>Also, I'm fairly certain LMDE is based on the non-free version as the value user experience the most, however, I can't test.
--Morpheus (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2015 (EST)
I just kinda forgot about this convo. Anyway.
>Seriously though, what kind of bug? When you installed Mint, the upstream maybe has fixed it.
Some xorg crashes and glitches I only observed on *buntus, and I can confirm they still exist in 15.04, so no, not fixed by upstream, but they were never in Mint. They are in stock Ubuntu and Xubuntu.
>Anaconda is a piece of shit - I agree, Cnchi however also frequently breaks from that link I provide, we can't really sure that any installer would do fine -- so whenever I recommend an Arch(-based) distro, I always root for Architect instead.
I don't mind recommending Architect, however, what I am *STRONGLY* opposing is placing anything with *buntu written on it on the recommended for newbies list, I believe I have provided enough reasons (other than the ubuntu-specific bugs I encountered.) for the removal, Debian is a more-than-sufficient alternative with many technical superiorities over *buntu
Sadly, indeed they don't seem to include them by default. I suppose maybe add them with a warning that they don't support broadcom wifi out of the box, but that can be enabled after installation?
--Topcuck1337 at blahblah date.
>Some xorg crashes and glitches I only observed on *buntus, and I can confirm they still exist in 15.04, so no, not fixed by upstream, but they were never in Mint. They are in stock Ubuntu and Xubuntu.
- I'm curious, what bug is it?
>I don't mind recommending Architect, however, what I am *STRONGLY* opposing is placing anything with *buntu written on it on the recommended for newbies list, I believe I have provided enough reasons (other than the ubuntu-specific bugs I encountered.) for the removal, Debian is a more-than-sufficient alternative with many technical superiorities over *buntu
- Except that it's strictly free software, unless they're using the non-free installer, which is both obscure and unofficial, the newbies would need *extra* work for while Ubuntu (and Mint, from the fact that it is Ubuntu-based) mostly added this by default.
>Sadly, indeed they don't seem to include them by default. I suppose maybe add them with a warning that they don't support broadcom wifi out of the box, but that can be enabled after installation?
- Maybe, but see above.
--Morpheus (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2015 (EST)
>I'm curious, what bug is it?
No idea, to be honest. It'd boot for one or two times, then upon booting, it'd display a window, then Xorg would freeze, then everything would freeze and a reboot would be required.
What strikes me odd about that bug, is that it's like Windows bugs, happening without explanation and with no apparent documentation on it, it gives no useful debugging info, and even happening randomly and not always re-producing identically across installs, and happening without any possible change being done to Xorg. This was just another nail in the coffin among many that shows how poorly-made Ubuntu is, they're trying to become the next Wangblows, and all their official re-spins that do NOTHING except remove Unity and the stock programs and add another DE and more stock programs share their corrupt code-base and weird bugs that are probably caused by their excessive patching.
I also encountered the same issue in Elementary, but Elementary is shite anyway.
>Except that it's strictly free software, unless they're using the non-free installer, which is both obscure and unofficial, the newbies would need *extra* work for while Ubuntu (and Mint, from the fact that it is Ubuntu-based) mostly added this by default.
No extra work if we add the link to the non-free version.
Also I'm having a hard time believing that Mint doesn't include the Broadcom drivers but includes the non-free repo. It seems illogical, tbh. But anyway, it shouldn't be too hard to fix. Just a simple apt-get install is probably all it takes.
Anyway, the current recommended distros are these.
>Recommended for beginners:
-*buntus except vanilla Ubuntu (Unity)
-Debian (For Broadcom devices, use an ISO that includes non-free firmware)
-openSUSE
-LinuxMint (a.k.a Ubuntu LTS + Cinnamon)
I saw we change them into these
>Recommended for beginners: -Debian (For Broadcom devices, use an ISO that includes non-free firmware. http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/) -openSUSE -Linux Mint (a.k.a Ubuntu LTS + Cinnamon) or -LMDE (Doesn't support Broadcom out of the box, but can be enabled later on.)
--Topcuck420 (Actually Topcuck1337 but I forgot muh password.)
>Also I'm having a hard time believing that Mint doesn't include the Broadcom drivers but includes the non-free repo. It seems illogical, tbh. But anyway, it shouldn't be too hard to fix. Just a simple apt-get install is probably all it takes.
- Yeah, let's make them download the packages by themselves. Apt-get install without any internet connection. Good, very smart of you.
>I saw we change them into these
- This is also debated in the thread, Debian is not good for beginners, to be honest.
--Morpheus (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2015 (EST)
>Yeah, let's make them download the packages by themselves. Apt-get install without any internet connection. Good, very smart of you.
- cough*
Ethernet
- cough*
Use your smartphone with USB streaming
>This is also debated in the thread, Debian is not good for beginners, to be honest.
Are you fucking kidding me? Every complaint the autismos brought up in that thread was shot down by other anons, and everything they said was pretty much discussed above ^^^^^^^^^^^^
You cannot have a user use Linux without hitting Bash, and you have to remember that the entire graphical stack is simply another program running ontop of the CLI, and if they were to break (and they WILL eventually break) you better know your way around CLI
It is irresponsible of anyone who even moderately values the Linux community in its current form to breed Wangblows users into Linux land, since Linux is NOT Windows, and it should NOT try to become like Windows, which are exactly what *buntu is trying to do.
And let's be honest, for package management, CLI is superior, in every possible way, right now in 2015, we have no appstore/package manager wrapper that operates as good and as lean as the original. And memorizing "apt-get" or "pacman" or "dnf" or whatever is NOT hard, and anyone who's going to use Linux should have 100+ IQ, which means they can use Jewgle (Or DuckDuckGo tbh fam). So stop recommending distros that are made for people with Down's syndrome.
It should also be noted that the Ubuntu Forum is the most hostile forum I have ever had the displeasure of using.
--Topcuck420
And for the anon talking about recommending Debian testing in the OP, I believe that should be done.
>*cough* >Ethernet
- Surprise, surprise, some of them don't even have ethernet cable. Remember, we're talking about end-users (read: idiots) and beginners not tech enthusiasts.
>*cough* >Use your smartphone with USB streaming
- Surprise, surprise, USB device went unrecognized, anything is possible.
>You cannot have a user use Linux without hitting Bash, and you have to remember that the entire graphical stack is simply another program running ontop of the CLI, and if they were to break (and they WILL eventually break) you better know your way around CLI
- There are currently numerous efforts to make Linux user-friendly without being have to touch the CLI. Ubuntu is one of them. Debian however, is NOT one of them. Yes, I know CLI is better at troubleshooting, but end-users won't find it easy at all.
>It is irresponsible of anyone who even moderately values the Linux community in its current form to breed Wangblows users into Linux land, since Linux is NOT Windows, and it should NOT try to become like Windows, which are exactly what *buntu is trying to do.
- Well, with that attitude we can't expect "Year of The Linux Desktop" eh? Come on, anon. Linus is still yearning for it., even RMS (albeit he is a free software zealot, so he won't get Year of Free Software Desktop) is still yearning for it. Even some anons in /g/ (usually refugees from /a/, /b/, or /v/) are that idiotic, anon. They can't fucking Google, I know it's PEBKAC, but at least, Ubuntu aims to ease their burden.
>And let's be honest, for package management, CLI is superior, in every possible way, right now in 2015, we have no appstore/package manager wrapper that operates as good and as lean as the original. And memorizing "apt-get" or "pacman" or "dnf" or whatever is NOT hard,
- I agree with you, however, most people you are talking about end-users, aka refugees I talk about earlier, still need to be spoonfed about CLI in UNIX-like systems. GUI wrapper for apt however (I'm making two comparisons - Ubuntu SC and Synaptic), if they go to Synaptic and find what apps are suitable for them, they'll go like: "what the fuck? what kind of apps is this shit? what's with this ntfs-progs lol", in Ubuntu SC however, search, install, that's it.
>and anyone who's going to use Linux should have 100+ IQ, which means they can use Jewgle (Or DuckDuckGo tbh fam).
- I suppose you almost never replied to an /flt/ question?
>So stop recommending distros that are made for people with Down's syndrome.
- To be honest, I found LinuxMint (both Debian Edition and Ubuntu Edition) are catered for someone with down syndrome much worse than Ubuntu.
>It should also be noted that the Ubuntu Forum is the most hostile forum I have ever had the displeasure of using.
- I have no idea about it, my first distro was Ubuntu back when it's still 8.04 in my old laptop. I found them more friendly than #! forums and ArchBBS.
>And for the anon talking about recommending Debian testing in the OP, I believe that should be done.
- Let's set that aside first.
- So, let me break down your arguments, so far.
- Ubuntu shouldn't be recommended because:
- Unity
- Your personal experience with it is bad.
- Canonical is a bad company
is that correct or am I missing something?
--Morpheus (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2015 (EST)
>Surprise, surprise, some of them don't even have ethernet cable. Remember, we're talking about end-users (read: idiots) and beginners not tech enthusiasts. That's a good argument, but don't you think that only represent a rather tiny part of the market?
>Surprise, surprise, USB device went unrecognized, anything is possible. I suppose this is also possible.
>There are currently numerous efforts to make Linux user-friendly without being have to touch the CLI. Ubuntu is one of them. Debian however, is NOT one of them. Yes, I know CLI is better at troubleshooting, but end-users won't find it easy at all. You have to remember all those efforts are in the form of packages, not distros, as after all, all distros are pretty much the same base, with maybe a different package manager and user interface. (Talking about MOST distros, not ALL of them.)
Also, Ubuntu, as I discussed above, sells its user's privates, which is even worse then Wangblows, as even Microsoft doesn't show you ads on the base OS. And again, if a developer can justify doing that, it's better to abandon everything they do altogether. Also, refer to my mentioning of their patches and ubuntu-only bugs in the above posts.
And let's be honest, what's special about Ubuntu? After-all, it's a DE, and a couple programs and a shitton of patches different from Debian, Debian can be installed with a DE, and can come with programs, but minus the patches, which is good. And when required, you can use the non-free version.
>Well, with that attitude we can't expect "Year of The Linux Desktop" eh? Come on, anon. Linus is still yearning for it., even RMS (albeit he is a free software zealot, so he won't get Year of Free Software Desktop) is still yearning for it. Even some anons in /g/ (usually refugees from /a/, /b/, or /v/) are that idiotic, anon. They can't fucking Google, I know it's PEBKAC, but at least, Ubuntu aims to ease their burden.
The only way Ubuntu can ease their burden is by having a bunch of pre-installed bloatware that won't be used. Remind me how that's different from the state Windows comes in when it has a shitton of spyware pre-installed?
I believe idiots like these should be in their containment boards and containment threads (battlestations, desktops, etc.) and nowhere near Linux, but let's be honest, all you need to use Debian (and mostly any OS) is just READING the fucking LABELS on the OS.
>I agree with you, however, most people you are talking about end-users, aka refugees I talk about earlier, still need to be spoonfed about CLI in UNIX-like systems. GUI wrapper for apt however (I'm making two comparisons - Ubuntu SC and Synaptic), if they go to Synaptic and find what apps are suitable for them, they'll go like: "what the fuck? what kind of apps is this shit? what's with this ntfs-progs lol", in Ubuntu SC however, search, install, that's it.
>Ubuntu SC >works AHAHAHAHHAAH Now this is the wrongest thing you said. I'll paste a couple links below.
- https://imgur.com/2nhhOgY
- http://askubuntu.com/questions/530976/ubuntu-14-04-software-center-crash
- http://askubuntu.com/questions/295313/ubuntu-software-center-in-ubuntu-13-04-crashes-when-opened
- http://askubuntu.com/questions/177116/software-center-crashes-all-the-time
- http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2033381
- http://www.upubuntu.com/2012/06/ubuntu-software-center-crashes-few.html
- https://bugs.launchpad.net/software-center/+bug/1308375
- http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1447400
- http://askubuntu.com/questions/135527/why-is-software-slow-to-install-using-ubuntu-software-center
- http://askubuntu.com/questions/329982/ubuntu-software-centre-is-very-slow
Those are the first things that popped up after using Jewgle. Please try doing your re-search next time. Also, here's some personal experience you shun, during package installation, Software Center would take longer than, and I kid you not, Gentoo to install applications. (Unless the application was huge and required a big compile, that is.) There's clearly something wrong with SC and it stands as a prime example of how bad Ubuntu is.
I won't even go into how bad it is with licensing.
>To be honest, I found LinuxMint (both Debian Edition and Ubuntu Edition) are catered for someone with down syndrome much worse than Ubuntu.
Explain?
>I have no idea about it, my first distro was Ubuntu back when it's still 8.04 in my old laptop. I found them more friendly than #! forums and ArchBBS. My first time on Ubuntu was 12.04, and when I asked a simple question on the forums, they dodged the entire question and kept talking about how I suck because I use root, and I was out-right *denied* help.
Meanwhile the Arch forums consistently had replies for my questions, and I actually *learned* something by going there.
also ubuntu's documentation sucks :P
>:* Unity >:* Your personal experience with it is bad. >:* Canonical is a bad company
1- Yes. And their patches that are all made to make and force programs to work with Unity, which creates Ubuntu-specific bugs and security vulnerabilities.
2- Yes, and the average experience with it is bad, as is shown with all those links above. You really should try googling Ubuntu issues.
3- Very bad, very very bad.
so, these would be my points
- Unity
- Ubuntu-specific patches
- Lots of bad experiences with it
- Canonical justifies selling its users like a commodity just like FACEBOOK does.
So here you go.
--Topcuck420
>Also, Ubuntu, as I discussed above, sells its user's privates, which is even worse then Wangblows, as even Microsoft doesn't show you ads on the base OS. And again, if a developer can justify doing that, it's better to abandon everything they do altogether. Also, refer to my mentioning of their patches and ubuntu-only bugs in the above posts.
- Only Unity, its spinoffs (which won't use Unity, and in Kubuntu's case, won't be using Mir) doesn't use Amazon nonsense bullshit, it's opt-out and if one is paranoid like those at FSF, source code is available and one can compile it.
>And let's be honest, what's special about Ubuntu? After-all, it's a DE, and a couple programs and a shitton of patches different from Debian, Debian can be installed with a DE, and can come with programs, but minus the patches, which is good. And when required, you can use the non-free version.
- I'm not going to re-iterate my points again.
>Those are the first things that popped up after using Jewgle. Please try doing your re-search next time. >Also, here's some personal experience you shun, during package installation, Software Center would take longer than, and I kid you not, Gentoo to install applications. (Unless the application was huge and required a big compile, that is.) There's clearly something wrong with SC and it stands as a prime example of how bad Ubuntu is.
- Since that was the case, I concede on this. I have agreed earlier that CLI packaging *is* superior, however finding the package would be a pain if the user is an idiot, which is almost 75% of the case.
>Explain?
- I'll talk about Cinnamon, which is LinuxMint's primary DE, compared to Unity (which is shit anyway), what resembles Windows the most?
>My first time on Ubuntu was 12.04, and when I asked a simple question on the forums, they dodged the entire question and kept talking about how I suck because I use root, and I was out-right *denied* help.
- What kind of question?
>also ubuntu's documentation sucks :P
- Well, I switched to Arch exactly because of its ArchWiki, so fair enough.
- So let's see your points...
>Unity
- I won't argue about this, I stopped using Ubuntu in 11.04 because of Unity.
>Ubuntu-specific patches
- I think the only "specfic patches" here is fontconfig, or am I wrong?
>Lots of bad experiences with it
- Your personal experience? Or others? I have seen other experiences in Ubuntu forums, but as I ventured through the questions, some of them are really about Linux in general and not Ubuntu-specific (except for Debian-based ones like package managing).
>Canonical justifies selling its users like a commodity just like FACEBOOK does.
- Well, Canonical *is* a company after all. But that's exactly why the OP didn't recommend Unity and instead recommends the community spin-offs.
- P.S.: Fix your fucking formatting.
--Morpheus (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2015 (EST)
>Fix your fucking formatting
- No idea how tbh fam.
>I'm not going to re-iterate my points again.
- My feeling. I'm going to use that reply every time you bring up a point previously discussed above.
>Only Unity, its spinoffs (which won't use Unity, and in Kubuntu's case, won't be using Mir) doesn't use Amazon nonsense bullshit, it's opt-out and if one is paranoid like those at FSF, source code is available and one can compile it.
- I'm not going to re-iterate my points again.
>I'll talk about Cinnamon, which is LinuxMint's primary DE, compared to Unity (which is shit anyway), what resembles Windows the most?
- Ubuntu, of course. Let me explain.
- 1- Similarities between Windows 8 startmenu and the retarded hyper-autistic dash.
- 2- Both use aero-like theme
- 3- Both sell their user like a commodity
- 4- Both crash regularly without providing useful information.
- 5- Both have bugs specific to them and to them only.
- 6- Both are memory-hungry.
- Just because someone has a fucking bar on the bottom of the screen and a fucking start-menu doesn't mean it's bloody Windows. You can add extra bars to Cinnamon, if you'd want, imo, Cinnamon is a more up-to-date (technologically) and user-friendly version of XFCE. Since you *HAVE* to admit, Cinnamon is customizable. Also it's rather light on memory.
>What kind of question?
- Don't remember fam. I think it had something to do with home directories, that was many years ago, what hung with me was how I was treated.
- Now, onto Ubuntu in-general.
- For the following reasons don't install or recommend Ubuntu.
- 1. Development of Ubuntu is led by Canonical, Ltd. a UK-based "trading" company which generates revenue through the sale of "technical support" and "services."
- 2. By installing users agree to allow Ubuntu's parent company Canonical to collect user search data and IP addresses and to disclose this information to third parties including Facebook, Twitter, BBC and Amazon.
- 3. The adwares and spywares introduced in Ubuntu violates user's privacy and is one of the rare occasions in which a free software developer persists in keeping a malicious feature in its version of a program.
- 4. Whenever user searches the local files for a string using Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu sends that string to one of Canonical's servers.
- 5. Ubuntu has received widespread objection from the open source community for violating free system distribution guidelines.
- 6. Canonical disgruntled upstream open source developers by introducing Mir, their own display server not derived from X11 or Wayland.
- 7. Ubuntu's policy prohibits commercial redistribution of exact copies of Ubuntu, denying the baseline freedom.
- 8. Ubuntu is basically Debian with extra "cool" look and is not binary compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and CentOS which are used for most scientific development.
- references:
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)
- gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.html
- phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTMxNzY
- gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
- linuxlock.blogspot.com/2013/05/ubuntu-and-their-uck-y-problem.html
- Shuttleworth wants to attract Windows users with a monetarily free OS. His target demographic is people who do not want to learn anything, so they will become dependent on his Ubuntu cult. Which, in itself, does not create a problem. The problem is when those who are willing to learn and are interested in free software move on to other systems after "learning" the basics with Buntu. For example; Ubuntu's retarded set-up of disabling the root account and using sudo with unlimited root access. Hordes of people who have left the tainted OS behind now want to re-configure Debian, Slackware, and whatever, to use sudo and a password for every administrative task, instead of su to log in as root, enter one password, do what needs to be done and exit, because that is what they "leaned" with Ubuntu. An entry point to the Linux world should teach people the basics, and properly. But that is not what Buntu is about. It is about making money for Mark Shuttleworth.
- The main thing that makes Ubuntu bad, even worse than spying on its users and putting Amazon links on the desktop, is how Ubuntu leaches off the work of others, without contributing anything back to the open source community. Not only do they not contribute, but they also do not acknowledge the debt they owe others. Almost all references to Debian, GNU and Linux have been purged from the Ubuntu universe. The Ubuntu kernel? Ubuntu Classic? Heaven forbid Ubuntu acknowledge the people they live off of. And the last I heard, Microsoft invests more in the development of the Linux kernel than Canonical does. A real valued member of the Linux community.
- Also, do you think Ubuntu packages are anywhere close to upstream? Be honest.
- P.S. I tried to fix the formatting a little.
--Topcuck420
>1- Similarities between Windows 8 startmenu and the retarded hyper-autistic dash.
- This is Windows 8 Start Screen and this is the Unity dash. Wow, very, very similar, indeed. Get your eyes checked, seriously.
>2- Both use aero-like theme
- The case would be true with Unity 8. However Ambiance right now have no resemblance at all with Windows' default Visual Style
>4- Both crash regularly without providing useful information.
- True, with Ubuntu GNOME (the problem is more with GNOME, however). However since I never used Unity and everytime a program crashes with Ubuntu, in my experience I always have buttons exactly the same/similar to these, with the details of error (actual CLI logs, etc. etc.)
>5- Both have bugs specific to them and to them only.
- Your personal experience with Xorg, or what?
>6- Both are memory-hungry.
- True with Unity, not with Xubuntu/Lubuntu.
>1. Development of Ubuntu is led by Canonical, Ltd. a UK-based "trading" company which generates revenue through the sale of "technical support" and "services."
- You can say the same about Red Hat and SUSE, which is US-based (RH)/German-based (SUSE) company which generates revenue through the sale of "technical support" and "services."
>2. By installing users agree to allow Ubuntu's parent company Canonical to collect user search data and IP addresses and to disclose this information to third parties including Facebook, Twitter, BBC and Amazon.
- Exact citation needed for sharing with Facebook, Twitter and BBC. And once again, it happens with only Unity.
>3. The adwares and spywares introduced in Ubuntu violates user's privacy and is one of the rare occasions in which a free software developer persists in keeping a malicious feature in its version of a program. >4. Whenever user searches the local files for a string using Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu sends that string to one of Canonical's servers.
- Ditto, on the latter, not the former.
>5. Ubuntu has received widespread objection from the open source community for violating free system distribution guidelines.
- "Open Source Community" or FSF? Since you linked ONLY to FSF's FSDG.
>7. Ubuntu's policy prohibits commercial redistribution of exact copies of Ubuntu, denying the baseline freedom.
- Exact citation from Ubuntu's legal page needed, if this is true, they should've been sued long ago.
>Shuttleworth wants to attract Windows users with a monetarily free OS. His target demographic is people who do not want to learn anything,
- That's my point earlier.
>The main thing that makes Ubuntu bad, even worse than spying on its users and putting Amazon links on the desktop, is how Ubuntu leaches off the work of others, without contributing anything back to the open source community.
>Not only do they not contribute, but they also do not acknowledge the debt they owe others. Almost all references to Debian, GNU and Linux have been purged from the Ubuntu universe.
- To be honest, anon. I want to get rid of GNU's packages real fast. While their overall philosophies are interesting, I have some strong disagreements against FSF. But... uh....
>Also, do you think Ubuntu packages are anywhere close to upstream? Be honest.
- Ubuntu's packages are nowhere close to the upstream [citation needed]
- Here's my final verdict,
- Keep one (and strictly one) version of Ubuntu in the recommended distro list, feel free to disagree, but when you make another /flt/ thread, just delete it yourself. Let's keep /flt/ safe from another edit war.
--Morpheus (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2015 (EST)
>Here's my final verdict, >Keep one (and strictly one) version of Ubuntu in the recommended distro list, feel free to disagree, but when you make another /flt/ thread, just delete it yourself. Let's keep /flt/ safe from another edit war. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Does one, and strictly one, version of Ubuntu also count derivatives? If so, we currently have 2 Ubuntu distros. I say remove *buntu and keep Mint.
--Topcuck420 at REEEEE date.
Template:Strikethrough
It was a long time ago, but the tread was talking about the possibility of an IRC channel. I created one and now there are idlers in there but not much activity since the first day. Don't know if I should keep the link there. You guys decide. I plan on getting a bot in lue of a moderator team. That seems pretty silly for me to moderate that channel, and even sillier to appoint moderators. --The One, The Only... Chocolate Chip! (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2015 (EST)
