Vista - Bad Ubuntu

Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and even for
the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the downsides to Ubuntu.

No established release policy
Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months, Ubuntu have
now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long term supported. It's
hard to depend on a distribution with no set release policy.

You don't get the whole of Debian
Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred of the
20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are not guaranteed to
work, and indeed many don't.

Jumping the gun
You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with Ubuntu, even
in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get fixed on the first Gnome
and Evolution major releases. You know the score, 2.00 some bugs, 2.01
getting better, 2.02 finally fixed. But with Ubuntu you get the 2.00 release
for it's cutting edge package. These don't get fixed up even in the LTS
releases.

Easy installer or working installer
The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would consider
experimental. Your mileage may vary.

Non-Free
Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free software. Whilst
other distributions like Debian do this, they have a very clear cut policy
of not having such software on their installers, and making the non-free
repositories a separate choice inclusion. There is no such division in
Ubuntu repositories.

Lack of Multimedia
So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it comes to
getting multimedia codecs (including those openly licensed but patent
encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not so well supported as Debian.
The repositories at http://debian-multimedia.org are a one stop shop for
Debian multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu.

NOT Alias - Thank GOD wrote:
> Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and even
> for the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the downsides to
> Ubuntu.
>
> No established release policy
> Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months, Ubuntu
> have now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long term supported.
> It's hard to depend on a distribution with no set release policy.
>
> You don't get the whole of Debian
> Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred of
> the 20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are not
> guaranteed to work, and indeed many don't.
>
> Jumping the gun
> You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with Ubuntu,
> even in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get fixed on the
> first Gnome and Evolution major releases. You know the score, 2.00 some
> bugs, 2.01 getting better, 2.02 finally fixed. But with Ubuntu you get
> the 2.00 release for it's cutting edge package. These don't get fixed up
> even in the LTS releases.
>
> Easy installer or working installer
> The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would consider
> experimental. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Non-Free
> Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free software.
> Whilst other distributions like Debian do this, they have a very clear
> cut policy of not having such software on their installers, and making
> the non-free repositories a separate choice inclusion. There is no such
> division in Ubuntu repositories.
>
> Lack of Multimedia
> So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it comes
> to getting multimedia codecs (including those openly licensed but patent
> encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not so well supported as
> Debian. The repositories at http://debian-multimedia.org are a one stop
> shop for Debian multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu.
>
>

All lies.

Alias

Alias wrote:
> NOT Alias - Thank GOD wrote:
>
>> Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and
>> even for the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the downsides
>> to Ubuntu.
>>
>> No established release policy
>> Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months, Ubuntu
>> have now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long term
>> supported. It's hard to depend on a distribution with no set release
>> policy.
>>
>> You don't get the whole of Debian
>> Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred of
>> the 20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are not
>> guaranteed to work, and indeed many don't.
>>
>> Jumping the gun
>> You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with
>> Ubuntu, even in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get fixed
>> on the first Gnome and Evolution major releases. You know the score,
>> 2.00 some bugs, 2.01 getting better, 2.02 finally fixed. But with
>> Ubuntu you get the 2.00 release for it's cutting edge package. These
>> don't get fixed up even in the LTS releases.
>>
>> Easy installer or working installer
>> The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would
>> consider experimental. Your mileage may vary.
>>
>> Non-Free
>> Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free software.
>> Whilst other distributions like Debian do this, they have a very clear
>> cut policy of not having such software on their installers, and making
>> the non-free repositories a separate choice inclusion. There is no
>> such division in Ubuntu repositories.
>>
>> Lack of Multimedia
>> So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it
>> comes to getting multimedia codecs (including those openly licensed
>> but patent encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not so well
>> supported as Debian. The repositories at http://debian-multimedia.org
>> are a one stop shop for Debian multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu.
>>
>>
>
> All lies.
>
> Alias

Prove they are all lies or STFU!
Frank

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> NOT Alias - Thank GOD wrote:
>>
>>> Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and
>>> even for the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the
>>> downsides to Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> No established release policy
>>> Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months, Ubuntu
>>> have now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long term
>>> supported. It's hard to depend on a distribution with no set release
>>> policy.
>>>
>>> You don't get the whole of Debian
>>> Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred of
>>> the 20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are not
>>> guaranteed to work, and indeed many don't.
>>>
>>> Jumping the gun
>>> You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with
>>> Ubuntu, even in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get fixed
>>> on the first Gnome and Evolution major releases. You know the score,
>>> 2.00 some bugs, 2.01 getting better, 2.02 finally fixed. But with
>>> Ubuntu you get the 2.00 release for it's cutting edge package. These
>>> don't get fixed up even in the LTS releases.
>>>
>>> Easy installer or working installer
>>> The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would
>>> consider experimental. Your mileage may vary.
>>>
>>> Non-Free
>>> Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free software.
>>> Whilst other distributions like Debian do this, they have a very
>>> clear cut policy of not having such software on their installers, and
>>> making the non-free repositories a separate choice inclusion. There
>>> is no such division in Ubuntu repositories.
>>>
>>> Lack of Multimedia
>>> So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it
>>> comes to getting multimedia codecs (including those openly licensed
>>> but patent encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not so well
>>> supported as Debian. The repositories at http://debian-multimedia.org
>>> are a one stop shop for Debian multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All lies.
>>
>> Alias
>
> Prove they are all lies or STFU!
> Frank

Prove they aren't or STFU!

Alias

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:11:10 +0200, Alias wrote:

> NOT Alias - Thank GOD wrote:
>> Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and even
>> for the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the downsides to
>> Ubuntu.
>>
>> No established release policy
>> Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months, Ubuntu
>> have now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long term supported.
>> It's hard to depend on a distribution with no set release policy.

Huh?

Here is the release policy:

LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other releases
have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is made
available with LTS support.

What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?

>>
>> You don't get the whole of Debian
>> Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred of
>> the 20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are not
>> guaranteed to work, and indeed many don't.

Ubuntu is not Debian, it is only based on Debian. Want full debian? Run
Debian.

And on that note, I've yet to come across any reputable software that does
not work under Ubuntu. I personally really couldn't give a rats ass if
some guy has some odd-ball application in Debian repositories that maybe 20
people in this world use that doesn't work under Ubuntu.

>>
>> Jumping the gun
>> You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with Ubuntu,
>> even in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get fixed on the
>> first Gnome and Evolution major releases. You know the score, 2.00 some
>> bugs, 2.01 getting better, 2.02 finally fixed. But with Ubuntu you get
>> the 2.00 release for it's cutting edge package. These don't get fixed
>> up even in the LTS releases.

Yes Ubuntu stays on a fairly cutting edge and up to date. That's why I
like it and use it. But hey, if you go by your logic, what are you doing
with Vista? Shouldn't you be running Windows95? Win98 might be a little
risky for you, it's a newer version and it might have a bug!!

Bugs do get fixed by the way as bugfixes become available. Oh and on that
note, Gnome is perfectly stable...Though I do admit that once every month
Evolution *might* crash on startup. I can live with that.

>>
>> Easy installer or working installer
>> The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would
>> consider experimental. Your mileage may vary.

Has worked very well for me every time so far. The only time I've not used
the graphical installer is on a laptop that just wasn't powerful enough
to run the live CD due to memory constraints. Less than 256 megs
is a little low. Hardware problem, not a software problem. Text installer
of alternate CD resolved that just fine and more memory has been ordered. =)

Oh and on that note, Ubuntu runs quite well even with less than 256 megs
on that machine. Better than XP did anyway...

>>
>> Non-Free
>> Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free software.
>> Whilst other distributions like Debian do this, they have a very clear
>> cut policy of not having such software on their installers, and making
>> the non-free repositories a separate choice inclusion. There is no such
>> division in Ubuntu repositories.

Actually there is such a division in Ubuntu repositories.

What do you think the "Multiverse" repositories, which can be turned off,
are for?

And come in October this year, there will even be an additional release of
Ubuntu that is open-source only for those who do not want any non-free
software of any kind. Is that division enough?

>>
>> Lack of Multimedia
>> So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it
>> comes to getting multimedia codecs (including those openly licensed but
>> patent encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not so well supported
>> as Debian. The repositories at http://debian-multimedia.org are a one
>> stop shop for Debian multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu.

Huh? What are you smoking now?

I currently have some DivX music videos playing on my TV. Later today I
will be watching a CSS protected DVD. Yesterday I was playing some real
media video files.

I have absolutely zero need for debian-multimedia.org. Didn't even know
the site existed until you mentioned it matter of fact.

You seriously need to get your so called "facts" straight...


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> NOT Alias - Thank GOD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and
>>>> even for the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the
>>>> downsides to Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>>> No established release policy
>>>> Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months,
>>>> Ubuntu have now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long term
>>>> supported. It's hard to depend on a distribution with no set release
>>>> policy.
>>>>
>>>> You don't get the whole of Debian
>>>> Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred
>>>> of the 20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are not
>>>> guaranteed to work, and indeed many don't.
>>>>
>>>> Jumping the gun
>>>> You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with
>>>> Ubuntu, even in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get fixed
>>>> on the first Gnome and Evolution major releases. You know the score,
>>>> 2.00 some bugs, 2.01 getting better, 2.02 finally fixed. But with
>>>> Ubuntu you get the 2.00 release for it's cutting edge package. These
>>>> don't get fixed up even in the LTS releases.
>>>>
>>>> Easy installer or working installer
>>>> The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would
>>>> consider experimental. Your mileage may vary.
>>>>
>>>> Non-Free
>>>> Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free
>>>> software. Whilst other distributions like Debian do this, they have
>>>> a very clear cut policy of not having such software on their
>>>> installers, and making the non-free repositories a separate choice
>>>> inclusion. There is no such division in Ubuntu repositories.
>>>>
>>>> Lack of Multimedia
>>>> So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it
>>>> comes to getting multimedia codecs (including those openly licensed
>>>> but patent encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not so well
>>>> supported as Debian. The repositories at
>>>> http://debian-multimedia.org are a one stop shop for Debian
>>>> multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> All lies.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>>
>> Prove they are all lies or STFU!
>> Frank
>
>
> Prove they aren't or STFU!
>
> Alias

You idiot! You're the one calling them lies now YOU prove they're not or
STFU!
Well...!
Frank

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> NOT Alias - Thank GOD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and
>>>>> even for the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the
>>>>> downsides to Ubuntu.
>>>>>
>>>>> No established release policy
>>>>> Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months,
>>>>> Ubuntu have now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long
>>>>> term supported. It's hard to depend on a distribution with no set
>>>>> release policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get the whole of Debian
>>>>> Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred
>>>>> of the 20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are
>>>>> not guaranteed to work, and indeed many don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jumping the gun
>>>>> You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with
>>>>> Ubuntu, even in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get
>>>>> fixed on the first Gnome and Evolution major releases. You know the
>>>>> score, 2.00 some bugs, 2.01 getting better, 2.02 finally fixed. But
>>>>> with Ubuntu you get the 2.00 release for it's cutting edge package.
>>>>> These don't get fixed up even in the LTS releases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy installer or working installer
>>>>> The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would
>>>>> consider experimental. Your mileage may vary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non-Free
>>>>> Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free
>>>>> software. Whilst other distributions like Debian do this, they have
>>>>> a very clear cut policy of not having such software on their
>>>>> installers, and making the non-free repositories a separate choice
>>>>> inclusion. There is no such division in Ubuntu repositories.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lack of Multimedia
>>>>> So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it
>>>>> comes to getting multimedia codecs (including those openly licensed
>>>>> but patent encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not so well
>>>>> supported as Debian. The repositories at
>>>>> http://debian-multimedia.org are a one stop shop for Debian
>>>>> multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All lies.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>>
>>> Prove they are all lies or STFU!
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>> Prove they aren't or STFU!
>>
>> Alias
>
> You idiot! You're the one calling them lies now YOU prove they're not or
> STFU!
> Well...!
> Frank

Well nothing. They're lies. What makes you think I care if you believe
me or not?

Alias

In article <lZmdncHHjvqqAQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:


> Here is the release policy:
>
> LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other releases
> have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is made
> available with LTS support.
>
> What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?

Nothing actually. What it means is Ubuntu is not something to run a
business on. 3 years?!?! 1 year?!?! Wow, and people complain
about the "MS upgrade treadmill"! MS is still supporting Windows 2000
after 8 years and XP after 6 years.

No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order to
stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"!

Mike

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:47:08 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NOT Alias - Thank GOD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and
>>>>>> even for the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the
>>>>>> downsides to Ubuntu.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No established release policy
>>>>>> Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months,
>>>>>> Ubuntu have now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long
>>>>>> term supported. It's hard to depend on a distribution with no set
>>>>>> release policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't get the whole of Debian
>>>>>> Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred
>>>>>> of the 20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are
>>>>>> not guaranteed to work, and indeed many don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jumping the gun
>>>>>> You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with
>>>>>> Ubuntu, even in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get
>>>>>> fixed on the first Gnome and Evolution major releases. You know the
>>>>>> score, 2.00 some bugs, 2.01 getting better, 2.02 finally fixed. But
>>>>>> with Ubuntu you get the 2.00 release for it's cutting edge package.
>>>>>> These don't get fixed up even in the LTS releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Easy installer or working installer
>>>>>> The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would
>>>>>> consider experimental. Your mileage may vary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Non-Free
>>>>>> Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free
>>>>>> software. Whilst other distributions like Debian do this, they have
>>>>>> a very clear cut policy of not having such software on their
>>>>>> installers, and making the non-free repositories a separate choice
>>>>>> inclusion. There is no such division in Ubuntu repositories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lack of Multimedia
>>>>>> So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it
>>>>>> comes to getting multimedia codecs (including those openly licensed
>>>>>> but patent encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not so well
>>>>>> supported as Debian. The repositories at
>>>>>> http://debian-multimedia.org are a one stop shop for Debian
>>>>>> multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove they are all lies or STFU!
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>> Prove they aren't or STFU!
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>> You idiot! You're the one calling them lies now YOU prove they're not or
>> STFU!
>> Well...!
>> Frank
>
> Well nothing. They're lies. What makes you think I care if you believe
> me or not?
>

Maybe the fact that neither one of you two can STFU??? I mean seriously!
The both of you need to go do that! If you got something constructive to
say, say it. But this constant and childish "You shut up" "no you shut up"
"no you shut up" "you are a liar" "no you are a liar" "no you are" "no you
are" back and forth between the two of you is really just stupid.

If you don't have something useful to say, just don't say anything. Is
that really so hard? Or at least take your childish games to e-mail.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

Mike wrote:
> In article <lZmdncHHjvqqAQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Here is the release policy:
>>
>> LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other releases
>> have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is made
>> available with LTS support.
>>
>> What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?
>
> Nothing actually. What it means is Ubuntu is not something to run a
> business on. 3 years?!?! 1 year?!?! Wow, and people complain
> about the "MS upgrade treadmill"! MS is still supporting Windows 2000
> after 8 years and XP after 6 years.
>
> No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order to
> stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"!
>
> Mike

Ubuntu upgrades are totally painless. If you're a business, you back up
your data. Installing a new version of Ubuntu is a nice walk in the park
compared to Windows which could be likened to taking a walk in South
Central LA at 3AM on a Sunday morning.

Alias