YOUR favorite Linux flavor?

[lopdog]

Puppy allows you to save your session to removable media or a CDRW. It doesn't save the session to a LiveCD.

Puppy Linux can actually save your session to the SAME CD (the LiveCD) you used to boot from, doesn't matter if it is rewritable or not. (You can also save to a different hdd/removable media).

A unique feature that sets Puppy Linux apart from other Linux distributions is the ability to run a normal working environment on a write-once multisession CD. (It does not require a rewritable CD.) Puppy automatically detects changes in the file system and saves them incrementally on the CD. When the CD is full, users can easily switch to a new CD while carrying over all their files and desktop environment. While other distributions offer Live CD versions of their operating systems, they do not allow programs to be permanently added nor do they allow files to be written to the CD.

(From Wikipedia

As far as I know only Puppy and Morphix can do this.

 

[LNCPapa]

If it's not a rewritable who could it possibly save back to the live disc (I think caravel is saying it's actually a LiveCDRW ) If the booted disc is not rewritable you're not going to write anything new to it - unless maybe there was free space left on the disc and an open session left on the media and if so then it would be a limited number of times.

 

[lopdog]

unless maybe there was free space left on the disc and an open session left on the media and if so then it would be a limited number of times.

Exactly! The puppy linux is only about 100 mb, and every time you turn it of it burns all files that have changed (it appends it to your CD). In my quote from Wikipedia it clearly says

It does not require a rewritable CD

I'm don't know the technical stuff behind this, I only know it works. I've used Puppy Linux on both CD and DVD, none of them where rewritable.

If you need more space for music and video you can use any internal/external hdd, they are all recognized by Puppy and a shortcut is placed on your desktop.

 

[captaincranky]

I do see the possibility of writing additional files to a CD-R, by way of the disc not being finalized in the first place. Many burning programs allow this, but normally the discs can only be played with the program that created it, until they are finalized.

So, if it works this way, hats off to Puppy Linux.

Although, with CD-R, nothing can be overwritten, so you will run out of space, but I think somebody else said that to.

BTW, this concept just dawned on me.

 

[vahnx]

I used Fedora 7/8/9, Slackware 12.2, Ubuntu 7.10/8.04/8.10, Puppy, DSL/xDSL, Knoppix, Knoppix STD, Slax, etc. Out of every distro, I'd have to go with Ubuntu. It has more updates, better support, and less system hangs then the rest of them. Also, I love the speed of 9.04.

 

[lopdog]

Although, with CD-R, nothing can be overwritten, so you will run out of space, but I think somebody else said that to.

They even solved that. Once your CD-R is full, Puppy Linux asks for a new CD, and it puts the Puppy Linux files and your last session, so you can continue using that new CD instead of the other.

 

[captaincranky]

@ Lopdog; How could you start a Linux poll without including Ubuntu as a fixed choice option?

I used Fedora 7/8/9, Slackware 12.2, Ubuntu 7.10/8.04/8.10, Puppy, DSL/xDSL, Knoppix, Knoppix STD, Slax, etc. Out of every distro, I'd have to go with Ubuntu. It has more updates, better support, and less system hangs then the rest of them. Also, I love the speed of 9.04.

I just downloaded Ubuntu 9.04 today. To my utter amazement, this distro will actually run on new motherboards without hanging or asking for drivers.

All my machines have SATA HDDs, set to "run as IDE". To date this is the only distro that will run on a later board. All of them will run on my old Intel 915GAG, which is SATA running as IDE also, but they seem to miss the later HAL software. Tried Intel 965, Intel G31, and P45 boards and nothing would run until Ubuntu 9.04! Yay...!

 

[lopdog]

Well, captaincranky, I didn't start this post, I just happen to have the first post on the second page... But this post was startet in 2004, a few months after the first distro of Ubuntu was released, so I guess that's why it's not included.
Anyway, I agree that Ubuntu is a great OS, no wonder it's so popular.

 

[captaincranky]

Oh, It's the Old Thread Trap......

I see your point. Now I'm going back to reveling in the fact that Ubuntu will boot on a new board with HDDs in IDE mode. You just don't know how happy that makes me
Sorry, I thought that this was your poll. What good is opening your mouth if you don't bother to change feet, well?

 

[BorisandBailey]

I have Ubuntu and SUSE. Ubuntu scores big points with me because its file size is small enough that it only takes 15 minutes to install, and it has a simple user face that is easy to navigate yet the terminal is available for more diverse operations. I always recommend it to people who just want something easy to understand that works. SUSE has a very interesting user face with lots of pretty bells and whistles. It's kind of like walking through a candy forest, but it has a huge file size to load all that stuff on. I slept all through the night while it loaded.

 

[caravel]

Debian is much better than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is actually based on the unstable testing version of Debian - which is why in my opinion it's not that great for beginners and average users (in the same way that windows release candidates are not really for beginners either). There isn't much that Ubuntu has got that Debian hasn't, apart from some bells and whistles and the latter is far lighter and more stable. Most people stick with Ubuntu because it supports a lot of obscure hardware and it's easier to get things like proprietary drivers installed. With Debian it's harder to get say the ATI driver installed than it is in Ubuntu. But the end result is the same and well worth it.

SUSE/openSUSE is larger because of KDE. It's a nice Window Manager but it is rather bloated. Even gnome (what Debian and Ubuntu use as their WM) can be said to be bloated but KDE is huge compared to it.

The good thing about distros like Debian is that you can install whichever window manager you want without creating a mess and losing some functionality. Even Kubuntu (essentially a remaster of Ubuntu with KDE) has been criticised for this. It's just not on the same level as openSUSE or Mandriva which are designed around KDE.

 

[vahnx]

Don't forget that Ubuntu is the most popular distro out there; meaning it will have the bigger community such as the forums etc., meaning if you have an issue that there is most likely a solution that is easily available out there, not to mention many of the big companies out there like Dell ship machines with Ubuntu because of ease of use and popularity.

 

[caravel]

Don't forget that Ubuntu is the most popular distro out there; meaning it will have the bigger community such as the forums etc., meaning if you have an issue that there is most likely a solution that is easily available out there, not to mention many of the big companies out there like Dell ship machines with Ubuntu because of ease of use and popularity.

The community is large, but it lacks experienced users. It's essentially a huge support forum - and a decidedly average one at that. A lot of threads go unanswered because of this and they can disappear off the first page in a about an hour due to the volume of new users and threads coming in. Much of the help will be advice to reinstall anyway.

If you go for one of the better distributions such as openSUSE, Centos, Fedora, Gentoo, Debian, etc you tend to get much more knowledgeable individuals answering your threads, providing real solutions.

Personally I wouldn't buy a Dell no matter what it came pre-installed with. The uptake on their Ubuntu pre-installed machines has not been good anyway IIRC.

Ubuntu is simply all about marketing. The reason it's popular is because of this and due to it's wealthy financial backer, funding it out of his own pocket. Users that say it's "user friendly" etc have often not actually used any other Linux distribution.

You often find with Ubuntu that users go from cult like zealots when the OS is working fine, to angry and complaining "I'm going back to windows" types when it all goes wrong (which it does quite often). This is because, unlike other distributions, Ubuntu is trying to set itself up as windows alternative. A lot of misguided people turn up at their forums. I've seen people trying to run .exe files and others that installed Ubuntu and wiped out their windows partition. If someone hasn't grasped these basics then they should not be installing an OS at all. You don't see this at other Linux online communities - or if you do it's very rare - but at the Ubuntu forums it's pretty common place.

 

[vahnx]

At the above post; from personal experience, Ubuntu actually is great for learning Linux and the forums are great, every thread I post eventually gets down to the very bottom. I then moved to Sabayon and Fedora (forum posts there seem to sit forever) then tried Slackware for a bit, and I used prior knowledge from Ubuntu and Google and it wasn't even hard to set up any distro to my liking. The way I see it, the evolution of Linux will be moving away from the command line and just using it as a normal desktop / server with a nice GUI with effects, just like OS X and Windows, but until then it will remain a nice, free, niche.

As for Ubuntu on OEM machines, although sales aren't really there, I couldn't see them throwing a command line Linux or any other distro other than Ubuntu unless they do something drastic. Remember, it's aimed for typical consumers not technology enthusiasts like ourselves. Sure, Mint is more ahead and "user friendly" by pre-installing Flash, etc. but again, Ubuntu has more support. So a great balance of 'ease of use', 'appearance', and 'support' is what most people need from their Linux.

 

[caravel]

At the above post; from personal experience, Ubuntu actually is great for learning Linux and the forums are great, every thread I post eventually gets down to the very bottom. I then moved to Sabayon and Fedora (forum posts there seem to sit forever) then tried Slackware for a bit, and I used prior knowledge from Ubuntu and Google and it wasn't even hard to set up any distro to my liking. The way I see it, the evolution of Linux will be moving away from the command line and just using it as a normal desktop / server with a nice GUI with effects, just like OS X and Windows, but until then it will remain a nice, free, niche.

I agree about Fedora forums, but that's just one. There are a lot of other distributions and other sites out there.

I think Ubuntu is ok as an initiation into Linux, but it's not great for learning. Users tend to hit a lot of brick walls and the community there is not able enough to assist with a lot of the more advanced issues.

Again IMHO it's not a good learning OS or a beginners' OS because it's based on an unstable distribution. If you want something for learning the basics you need something stable. One of the biggest reasons for users giving up, is bugginess. And Ubuntu is renowned for this. It's in it's nature that it will be buggy. Ubuntu is more of a tweakers distribution. It's good for those that want to mess with Linux rather than those that want to use it.

As for Ubuntu on OEM machines, although sales aren't really there, I couldn't see them throwing a command line Linux or any other distro other than Ubuntu unless they do something drastic. Remember, it's aimed for typical consumers not technology enthusiasts like ourselves. Sure, Mint is more ahead and "user friendly" by pre-installing Flash, etc. but again, Ubuntu has more support.

They can throw just about any distro they like on there so long as it's pre-installed, tested and working. It does not have to be Ubuntu. The Acer netbooks come pre-installed with Linpus lite for example.

 

[vahnx]

Well it doesn't have to be Ubuntu on the OEM machines but they shouldn't throw Slackware on there or a not-well supported OS, and the OS should be fully usable not some command line and should have a good package manager with a variety of software available from the repositories. From many sources though and even television programs say Ubuntu should be the starting Linux OS and I agree because I did "start" with Ubuntu (and I did learn my way around the command-line using it), as in it was my first main Linux OS. Before that I put others on and tried Live distros like Knoppix, but Ubuntu worked the best from a clean install and it keeps up-to-date. With some distros like DSL which isn't well supported (think it "died" in '04) it's a pain to get Firefox 3 on there, let alone another DE whereas Ubuntu you just launch Synaptics, search XFCE, check the box and install. There is also a driver manager in ubuntu where you can just select which drivers to enable. But Linux still has a long way to go to get to the masses.

 

[caravel]

Well it doesn't have to be Ubuntu on the OEM machines but they shouldn't throw Slackware on there or a not-well supported OS,

Who said anything about slackware? That's the extreme. I would not suggest Arch either for much the same reason. They are "supported", but they're not for beginners. I'm not sure what support you're referring to though? Ubuntu has no support either, unless you're referring to the forums? Technically that is not support.

and the OS should be fully usable not some command line and should have a good package manager with a variety of software available from the repositories.

Debian has the same package manager as Ubuntu (obviously) and lots of software available in the repositories. It also installs gnome by default. My grandmother would be able to install (it if she were alive).

From many sources though and even television programs say Ubuntu should be the starting Linux OS and I agree because I did "start" with Ubuntu (and I did learn my way around the command-line using it), as in it was my first main Linux OS.

That's because it's the "in thing" and popular. The people on reviewing it or commenting on it on TV are probably dazzled by stuff like compiz-fusion. This is how Ubuntu got a lot of attention, by essentially shipping with compiz-fusion pre-installed. A lot of newbies install Ubuntu just to see that and their next post on the forum is how to remove Ubuntu and go back to windows. I'm glad you stuck at it and you should use whatever works for you, but you should give some other distributions a go as well. I started out with Mandrake 9.0 back in about 2002 but there is no way I'd go back to Mandriva now.

Before that I put others on and tried Live distros like Knoppix, but Ubuntu worked the best from a clean install and it keeps up-to-date. With some distros like DSL which isn't well supported (think it "died" in '04) it's a pain to get Firefox 3 on there, let alone another DE whereas Ubuntu you just launch Synaptics, search XFCE, check the box and install. There is also a driver manager in ubuntu where you can just select which drivers to enable. But Linux still has a long way to go to get to the masses.

Debian comes with Firefox 3 and you can simply launch Synaptic to install XFCE, KDE or anything else.

The "hardware drivers" manager is one of the main differences. I find that to be horrendously buggy. In the past it has broken the X server and presented me with a black screen. This involved more time at the terminal getting it fixed - which I don't mind so much - but for a beginner, that's not on. If Ubuntu is going to ship with such a tool then the tool needs to be fully automated in that it should recover from failures. Otherwise it's not living up to Ubuntu's "user friendly" claims and "Linux for Human Beings" motto.

It's also the part that commonly breaks at dist-upgrade time. Because the driver was built for the older kernel, xorg version etc, once you upgrade, reboot and the kernel module tries to start you will often get hangs and lock ups or a black screen. The only solution is to purge the driver. "Hardware drivers" also has nothing inbuilt to handle this, so what happened? A lot of people turn up on the forums with the usual "my display stopped working after upgrade" problem. This happened in the recent Intrepid to Jaunty upgrade. The common answer they received was: "reinstall".

The simple answer is that at dist-upgrade the incompatible proprietary drivers should be purged.

Depending on what you do with your PC you may never need proprietary drivers anyway. I installed the ATI driver myself from the Debian repos. It involved a bit of command line work, but there are guides available. I use it because I play some games, otherwise I'd definitely use the open source driver instead. Much more stable than the proprietary binary blobs provided by Nvidia and AMD/ATI.

 

[vahnx]

Here's one example of Ubuntu's magic: My ATI X1150; every other Linux distro it causes glitches and rainbows to appear on the screen if I say, wake from standby (if I can sleep in that distro), even during a reboot or shutdown process. If I install the Ubuntu drivers, that goes away and I can sleep. The BCM WiFi also has drivers so no more NDis wrapper. More and more companies are getting behind Ubuntu and in the end there will be even more support and drivers, NVidia also has amazing support. Also with Ubuntu, it has that HP utility installed by default for my printer, and all machines with wifi, if I boot from the installer disc, it detects the wireless points and works flawlessly. This was not the case with Ubuntu 8.08/7.10 and lower, as some machines would have wireless issues, and most other Linux distros I must use ndiswrapper. I find 9.04 not only faster booting that most of the other distros (including puppy which is like 200MB), but it does everything so much faster now.

But if this was a year or two ago, I'd say I didn't like Ubuntu because of all the weird crashes and glitches, but they all seem to be gone with these latest versions. You should give it a shot. It also has a stable 64-bit version too which most Linux's don't have, you must find a 64-bit kernel and compile yourself. Distros like Puppy and Slackware remain to be 32-bit. There are pre-built distros like Slam64 which is supposedly Slackware with a 64-bit kernel preinstalled but yet, it would not even detect my CD drive once I reached setup which made no sense at all (I was booted from the CD!). One issue I had with Fedora too was setting a static IP in a fresh install, where Ubuntu was fine! One killer feature Ubuntu seemed to implement before anyone is now you can format an ext4 partition during install, where Fedora etc. have just added that in their latest release. Gentoo I am not a fan as it spent like 2/3 hours installing on my HPafXXXX then when I rebooted it was just all messed up =/

I'm always into trying new distros though.

 

[caravel]

Here's one example of Ubuntu's magic: My ATI X1150; every other Linux distro it causes glitches and rainbows to appear on the screen if I say, wake from standby (if I can sleep in that distro), even during a reboot or shutdown process. If I install the Ubuntu drivers, that goes away and I can sleep.

They're not "Ubuntu drivers". The fglrx proprietary drivers are not exclusive to Ubuntu and if you're talking about the latest release 9.04 then I'm afraid the proprietary driver won't support that card as it's now considered legacy.

The BCM WiFi also has drivers so no more NDis wrapper. More and more companies are getting behind Ubuntu and in the end there will be even more support and drivers, NVidia also has amazing support.

Nvidia has good Linux support not good Ubuntu support. You're confusing what is Ubuntu and what is GNU/Linux.

Also with Ubuntu, it has that HP utility installed by default for my printer,

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is because of HP's pretty good Linux support and not Ubuntu.

and all machines with wifi, if I boot from the installer disc, it detects the wireless points and works flawlessly. This was not the case with Ubuntu 8.08/7.10 and lower, as some machines would have wireless issues, and most other Linux distros I must use ndiswrapper. I find 9.04 not only faster booting that most of the other distros (including puppy which is like 200MB), but it does everything so much faster now.

Once again you're confusing the issue. Wireless is still an issue and it depends almost entirely on which wireless chipset you have. Later versions of Ubuntu have simply shipped with updated wireless drivers. If you had a wireless chipset that doesn't work so well then you would be thinking very differently. Again the credit goes to the developers of such open source drivers and not Ubuntu. Other distributions also have these updated drivers. Debian 5.0 supports my wireless adaptor and loads the same kernel module for it that Ubuntu 9.04 does. This is because this functionality/support in Ubuntu has come from upstream.

But if this was a year or two ago, I'd say I didn't like Ubuntu because of all the weird crashes and glitches, but they all seem to be gone with these latest versions. You should give it a shot. It also has a stable 64-bit version too which most Linux's don't have, you must find a 64-bit kernel and compile yourself. Distros like Puppy and Slackware remain to be 32-bit.

I have given it a shot. I've used it since 6.06 and I am now in the position to know that it's nothing special - mostly hype. The 64 bit version is not stable, neither are any of the Ubuntu releases stable. It's based on the unstable Debian release. Most distros have 64 bit releases, including Debian, so I'm not sure where you've got the idea from that Ubuntu is unique in that?

There are pre-built distros like Slam64 which is supposedly Slackware with a 64-bit kernel preinstalled but yet, it would not even detect my CD drive once I reached setup which made no sense at all (I was booted from the CD!). One issue I had with Fedora too was setting a static IP in a fresh install, where Ubuntu was fine! One killer feature Ubuntu seemed to implement before anyone is now you can format an ext4 partition during install, where Fedora etc. have just added that in their latest release. Gentoo I am not a fan as it spent like 2/3 hours installing on my HPafXXXX then when I rebooted it was just all messed up =/

I'm always into trying new distros though.

Very vague... the non detection of the CD is not unusual. This happens in windows all the time. The solution is often rather complex. It's probably down to you having a SATA CDROM drive. Such distros as slackware are very stripped down so you can't expect them to fully support every piece of hardware.

 

[vahnx]

They're not "Ubuntu drivers". The fglrx proprietary drivers are not exclusive to Ubuntu and if you're talking about the latest release 9.04 then I'm afraid the proprietary driver won't support that card as it's now considered legacy.

I know they are "Ubuntu drivers" lol but the way fglrx is implemented into Ubuntu, it detects my ATI in one machine whereas in other distros I must manually find and they sometimes don't work/weird bugs with the rainbows and sleep. Sure it's ATI's fault, but at least Ubuntu gets the best results.

Nvidia has good Linux support not good Ubuntu support. You're confusing what is Ubuntu and what is GNU/Linux.

Ubuntu is Linux, and if I asked any novice what Linux is they'd either say the penguin, Ubuntu, or they'd be totally confused. As for the NVidia support again, Ubuntu installs an NVidia control panel and in other Linuxes you must manually find.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is because of HP's pretty good Linux support and not Ubuntu.

Other Linux distros I installed did not place the HP icon in my toolbar and I couldn't use all the features without manually finding a method, yet again. It's the way Ubuntu sees the big picture with automating what what would be difficult processes to the average user.

Once again you're confusing the issue. Wireless is still an issue and it depends almost entirely on which wireless chipset you have. Later versions of Ubuntu have simply shipped with updated wireless drivers. If you had a wireless chipset that doesn't work so well then you would be thinking very differently. Again the credit goes to the developers of such open source drivers and not Ubuntu. Other distributions also have these updated drivers. Debian 5.0 supports my wireless adaptor and loads the same kernel module for it that Ubuntu 9.04 does. This is because this functionality/support in Ubuntu has come from upstream.

Ubuntu is Deibian based so it's bound to share smilarities. Ubuntu/Debain ships these built in wheras in other non-Debian Linuxes it's a manual find/download/install & re-load modules or reboot and pray there's no problems. The wireless I had troubles with was BCM4300 (I think) and it works fine in Windows/OS X/Ubuntu like 8.04 or higher, any Ubuntu lower or other distros I'd get random disconnects etc. so it's something they did in Ubuntu to fix it.

I have given it a shot. I've used it since 6.06 and I am now in the position to know that it's nothing special - mostly hype. The 64 bit version is not stable, neither are any of the Ubuntu releases stable. It's based on the unstable Debian release. Most distros have 64 bit releases, including Debian, so I'm not sure where you've got the idea from that Ubuntu is unique in that?

I know some distros have 64-bit releases, I wouldn't say most. Slackware's 64 release as I said has funny results vs the 32 bit. As for Ubuntu's 64-bit stablility, I have had no crashes whatsoever. Even when my NTFS was corrupted from un-clean mounts in Win7 and causing BSOD's until I finally fixed it, and OS X was random panicing for god knows why (hackintosh glitches possibly), the only OS working fine was Ubuntu 64.

Very vague... the non detection of the CD is not unusual. This happens in windows all the time. The solution is often rather complex. It's probably down to you having a SATA CDROM drive. Such distros as slackware are very stripped down so you can't expect them to fully support every piece of hardware.

Yes but the thing is, with 32 bit Slack, it installed and worked fine when installed on this one system I have with 4GB of RAM and Q6600. Slam64 however (which to my understanding is Slackware w/ 64-bit kernel) booted to the installer from the disc but during the install process it could not find the disc! So I tried network installs from removable devices, etc. and still the same error. Spent a few hours in IRC trying to get the bottom of the problem but everyone was puzzled). Windows 7, Ubuntu, and Leopard all saw the drive fine, along with the BIOS.

So from personal experience as being a technology enthusiast working with a variety of machines w/ different hardware, Ubuntu now the way it is, has the best results from a fresh install as a Linux distro, not to mention a Live CD which many but not all distro's have. Drivers load from the Live CD out of the box so you can test a new machine and it's hardware compatibility, it's a nice clean UI so it makes for a great rescue disc you can hand to friends that are non-technical, support is always there if not on the forums, in IRC (which I admit is pretty bad because of the flooding of "newbs" and their questions). Even from a fresh Ubuntu install to a newcomer, they will still need help until it reaches the point where out of the box, "everything works".

Just a few hours ago my friend couldn't delete the songs from his MP3 player in XP so I plugged it in my Windows 7 laptop and they still wouldn't delete. Booted into Ubuntu 9.04 Live CD, didn't see the player so I unplugged it and plugged it back in, detected it, auto-mounted, double clicked the icon and cleared the MP3 players contents fine. Sure, all Linuxes that support mounting FAT/whatever the drive was, but I could easily tell which partition the drive was because it showed with an autorun dialog and the icon of MP3 player and it even detected the brand.

My 2^2 cents.

 

[caravel]

I know they are "Ubuntu drivers" lol but the way fglrx is implemented into Ubuntu, it detects my ATI in one machine whereas in other distros I must manually find and they sometimes don't work/weird bugs with the rainbows and sleep. Sure it's ATI's fault, but at least Ubuntu gets the best results.

Yes it works for you, but not for everyone. The "Hardware drivers" manager can be a deathtrap for inexperienced users and experienced users don't need it anyway. Work it out.

As for the NVidia support again, Ubuntu installs an NVidia control panel and in other Linuxes you must manually find.

nvidia-settings is in the same debian package as the drivers. This has been a case for a while. So if you install it in Debian you also get the control panel. I'm not sure how it's handled in other distros but I'm pretty sure this is not exclusive to Ubuntu and Debian.

Other Linux distros I installed did not place the HP icon in my toolbar and I couldn't use all the features without manually finding a method, yet again. It's the way Ubuntu sees the big picture with automating what what would be difficult processes to the average user.

That's perhaps because not everyone has an HP printer and a lot of Linux users do not want to see proprietary software/logos littered all over their desktop?

Ubuntu is Deibian based so it's bound to share smilarities. Ubuntu/Debain ships these built in wheras in other non-Debian Linuxes it's a manual find/download/install & re-load modules or reboot and pray there's no problems. The wireless I had troubles with was BCM4300 (I think) and it works fine in Windows/OS X/Ubuntu like 8.04 or higher, any Ubuntu lower or other distros I'd get random disconnects etc. so it's something they did in Ubuntu to fix it.

Yes I know that Ubuntu is Debian based, I had mentioned that once or twice already. The B43 driver is the one I linked to. It also works in Debian - and on any Linux distro for that matter. You may find configuration easier because of the network manager applet. This is in Debian as well and has been proved to be problematic for a lot of users (I have problems with network manager - though I have less problems in Debian than I was having on my Jaunty box). This is why you see so many posts at ubuntuforums about wireless which involve removing network manager and setting up the connection using iwconfig. There are still a lot of people using ndiswrapper as well because a lot of chipsets are not supported.

I know some distros have 64-bit releases, I wouldn't say most. Slackware's 64 release as I said has funny results vs the 32 bit. As for Ubuntu's 64-bit stablility, I have had no crashes whatsoever. Even when my NTFS was corrupted from un-clean mounts in Win7 and causing BSOD's until I finally fixed it, and OS X was random panicing for god knows why (hackintosh glitches possibly), the only OS working fine was Ubuntu 64.

Yes but the thing is, with 32 bit Slack, it installed and worked fine when installed on this one system I have with 4GB of RAM and Q6600. Slam64 however (which to my understanding is Slackware w/ 64-bit kernel) booted to the installer from the disc but during the install process it could not find the disc! So I tried network installs from removable devices, etc. and still the same error. Spent a few hours in IRC trying to get the bottom of the problem but everyone was puzzled). Windows 7, Ubuntu, and Leopard all saw the drive fine, along with the BIOS.

Slamd64 is not Slackware's 64 bit release it's an unofficial port. Also you cannot compare any "desktop Linux" to anything like slackware so forget it. If you want to try other distros for comparison with Ubuntu, go for something like openSUSE, Mandriva, Centos or Gentoo. Whatever the case it will be swings and roundabouts. The best approach is to use what works best on your hardware and if Ubuntu is that, then use it. But remember that Ubuntu is not the only Linux, it's far from perfect and it doesn't work for everyone. Ubuntu is also a one way process in that it takes a lot from Debian and GNU/Linux as a whole and gives next to nothing back.

So from personal experience as being a technology enthusiast working with a variety of machines w/ different hardware, Ubuntu now the way it is, has the best results from a fresh install as a Linux distro, not to mention a Live CD which many but not all distro's have. Drivers load from the Live CD out of the box so you can test a new machine and it's hardware compatibility, it's a nice clean UI so it makes for a great rescue disc you can hand to friends that are non-technical, support is always there if not on the forums, in IRC (which I admit is pretty bad because of the flooding of "newbs" and their questions). Even from a fresh Ubuntu install to a newcomer, they will still need help until it reaches the point where out of the box, "everything works".

Ubuntu is very good as a livecd - that's it's main strength in fact. Whether Ubuntu works best or not is a matter of opinion. It works for you.

Just a few hours ago my friend couldn't delete the songs from his MP3 player in XP so I plugged it in my Windows 7 laptop and they still wouldn't delete. Booted into Ubuntu 9.04 Live CD, didn't see the player so I unplugged it and plugged it back in, detected it, auto-mounted, double clicked the icon and cleared the MP3 players contents fine. Sure, all Linuxes that support mounting FAT/whatever the drive was, but I could easily tell which partition the drive was because it showed with an autorun dialog and the icon of MP3 player and it even detected the brand.

My 2^2 cents.

That's something else that almost any other "desktop linux" distribution can do. MP3 players are detected, automounted and with an icon added to the desktop as are USB flash drives (because it's the same thing). This not a Ubuntu exclusive feature.

 

[vahnx]

Yes I know what you are saying, but the fact that Ubuntu can detect all of these obscure hardware combos (X1150, BCM4300, Nvidia, every single hardware combo I threw at it) worked OUT OF THE BOX with no tweaking says a lot, and again if it wasn't for all the support and work going into this distro it would probably be #5 or less on distro watch. As for the MP3 player, it detected the brand and make. Normally distros it would just appear as either an MP3 player or Removable Media; it wouldn't gather all the info. Ubuntu is now at the point where there OS is rock solid; IE Jaunty; they felt 8.10 was good 'n rock solid and now needed to spend optimizing code, while at the same time making it a tad easier and convenient.

Sure, Ubuntu looks somewhat like Fedora and install process is similar to other distros, but when you combine all the things it does out of the box and it still fits on a single CD (compared to "bloated" distros that span multiple discs/DVD) and you can boot from it; it's amazing.

The thing I see and gather from all these "Ubuntu haters" (not you; just many of the people I know and see on IRC) is they are just scared because it's gaining too much attraction and brining in some of the "Windows users" over to Linux. You know what that means, eventually if too many people move over to Linux you'll see those malicious programmers start targeting more and more Linux boxes. You should see all the red hat fanatics that always say "Ubuntu isn't Linux it's Windows". Well that's what happens when a Linux distro comes "mainstream". Maybe some day another distro will be as stable and have as many features as Ubuntu and work on a wide range of hardware; still fitting on a single Live disc. Once you get used to Ubuntu and a general idea of how Linux works, move on to something such as Slackware and get the gist of it and try other distros just to compare the features and how they work. Slackware makes a great desktop OS; I just wished the Slamd64 (Slackware alternative for 64-bit machines then) would actually install. And OK yes, Slamd64 it's an "unofficial port".

 

[caravel]

Yes I know what you are saying, but the fact that Ubuntu can detect all of these obscure hardware combos (X1150, BCM4300, Nvidia, every single hardware combo I threw at it) worked OUT OF THE BOX with no tweaking says a lot, and again if it wasn't for all the support and work going into this distro it would probably be #5 or less on distro watch.

It's popularity is down to marketing and the money thrown at the project. The hardware you're saying that was detected would be detected by any other distribution. The only exception is proprietary drivers for obvious reasons. Also you're wrong about it detecting all kinds of "obscure hardware combos". Again: it works for you, but there are plenty of people on the ubuntuforums who's hardware it does not work so well with.

As for the MP3 player, it detected the brand and make. Normally distros it would just appear as either an MP3 player or Removable Media; it wouldn't gather all the info. Ubuntu is now at the point where there OS is rock solid; IE Jaunty; they felt 8.10 was good 'n rock solid and now needed to spend optimizing code, while at the same time making it a tad easier and convenient.

It is only removable media so the brand and make are unimportant to the user. Other distros are also detecting the brand and make but are not displaying it, or are using a different/older driver version to meet the same ends. (it's a simple device and vendor ID so there is no way that it could not be detected unless it's very new and uncrecognised)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble once again, but Ubuntu is not "rock solid". It's based on the unstable testing version of Debian, so it simply cannot be considered a "stable distro". I would ask you very kindly, without any insult intended, not to perpetuate this myth.

Sure, Ubuntu looks somewhat like Fedora and install process is similar to other distros, but when you combine all the things it does out of the box and it still fits on a single CD (compared to "bloated" distros that span multiple discs/DVD) and you can boot from it; it's amazing.

Ubuntu is a very bloated distro! Other distros simply have more software on the other discs for servers etc. With Ubuntu you fetch most of this from the repos.

The thing I see and gather from all these "Ubuntu haters" (not you; just many of the people I know and see on IRC) is they are just scared because it's gaining too much attraction and brining in some of the "Windows users" over to Linux. You know what that means, eventually if too many people move over to Linux you'll see those malicious programmers start targeting more and more Linux boxes. You should see all the red hat fanatics that always say "Ubuntu isn't Linux it's Windows". Well that's what happens when a Linux distro comes "mainstream". Maybe some day another distro will be as stable and have as many features as Ubuntu and work on a wide range of hardware; still fitting on a single Live disc. Once you get used to Ubuntu and a general idea of how Linux works, move on to something such as Slackware and get the gist of it and try other distros just to compare the features and how they work. Slackware makes a great desktop OS; I just wished the Slamd64 (Slackware alternative for 64-bit machines then) would actually install. And OK yes, Slamd64 it's an "unofficial port".

You always get fanboys. But a lot of what you have said there is false information that is put out by Ubuntu fanboys. There are no real "haters". And the only reason why Ubuntu is disliked in some circles is because it feeds from downstream but pushes next to nothing back upstream. Ubuntu isn't a threat to anyone or anything. It's simply "not that great" and most of the fuss about it is pure hype. Like yourself I once used and loved Ubuntu, but then I discovered that there are other distributions out there from reading not just the Ubuntuforums. I also got sick of seeing unanswered questions and the fanboys ganging up in the testimonials forum to either lecture or flame anyone that complains.

 

[vahnx]

What other distros should do then is implement the "restricted driver system" (which I don't see how it can be bad; works fine for me every time) and display as much information as it can to help with the user experience if it wants to gain traction. I want Linux to succeed in the marketplace but it needs to do more than just "sit there". Of course the closest Linux is to getting mainstream with Windows and OS X as we know it is the netbook niche, and even there Linux is failing (some number a while back like 60% of netbooks with Linux were returned just because people didn't know how to use it) Now this is Linux in general, but it's safe to say Ubuntu was chosen for most of these machines. Would they have done better on netbooks with a different distro and have the support for it?

On MSN my one friend started a group convo with me because this lady's laptop had Ubuntu on it and she didn't know what to do with it and she immediately wanted Windows on it. She couldn't even get her dial-up modem working correctly even though the tools are there. Would they would of had a better chance with something other than that Ubuntu; should of they gone with another distro?

As for Ubuntu's "bloatness" I personally think it has the best balance of software needed for the average user with a clean UI out of the box. Also remember, 9.04 is very fast so they did slim out what I would consider "bloatness" being lots of redundant code and creating new methods for speeding things up (and they did jump on the ext4 bandwagon ahead of the big others which helped a lot). For server side, they make a server edition with just a command line. I don't see how anyone can think it's still bloated for a 650MB CD unless you compare it with DSL, Puppy, TinyMe, etc. which are missing half of the features of a typical Ubuntu install.

Mostly the fact I stand up for Ubuntu is in my experience with on not just my machine, with several machines, it just detects it all and runs fast. With older versions though; eg: I popped in a 7.10 disc in my desktop and it wouldn't even boot, whereas 8.04+ did. Same with a classmates laptop; tried I believe it was 8.04 and it would boot but hang, and half of the 7.10 or 8.04 (can't remember) discs have issues booting on Dell Optiplex 260 (maybe 230) model, but there was a solution I found. You Google for any Ubuntu problem and there is a higher chance of finding the solution compared to other distros because of the sheer amount of user base, and some solutions on any Linux forum can/may apply to other distros as well.

 

[caravel]

What other distros should do then is implement the "restricted driver system" (which I don't see how it can be bad; works fine for me every time) and display as much information as it can to help with the user experience if it wants to gain traction.

The "restricted drivers" now known as "hardware drivers" applet works for you, but doesn't work for everyone. No other distributions would adopt it - and I think it may one of those bits of Ubuntu's proprietary code anyway (as with the launchpad.net software). But don't quote me on that.

I want Linux to succeed in the marketplace but it needs to do more than just "sit there".

Linux has never really set out to do this. It's FOSS and that's what's good about about it! Once it starts going for profit... well that's the beginning of the end. I for one hope that the current situation of freedom, choice, security and stability lasts. Iit's not really an issue for me if the OS I use is well marketed or popular or not. The main thing is if it does what I want it to do.

Of course the closest Linux is to getting mainstream with Windows and OS X as we know it is the netbook niche, and even there Linux is failing (some number a while back like 60% of netbooks with Linux were returned just because people didn't know how to use it) Now this is Linux in general, but it's safe to say Ubuntu was chosen for most of these machines. Would they have done better on netbooks with a different distro and have the support for it?

It's not safe to say that the majority used Ubuntu no. A large number of netbooks were preloaded with Linpus Lite. I doubt they would have done better with any Linux distro. The problem is that the masses are not ready for Linux yet. It's not that Linux is that difficult, it's just that people are so used to Windows. People forget that MacOSX has the same issues - people are simply not familiar with it. It's important to remember that there are no distributions that are setting out to take one Windows - not even Ubuntu has made this claim. The problem lies in that popular culture assumes it does. This is because people cannot shake off the proprietary way of thinking. "oh if these Ubuntu people have started a new OS that means they want to compete with Windows right?" Wrong. Even Apples are not competing with Windows for the desktop market. Apple have has their own following since day one and it has always been like that. Apple has actually been losing out due to a lot of the old Mac exclusive software becoming available on the PC. This is why they've diversified into other personal data products that tie in with their OS. (the "Apple lock in" in action.)

On MSN my one friend started a group convo with me because this lady's laptop had Ubuntu on it and she didn't know what to do with it and she immediately wanted Windows on it. She couldn't even get her dial-up modem working correctly even though the tools are there. Would they would of had a better chance with something other than that Ubuntu; should of they gone with another distro?

Exactly. Average Joe wants what he's familiar with. Ubuntu is supposed to be "Linux for Human Beings", yet this lady could not get on with it. This goes towards proving the point that Ubuntu is "mis sold" as a "user friendly" distro. I've used all version of Ubuntu since Dapper and Debian since Sarge and I can tell you for a fact that Ubuntu is no more or less user friendly than Debian - or any other mainstream desktop distro for that matter - and if it is, the difference is negligible. You have to remember that most users don't play games so 3D won't be an issue, so installing the ATI or Nvidia proprietary kernel modules won't be something they'll be doing. Also most of such people don't know how to install a device driver under Windows anyway. Wireless and wired networking works the same in Debian as it does in Ubuntu, the only difference is the installation of the proprietary wireless drivers using the "hardware drivers" applet. But 9 times out of 10 you don't need these as there is a more stable FOSS driver available or you end up having to use ndiswrapper anyway. A poll would be interesting on the Ubuntu forums: Do you have the proprietary ATI/Nvidia drivers installed? Yes, No, Don't no, didn't work. I think the results would be surprising.

As for Ubuntu's "bloatness" I personally think it has the best balance of software needed for the average user with a clean UI out of the box. Also remember, 9.04 is very fast so they did slim out what I would consider "bloatness" being lots of redundant code and creating new methods for speeding things up (and they did jump on the ext4 bandwagon ahead of the big others which helped a lot). For server side, they make a server edition with just a command line. I don't see how anyone can think it's still bloated for a 650MB CD unless you compare it with DSL, Puppy, TinyMe, etc. which are missing half of the features of a typical Ubuntu install.

9.04 is not any "faster" than previous versions in real terms. The only difference is a faster boot. Boot up is not usually a factor for Linux users as we are used to having a stable OS that rarely needs rebooting (unlike windows that often needs rebooting daily). Debian 5.0 still boots much faster than Ubuntu 9.04 anyway. Optimizing the boot up is another bit of "marketing" from canonical. This "fast booting" mentality mainly comes from Windows users that see the boot time as a measure of how fast their hardware is. It's not relevant.

Mostly the fact I stand up for Ubuntu is in my experience with on not just my machine, with several machines, it just detects it all and runs fast. With older versions though; eg: I popped in a 7.10 disc in my desktop and it wouldn't even boot, whereas 8.04+ did. Same with a classmates laptop; tried I believe it was 8.04 and it would boot but hang, and half of the 7.10 or 8.04 (can't remember) discs have issues booting on Dell Optiplex 260 (maybe 230) model, but there was a solution I found. You Google for any Ubuntu problem and there is a higher chance of finding the solution compared to other distros because of the sheer amount of user base, and some solutions on any Linux forum can/may apply to other distros as well.

I talk to people all the time that see things very differently to this. If you go to the official forums you will see hundreds of unanswered posts. In the past I've googled searching for resolutions to some small and obscure problems I've had with Debian (usually when installing games or anything to do with wireless NICs). The results are very predictable: stacks of "ubuntuforums" results. I usually know what these will be like before I even click on them so these days I rarely bother. It's usually either "reinstall" or the post asking the same question as me is completely unanswered!

On the whole though most people find that their hardware is detected and it all works well, though the same would occur if they installed Debian.