Hacker News Reader

All of your complaints seem to be about the defaults. That's fine, but I don't see that it makes sense to switch distribution because you don't like the defaults, given that all the other options are available inside Debian and/or Ubuntu as well. There's Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Ubuntu GNOME, Kubuntu etc. all of which have different desktop environment defaults, enthusiastic developers who look after it. Some intend to switch to Mir, and some do not. Switching distribution because you don't like the main Ubuntu flavour's defaults is just fragmentation when there's no need for it. There may be plenty of valid reasons, but not liking the defaults is not one of them.

> Millions is spent on Ubuntu but seems like little makes it upstream.

I don't think you appreciate how much work does go upstream. Thousands of patches go upstream (eg. http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_usertag.cgi; and that's just stuff that went directly Debian and was tagged as such). Driver work for new hardware enablements go to the upstream kernel so that Ubuntu developers don't have to maintain it. And Canonical is upstream for a number of projects (eg. they pioneered faster boot speeds with upstart, which went into RHEL). You just don't see this in action because the community works, and work done in one distribution ends up in all the others. So you don't realise how much of the other distribution you're using involves work originally done in Ubuntu.

ripb "All of your complaints seem to be about the defaults."

Only one of five is a default issue and I even declared it a default issue and how I go around defaults.

1. Mir is a huge mistake (My opinion)

2. Unity (Well I am tiled window manager (i3) guy now so all DEs) I really don't like the flow of OS X and it is starting to really look more like OS X. DEFAULT an easily be changed.

3. Lack of community between the Linux ecosystem. Millions is spent on Ubuntu but seems like little makes it upstream.

4. Software Center. They need to just take OpenSUSE's one-click model and get rid of their current model of App Store and the horrible app model. (My model)

5. Their Developer SDK to "Write once, run everywhere." If I had a nickel for every time that was promised (Java looking at you) Once again OpenSUSE Build Service is the most underused Linux tool in the last decade

> 1. Mir is a huge mistake (My opinion)

Defaults. Kubuntu developers have said that they will not be using Mir. Thus I expect X/Wayland to be available in the repositories and used by default by alternative flavours.

> 2. Unity (Well I am tiled window manager (i3) guy now so all DEs) I really don't like the flow of OS X and it is starting to really look more like OS X. DEFAULT an easily be changed.

Defaults. Alternative Ubuntu flavours provide alternative DE defaults.

> 3. Lack of community between the Linux ecosystem. Millions is spent on Ubuntu but seems like little makes it upstream.

I addressed this separately.

> 4. Software Center. They need to just take OpenSUSE's one-click model and get rid of their current model of App Store and the horrible app model. (My model)

Defaults. You can use whichever front-end to apt you wish; Software Center is just the default. If there's an alternative available in Debian, Ubuntu has it. Examples: Synaptic, gdebi-gtk. Sure, they aren't complete replacements. But if a suitable Free alternative is written, I expect that it will be packaged in Debian and be available in Ubuntu.

> 5. Their Developer SDK to "Write once, run everywhere."

Defaults. You don't have to use their developer SDK (except perhaps for apps that will work on Ubuntu Phone through the default app store; but then other distributions have no answer to that, do they?). Traditional dependency and package -based development is still available and is not going away.

Ubuntu are adding to what was there previously. They are not replacing things, except that they are using their new stuff as the default. Your complaints are about what Ubuntu are doing; except that all the traditional stuff that other distributions have are still available. This is why your arguments still boil down to arguments about defaults.

How is any of this a default issue it is a philosophy issue:

1. Mir they shouldn't do this. Again Philosophy.

2. Unity they shouldn't follow OS X lead. Again Philosophy.

4. Software Center - It is where you BUY programs and magazines. It is not a default it is how they run the business. Again Philosophy.

5. SDK is another HUGE philosophy issue. This write for Ubuntu is not Linux friendly. Again Philosophy.

>Switching distribution because you don't like the main Ubuntu flavour's defaults is just fragmentation when there's no need for it.

What reason would you have to stay with Ubuntu if you don't like any of its defaults? If someone doesn't like Ubuntu's changes to Debian, but still uses Ubuntu, isn't that just fragmentation when there's no need for it?

People always mention Unity as a non-selling point of Ubuntu, but I have to say I quite like it. Granted, my background is strange--last time I personally used something other than OS X for daily use was WindowMaker on NetBSD ~2003. I've used various unixen for servers / clusters, and I've supported others using Ubuntu workstations for scientific work since I used a FOSS desktop myself, but even that was 4 years ago now. Maybe I qualify a a crotchety neophyte?

The set of applications I now use has changed quite a lot recently, and now I find myself reevaluating Ubuntu. And while I gather people didn't like the change over to Unity, I'm appreciating the thoughtful UI choices and find it to be a selling point (it's been a long time since I've needed to do anything like tweak an .fvwmrc file!)

Whether or not Canonical can execute on it, I also like the direction they're going with the convergence stuff in Unity. My phone actually is approaching the level of power that I need in a desktop computer. The ability to dock it and still have Emacs seems pretty powerful. MS and Apple will get there in some form, but I suspect their visions of convergence will be somewhat more restrictive in terms of what I can do.

Whether or not they need Mir for that vision, I've no idea. However, I remember people talking about X11 replacements clear back in the long ago, and being disappointed for years. Canonical seems pretty close to delivering something that they say will enable them to do something that I think will be cool. And, I believe they've said it will be open source. Thus, I really don't get what all the flap about Mir is. If someone wants to prove the viability / superiority of Wayland by building the Ubuntu convergence phone ahead of canonical, more power to them.

So what? These aren't criticisms of today's release at all.

Mir isn't even used in 13.10.

I don't think there are any distributions which ship with i3 so you would have to install i3 in any case, that isn't a fault of Ubuntu's and since you are not using it anyway, who cares if it looks like OS X to you?

Ubuntu's work is open source, the code is there under a liberal license, what do you even want?

If you don't like software center, use apt-get or synaptic. Their "App Store" isn't for you but I am glad they have one to encourage a market for Linux software. If you don't like it, don't use it, it's not harming you.

I don't know what developer SDKs have to do with anything. This isn't Android, it's normal Linux. Write a Linux app and it runs on Ubuntu.

Why would I look at OpenSUSE if I do not specifically want an RPM-based distribution oriented toward KDE? If those are your preferences then why are you even complaining about Ubuntu?

So what? These aren't criticisms of today's release at all.

Mir isn't even used in 13.10

BUT they are spending resources on Mir WHEN they could have just gone with Wayland.

> BUT they are spending resources on Mir WHEN they could have just gone with Wayland.

They can spend resources on what they like. This isn't a zero sum game. This doesn't take other Free software away from you. This doesn't remove other Free software from Ubuntu's repositories.

> they could have just gone with Wayland.

I don't pretend to understand the technical details. But they seem to be the only ones pushing a full traditional distribution onto a phone. They've made it happen.

This is Free software. You go use Wayland on your phone that you don't have and enjoy whatever full traditional Linux distribution that doesn't exist there, and I'll use Mir on the phone I can have today and enjoy a standard Linux distribution on it.

I share your hate of unity, that is why I have switched to ubuntu-gnome. ubuntu-gnome is an official variant of ubuntu (not perfect, but reasonably easy to customized). As a result, it is already available here: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-gnome/releases/13.10/releas...

> People need to look at OpenSUSE again!

Isn't it really beautiful that we actually can do this, now? We can switch platforms within the same day - without real hassle or pain.

I mean tell a Windows or Apple user that they need to look at something else, and guess what their answer will be...

My guess is "why? everything is working".

Or "Why? I've got used to working around all the things that aren't working".

Like what?

I'd reply to that: Various types of freedom and a higher degree of respect for your privacy (I know, it's not a cure-all solution, but the next step that needs to be taken by society).

Are these things something manufacturers put in the specifications for the computers the sell? Are these things something customers shopping for a computer look for?

lol it's funny I'm getting downmoded as if I am responsible for the answers to these questions.

Actually yes, probably. Most people don't understand the importance of transparency for a real and working democracy. "Transparency" as in "open source code", for example.

I agree that they don't understand, and further more, they don't even understand what 'code' is. How computers work, or what the technical innards of the computers have to do with democracy. Frankly, I don't understand the later either :(

> what the technical innards of the computers have to do with democracy. Frankly, I don't understand the later either :(

We're about to connect every tiny little aspect of our lives to technology. Everything becomes data that can be stored, measured, interpreted, used for good and nefarious purposes. Code is what manages all these processes. If we let black-box code (closed-source code) control our data, it means we trust those companies and governments who produce this code 100% and beyond the slightest doubt. Given Snowden's revelations about the NSA's abuse of power, it's become pretty obvious that we couldn't make a bigger mistake than trusting nontransparent governments or systems or operating systems or code. Even hardware needs to become open-source sooner or later.

Simple question: Can we ever trust voting machines that are not 100% open-source? Of course not.

Having spent yesterday setting up a new laptop to dual boot Windows and Ubuntu, Ubuntu works far, far better.

Windows needed drivers installing for everything from the network interface up. And I'm still having troubles with the network - I can use wifi fine, but the wired connection refuses to pick up an IP with DHCP.

Ubuntu on the other hand needed a single change to the boot parameters to make screen brightness adjustments work. (Windows also needed a driver for this). Otherwise it works perfectly.

Are you saying Ubuntu has better driver support than Windows?

Without question - thats been true for a few years now.

I'm not the parent, but that has been my experience. Linux works better out of the box on my machine than Windows 7.

I think the point was that it frequently has a simpler install experience, which is true. It doesn't have better driver support for ATI video cards or Broadcom wifi cards.

Yes.

A million times yes.

About a month ago now, my laptop's windows install decided to take a dive so I reinstalled windows and took it as an opportunity to dual boot ubuntu as well. Ubuntu worked out of the box. I'm still finding things that need drivers a month later in windows.

I don't think this opinion can be based on personal experience. One or two computers, especially developers machines are a sample size too small. Also, I've had an opposite experiences. Not to mention that what we most notice is divergence from the past trend. Regardless, I don't think many hardware manufacturers prioritize Linux for their deployment. I can see, however, that since the latest Ubuntu image is at most 6 months old, it can have more built in, while Windows 7 is many years old now, tends to require 'Windows Update' to get all the latest drivers. Overall, however, I think Windows gets way more driver support just because of the market. I don't know how you can argue that.

Been my experience too. But I would like to point out, in October 2013, for the first time in my twenty year history of using Windows computers, Windows 7 managed to find the drivers for a piece of hardware I have, a usb soundcard, Online!

As someone who has installed various distros on desktops and laptops many dozens of times (maybe over a hundred) since 1997, let me point out that while there's a decent chance of having no "real hassle or pain", the chance is not insignificant that you will spend hours trying to fix something that went awry during a reinstall.

I'm definitely going to wait a little while to see if other people using packages I use have issues, and see what new tricks we have to pull to use Skype, etc.

Using the latest release of anything usually brings some issues, including Windows and Mac. I used to upgrade each time and with 12.04 I've decided to stay on it until 14.04. Skype, Eclipse, Steam, Netflix all work fine on 12.04 and 12.04's performance is great.

Wait, Netflix works on Linux? When did this happen?

Yep, at least on Ubuntu 12.04:

http://lifehacker.com/5963726/netflix-finally-comes-to-ubunt...

To add a little more info to that article ("The app basically packages WINE and Netflix into a simple little desktop app"), the package basically shows you the Netflix site in a Firefox frame with the silverlight plugin installed.

This argument is akin to saying "isn't it beautiful that I can go from Lion to Mountain Lion within the same day".

You aren't changing much, just who packaged the software together.

The point is that in the linux world you're choosing between competing distributors. In your example, they're both from Apple.

In the linux world you get a combination of 1. low switching costs between competitors (because, as you point out, most of the software is the same), and 2. competition between distributors. With Microsoft and Apple, if you want to choose between competitors, the cost of switching between them is much higher.

I like what they do with their distro.

I won't use it on desktop (I'm on gentoo for more than a decade and am very happy with it), but I use it on laptop and tried its mobile version on my nexus7 (ubuntu touch, but that's basically 13.10). It's only when I played with it on tablet that I understood what unity is about.

You compare it to macosx, and I agree, here : it's some kind of responsive interface, allowing to have the same feeling on a desktop, a laptop and a mobile. That's certainly not our usual linux environment, but I'm glad they're trying to innovate, here.

I can't wait to see what will come out of that when it's finished, because even the browser was quite unusable when I tried ubuntu touch (it keeps on clicking 25/50px above were I was tapping).

The qt5 development environment looks promising to write apps, too. Not only that will be nice to write mobile apps, but even to write desktop small apps and widgets. Each time I tried to write some kde javascript plasma widget, it was painful by lack of documentation and lack of debug features. Ubuntu sdk looks great, so far (just sad it's just for ubuntu).

> People need to look at OpenSUSE again!

Agree. Not because I necessary dislike Ubuntu, but because openSUSE is awesome. It's insanely flexible (hence the chameleon mascot), fast, YaST is great, one-click installs are great for newbies, openSUSE build service is great, and installing software/new repositories is very easy. Zypper also beats yum and apt-get...

can you use obs to build packages straight from git? Tarball based build workflows seam rather outdated to me.

Yeah, you can. The functionality is called "services". I'm not sure how auto-versioning would work with git though. I have packages building from SVN, and OBS updates the spec file automagically to set the version to the SVN revision.

Git describe is what you want.

it will take the nearest tag name and use that as the version with the number of commits from that tag as the release value.