Why does everyone run Ubuntu :( Why not Arch?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, sorry for the mistake.
EMZ=]

I got 3 of my friends started out on Arch Linux after I did the basics for them, as in get all the hardware working excluding Xorg related things and at a console, gave them a crash course in pacman and then showed them a few DEs, one went for KDE 4.1 at the time, another went for XFCE4 and the last one ended up with a Custom Setup using Openbox, they tried ubuntu afterwards and pretty much hated its inflexibility, bloated startup services and annoying ubuntu patches that make installing things often a pain in the arse.

Ubuntu is now seen by the guys as a newbie OS for Mac/Win Converts who are lazy :p that being said it was easier to install Ubuntu on the EEE then it was Arch Linux, due to documentation flowing like water from the very pits of the internet.

The best thing about Ubuntu is their forum. It's excellent!

For me, personally, I don't like Ubuntu and feel happy if I can use Debian instead. And since all distributions is Linux, it's all the same with the kernel anyway.

It's possible to take whichever distribution you like and compile your own kernel with it and then you can throw in packages from different distributions in one distribution. I've done it myself, but it can cause some problems with conflicting packages. With Debian one always have the possibility to remove conflicting packages and it doesn't need to destroy the whole Linux distribution just because of this. I'm not sure which distribution is worst in this scenario, but from my short experience with Ubuntu I experienced it as buggy and I didn't like it one bit.

I installed Xubuntu with ease a couple years ago with no Unix/Linux knowledge. I was drawn to it because my Windows XP was slow no matter how much I tweaked it, and I heard that Ubuntu was very newbie-friendly and easy to install. I still use Ubuntu (with Gnome though, not XFCE) because I like it. The only problem I have had with it is when the system broke completely after an accidental hard reboot, and it's fast. Now that I know more about how to use Linux, I want to try other BSD or Linux OS's when I get more hard drive space.

Is Ubuntu even the easiest distro to choose? VectorLinux is a 15-minute installation and comes pre-loaded with basically everything, including proprietary plugins and such. OpenSUSE has a pretty similar installation wizard to Ubuntu, and I don't see how it would really be harder to deal with. Even Debian Lenny has a very easy installer. Sure, it's text-based, but it's not hard to work with, especially if you aren't trying for some convoluted multi-boot setup. Heck, most of the time you can just hit "enter" and it will use a good default, so you don't need to really know all that much to install Debian as a single-boot. From what I've heard I imagine Fedora's not that rough. Sabayon is easy except that I seemed to have an unsupported wifi card (but then, I didn't spend as much time trying to get it to work as I did in Ubuntu, so probably it could have worked as well). Unless you're doing something like Arch, Slackware, or Gentoo I'd think most of Linux distros are fairly accessible. (Can't say for sure as I've never tried any of those three though)

I couldn't even get Gentoo to install XD.
I'll probably try in a VM later, when I acquire a bigger HDD.
EMZ=P

A word about SuSE: SuSE is hopeless blown-up, installing almost everything which able to install, but: The YAST-administration-tool is one of the most simple to handle and understand administration tools around and SAX is the easiest to handle interface to configure the X-server.

I am in strong doubt that Ubuntu does beat SuSE here.

<<Is a Xubuntu/vista user,previously used SuSE pro retail edition and Ubuntu Hoary hedgehog triple boot on pc with xp pro.
not used linux for years until recently when decided to start back again with Xfce this time.
Don't care if am seen as a 'true linux user' or not because that isnt why am use linux anyway,it isnt about what look like to anyone else,it's an individual experience that matters only what each user wants to do with their setup.

The Debian installer which comes with Lenny is able to install in graphical mode these days. You'll need to choose installgui, since It's not default.

With Debian a lot of things needs to be done after an standard install, but it all depends on how much you as a user would like to do with the system. It's not possible to even play DVD:s after a standard install of Debian Lenny.

Huh, I didn't know that. I'd probably use the text installer anyways.

The Debian project is just a tad on the extremist end of the free software world, and their system loses some functionality it could/should have because of it.

OK - the ugly debate between the debain and mozilla-organisation is too well known (and those how don't know about it, better keep in this state of innocence), but a debian-system does not stop you to install other software, the only short coming is that new software does not go into debian distribution that quickly (even lenny still works with OpenOffice 2.4 - current version 3.0.0 - and Gimp 2.4.7 - current version 2.6.4) or is not part of the release at all.

But debian was never intended for the lay-user and therefore this should be no real problem.

Shuttleworth is a badass, and the concept behind Ubuntu is beautiful.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFacRsGWZqQ[/youtube]

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ke-kel9zOFo&NR=1[/youtube]

I've watched hours of Shuttleworth on YouTube, surrounded whole days around it. God, what a genius.

So? Some of us just want a free OS that will install out of box... We don't have the incredible amount of time on our hands to configure and compile our own kernel, and get a system working after that...