Ubuntu

[loganweaver]

I was given a second computer by an in-law. Nothing fancy just the basics. I thought what the heck why not format the drive to get rid of all the crap and make it an open source computer. In no time at all I installed Ubuntu desktop and it is off and running. No problems.
Hey, as long as I can get to this forum what else do I need a computer for?

 

[rawkstar]

Ubuntu rocks. I run it on my home computer!

 

[no1likesme]

ubuntu does indeed rock.

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

Yep, Ubuntu is my linux of choice these days. I've even installed the "edubuntu" for a few lower income folks with old computers. It comes with a bit less loaded up, and performs better on slower machines. For people that just need to surf, email, pay bills it's a fantastic and free solution. Just can't wait for the day my employer says, "All right f$%k Microsoft...we're going open source!". I can dream right?

 

[EdWort]

I got it on a Dell Mini 9 and it works great. Not bad for $199. For portability web access it rocks.

 

[Saccharomyces]

I use Debian but thatz because I'm a total nerd. ubuntu is fine too.

Linux has come a long way on the desktop in the last few years.

 

[Short Drive]

I could never get use to a Debian distribution. It has always been SuSE for me. I just like YAST and how it is set up. Please don't take this the wrong way . I've read lot about Ubuntu and am convinced it is great. But I'm just use to SuSE.

 

[kaiser423]

I use Debian but thatz because I'm a total nerd. ubuntu is fine too.

Linux has come a long way on the desktop in the last few years.

So how is it like, living back in 2005?

Just kidding, I know that if you're running the right branches of Debian that you're reasonably up to date. I ran it for a number of years myself. then Gentoo for a while, and now I've stuck with Kubuntu for the past couple of years. It's the way to go!

 

[williec30]

we are in the process of migrating some of our application services from fedora core to the ubuntu server platform... the progress has been great so far. fedora is a nice distro, in too many occasions they tend to go overboard with including packages that aren't needed.

apt-get is a nice breath of fresh air, that's for sure

 

[Tenchiro]

I am currently on Fedora 9 on my laptop but thinking about switching back to Ubuntu when they release the new version in April. The boot time is supposed the drastically shorter in that release so it will be a good thing if they can pull it off.

Mint is a good build as well and based off Ubuntu.

 

[Mutilated1]

Both my kids and my wife use Ubuntu at home. We have two PCs on Hardy Heron and one on Gutsy Gibbon. The Gutsy PC will probably go to Hardy soon because Gnome Rhtyhmbox stopped working with my daughters iPod a few weeks ago and GTK-Gnutella isn't maintained for Gutsy anymore so its a little out of date.

I have the only Windows PC in our household, well its not really mine - it belongs to my employer.

I also have a web server running something between Edgy and Fiesty... Apache2, PHP5, mySQL.

I'm a Windows expert and more or less a beginner to intermediate level Linux user and I really don't see how anyone would want to screw with Windows, Ubuntu is loads better. I wouldn't use Windows at all except that is what my employer pays me for.

 

[williec30]

I got it on a Dell Mini 9 and it works great. Not bad for $199. For portability web access it rocks.

edwort... where did you find that machine for $199? is that the 512mb/4gb model?

 

[Mutilated1]

Bought a new Dell Inspiron laptop preloaded with Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex for my wife and it arrived this week. 2 GB memory, 2GHz Pentium T4400, 15.6" glossy LCD screen -- got it complete and delivered for only $460 and change. Its really sweet and she loves it. It blows my Windows Laptop away which is remarkable considering I've got a much faster processer than she does. Windows sucks, but I get paid to use it so I can deal - lol

My son was impressed with her Intrepid Ibex and he wanted an upgrade, so we decided to load Jaunty Jackalope on his PC and test that out. The whole process of backing up his files and work, downloading and burning the Jaunty CD, rebooting into the install, repartioning his hard drive, and installing Jaunty took under an hour. Try doing that with Windows. It would have taken less time than that, but the installer appeared to get "stuck" at 82% "Scanning the Mirror...". and it took me a few minutes to realize it was going to take all night if we waited because the default Ubuntu mirrors are painfully slow on occasion, so I just went to the router and pulled his network cord out so it would time out and continue. The install was complete and ready to reboot before I could walk back to his computer. Rebooted his computer, put the cable back and added the Jaunty Restricted pacakges from universe so he could have Flash, Java, mp3, DVD and all those goodies and enabled the Restricted nVidia drivers and it was rocking.

I'm going to setup a local mirror on one of my machines or change to Georgia Techs mirror and install a Jaunty Jackalop over my other Hardy Heron and my Gutsy Gibbon this weekend. Once I have a faster mirror setup instead of the default us.archive.ubuntu mirror which is painful slow, I should be able to install and completely update both machines in 30 minutes or less.

And anyway, getting back on the subject of Dell and Ubuntu -- I highly highly recommend you give them a try next time you buy a computer. Their custom distro of Intrepid Ibex has Java, DVD MP3, Adobe Flash, Compiz and everything enabled right out of the box.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

For those looking to use old machines, check out Damn Small Linux (DSL). It can be installed as a standalone OS for under 100 MB. It has my 512MB 4Gb SOny Vaio from 1994 running just as fast as my work computer for word processing and internet access and any regular stuff. Sweet stuff.

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

For those looking to use old machines, check out Damn Small Linux (DSL). It can be installed as a standalone OS for under 100 MB. It has my 512MB 4Gb SOny Vaio from 1994 running just as fast as my work computer for word processing and internet access and any regular stuff. Sweet stuff.

Seconded! DSL is easy to use once you get used to the spartan interface. It's great for those people with old computers that just want to be able to use email and internet.

 

[Kauai_Kahuna]

Tenchiro - At least I'm not the last holdout still using Fedora, on version 10 now looking at moving to 11.

 

[mmb]

I use CentOS because that's what I run on a majority of my servers. Nice having the same EVERYTHING so I can have my devel test environment wherever I go.

Got into RedHat back in '98 with release 5.0 and I've used debian, gentoo, SuSe and Slackware but always end up back with RedHat releases. Now it's CentOS. *shrug*

 

[SmugMug]

This may come off as a little bit snobbish, but after using RedHat for so long, Ubuntu just doesn't do it for me. I'll still take it over Solaris, but that isn't saying a whole lot (enter potential Solaris advocates). I like having full root access and you just can't do it with Ubuntu. Superuser is not the same as root. It's great for a novice Linux user since it protects you from potentially wrecking the OS, but it just has a nerfed and sterile feel to it.

Then again, if I'm using a Linux/Unix OS, I'm rarely using the GUI and Ubuntu seems to have been developed around it. To each his own.

FWIW - Vista is a piece of crap transitional OS. I highly recommend not using it, unless you loved the way ME worked.

 

[Mutilated1]

I like having full root access and you just can't do it with Ubuntu.

Uh, yes you can get full root access - its just not the default. I can setup my Ubuntu machines to use a root user just as quickly as I can setup your RedHat machines not to and make your red hat machines do it the way Ubuntu does.

But the question really is why ? Ubuntu's way is just better as it doesn't encourage people who don't really know what they are doing in the first place to think that they need to have full root access.

Superuser is not the same as root.

Strictly speaking of user privildge, yes it is exactly the same thing. Now as superuser you won't have a /home/root hierarchy setup by default unless you take steps to create it yourself, but doing that would encourage you to run as root now wouldn't it ? Next thing you know people would be saying stupid things like "I like having full root access".

 

[SmugMug]

Mutilated1

Why the butthurt? No need to get hostile. You like Ubuntu, I don't. I don't use RedHat everyday, but when I do, it's on a network security level. That means I need full root access to lock down/securely configure the system. All I'm saying is that I feel like Ubuntu is a Linux OS for the Windows user. It's always in self preservation mode.

 

[jds]

Mutilated1

Why the butthurt? No need to get hostile. You like Ubuntu, I don't. I don't use RedHat everyday, but when I do, it's on a network security level. That means I need full root access to lock down/securely configure the system. All I'm saying is that I feel like Ubuntu is a Linux OS for the Windows user. It's always in self preservation mode.

I think that's exactly the point. Doing anything on ubuntu (I'm on kubuntu Hardy) as root is pretty simple:

jskaggs@blaster:~$ sudo su -
root@blaster:~# whoami
root
root@blaster:~# pwd
/root
root@blaster:~# rm -rf /*

ok, the last line's a joke.

Honestly, I've had no problems living as a non-superuser on my own machine for the most part. Between shell stuff and occasionally starting apps via kdesu, I've never been locked out of anything. Sure, /home/root is unpopulated. Never been a problem for me.

 

[z987k]

This may come off as a little bit snobbish, but after using RedHat for so long, Ubuntu just doesn't do it for me. I'll still take it over Solaris, but that isn't saying a whole lot (enter potential Solaris advocates). I like having full root access and you just can't do it with Ubuntu. Superuser is not the same as root. It's great for a novice Linux user since it protects you from potentially wrecking the OS, but it just has a nerfed and sterile feel to it.

Then again, if I'm using a Linux/Unix OS, I'm rarely using the GUI and Ubuntu seems to have been developed around it. To each his own.

FWIW - Vista is a piece of crap transitional OS. I highly recommend not using it, unless you loved the way ME worked.

So do you just as root the whole time... like just login as root then?

I'm having a hard time thinking of what you would need full time root for.

 

[cd2448]

i had ubuntu on our 6 year old big desktop PC for a while. the install was awesome, it recognised everything on there and everything worked nicely.

got rid of it because SWMBO claimed it crashed more often than windows XP and i think she was right - could have been driver issues with the hardware being so old - and also because it didn't like acting as a server for media files to my xbox downstairs. i wanted to set up one of those mental media center extender things but got frustrated and just canned the lot.

i'd definitely try it again. might look into these netbooks etc. that i think would be ideal for ubuntu or DSL.

 

[Mutilated1]

Mutilated1

Why the butthurt? No need to get hostile. You like Ubuntu, I don't. I don't use RedHat everyday, but when I do, it's on a network security level. That means I need full root access to lock down/securely configure the system. All I'm saying is that I feel like Ubuntu is a Linux OS for the Windows user. It's always in self preservation mode.

I'm not butthurt or hostile.

In many ways Ubuntu is a Linux distro thats geared towards Windows type users. Ease of instal and relatively little required configuration for example.

Not having a root user account is not really one of those reasons.

Fact of the matter is you can have a root user account in Ubuntu if you want to, just like you can just as easily run your Red Hat systems without one. Statements like "you can't have root access in Ubuntu" are just wrong.

Just like the idea that you have to have full root access to lock down and securely configure the system is just wrong. Just not true. Its not true in Ubuntu and its not true in Red Hat either.

Use whichever you like, its no skin off my nose either way.

 

[mmb]

This may come off as a little bit snobbish, but after using RedHat for so long, Ubuntu just doesn't do it for me. I'll still take it over Solaris, but that isn't saying a whole lot (enter potential Solaris advocates). I like having full root access and you just can't do it with Ubuntu. Superuser is not the same as root. It's great for a novice Linux user since it protects you from potentially wrecking the OS, but it just has a nerfed and sterile feel to it.

Not to be a dick, but you've been using your boxen wrong if you have to login as root to do tasks. RedHat always has supported robust sudo usage. Otherwise, you've not had proper security procedures established on your servers.

With a farm of 20+ boxen and a few "assistant" admins, I would have been lost without sudolog and a proper sudoers file.

 

[SmugMug]

Not to be a dick, but you've been using your boxen wrong if you have to login as root to do tasks. RedHat always has supported robust sudo usage. Otherwise, you've not had proper security procedures established on your servers.

With a farm of 20+ boxen and a few "assistant" admins, I would have been lost without sudolog and a proper sudoers file.

To clarify, anytime I am on a RedHat machine I HAVE to log on as root. I do not use RH as a primary work OS. You said

Otherwise, you've not had proper security procedures established on your servers.

That is precisely why I have to logon as root. I have to configure the OS to run securely for the primary users/groups according to specific information assurance standards. We have a lot of security tools/software that are used for this work and they cannot be run on a user or superuser account. Regardless, think of me and what I do as you will. I have my own 1st hand experience with both OSs and I simply prefer RH to Ubuntu because it's what I know best and performs the tasks I need it to better.