The other questions are probably more interesting:
What Linux distro do you primarily use on your non-server computers?
Ubuntu - 30%
Arch Linux - 23%
Debian - 8%
Fedora - 7%
Linux Mint - 7%
Gentoo - 4%
Xubuntu - 4%
Kubuntu - 3%
no response - 2%
Linux Mint Debian - 2%
Other - 9%
What Linux distro do you primarily use on your server computers?
no response - 26%
Debian - 22%
Ubuntu - 18%
CentOS - 10%
Arch Linux - 8%
RHEL - 4%
Gentoo - 4%
Fedora - 2%
Slackware - 1%
OpenSUSE - 1%
Other - 4%
If you want to take the "most hated" statistic seriously, then you also will have to admit that Debian and Ubuntu dominate the server market. I guess that Red Hat should give up and just wind up the company, as they can't really hope to survive with only 4% market share. As for the desktop, well clearly Ubuntu and Arch are so far ahead of everyone else that they have no real competition.
Or perhaps this entire survey is rubbish and the person who started this thread is engaging in some blatant trolling.
I would suggest using Bash for simple things, and Python for more complicated things. There are advantages to each. Sometimes you even want to write some small programs in Python that you call from Bash scripts.
As for Python versus Ruby, I think the standard library in Python is much better documented than the one for Ruby. That can make a big difference if you are trying to get something done but aren't sure how to do it.
CBC: $25 computer 'Raspberry Pi' readies for launch
There's a news article in the CBC about this today. There's not a lot of new information in the story, but I find it of interest because it's a mainstream news site as opposed to computer enthusiast site.
I plan on getting my hands on one of these eventually. It looks like a good platform for experimenting with embedded applications.
If all you have to sign in for is GMail, try using a different browser just for GMail, and use that browser only for GMail. A good example would be to use Epiphany for GMail, and FIrefox for everything else. That keeps the cookies and cookie systems completely separated.
Google could try tracking people by IP address, but that is of limited usefulness to them so I think they'll just stick to cookies. If all Epiphany ever sees is GMail, then there won't be a lot of that Google can do with their tracking cookies. It would also be convenient to use, as you can quit Firefox while leaving your e-mail account running.
Web mail is nice, but perhaps what people need (if they don't want POP or IMAP) is some sort of "GMail app" that is just a simple web browser that connects to GMail and nothing else. That would have all the advantages of web mail, without the associated headaches.
I don't have Flash installed, and I don't have any problems watching most YouTube videos. I see a brief message in the video window with a message saying that it can't detect Flash, and then the video starts playing anyway. There is the occasional video which for some reason won't play (it will say that I don't have the correct codec installed), but those are rare. The same is true for embedded YouTube videos on other web sites.
Flash ads never work, but that doesn't bother me. Useful web sites that depend on Flash on the other hand are rare as hen's teeth.
I'm using Firefox on Ubuntu 11.10 64 bit.
As Raumkraut pointed out, Google does not own Motorola yet, and Microsoft sued Motorola first, and Motorola is retaliating. This is standard practice in a lawsuit.
As for Florian Mueller, he's a PR consultant specializing in using "new media". He comments on anything you hire him to comment on. If you don't agree with what Raumkraut had to say, then just hire Florian Mueller to spread FUD about how evil Raumkraut is.
Laptops aren't lighter than tablets, so I don't see why you think they will be any easier to hold. As for "ultrabooks", that's just Intel's trademarked name for a generic PC version of an Apple laptop - you know the one from the same company that is selling all those iPads? If "ultrabooks" were going to "do for the tablet", then why aren't Apple's laptops killing the iPad?
I don't have a tablet, and I'm not planning on buying one at the moment (because of the cost). However, I know people who do have them, I've used them, and I can recognize what the attraction is.
As for laptops with touch screens, that is truly a plan that is worthy of Baldrick. It would be too big, heavy, and clumsy to be used as a tablet, and a touch screen is useless on a laptop and just adds to the expense. Why not claim it can be used as a phone as well if you just add a microphone?
Microsoft tried promoting "slates" with MS Windows, fans, and hard drives for years, and they flopped. Sticking a keyboard on that contraption is just making it worse. A tablet isn't a laptop with a touch screen, just like a phone isn't a laptop with a microphone.
I think the point is that a tablet OS without apps is dead in the water, and expecting developers to create a whole new set of free software Linux apps for an Ubuntu tablet interface isn't realistic. What you want to be able to do is to make a good selection of existing desktop apps work on both a tablet and a desktop without having to completely re-write them.
I've been using Unity for a couple of months now, and it works better as a desktop UI than Gnome 2 ever did. If it also works as a tablet UI, then we can have the best of both worlds.
Why do I get the impression that the same people who piss and moan about how they don't like tablets are exactly the same people who next year will buy a tablet and then piss and moan about how their favourite Linux distro won't work properly on it because the UI wasn't designed for touch?
I can't see it replacing the menu system entirely though, since it's often necessary to browse, if you don't know exactly what you're looking for . . . especially with the example they use of Gimp filters.
Shuttleworth said there is no plan at present to remove the existing menus. They'll still be there in the next release of Ubuntu. As for browsing items, he also said that they recognize the need for it, and they are thinking about how to do it. It's not something that will be developed in one iteration however. As well, keep in mind that this only affects the less frequently used commands in a program. The most commonly used ones should be available as icons on tool bars, and these are not affected.
If you look at how this idea fits into the UI, some of their previous changes make more sense. A few releases ago they moved the traditional menu from the application to the "global" menu bar. This separates the menu from the application, which enables the option of supplementing or replacing the traditional menu with something else.
It also makes sense when you look at how they could make existing apps work on a tablet. Traditional wisdom (or at least the noise put out by Apple fan boys) has said that you need different apps for desktops and tablets because traditional menus won't work on touch interfaces, and desktop apps are too limited if they are designed for touch. Unity is an attempt to merge desktop and tablet interfaces into one unified UI. In the past I had doubts about whether this was possible, because of the problem posed by drop-down menus. The HUD attempts to address this directly. I haven't tried this out, but so far it looks like a very clever move.
Microsoft is attempting to accomplish the same thing by putting their Windows Phone interface on PCs and tablets (their "Metro" UI). From what I have seen of both, I think that Unity has a much better chance of being something that really works than Metro is. Apple is supposedly working on unifying their desktop and tablet UI as well, but we'll have to wait to see how they do it.
Dan and Fab talked about how people associate search with "Google". I know people who simply wouldn't understand what you were talking about if you tried to explain the concept of there being different search engines. A year or so ago, I was asked by someone who was getting a new computer whether it would "have Google in it". I tried to explain what Google was, but eventually had to give up and just say "yes, it does" (which is all she wanted to know). Oh, and this computer runs Ubuntu (which she's delighted with), so it's not like she's a person who won't try anything new.
How many people remember the Penguin Liberation Front? That used to be the first place you would go after installing Mandrake in order to get your "forbidden" (in a few countries) media codecs and encryption software. I just had a look and the website is still there, although it hasn't been updated since 2007.
There is a report on the Mandriva forums that Mandriva is going bankrupt and will stop operating within a couple of weeks.
Well,let's make it short: everything was fine, but there is a big problem: a minor shareholder (Linlux) refuses the capital injection required for Mandriva to continue, even though the Russian investor had offered to bear it alone.
Except turnaround Mandriva should cease activity Jan. 16 (Sorry for the bad news, for those who did not already know).
If this happens, that will be rather sad. I haven't used Mandriva in a few years, but like a lot of other people it was how I first got into using Linux. It once was the distro for people who just wanted something that was easy to install, polished, and designed for new users.
Mandrake (which became Mandriva after the merger with Connectiva) ran into financial problems a few years ago, due to new management making investments in software which was unrelated to the Linux distro. They survived that, but never really recovered their former popularity. The original founders of Mandriva also left the company to do other things. What is Mandriva today isn't the same as the old Mandrake that people remember.
Unless something unexpected happens in the next couple of weeks, they'll be gone. I've still got some old boxed sets (remember when downloading ISOs wasn't practical?), including version 8.1 from 2001. Perhaps it's time to clear off that shelf space to make room for something else.
I might be the one who sparked this by using the term "major distro" in another thread. By this I meant "used by a lot of people". I would consider the following to be major distros (in no particular order):
Read Hat RHEL
Suse Linux Enterprise
Below those, would be what I consider to be second tier distros (I'm probably missing a few here):
I'm not denigrating the quality of any distro by calling it "second tier" or not listing it. I'm simply saying I don't think it's as widely used. Also, I know that Centos is a clone of Red Hat, but it is managed as a separate distro. As for the "official" Ubuntu derivatives (Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.), I would just lump them in together with Ubuntu because they are officially supposed to be just different desktops for the same distro.
As for Mint, it might be a first tier distro, but I haven't seen any real evidence for that yet. I don't put much stock in Distrowatch rankings, as for example they list Red Hat at 31 (in between Tiny Core and CrunchBang) and Suse at 79 (between SalineOS and Connochaet). If you want to use Distrowatch rankings as evidence, then you would have to come up with a justification for excluding Red Hat and Suse from being a first tier distros, which would be ridiculous.
I want to be clear though that I don't equate popularity with quality. If a particular distro meets your needs better, that's fine. That's why we have different distros.
Phoronix Comparison wrote:
While some Phoronix readers and Phoronix Forums users thought that Fedora's increased usage of systemd would give it a lead in boot performance plus all of the other upstream optimizations and improvements made by the Fedora / Red Hat engineers, this was not the case in comparing Fedora 16 and Ubuntu 11.10.
That's what I was expecting too give that Pottering, in his LO interview, argued about start-up processes having to wait for other process to complete in the traditional boot and with upstart.
The start-up performance of upstart seems slightly better in these benchmarks: Ubuntu 11.10 vs. Fedora 16: Boot Speed, Power Consumption
No enough that anyone should care and not enough, by itself, to justify ubuntu switching to something slower
The assumption of faster boot times was based on the idea that you will somehow gain by not starting up daemons that you don't need, or by not waiting for daemons to start. However, the actual measurements were:
Bootchart in Fedora measured a start time of 32.72 seconds. Ubuntu 11.10 had a reported boot time of 32.40 seconds on the same hardware.
When running the Lenovo ThinkPad T61 with its Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 CPU, 4GB of RAM, and 100GB Hitachi 7200RPM SATA HDD, Fedora 16 booted in 28.23 seconds. Ubuntu 11.10 meanwhile booted in 22.88 seconds for the Intel Core 2 Duo notebook.
There were some developers (from Intel, I think) working on boot times for netbook/tablet applications, and according to them the real problems are:
Probing the hardware to see what's installed so you know what drivers you need, and
For the first one, the solution is to hard code the driver list, which is really only practical for things like tablets where the user can't practically upgrade the hardware.
For the second, what you really need to do is to very carefully control the order in which you load things, so that you can overlap disk I/O operations with CPU intensive operations. That's the exact opposite of what Systemd does (it does things randomly).
Poettering seems to have backed away from the improved boot time claims and focuses now on the simplified init configurations. It is possible that Systemd might eventually make life easier for distro packagers, but I would be surprised if end users see any direct tangible benefits.
I wonder what approach Ubuntu will take? Since upstart was developed by Canonical, they may not abandon it for political / personal reasons.
I think they said they don't have any fundamental objections to it, but they had other more important things on their plate at the moment. Right now, their focus is on Unity for the desktop and sorting out their cloud stack for servers. Their next release will be an LTS with five years of support, so they are concentrating on polishing what they've already got rather than ripping out and replacing all the plumbing.
I got the impression however that they're waiting for someone like Red Hat or Suse to go first with Systemd and then seeing how it works out for them before making any decisions for themselves. What Debian decides will play a big part as well, as most of Ubuntu's packages are just pulled straight from Debian. Upstart was designed for backwards compatibility with System V while Systemd isn't,
Or, to put it in other words, the only major distros that currently don't ship systemd as the default init are Debian and its derivates
So you don't think that Red Hat RHEL, Suse Enterprise, Centos, and Oracle Linux are major distros then? So far as I know, none of them are shipping Systemd. Look at the distros that people are using to run their businesses. They're all using either System V or Upstart. Even Fedora doesn't use Fedora on their own servers.
Systemd won't really have been put to the test until one or more of the above starts using it as the default init they ship to paying customers for use on servers. Debian and Ubuntu differ from Red Hat and Suse in that they don't have separate "paid" and "free" versions. If Fedora crashes spectacularly or won't boot, Red Hat just shrugs and carries on. If Debian or Ubuntu have problems, then their actual customers are directly affected.
Systemd is supposed to make life easier for distro packagers. From the end user's point of view however, there's no tangible benefit. I could quite easily understand if Debian decided they didn't want to be the guinea pig on this one.
(...) Holy crap, you haven't tried KDE since Mandrake! I think you'll find a couple things have changed Mandrake was my first distro also, running on a crappy 486 in high school. ...
Technically, it was Mandrake when I started using it, and Mandriva when I stopped using it. I bailed out a few years ago when they started going down the tubes. When I started using Ubuntu I tried out Kubuntu, but their KDE was absolutely horrible at the time so I decided to get used to Gnome.
Gnome took a lot of getting used to originally, but I came to like it after I used it for a while. Switching from Gnome 2 to Unity was pretty simple though, as even though Unity adds a lot of "bling", most of the basic concepts are still the same. It took less than 10 minutes to figure it out and crack on with getting things done.
Wikipedia has a good list of where the major distros stand with regards to systemd:
So if Wikipedia is correct, the only major distros that currently ship Systemd as the default init are Fedora and Mandriva.
One of the Ubuntu developers said about Upstart (another init system) that the init for desktops (and laptops) was comparatively easy. The hard part turned out to be servers. There were all sorts of complications that come up in server applications that don't arise with desktops (or laptops). It's also worth noting that Systemd is a copy of Apple's init system, and Apple doesn't do servers in any major way either.
So far, Red Hat (Poettering's employer) still isn't shipping Systemd as their init for RHEL. Neither is Suse, Debian, or any of the major derivatives such as Centos, Scientific, or Ubuntu. The real test of it will be when an "enterprise" vendor starts shipping it as their default init for servers. It will be interesting to see if Red Hat takes the plunge, or just continues to wait to see if someone else will take the risk of going first.
Or just use KDE.
Yes, I should have included KDE in that list. I used to use KDE (on Mandrake) when I first started using Linux. I liked it quite a bit at the time. I started using Gnome when I switched to Ubuntu because I needed a particular package (which wasn't working on Mandrake, and wasn't getting fixed).
I've been using Linux for about 10 years, first with Mandrake/Mandriva and later with Ubuntu. I just install whatever updates come in and I can't recall ever having a problem. However, I don't use proprietary drivers.
With Ubuntu, the update manager tells you that there are updates available, but it doesn't install them automatically (at least not by default). In fact until recently you had to enter your password before you could update. Now it appears that you don't have to enter the password in most cases (although you still do for some updates, I'm not quite sure what is going on there).
With the Gnome 2 versions of Ubuntu, the update manager would fly across the screen and appear in your bottom bar where it sat until you did something with it. With Unity, it appears in the side bar. There is also an entry in the shutdown/settings menu that tells you if you are up to date, or if updates are available and you can launch the update manager from there.
With past versions of Ubuntu, the updates were pushed out as soon as they were ready. Lately however, it appears that critical updates get pushed out right away, but non-critical ones (e.g. minor bug fixes) get pushed out once a week, or something like that.
I usually look over the list of updates just out of curiosity, but I always just accept everything. As I said, so far I've had no problems. The whole point of a distro is that the distro developers are supposed to look after these problems so you can just use your computer without worrying about these things. Fedora however isn't really meant for people who just want to use their computers. There are all sorts of experimental things in it, and you have to expect problems now and again.
If you listen to the latest MintCast they have a brief discussion about the seeming lack of updates. They speculate that it might be too much work for a small team.
Doing your own modern desktop environment is a big job, even if you're just doing it as a collection of extensions. I believe I heard that most of MGSE was actually developed by other parties but still, the Mint project has to integrate them, make them consistent, debug them, fill in the gaps, and maintain them. In addition, Gnome 3 Shell itself won't be standing still, so the ground will be continually shifting under the Mint developers.
So yes, it is quite conceivable that the Mint developers may have bitten off more than they can chew. We'll see in a year or so what they've been able to do and if the potential user base is still interested in it.
If he did I didn't see it. The only thing I saw was that his system slowed down after installing LMDE.
, which doesn't say a whole hell of a lot. More then likely it is a video driver issue ...
He complained about the following:
The menu takes a few seconds to start up
thumbnails take forever to generate
and are not cached
too much customization and branding
too heavy menu
poor keyboard support on the menu
The first time I played a video I got an error message saying something about vdpau not loading or something.
Those don't all sound like video driver issues.
#1 is probably due to delays in going through the Gnome Shell extension system. This may not be fixable.
#2 will be limited by disk I/O speed and possibly a poor algorithm with respect to queueing up the thumbnail generation. If this is a Nautilus problem, then I'm not sure what Mint might have done to trigger it.
#3 is clearly a bug, but not video related.
#4 is a disagreement about visual design choices. The Linux Mint developer is trying to turn Mint into a business, and he's promoting his brand. Users have to either get used to it, or switch to something else.
#5 is a bit vague (what does "heavy" mean?). It's not likely to be a video driver issue however.
#6 sounds like either bugs, or just a product that was pushed out before it was finished.
#7 probably is a video driver issue.
You mean MGSE?
Yes, you are correct, I had the name wrong.
because the OP can not be bothered by such trivial things as finding out the type of card or driver that is installed.
He's not looking for an answer of how to fix it. He's just telling us his experience with experimenting with it. As I said previously, I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a first release in a new development to be perfect. If someone doesn't want to fiddle with things, then just either use the current Debian Stable, or Ubuntu LTS. I'm not really disagreeing with what you (sixthwheel) had to say about it. I think the basic problem here is that he had unrealistic expectations.