Linux General Questions

Ubuntu offers a dramatically different release schedule and support model than Debian does. The LTS releases retain support for a while and are usually more current than Debian stable while being more stable than Debian Unstable or Testing.

There are many areas other than the default desktop that differentiate the two both in technical ways and in philosophy.

LTS more current than Testing? Maybe briefly, once in a great while, but the whole point of LTS is that it doesn't change for long periods of time.... which is basically Debian Stable, only not as trustworthy.

What Canonical brought to the table was a solid desktop with good auto hardware detection and a nicely designed UI. And that's pretty much all. Sans UI, there is very little reason to run anything they're shipping. The desktop is handled better by Linux Mint. And the main goals of their other distributions, LTS and Server, are probably better handled by Debian Stable. (Definitely in the case of Server, very strongly so, less definitely in the case of LTS Desktop.) Canonical's software is not something you can trust in nearly the same way that you can trust RHEL or Debian.

Linux Mint really is quite good, restoring the major reason to use Ubuntu, a solid desktop UI. If you would have run Ubuntu in 2010, you should probably look into Mint now.

With cinnamon and nemo available in the official ubuntu repos in 13.10, the choice doesn't matter that much beyond installation.

I've been an Ubuntu guy since I rather like the Unity toolbar - I never much cared for the start menu that links to 100 programs when I only really use 8 or less daily. That's why I really liked the Win 7 taskbar, because it was a move from the taskbar of old to something similar to the OS X dock.

I agree there are other aspects of Ubuntu that aren't awesome, but everything works quite well for me. I don't know if I'd stay on a Debian-based distro if I had to pick a different one, but with the core system being Linux, changing to another just isn't something I have the need for, let alone the time for, right now.

Honestly, I'm more amazed at how much more productive I am on Linux than on other systems. I've been using it everyday for just over a year now, and I won't go back. I'd rather have to install Arch or Gentoo from scratch than have to use OS X or Windows again on a daily basis.

My point is that Ubuntu is a tool kit. At the core you have the kernel, the GCC chain, and the hardware detection. That's all done with minimal user input.

On top of that, there's an expansive repository with just about any window manager or desktop environment you'd want, and several archaic ones that no one wants.

You can tweak Ubuntu any way you want. You can even set compiler flags and recompile the damn thing if you want.

I think Canonical gets a bad rap. Debian has always been slow to update, slow to adapt, and vicious to people that wanted to move things forward. There were flamewars against Kano, Mepis, Knoppix, and many other distributions before Ubuntu, mainly because the maintainers we upset about losing control.

Let's face it: Shutleworth and company are instrumental in moving desktop Linux forward, making it a reality, and making it so Valve could consider Linux as the base for SteamOS.

And they get dinged for each incremental step that takes the nerdiness and exclusivity away.

And they get dinged for each incremental step that takes the nerdiness and exclusivity away.

And, yet, you're recommending that users bolt on a UI they prefer, instead of using Mint, where it's all set up for them?

I mean, you even say:

You can tweak Ubuntu any way you want. You can even set compiler flags and recompile the damn thing if you want.

And then beat up Debian for being too nerdy and exclusive?

If you're making an argument, it's not especially coherent.

I prefer installing Cinnamon on Ubuntu rather than running Mint.

Cinnamon is great, but Mint in general feels like too few people trying to do too many things and not keeping up.

Getting a pure GNOME 3 experience on Ubuntu is getting harder and harder as Canonical continues to cherry-pick specific versions of specific parts of GNOME to use within the Unity environment. You can (and I do) use third-party repositories to address some of that, but it's a bit of extra hassle. I'm still using Ubuntu, though, because so far sticking with it has been less hassle than adopting an alternative (no-one's going to recommend Debian as a way to get an up-to-date GNOME experience).

mateo wrote:

Let's face it: Shutleworth and company are instrumental in moving desktop Linux forward, making it a reality, and making it so Valve could consider Linux as the base for SteamOS.

And they get dinged for each incremental step that takes the nerdiness and exclusivity away.

More than anything I think they get dinged (legitimately) for not participating in community projects and going their own way instead, first with Unity, and now with Mir. Meanwhile, developers working for Red Hat et al are working on fundamental pieces of technology that benefit users of all distros.

I think Linux was always on Valve's radar, Ubuntu or not; SteamOS is Valve's insurance against the erosion of the PC market by platforms like iOS, Windows RT, and consoles (and Android, to a lesser extent) that lack the openness required to run a service like Steam, and I don't think it was ever likely that they were going to base it on Windows.

pneuman wrote:

Getting a pure GNOME 3 experience on Ubuntu is getting harder and harder as Canonical continues to cherry-pick specific versions of specific parts of GNOME to use within the Unity environment. You can (and I do) use third-party repositories to address some of that, but it's a bit of extra hassle. I'm still using Ubuntu, though, because so far sticking with it has been less hassle than adopting an alternative (no-one's going to recommend Debian as a way to get an up-to-date GNOME experience).

mateo wrote:

Let's face it: Shutleworth and company are instrumental in moving desktop Linux forward, making it a reality, and making it so Valve could consider Linux as the base for SteamOS.

And they get dinged for each incremental step that takes the nerdiness and exclusivity away.

More than anything I think they get dinged (legitimately) for not participating in community projects and going their own way instead, first with Unity, and now with Mir. Meanwhile, developers working for Red Hat et al are working on fundamental pieces of technology that benefit users of all distros.

I think Linux was always on Valve's radar, Ubuntu or not; SteamOS is Valve's insurance against the erosion of the PC market by platforms like iOS, Windows RT, and consoles (and Android, to a lesser extent) that lack the openness required to run a service like Steam, and I don't think it was ever likely that they were going to base it on Windows.

According to Jono Bacon, Valve was always going with Ubuntu, until it was pointed out that if they did...Ubuntu was going to insist on a "Powered by Ubuntu" sticker on every Steam Box, and with an attendant licensing fee for use of the trademark. It's one of the ways Canonical makes money. And Valve isn't going to swap out one licensing scheme for another.

pneuman wrote:

More than anything I think they get dinged (legitimately) for not participating in community projects and going their own way instead, first with Unity, and now with Mir.

...and that's just desktop stuff. I think the choice of default GUI is a pretty minor thing really. As others have pointed out in this thread, users can set up an alternative GUI with little effort. I use a "weird" GUI myself. I wouldn't suggest that everyone use my setup, but it's easy enough for me to install, so I don't much care what the default is.

On the other the hand, Canonical have decided to replace frickin' init with their own restrictively licensed creation, while the rest of the world (excluding Debian (for now)) generally converges on systemd.

Never mind the GUI wars folks.

mateo wrote:

Unity is fine. It's designed to make Ubuntu users productive across multiple platforms. And it does just that.

That I'd need some education on, because every encounter I've had with Unity has revolved around popup colors and application menus going haywire under it. But then I've always been a RHCL/Fedora guy.

Yes, that's a bit rich for my blood too. I think the design intent of Unity is to make non-technical users feel not too disoriented. I'm not even sure it's very good at that.

Even Debian is (probably (finally)) moving to systemd.

... maybe.

In defense of Upstart, it dates from a time when systemd was not yet available, and Canonical rightfully wanted to get off of sysv sooner rather than later. Even RHEL 6 used Upstart, and although systemd is now superior Upstart wasn't terrible and had good reasons to exist at the time.

I don't think there's a compelling case to be made for Upstart's future, though, and we'll see whether Canonical clings to it out of pure NIH-ism once everybody else uses systemd.

Jarpy wrote:
pneuman wrote:

More than anything I think they get dinged (legitimately) for not participating in community projects and going their own way instead, first with Unity, and now with Mir.

...and that's just desktop stuff. I think the choice of default GUI is a pretty minor thing really. As others have pointed out in this thread, users can set up an alternative GUI with little effort.

If you're talking about Unity, then sure (I use GNOME 3, personally), but Mir is more far-reaching than that. The various desktops have always had X in common, which is what's let us run whatever desktop we want while still retaining compatibility with whatever apps we wish to run, but Mir has the potential to create a much bigger rift in userspace. Thankfully, that seems less and less likely to happen every day, as Canonical's targets for Mir continue to slip, and former partners like Valve move to Debian.

Ah, interesting. I must admit that I don't have a deep understanding of the desktop space. Until last year I didn't run anything more than Fluxbox

Canonical comes to its senses, at least a little bit, with Unity: they're moving application-specific windows back into application windows, instead of putting them on the global menu bar.

Thank God. As someone with a 30" screen, this frustrated me immensely. Now, if they do the same thing with the window gadgets in maximized mode (so that they stay attached to the window, instead of moving into the menu bar), my major objections to Unity will, I think, be gone.

I think a commenter on HN nailed it, though:

The main problem I have with the menu in Ubuntu is that the items are hidden until you move the mouse.

That is just a design mistake of epic proportions because I can't acquire and aim for the target menu before the mouse has reached the bar.

I never heard any Mac user complain about the global menu bar. Even on huge screens. Perhaps that is reason.

It's true, I've never heard anyone on a Mac complain about the global menu bar either, and I work at a company where all the designers and most of the programmers work on Macs, often on big screens.

The biggest sin of Ubuntu's global menu bar isn't that it's a global bar per se, but it's a horrible version of one.

Hmm, that's a good point. I use the Mac all the time, and it doesn't bother me at all, where Unity drives me up the flippin' wall. From my perspective, it's carefully tuned for exactly the wrong thing... a small screen. I don't want a phone UI on my desktop, a touch interface on a tiny screen. I want one designed for mouse, keyboard, and tons of space, because that's what I actually have.

Sales in PCs are down, but I can't help but wonder if much of that is because everyone has decided not to make UIs for PCs anymore. To chase after the new hotness, they screwed it up for their old customers, and lo and behold, neither group is buying.

Remember when the icons on the OSX dock used to zoom? That was evil for exactly the reason you brought up, Legion. You would eyeball an icon, your motor system would move exactly the correct amount, and the zoom effect would cause the icon to be somewhere else when the pointer arrived.

Jarpy wrote:

Remember when the icons on the OSX dock used to zoom? That was evil for exactly the reason you brought up, Legion. You would eyeball an icon, your motor system would move exactly the correct amount, and the zoom effect would cause the icon to be somewhere else when the pointer arrived.

If that was ever an issue for you, it's straightforward to reduce or completely turn off. And it's not the menu.

I turned it off, naturally. What's interesting is how long it took for the UX people to realise it was incorrect design and make "off" the default.

I was thinking about that, Jarpy, and I disagree with your premise, that it was evil and wrong. The target you were trying to hit didn't actually move. If you aimed well when you started your mouse movement, and you ended up over the original icon and clicked, it would always register the original intent. The visuals would expand the target zone as you approached, but each individual pixel meant exactly what it did when you started. Even if you were approaching the icon you wanted from the left or right, by the time your mouse actually got to your original target, the zoom would be correct, and you'd be in the right spot. The only way it would be confusing is if you were aiming for an edge, and then continually changing your targeting with millisecond timing, which I don't think humans can do.

I'm not sure if my laptop is still doing it, but I liked the effect, and kept it running, although in a much more subdued way than the original. I think it was probably about a 20% zoom. The original 'big zoom' was too pronounced for me; too much flash, not enough substance. But a little zoom was nice.

Next time I'm on the laptop, I'll have to look to see if it's still turned on.

I've stirred something up here

Maybe we're thinking about this differently. I'm talking about when the pointer is already hovering the dock. I'm guessing you're thinking about going to the dock from somewhere else.

Try this:
- Turn on max magnification for full effect
- Hover an icon on the left side of the dock
- Put a finger of your free hand over an icon on the right
- Move the pointer to your finger
- Which icon is under the pointer?

I have the icon zoom set somewhat low but it is almost indispensable for me as I typically use a roller ball mouse at work so enlarging the icon makes it a much easier target to hit.

Edit: I'm not the biggest fan of the app menus being on the global bar at the top. It does lead to a lot of to-ing and fro-ing even when you can see the menu titles.

I'm more against the inability to jump to a specific menu from the keyboard with one step. From the keyboard, the best you can do is activate a keyboard shortcut or active the menu in general, e.g. getting to the Store menu in iTunes is more complicated than just a quick Alt+S. Individual applications on Lunix sometimes have this problem, too.

I asked this in a keyboard thread, but what's the current state of support for "premium" keyboard functionality, e.g., volume controls, macro keys, etc.? I know it's possible to get the key codes and do...something with them, but I'd kind of like to just hook up a MX Brown-switching keyboard with some cool action and have it work in Linux or in Windows. My old Thinkpad's keyboard is variably supported. Maybe things are better now?

I'm sure there's some distro-specific nature to this. If I used an Ubuntu-built distro, link Mint, I bet it just works. Slackware may require me to add some additional application(s).

I imagine that extended keys work just fine in an all-Gnome or all-KDE environment. If you're the kind of customer who uses the out-of-box apps for everything, then no problem. If you like to pick the eyes out of the free software world, and mix apps from different toolkits then YMMV.

Linux lets you choose just how much pain you want to sign up for.

Jarpy wrote:

I imagine that extended keys work just fine in an all-Gnome or all-KDE environment. If you're the kind of customer who uses the out-of-box apps for everything, then no problem. If you like to pick the eyes out of the free software world, and mix apps from different toolkits then YMMV.

Linux lets you choose just how much pain you want to sign up for.

Excellently put. And I'm in neither an all-Gnome or all-KDE DE, but I'm fine fending for myself in the wastes. Just wanted to gauge how much work it was gonna take.

Double-tap. If the reds are easy to tap this may become foreshadowing.