Ubuntu reviews....

Do you ever get fed up with all the praises of Ubuntu in reviews? I have read two reviews about Ubuntu pushing to get into the enterprise market. Are they kidding? What sane IT Manager would roll out Ubuntu in their corporation? Karmic is a bug filled mess right now and would have to work it’s way up to even be considered as an alpha right now.

How can reviewers write this fiction? Even when Ubuntu does manage to fix something they just end up breaking it by reintroducing the same bug in an update… Ubuntu put their notification system into Jaunty and managed to break it, now they seemed to have abandoned it. Gee, there sure was a lot of hype about that notification system yet no review mentions it’s absence in Karmic.

I applauded DistroWatch for calling Jaunty a “half baked release” because of the Intel issue they just left unfixed. Ubuntu seems to create bug filled releases and abandons them to start on the next one.

For all of the praise Ubuntu receives in reviews and the so called push to the enterprise, I would expect to find quality in their releases.

Well, I will get down off my soapbox now. I just get sick of all of the hype over nothing. It takes quality to succeed in the enterprise not hype. When quality takes priority over the release schedule, Ubuntu might have a chance in the enterprise.

No because it is a well-known phenomenon in a lot of contexts; as Novell commented about their relationship with RedHat ‘They may be Hertz but we’re Avis - we try harder.’ Same thing with Ubuntu and openSUSE.

Linux reviews generally are terrible. Terrible reviews of installation routines at that - obviously, that’s the only important bit. :\

Problem with democratisation of the media - exactly the same as the problem with democratisation of anything: crowds may be good, as crowds, at making certain decisions, but if you focus in on any individual “decision making process” you may well be in for a nasty shock.

But bashing Jaunty over the Intel driver is something of a low blow isn’t it? How is that their fault? Seems like SUSE just got lucky - 11.1 came out just before the debacle, and 11.2 just after it (we hope…)

I think they may even have left a legacy driver package in (though I’m not sure) for people who wanted to remain on EXA. But new technologies will take disruption - that isn’t Canonical’s, or even Intel’s fault.

I suppose perhaps the point is that enterprise users shouldn’t be using the latest release really (which does perhaps suggest that they shouldn’t be using a distro built on Debian unstable, but hey…)

Maybe, if these reviews wanted to be more useful, they’d review the second oldest release of each distro for enterprise use. But then maybe they’re not really aimed at enterprise users after all… Maybe they’re just trying on a veneer of professionalism, like their dads’ suits…

Correction - thinking about it Jaunty does use a driver that can run in EXA. But I still don’t see how any of this is Ubuntu’s fault…

If I may. The Intel driver issue did appear in 11.1 and exists in 11.2. That issue forced me to abandon using openSuse, in order to use Ubuntu. Ubuntu did trouble shoot and provide a temporary work around for the issue, which I could not find for openSuse. In fact in the openSuse forums I only found a discussion saying that the issue would not be resolved until 11.3, when Intel would have sorted out their issue. While Canonical worked with Intel to find a permanent fix, which was implemented within 30 days to Juanty 9.04 release.

This highlights something. I want to return to openSuse, which is why I was browsing the forums today. But I need a distro that will actively maintain itself. If this was Suse not openSuse Novell would have done the same as Canonical, but it didn’t. Hence, at least for now, I will probably stay with Ubuntu, after testing both 9.10 and 11.3’s beta releases. But I haven’t quite made my decision yet.

I guess my point is, the argument here that I have read sounds a lot like KDE or Gnome. Just one distro over another. It is true Novell contributes to linux development overall more than Canonical, which barley contributes anything to linux beyond its distro. But it does what I need it to do, while I am in school and depend on linux for my research.

How about we focus on what is broken and how to fix and improve it, not, how our imperfect distro is broken better than the other broken distro.:slight_smile:

Sorry, I had meant to say, the Intel driver issue appears in 11.0 and 11.1, and would be fixed in 11.2.

Well said, and welcome to the forums. I got the impression that Jaunty had worse luck with the Intel drivers than either SUSE release, but then it’s distinctly possible that that’s just because there’s generally more noise about Ubuntu, so it’s more noticeable. Whether Ubuntu put more effort into making the driver work for them than SUSE did I doubt anyone can really say - it may just be that SUSE were more pessimistic (or frank, depending on your perspective) about the chances of getting it really working in a given time frame. It’s also, as always, going to be hardware dependent, so you may have just got unlucky. But the general point certainly stands - arguments about the general merits of a distro have a place, but they are formed of patterns, not of specific failures on individual systems.

XFCE for the win! :wink:

I confess my interest in reviews of other distributions varies a bit from what I have read above in some of the posts.

I am on occasion curious as to see what another distribution has implemented, to see if it is a feature that we need to push our openSUSE developers/packagers to adopt. Since I am NOT a distro hopper, a lot of the time my initial information comes from such reviews, which I then try to independantly confirm IF it is of interest to me to push on openSUSE. Sad to say (about human nature) that often (but not always) the posts of other’s on our forum about the feature of distibution-x fail to have an impact, as most of the time such comments are in the middle of a rant full of emotion, disinformation, a onesided frustrated view (often brought about by inadequate research) and only the occasion real fact. When users do post succinctly and politely, comments about the great feature of other distributions tend IMHO have a far far larger impact and are much more successful in bringing about needed change in openSUSE when delivered politely, than some obscure fact in the middle of an emotional rant.

I recently installed Sidux on a USB stick (where Sidux like Ubuntu is also a debian distribution) and while setting up and configuring the USB stick, it reminded me once again why I don’t distro hop. While I am a Sidux fan (they have IMHO the best hardware detection in Linux), and I’ve been using their liveCDs since the distro first started, as a desktop system I subjectively (and note the word subjectively) find I donot like it in comparison to openSUSE. A lot of my dislike is due to my relative (to openSUSE) infamiliarity with debian and infamiliarity with Sidux specifics. Simple things on Sidux are often hard and require research. On openSUSE, because I’ve been using SuSE for 8 years, such things are quick.

Reference hardware compatibility problems, as noted above about Intel. Such problems rarely impact me. Why ? Because I always buy my hardware AFTER researching first for EASY compatiblity with Linux, and indeed if possible EASY compatibility with openSUSE. Note the emphasis on easy. That makes a big difference. Hardware is inexpensive now adays. Linux is inexpensive. But my time is not. Hence I find research PRIOR to purchasing the hardware pays signficant dividends when it comes to install my distribution of choice (in my case openSUSE).

Is this so strange an approach?

Well, for anyone in project management, this is a simple lesson of life and a simple lesson of project management. A bit of money (or time/effort) spent at the start of a project to “buy schedule” (where schedule is time), can save a massive amount of money/time if instead that were left to the end of the project to try and work around a schedule problem.

… of course one can always “slip” a schedule, but in openSUSE Linux terms, if the hardware is not supported, then one can not use openSUSE, and then I see a “slip” conceptually similar to having to wait for the next openSUSE release, or to be forced to waste extra time/effort on another distribution. …

Ergo ? Spend the extra effort BEFORE to procure hardware that works EASILY with one’s distribution of choice.

I have my own reasons why I don’t use Ubuntu, but I don’t particularly enjoy posting negative contributions to any distro bashing thread, and I’m sort of hoping this thread does not go that way.

I would rather read statements in this thread that say "Distro-X has this really neat feature - what can I do to help get this implemented in openSUSE ?? ", … as opposed to “openSUSE is not ready for prime time because it is missing Distro-X’s golden water-walking feature-y”. The later has far less impact, because it irritates as opposed to inspires.

A laudable aim, in general, but in this specific instance I’m not sure it applies. Intel are committed to open source drivers, and the chips worked fine when a lot of people (myself included) bought them.

The problem has been a major overhaul in driver architecture, which one would have required insider knowledge (or an unreasonable degree of technical knowledge) to have foreseen.

That said, I agree substantively with your post.

I tried sidux, and it installed grub to the MBR without even telling me it was doing it, let alone asking for permission. I uninstalled it shortly afterwards, partly for other, better reasons, but partly just because I was annoyed - I don’t care if a distro says “I’ll install grub to the MBR if you want me to, if not, put it somewhere yourself manually”, but it shouldn’t in this day and age just go ahead and do it without permission.

Possible, of course, that I was just being an idiot and missed the option - but I don’t think so.

Unfortunately, sidux have also now had a major falling out with the maintainer of the script (I forget its name - it’s an acronym I think) which many users use to keep their system updated without breakage. Hopefully something can be resolved, because it sounds like it’s causing a huge split in their community.

I think too much hype of any distribution (whether it’s Ubuntu, openSUSE, or any other) is more of a disservice to that distro than a benefit. Look at what has happened to Microsoft recently. If there’s too much hype, a distribution may not be able to live up to the hype (which is unfair to them) and the public looks at the distribution much more critically because of the hype than they would have otherwise. Sometimes it’s just better to blend in.

In the case of Microsoft, they bring a lot of the problems onto themselves due to their business practices. I wouldn’t want to see any Linux distro fall into the M$ trap.

I read about the Intel driver problems. Distrowatch has a great summary on it as well. But my limited read of the articles suggested the Intel problems applied to mostly new hardware, and not so much to exisiting older hardware. I do note that my wife’s laptop has Intel graphics. SuSE-Pro-9.3, openSUSE-10.0, 10.1, 10.3, and now 11.1 all installed with no hiccup on graphics. None to speak of. Nadda. So when we go back to Intel graphics, clearly a broad brush statement is inaccurate, as there ARE Intel graphics that don’t have theproblem. Again, thinking back to the time frame of SuSE-9.3, and I first researched for EASY compatibility before purchasing the laptop. That approach has not let me down. … Given my experience, I can’t help but think the Intel Graphics driver problem case is the exception, as opposed to the rule, being thrown up here as an example.

IMHO thats only partly true. I decided to purchase a new laptop in Nov-2008. I had been planning on this for over a year. When Nov-2008 rolled around, and I looked at the state of the graphic drivers and graphic hardware, I was horrified to read that nVidia which I like, had MAJOR problems with quality in their laptop graphics hardware. Now I dislike ATI. So I ignored ATI and I then looked at Intel graphics. Well, it was clear then they had MAJOR problems with their graphic drivers. So in the end I purchased a laptop with ATI graphics. Very very reluctantly I might add, but never the less buying ATI graphics at that time was the approach to get the EASIEST compatibility. I had no insider knowledge. None. Not one bit. But I avoided the Intel graphic problem there. So that Intel graphic problem IMHO only impacted those who had relatively new Intel hardware that worked for a while and then stopped during the driver overhaul. BUT the driver over haul did NOT impact all Intel graphic hardware as my old Fujitusu laptop adequately illustrates. So this IS unforutnate. Real unfortunate. But it NEEDS to be put in persective. And needs to be qualified.

If one reads such comments above without doing more research, one would think ALL INTEL graphic hardware stopped working, and EVERY user who was in the market was taken by surprise. Thats not the case. Its unfortuante. Definitely unfortunate. But there is more to the story.

The manner in which a distribution handles the MBR is something that has bitten me a couple of times in the past, as its an area of my knoweldge that I have been delinquent in updating. In my case, I put only one EXT3 partition on the USB and installed Sidux. optimizing a MBR location was the least of my worries, although if I were to install Sidux on a desktop it would be a different matter altogether (although frankly, as a big openSUSE fan, I like openSUSE too much to even consider putting Sidux on a desktop - only Fedora has the recent distinction of going on the desktop of one of my PCs, and that was only in a triboot for a limited time).

Sorry to read of the Sidux community split. From what I recall, Sidux was “borne” out of a Kannotix split (where Kannotix updates are very infrequent - almost on the verge of being dead), so to read Sidux have hiccups is a sad thing for a Sidux liveCD fan like myself.

For those who are curious, here is the link to the distrowatch article on the Intel driver problem: DistroWatch.com: Intel driver problem - status.

… of note is openSUSE-11.1 came with the 2.6.27 kernel. The major architecture change for the Intel graphic driver started with the 2.6.28 kernel. Hence in the most part openSUSE was NOT impacted (contrary to what one reads above in this thread). And the next openSUSE-11.2 will have the 2.6.31 kernel - and I guess we will see how well it will work.

Many distributions were impacted by this driver change. Reading the article suggests the impact on openSUSE was less than that on most distributions, and for those who read the above thread, they might walk away with a different impression. openSUSE definitely was NOT golden in addressing problems (with 11.1 and its Intel driver problems that were NOT related to the 2.6.28 kernel major hiccup), but I think it important this be put in perspective and not have an impression that openSUSE was worse than most. It was not. OpenSUSE was likely better off.

Thanks! The posts have been an interesting break while I am doing my homework. But more importantly The moderator is largely correct concerning global versus individual experience. My experience with the Intel driver issue, does not mean all had that issue.

If I could ask, can people please describe what they like and dislike about openSuse here, as part of the discussion?

As I had said, I definitely am interested in using openSuse again. I always liked its more polished appearance and performance. Too YAST is awesome! I primarily us linux as a research tool, and now as my primary OS. Open source tools mean I don’t have to find a grant. But I do need it to just work most of the time, in order to focus on work not maintaining the system. Ubuntu allows me to do that.

But I would love to know what are some of the great points I might be missing since I haven’t used it since 11.0, due to the hardware issue I had. And also does anyone know if the Intel issue has been fixed in 11.2?

Software package management in 11.1 is superior/faster to that in 11.0 (that alone was worth the upgrade for some users). Also 11.1 has superior compatibility with tablets over 11.0 (although more work is needed there). IMHO KDE4 should be avoided in both 11.0 and 11.1. KDE3 works great in 11.0 and 11.1. There is no KDE3 in 11.2, but KDE4 should work very well in 11.2.

11.2 will have a more automated graphic hardware detection (no /etc/X11/xorg.conf file by default, although it can be added if needed). 11.2 will have EXT4 as its default file system instead of EXT3. 11.2 will have far superior automatic audio configuration for new hardware. 11.2 should also have superior wireless functionality over both 11.0 and 11.1. USB devices should work better under 11.2.

I have not been tracking the Intel graphics issue in sufficient detail to know its planned status in 11.2.

The things I like about openSUSE are:

I forgot to mention - 11.2 will be much easier for setting up a USB stick to do an software installation (from the USB stick) - something that was more difficult to setup in 11.1.

Further to oldcpu’s suggestions, I would personally cite stability, ease of maintenance, and the great community on the forums (knowledgeable, pragmatic, helpful).

Except the mods. Who are all 'orrible. :wink:

There really isn’t an Intel issue, that’s a huge oversimplification, so the question as posed cannot be answered. Some drivers, X-servers, kernels, Mesas (…etc.), in combination with certain hardware, have been troublesome. Unless you can find someone who’s used your chipset with the beta, you’re hard pressed to know… That’s what Live CDs are for! :slight_smile:

For me, on a 945 GME, it’s looking quite good at the moment - as I said, I think we’re through the worse of it. EXA being dropped has caused some software (not much - gnome-DO is an offender, for example, but I don’t use it on SUSE) to run more slowly / jerkily, but I haven’t found anything that outright won’t run.

Conversely, UXA is generally faster, and the things that are having problems are improving.

Let’s hope so! My experience hasn’t been too bad at all, but by the sound of things I’ve been comparatively lucky. Still, it isn’t nice watching your graphics performance get worse - even if only in specific programs - with each update on relatively new hardware. :frowning:

Hmmm. Maybe you fall into the ‘unreasonable degree of technical knowledge’ bracket, but are just too modest to admit it? :wink:

My point is, I probably could’ve found out that there was upheaval ahead, but I simply wasn’t looking in the right places. I didn’t know how to look in the right places. I knew that Intel were supporting Linux, and I knew the cards they were releasing then had reasonable price/performance characteristics. But at that stage in my knowledge, even if I’d known where to look for such information, I’d likely have had no luck interpreting it.

But as you say, hopefully this’ll turn out to be something of an aberration.

Indeed. I think a lot of it is born of understandable frustration - people tend to just get angry with something, and assume that it’s broken, when often the reality is it just isn’t working using a quite specific method in quite specific circumstances.

I’m hoping that with our new quest to get the wiki going mentioned in Rupert’s “hello” thread we’ll be able to make real use of the HCL and things. If I had to say the biggest weakness of this distro for me, it is at the moment patchy documentation, but as I’ve often said, these things have huge snowball effects. The arch wiki is kept up to date specifically because it’s already good - we just have to get over that first hurdle, I guess.

I just don’t get along with Fedora, and I can’t work out why. I can tell it’s a great distro, but it just doesn’t grab me. Still, 800 more to choose from… :slight_smile:

I don’t want to overstate it - these things often look blown out of proportion to an outsider. I think sidux plan to carry on, but it does sound like they may lose many of their less technically minded users to mepis and antix and such distros. They were only on sidux in the first place, it seems, for smxi and the related scripts… And it doesn’t sound from my very limited reading of things like there’s much chance of reconciliation.

That list, and the links, are actually really helpful. Thanks!

This is what initially brought me here:

  • nicely done KDE 4.3.2 in 11.2
  • 2.6.31 kernel in 11.2
  • my perception of overall quality

Here’s why I’m still here:

  • Great installer
  • Helpful forums
  • Great support for my Thinkpad hardware
  • Overall quality exceeded my expectations
  • Firefox included in KDE out of the box
  • Many other pleasant surprises
  • I love the look/theme/colors

KDE 4.3.2 in 11.2 kicks Kubuntu’s butt. But there is a lot to like about Ubuntu, and the Ubuntu forums are top notch in many ways.

If I ever leave, these might be the reasons:

  • Miguel de Icaza
  • Microsoft
  • Novell
  • software patents
  • getting spurned by the community for saying the above things (which I hope doesn’t happen). Actually, I’m hoping people don’t see this last part of my post.

Further to what has already been noted above, I find the combination of KDE3.5 and KWin4 window manager fantastic. All 3D desktop goodies in a familiar, stable and feature-rich desktop. Unbeatable (IMHO, of course).

I’ll eventually migrate to KDE4, but it’s a pity 11.2 dropped KDE3.5 support.