OT: What's the deal with Ubuntu?

[Antonio Olivares]

--- Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at panet.co.yu> wrote:
> 
> On Friday 20 May 2005 20:50, THUFIR HAWAT wrote:
> > On 5/20/05, Jerry Gaiser <jerryg at gaiser.org>
> wrote:
> > > On Friday 20 May 2005 13:02, THUFIR HAWAT wrote:
> > > > On 5/20/05, Jerry Gaiser <jerryg at gaiser.org>
> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > Broadband penetration in the US and
> especially the Western US is >
> > > > > *much* smaller than those of you in the big
> cities imagine.
> > > >
> > > > I don't like the way this creates a
> quasi-"internet" class structure.
> > > > globally, bandwith is, I believe, a scarce
> resource.  however, if yum
> > > > (or foo, whatever) used compressed binaries
> wouldn't it be, at worst,
> > > > a wash?  provided you're doing the download
> and install yourself.
> > >
> > > Ah yes.. But there's the rub. The files are
> already compressed, though
> > > probably not optimally.
> 
> There is also an alternative. Having only a slow
> dial-up connection, I 
> generally don't download binaries. Sources are
> usually much smaller, and 
> since such a low bandwidth forces me not to update
> anything unless absolutely 
> necessary, compiling from source isn't so bad as
> generally regarded, from a 
> maintenece point of view.
> 
> As for the number of CDs in the base distribution, I
> have them downloaded and 
> burned by my friend abroad and mailed to me (and I
> guess I'm not the only one 
> getting Fedora in a second-hand way). So in such
> environment it is very, very 
> usefull to have as many apps as possible on the CDs.
> 
> I guess the part of Fedora community that has too
> low bandwidth to use 
> repositories is not insignificant. Besides, for
> those of you who have 10Mbps 
> connections or so, there should be no difference in
> downloading one 
> distribution CD versus four of five of them. So why
> would you want to lower 
> the number of CDs? For eastetical reasons, maybe?
> There are people out there 
> that actually do need everything (or most things) on
> those four CDs. A couple 
> of friends of mine have a habbit of switching from
> Gnome to KDE and back on a 
> daily basis (don't ask me why...), and want both DEs
> installed and ready to 
> use...
> 
> Just some thoughts... :-))
> 
> Best regards,
> Marko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> 

I agree with your comments.  Some people have a slow
conection and cannot/have a very hard time getting the
packages.  With one cd, you won't have enough.  It is
better to have at least two DE's one goes down, you
fall back on the other one.  It is also better to have
two kernel's or more.  One does not work as you want,
you fall back on the other one.  KDE is not playing
nice, you go to GNOME, GNOME does not play nice, you
go to KDE, also vice versa with xfce.   

For one thing, Ubuntu in my opinion should not be
compared with Fedora.  There is no comparison.  Ubuntu
is a one-size fits all approach to quickly get things
setup with little or no choice and many great apps
missing while as Fedora (some complain bloat) has
mostly everything that you need and yes you have to
make choices if you are selective, but if you have the
space do a complete install and then make the choices
of what you use/need.  Also in my opinion, if you want
a one-cd, there are already too many distro's on one
cd[Knoppix, Kanotix, PCLinuxOS, Slax], why reinvent
the wheel.  Fedora is not for that.  Fedora is a
full-featured, (complete Operating System).  And as
previously mentioned some of the above mentioned
distros are better than Ubuntu in my opinion.  And the
hype about Ubuntu continues . . . 

Regards,

Antonio

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com