Ubuntu Asks Users To Pay What They Want 280
New submitter major_lima sends this excerpt from Ars:
"When a typical user downloads Ubuntu for free and installs it on a computer with a Windows license that the user did pay for, Canonical gets nothing in the form of payment. There's nothing wrong with that — this is the open source world, after all, and many people contribute to Ubuntu with code rather than money. But starting this week, Canonical is presenting desktop OS downloaders with an optional donation form. ... 'Pay what you think it's worth,' and 'Show Ubuntu some love' are among the messages users will see, and downloaders can direct their donations to specific parts of Ubuntu development. ... Once you donate, the Ubuntu desktop starts downloading. Or, you can just skip the donation and download the OS for free, just as you always could. For some reason, the donation page is not presented to Ubuntu Server users."
Amazon ads (Score:2)
This doesn't get you out of the Amazon partnership, does it?
Re:Amazon ads (Score:4, Informative)
No need to, you can turn it off anyway, in Privacy settings.
Re:Amazon ads (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you got it wrong: "you should be able to turn it on in the privacy settings". Oh no wait, that's not how it works these days - privacy is opt in!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amazon ads (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What if you are not even aware of the option? I'd argue that this covers the majority of cases and this is exactly why companies prefer opt-out.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between:
It may be right there, easy to find, but if you are simply unaware of the situation (like with phoning home, for example), then it is still "hidden".
The only acceptable (yet obtrusive) way to handle this is if when you run it for the first time it will pop up a dialog asking you, are you agree to this or that thing and have the option that favors you selected by default. Still, many peop
Re:Amazon ads (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal information is the currency used to buy a lot of products these days. I've never paid Google a dime, but I've gotten many hundreds, if not thousands of dollars worth of value out of their products and services; in exchange I give them an amount of personal data that they use to present me with ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, thanks for the info. :)
That's the wrong direction (Score:3)
Users should have to turn that sort of half-baked, privacy-leaking shit on, not off.
-B
Re:Pay for Ubuntu? (Score:5, Informative)
Amen. I'll give to Mint instead. At least they listen to feedback from users.
Re: (Score:2)
enjoy your playskool interface i will stick one that works without hiding everything
Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah because the GNOME people are well-known for collaborating with others and being open to criticism. Oh wait... Why should anyone want to work with a project whose team is filled with a bunch of pigheaded people to whom NIH syndrome is a way of life?
Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:5, Insightful)
That argument would have made sense if Ubuntu had switched to another standard system, like KDE, Xfce, or whatever. But they went on making their own. If there's one company who cannot complain to others about NIH syndrome, it's Canonical.
Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a counter point, if they found that Gnome was suddenly going in a direction that didn't serve their or their users needs and the Gnome team refused to work with them it makes sense to switch correct?
Now, the same problem they ran into with the Gnome team can easily happen with the above projects, they have little say in how they evolve and in which direction they go and it simply leaves them open to being screwed with again the future. It makes a lot of sense to simply run with your own project.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, isn't this is why Linux Mint is forking Gnome into their own desktop interface? Isn't it called Cinnamon?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they are getting flak not for forking or rolling their own but for putting an immature gui on most used linux desktop, they are getting flax for the same thing gnome has as well not listening to users and having a sever case of NIH syndrome.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was a unity hater as well. But 12.10's Unity interface is pretty fantastic (I've been running the beta for a little over a week).
Re: (Score:2)
Does it still break integration with VirtualBox?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say the most immediate change was the performance. Unity just performed horrifically for me before and I use fairly high end hardware (Intel i7 series processors, Nvidia GPUs, etc). That was a huge turn off.
I also found that the older Unity had all kinds of odd usability oddities and problems (sometimes various window management features didn't work, parts of unity would crash and I'd have to logout or reboot, etc).
So it was essentially a shuddering clusterfuck that actually impeded my work.
So far the new version is fast, just works and most importantly stays out of my way. Most of the time I don't see much OS UI, just my apps (which is how things should be IMO).
Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I use a dell 30" monitor running at 2560x1600
Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I haven't tried with multiple monitors. I just use one big monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Well he's asking about pretty obscure configurations (dual video card and 4 monitors) and being a huge douche about it.
Douche Shill
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think they didn't try to work with the Gnome folks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what you get when you have a system where there's no configurability, and everything has to be hard-coded one way only: if you want to do anything slightly different, you have to fork the whole project.
If they had just gone with KDE instead, they could have made their own "plasma" variant or had a different set of configuration options (and even added new features selectable in the configuration options), and the KDE team would have been happy to accept these changes for inclusion.
Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:4, Interesting)
Kubuntu is pretty well-known as being not well maintained due to lack of developers; basically, someone just slapped the vanilla KDE packages on top of Ubuntu and called it "done". It works, but it's not an official release at all (it is not maintained at all by Canonical, only a volunteer), and could really be a lot better.
If you want Ubuntu under the hood with KDE, Linux Mint KDE Edition is a better choice.
Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather they took BOTH out back and shot them.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, a fork that's "Ubuntu -Unity +Gnome 2"? What a crazy and brand new idea. I bet that would overtake Ubuntu at the top of the distrowatch rankings [distrowatch.com] quite fast too.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, you could select "Gnome Classic" when logging in?
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/classicgnome [psychocats.net]
I wonder how much of this will go upstream? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how much of this cash will go to the real heroes i.e. upstream people like Debian? Canonical is just a reseller/ISV as they call them in the market.
Re:I wonder how much of this will go upstream? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I wonder how much of this will go upstream? (Score:5, Informative)
If you want, you can always donate $$$ directly to Debian and some associated free software like PostgreSQL or FFmpeg. These donations are not used to pay for developer time. They are generally used to reimburse some of the travel costs associated with things like Debconf for the poorer developers, hardware costs for developer machines (something more recent) etc.
http://www.spi-inc.org/donations/ [spi-inc.org]
Debian is just one of the members of SPI. There are other software that benefits too,
http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/ [spi-inc.org]
And if you are suspicious that SPI is not associated with Debian, just look at Debian's donations page and be happy.
http://www.debian.org/donations [debian.org]
Cheers!
Anonymous Debian Dev.
PS. $$$ is not a big problem for Debian (as everything is either sponsored or volunteered), but it is always welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were pretty big on desktop projects. Upstart was pretty popular for a spell with a few distros (though not as much anymore), also the xwindows replacement I believe they are funding.
additionally unity (love it or hate it) is an ubuntu project, and they contribute to sub sonic.
linux is more than a kernel, and I would suspect the kernel met their needs 5 years ago, they are contributing upstream and making their own projects in the user space.
this myth that ubuntu does nothing is annoying and w
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much of this cash will go to the real heroes i.e. upstream people like Debian? Canonical is just a reseller/ISV as they call them in the market.
But a "reseller" who is serious about OEM partnerships and mass market adoption --- with a distribution that accounts for most of what little market share Linux can plausibly claim as a desktop client OS.
If an OS is to be more than a purely intellectual exercise, then distribution --- building a critical mass of users --- is essential.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm OK with this (Score:5, Insightful)
I use it daily for my work and the kid's machine runs it. I'll drop them some $$$ next time.
I just hope they don't get discouraged (Score:5, Insightful)
I just hope they don't get discouraged at the number of downloads and installations that don't receive donations. I suspect that a lot of people are like me--they don't mind throwing a few bucks their way (or even a few dozen), but we tend to install, reinstall, set up virtual machines, install yet again, and so on across dozens of machines. I might give a one-off donation, but I'm not going to donate every time I install a copy of Ubuntu.
That's one of the things that's so damn frustrating about Windows and why Ubuntu (or really, any Linux distribution) is so useful. Windows is an awesome OS and I don't mind paying the license fee to run it, but I don't have a few thousand dollars to install it on each of my hobbyist VMs I use for development and testing stuff. Back in the days when I could just use my product code to install it willy-nilly on a few dozen machines, each of which I probably run for a few days and then reinstall for some new reason, it's not that big a deal. But now that everything phones home and nags the hell out of you and denies you service to what you bought, it's not such an appealing option. Hopefully Microsoft will someday realize that they're actively driving people like me away from Windows, but until then, I'll happily cast my lot with Ubuntu instead.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Get an MSDN OS subscription.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For $700, which only lasts 12 months, and then you have to throw down another $500 every year to keep it up? That's still an absolute shit solution compared to what we could do with Windows XP (and earlier), and can do even easier with the likes of Linux distros such as Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you beat me to it...
MSDN is awesome for devs. Just spun up 4 vm's with server 2008 today. 700 bucks for all the OS's 1000 bucks comes with visual studio.
MSDN is designed for 'dev and test'. Think it is something like 5 or 10 copies of each OS with keys. You can call them up and get more.
However, for someone who is just messing around at home, even 700 bucks is a steep price to pay.
If I could afford it I would get the vs ultimate msdn. That code rewind thing is pretty freeking cool. However it is not
Re: (Score:2)
MSDN is awesome for devs
Paying $700 for an operating system that does essentially nothing out of the box is the height of ridiculousness. It's monopoly power at its worst.
Re: (Score:3)
Paying $700 for an operating system that does essentially nothing out of the box is the height of ridiculousness. It's monopoly power at its worst.
No different to a CPU or graphics card, out of the box they do nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
lets price out the competetion shall we
eclipse, netbeans, monodevelope, qt designer, glade gtk guibuilder, emacs, vi, + gcc AND/OR clang $0
libra (or) open office(org) + thunderbird or evolution +gnote or tomboynotes $0
apache http/https server $0
postgress sql server $0
OS (pick any linux/bsd distro) $0
ftp, mail, dns, dhcp, xmpp, severs (what ever other you can think of) $0
virtuabox, vmware player, linux containers, qemu, xen, kvm, kqemu bochs, dosbox, dosemu, $0
git $0
gimp $0
access to source code $0
can be inst
Re: (Score:3)
License cost is not just important for someone messing around at home. It can have a profound impact on large corporations too. There it is not so much the cost of the license itself, but the cost of procuring and managing them. With Server 2008, you have to have install and configure "activation servers". WTF? The amount of time spent managing license keys, activation servers, and other bullshit is time you are not working on something productive. Say what you want about Oracle, one thing the get ri
Re: (Score:2)
VS is a really nice IDE. (But don't bother trying to convince the Linux guys of that.) I'm just not sure it's worth what they're charging for it. Most people could use the Express version, except there's no VS Express. It's VC# Express, VB Express, ASP.Net Express, and so on. When you break it into eleventy billion pieces, it ceases to be useful. So to get a useful version, the minimum price is $500, and that's just not going to be worth it to a hobbyist. Especially not with platform lock-in.
VS is a really nice IDE unless you have used /anything/ else, Windows or otherwise. Don't give me that "Linux guys" crap. Everything you like about VS either happens by default in other tools or can be added with scripts.
VS does, however, include one of the best GUI debuggers I have ever used and that alone is worth money to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree completely. I've used Eclipse, NetBeans, Xcode, Delphi, Visual Studio and AppCode (IDEA) and out of all of them the favourites would have to be Visual Studio and IDEA, closely followed by Delphi. Xcode, NetBeans and Eclipse are steaming piles of shit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Before you embark on anything, consider this:
It sounds like you need the Microsoft Partner Action Pack. Just sign up as a basic partner (no entry requirements) then buy the Action Pack here: https://mspartner.microsoft.com/en/uk/Pages/Membership/action-pack-subscriptions.aspx [microsoft.com] - you know you want to. It makes sense. You even get lots of free training and discounts to sweeten the deal and get embedded further into the ecosystem.
The moment you start promoting this stuff, people want you to use your new ski
This just in (Score:3, Informative)
Ubuntu users unite to have Unity removed from Ubuntu because of bad usability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's actually wrong with Unity? Is there something you can point to, instead of just "ZOMG it's new I don't like it?"
Re: (Score:3)
The question is entirely irrelevant.
I should be able to use what I was using before. The "new hotness" does not require ripping out what was there before. This is why Unity gets grief. It really has nothing to do with "being different".
Canonical pulled a Microsoft.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Informative)
So, use it. Oh wait, you can't because Gnome 2 has been dropped. Maybe you could try maintaining that?
There are Gnome 2-like desktop environments available in Ubuntu if you want them - just like when Windows 95 came out, if the new "Start" menu thing was too confusing and new, you could fall back to PROGMAN.EXE and have it work just like Windows 3. Some people even did that, too.
Re: (Score:3)
The question is entirely irrelevant.
I should be able to use what I was using before. The "new hotness" does not require ripping out what was there before. This is why Unity gets grief. It really has nothing to do with "being different".
Canonical pulled a Microsoft.
If Canonical really believes that Unity is the new "hot thing", it would have been trivial to add a choice during install... New (Unity) or Classic (Gnome2), and let the user-base decide, but nooooooooooo, they know whats best for EVERYONE... I tried Unity for a week, I really did.. With all the new weird shite it does, and stuff that I was used to with Gnome2 that no longer is there/works the same way, I started tearing my hair out by the roots. Since, God Help Me, I still love Ubuntu, I installed Cinnamo
Re: (Score:2)
If Canonical really believes that Unity is the new "hot thing", it would have been trivial to add a choice during install... New (Unity) or Classic (Gnome2), and let the user-base decide, but nooooooooooo, they know whats best for EVERYONE...
you mean a choice like when you downloaded it to get unbutu(unity) kubuntu(kde) xubuntu(xfce) lubuntu(lxde) and so on? or like after the install when you simply apt-get {de of choice}
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Unity is the epitome of cargo cult programming. This is an old comment by Matthew Paul Thomas but it summarizes quite well the usability problems with Unity caused by the cargo cult:
In the April usability test, eight of ten people discovered
the hidden menus. But seven of them discovered the menus by
hovering over the maximized window controls, which in 11.04 were visible all the
time. In 11.10, even those window controls will be hidden by default. So I look forward to seeing whether in 11.10, the fraction of people who learn how to access menus is even smaller, or even slower, or both.
But I don’t think that’s even the primary issue. You write as if learnability (or more specifically, discoverability)
and aesthetics are the only two aspects of usability. They are
important, but so is efficiency.
In the same usability test, whenever one of those seven people needed to use the menus a second time, they didn’t aim directly for the relevant menu. They again moused over the window controls to reveal the menus, and then scooted along to the right. This was, of course, grossly inefficient — especially compared with the speed that a top-of-screen menu bar exists to provide in the first place. In 11.10 the window controls will be hidden too, but the basic efficiency problem will remain: at the moment you’re aiming for the target, you can’t see it.
Every so often, some Ubuntu contributor asks why most of the Unity designers use Mac OS X. The reason, of course, is that those designers are experienced with Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, and other applications that don’t work (or if they do work in Wine, work much less pleasantly) on Ubuntu. And it is precisely those kinds of applications, with their deep feature sets, that use menus most heavily. Anyone who points to Web browsers or mobile OSes as harbingers of a menu-less world is, I think, misguided about what kinds of things people will still use non-mobile OSes for in ten years. It is a small irony that hiding menus by default makes it even less likely that anything like those applications will ever work well on Ubuntu.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
What's actually wrong with Unity? Is there something you can point to, instead of just "ZOMG it's new I don't like it?"
Ok, here goes. A (possibly the) major problem with Unity - and the entire "app-centric" GUI ecosystem from the iDevice and tablet world which it and Windows 8 are aping - is that its focus on applications comes at the expense of documents. This reverses the trend from the 1980s onwards where GUIs were becoming increasingly about the user manipulating rich documents, and puts us right back in the old world of "your data is hard-coded into applications". But that simply isn't the case. Documents transcend applications; the application is just a means to an end.
Why? Two reasons. One, because applications churn faster than data does. For example: my music is a collection of .MP3 and .OGG files. It's over a decade old, and it's not going anywhere. My music player application, however, could be any of Rhythmbox, Banshee, Songbird, VLC. My photograph collection is a bunch of .JPG files. It's also not going to change. The default "photo manager" application (which I'm not sure there's even a need for) in Ubuntu, however, has switched from F-Spot to Shotwell, and then there's the GNOME Viewer if I just want to view them.
Second, there are multiple actions you might want to take with documents, and those different actions may require different applications. If I have a JPG, I *might* want to view it, or I might want to edit it. In that case I'm going to want to open it in GIMP, not Shotwell or Viewer. There's no way the OS can know in advance how I want to work with my data, so it shouldn't attempt to presume that it knows best.
The primary way this broken "applications first" mindset manifests in Unity is with the dock, and the way it groups windows by application rather than document. For instance, if I have two PDF files open, they're two completely separate documents; I want them to appear as two different icons. But no. Dock shows them as one instance of the PDF Viewer, and only once I click on them does it ask me which one I want. That's not at all what the user requires; it's an objective regression in usability (from the document-centric perspective) from even Windows 95's interface. But it's not a bug, it's a design decision, and it's come from inhaling uncritically the iDevice approach of "the app is everything".
I hope this app-focus is just a passing fad in the industry, because it reverses more than thirty years of user interface progress. It's been good news to app developers, as it assures them a privileged industry position and a revenue stream. But it's not good news to the user who wants the ability to sculpt their own document-centric workflow.
Re: (Score:3)
it hides programs i don't use everyday in a sea of apps, rather than giving me a simple hierarchical menu that I can get to it in under 5 seconds, any files i have not previously opened are ignored by the search in the hud, files on external media are ignored by the hud file searchs, there that just the first few i could think of in less than two minutes
Re: (Score:2)
What's actually wrong with Unity? Is there something you can point to, instead of just "ZOMG it's new I don't like it?"
It relies on Compiz for 3D. I'd be a Unity fan if it weren't for Compiz.
I donated... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I donated... (Score:4, Interesting)
And I donate bandwidth to them all - debian, mint, ubuntu, slackware ... any time I see a new version release notice (usually here on /.) I ssh to my hosted server, start up screen, and start torrenting. Depending on when in the month it is (I get 200gb/mo xfer) and what I've used (typically nothing), I'll seed for 25-50gb upload or until upload from my box is close to nothing.
I can't code well enough to donate that, I don't have any extra $ to donate, so this is how I contribute (and how just about anyone can).
More of this and less Amazon ads (Score:2)
Perhaps Ubuntu is doomed to fail for targeting the desktop more than the server. But someone has to do it. They have made some mistake recently but it's nice someone is trying to do something different rather than just mak
disenchanted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why not just install gnome or mate if you're unhappy with unity?
Re: (Score:2)
why not just install gnome or mate if you're unhappy with unity?
OR Cinnamon.. I'm of the "Unity-haters", and am using Cinnamon on Ubuntu 12.04.. If you liked/were used to Gnome2, Cinnamon is there.. It seems to have a few burps/hiccups occasionally, but I suspect thats because its under heavy development by the Mint-devs...
Re: (Score:2)
Just install in a VM first. Virtualbox works nicely.
Mint Yes -- Ubuntu No (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I am slightly bitter; because I remember Ubuntu as something almost inconceivably excellent. The idea of having the freedom of Linux along with out-of-the-box functionality seems almost too good to be true. Thankfully there's Mint for that.
Yes, I was a big fan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
..but I am looking for a new distribution.
IMO, Arch, Archbang, or Mint may be worth your consideration. If you were unaware, Mate is a very fine fork of Gnome and is very usable. Mint's Cinnamon is coming along too, and I suspect it will eventually be very nice. I remember being very content with Lucid but dreading 2013 when it would no longer receive support. I nearly kept waiting, but seeing the direction Ubu was taking, I got anxious, made backups and re-formatted for Mint. I tried Cinnamon first, then xfce, and finally settled on Mate. It was
Best Linux Donation? (Score:2)
Let's say I want to donate to the best organization for Linux today, which if I don't see the desktop as the priority surely wouldn't be Canonical. Who would that be then?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd probably say RedHat. Unfortunately their desktop isn't quite as nice as Ubuntu's. They do things like run SELinux by default, exclude certain drivers/codecs, and have really ugly fonts!
But they do a solid server distribution, and (unlike Canonical) have a good reputation of pushing their changes back upstream. They employ a lot of developers to work on open source projects such as the kernel, and generally speaking they are a good open source community member.
Re: (Score:2)
While that title is inviting flames, I'd suggust Fedora for its numerous contributions to upstream projects. while not soely responsible, It is very responsible for the joy that is Linux today. I'd also suggust Suse, but the whole MS cross license deal when it was owned by novell turned me off.
What an odd coincedence (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd recently decided to switch my laptop to Mint.
let me know when it works (Score:2)
I hope 90% of the money... (Score:5, Insightful)
goes to Debian, where 90% of the work comes from.
Re:I hope 90% of the money... (Score:5, Funny)
The people who do the most work, should get the most money?
Sounds like communist propaganda to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In that case, shouldn't Debian turn 90% of its donations over to upstream projects, you know, where the work is done?
Mr. Shuttleworth's car needs a new set of wheels (Score:2)
That's what this is all about.
Re:Mr. Shuttleworth's car needs a new set of wheel (Score:5, Interesting)
Believe or not, Mark Shuttle worth does not have a car. He bikes to work. When in London he usually either bikes, takes the tube or, in case of something urgent, a taxi.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he just wants to visit the ISS again.
A united fund is what we really need (Score:2)
Tackling the wrong problem. (Score:2)
The summary complains that:
When a typical user downloads Ubuntu for free and installs it on a computer with a Windows license that the user did pay for, Canonical gets nothing in the form of payment.
but their solution isn't to try to get manufacturers to offer OS choice on machines, instead it's to ask users to pay twice to use only one operating system.
How about a method to get some of the major manufacturers to allow you to direct your Microsoft tax to Ubuntu instead when you don't plan to ever run Windows...
Mozilla should do this (Score:3)
Does that mean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The iso should only have on it what is needed to get a network install going. In fact, all the live distros should cooperate and create a single bootstrap iso that presents you with a menu of what distro and what version you want to network install.
If you mean, "In addition to the standard all-in-one ISO," I wholeheartedly agree.
If you mean, "Instead of the standard all-in-one ISO," you're an idiot - not every computer in the universe has a network connection, and some of them, for damn good reason. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
noobs and lamers, sure. But also businesses, non-profits, and other organizations looking for a low cost solution to their computing needs - including the maintenance side of the equation.
Go back a year or two, and anyone who wanted a low maintenance system was considering Ubuntu, if not outright installing/using it. Now-a-days though, that "low maintenance" target is slowly disappearing. KDE/Gnome do wonders for the low maintenance thing (maybe not Gnome so much these days), but the underlying system is
Re: (Score:2)
If you want something supported for a long time, I would say Centos or Debian are the way to go. And if you wish to sustain developpers, you can either donate to Debian with SPI, or pay for a RHEL subscription, and that benefit to Centos, Scientific Linux, or even OEL, who are all clones of RHEL, and pay for jobs of many upstream developers ( http://www.redhat.com/promo/os-community/projects.html [redhat.com] ).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod the parent up.
Been using Kubuntu on the desktop, and in all servers I managed, be they in house or for clients, since 2006. Never had a dependency problem, nor a daemon problem.
Sent from a Kubuntu 12.04 laptop ...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it was breezy in 2005 even ...
Re:Entry for "Canonical owes me $[xxxx]" ? (Score:5, Funny)
You remind me of the Comic Book Guy:
Comic Book Guy: Last night's Itchy & Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured I was on the Internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world.
Bart: Hey, I know it wasn’t great, but what right do you have to complain?
Comic Book Guy: As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me.
Bart: For what? They’re giving you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them.
Comic Book Guy: Worst episode ever.
Re: (Score:2)
THIS!! I love Ubuntu, have been using it since 7.04, but I'm in the "Detest Unity" group here.. I recently upgraded my laptop and desktop from 10.04 to 12.04 and figured I'd give Unity an honest try vs listening to all the pissing/moaning about what a piece of shite it is... After a week of nearly tearing my already thinning hair out, I decided to get with the program and installed Cinnamon. Except for a couple of red "kaboom" icons right after installing, I feel like I'm back on 10.04 with Gnone2.. As far
Re: (Score:2)
you mean like Xubuntu, kubuntu, lubuntu, soon to be gnombuntu, and (whatever the enlightenment desktop variant is called).