<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/6/18 Steve Hill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@nexusuk.org">steve@nexusuk.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Phillip Muldoon wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Well, if it was RPM-based, it would be a variation of CentOS since<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Not true - lots of distros use RPM, even ones that have nothing to do with CentOS.<br>
<br>
In any case, I don't see why the packaging method has *any* bearing at all on whether the distro likes your hardware - this seems to be a red herring.</blockquote><div><br><br><br>Just to nit pick on quoting, I did not say that ;)<br>
<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Ubuntu has just seemed to be ahead of Fedora in terms of<br>
usability for<br>
years and seems to have less hassles with hardware (without<br>
it being<br>
user error).<br>
<br>
You're going to have to qualify this statement, you knew it was coming.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I think this is possibly a "what did you use first" thing. Personally I find Ubuntu very unuserfriendly compared to Fedora, but Ubuntu does seem to be an extremely popular introductory distro. There are probably a number of factors here:<br>
<br>
Firstly, Ubuntu's marketting machine has been much better than most other free (beer) distros - Canonical have sunk a *lot* of money into the marketting. I'll leave everyone to make their own decision on whether this was a Good Thing or if they should have been spending that money on developers. :)<br>
<br>
Secondly, Windows users who are trying Linux for the first time seem to be happier with Ubuntu - this may partly be down to the marketting thing (so it was the first thing they tried) but also it may simply be that Ubuntu's UI is more Windows-like. Of course, being Windows-like isn't necessarilly a good thing for long-term Linux users - I find Windows' UI to be about the least userfriendly thing out there. :)<br>
<br>
At this point, I'll say that the Linux distros I have mostly used for the past 12 years have been Red Hat Linux, Fedora, RHEL and CentOS, so my judgement may be coloured by a familiarity with Red Hat based distros. I also haven't used Windows for anything serious in the last 8 years.</blockquote>
<div><br><br><br>I really like them both, and they both have thier place. I was curious to the nature of why replacing one with the other would solve a (this) problem. Does Ubuntu have a kernel with better sound drivers? Less buggy? I dunno, was asking why this was suggested as a solution. I'm researching the original issue, and that normally means using bugzilla and finding previous reports. This can be tedious. I wish we could fix/improve bugzilla ;)<br>
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
And secondly the the distros are built pretty much from the same software.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Ahh, but it is probably the default configuration that makes most of the difference rather than the actual software used. With enough time, you can make Ubuntu *look* very close to Fedora, for example, through simple reconfiguration, but who wants to spend the time doing that?<br>
<br>
As an example, (I'll get flamed for this, but...) I find Debian a pretty horendous distro because the default configuration for *everything* seems to be terrible. Yes, I can spend hours reconfiguring it to act sensibly, but why would I bother when I can pick one of a large number of other distros which comes sensibly configured out of the box?<br>
<br>
I'll also take this opportunity to mention that, in my experience, the most popular distros used in industry (mainly on servers) seem to be RHEL/CentOS and to a lesser extent, SLES; so whatever you use at home, it is very worthwhile having a good knowledge of Red Hat style distros, assuming that you're in (or want to be in) that sort of job.<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br>I used (and still use Debian) for years. My job requires me to run many different distros, as I generally work upstream in projects. But I've been with Fedora (and RHL before that), when it was born. I really want to improve it. If it is failing somewhere it should be fixed. And remain positive too; the future for Linux of all stripes has never looked better, or brighter.<br>
<br>Regards<br><br>Phil<br>