Thread: Ubuntu annoys me

We have received some great replies here. I do computer consulting among other things for my business too Ynot and I agree with it being a good platform for business servers on a variety of accounts. Don't knock ubuntu, its a fantastic platform. There is no reason not to make linux assessable and it doesn't limit you. Besides in a business environment win32 is still your dominant desktop platform, I personally was hoping ubuntu desktop would move in on that depending on the business and their needs and it has made some progress but nothing mind blowing. Your observations about support are also spot on Ynot.

dsr did a great analysis on distros, very well spoken. I have little to no experience with Arch linux but have only heard good things. As dsr noted and I've seen some confusion with for people new to linux your distro will pretty much support any interface and window manager your hardware and software support. Just because Gnome and KDE are standard on ubuntu doesn't mean you can't try openbox, enlightenment, and flux. For most linux systems I have they are all remotely managed with ssh. You can learn a lot by navigating and managing your system locally in console, although I'm not quite sure what your looking for in an OS Op.

I've used gentoo before for servers and if your moving from a easy to use gui based system that keeps your dirty work under the hood (ubuntu for instance), and don't want to learn the ins and outs of your software I don't recommend it. However if you are relatively experienced you may want to try it, as dsr mentioned it is bleeding edge and VERY admin involved. I however did not enjoy that level of maintenance over time for my servers and switched my stuff over to ubuntu with a custom more BSD like hardened kernel. I do have to say that gentoo is amazingly fast on incredibly slow processors to an impressive degree, and I'm not knocking it in anyway. BSD was not really discussed in depth, and is not linux, but if your into security you may enjoy playing with openBSD.

dsr is one of an increasingly growing group of people praising Arch so I may try it out if I get time, also the optimized 64 bit support that feels as fast as source is a big claim but sounds promising. Thanks guys for your contributions this is a pretty decent thread, not what I was expecting for an off topic forum. Great analysis by both Ynot about ubuntu and dsr about more minimalist and involved distros.

Originally Posted by sanispirational

dsr is one of an increasingly growing group of people praising Arch so I may try it out if I get time, also the optimized 64 bit support that feels as fast as source is a big claim but sounds promising.

I'm glad Arch is gaining name recognition. A year ago, I didn't know a single Linux user who had heard of it.

Originally Posted by sanispirational

BSD was not really discussed in depth, and is not linux, but if your into security you may enjoy playing with openBSD.

I agree that the BSDs are worth considering. OpenBSD seems a bit too focused on security (and not enough on performance) for personal use, and I remember reading a Debian article awhile back that claimed, albeit in a biased manner, that much of OpenBSD's alleged security comes from default settings such as not having various daemons or services enabled by default. The article claimed that once you start configuring your system, OpenBSD is no more secure than Debian stable. I'm not sure how much credence I would lend to that article, but I don't have any knowledge to the contrary. NetBSD also seems a bit too focused on supporting old hardware rather than running fast on new hardware. However, I've used FreeBSD on occasion, and it's a great OS. It has a cleaner partition ("slice") system than Linux if you have a multiboot setup, and it has a much slimmer kernel. Another nice plus is that the manpages are actually accurate. That being said, it doesn't seem as fast as Linux, and it doesn't have nearly as large a community backing. On the positive side for me, however, it has a BSD init system (well, duh). Like Arch Linux, it supports both binary (packages) and source (ports) package management, but it doesn't have the benefit of a rolling release system. Like Slackware, FreeBSD should be used on computers where frequent updates aren't necessary and stability is far more important than being on the bleeding edge. Some people are fine with that on a desktop or laptop; most aren't. For me, like Slackware, FreeBSD shines on a server.

Originally Posted by Ynot

Just FYI,
Upstart is an event-driven replacement for the init daemon
written by Scott James Remnant of Canonical (previously a Debian maintainer)

The original SysV and BSD init systems are very linear, and do not fair well with hot-pluggable devices, or other external system changes

Say you have /usr mounted via NFS
When the boot process hits the mounting of /usr, it could potentially take a little time
(If not done so already, got to initialise networking, get IP, etc.)

Upstart uses events to trigger init scripts, making the whole thing asynchronous, and therefore much more concurrent

You can read the original Ubuntu blueprint from 2006
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReplacementInit

Upstart is also, now, used on Fedora and Palm's WebOS

Thanks for the description. I currently mount optical and USB devices manually, but I intend to setup HAL for use with hotplugging some time in the near future. I'll look into Upstart, but it wouldn't be a reason for me to switch to Ubuntu.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is precisely what I wanted to know, though of course I didn't know that thats what I wanted to know at the time of my OP.

I'm glad that answered your question. With all the resources that exist on the Internet, I've yet to find a single web page that actually explains to the uninitiated how the increasingly many Linux distros out there differ, and what to look for when deciding on a specific distro. I hope I've achieved that.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It seems as if the order of complexity for the init system is bsd < sys V < upstart. Is that correct?

I wouldn't say that a BSD style init system is inherently less abstract (closer to the kernel than the keyboard) than its SysV counterpart, but it's definitely more suited to manual configuration, which is what you want if you're using a distro that encourages fewer layers of abstraction.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

If so, then it seems logical to start with a BSD style init system and work my way up. It has been pointed out that in my OP, I was not clear about what I wanted. My gripe with ubuntu is that I don't have to do anything for it to work. Being the lazy sonofabitch that I am, if I don't have to do anything, then I don't do anything. A consequence of this, aside from having more time to surf the web, is that I don't learn anything about gnu/linux system administration. Ubuntu is too good for the lazy, just-in-time learner. I guess a better title would be, "Ubuntu doesn't annoy me enough and I am looking for an OS that will." When it comes to programming, I will seek out information just for the sake of it because I genuinely enjoy it. System administration... not so much. I do feel compelled to learn it though.

Also remember that "more advanced" distros like those I discussed in my previous post aren't just about forcing you to do more work and challenge yourself. If you know the ins and outs of your system and how to configure everything by editing text files (which btw is not very difficult to do if you know how to read), you'll be able to tailor your computing environment to fit your needs so precisely that the resulting OS will actually save you time.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Thank you all for the great responses. I've decided that I'm going to dual boot arch and ubuntu for a while.

I'm glad to hear it.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

EDIT: I made this edit on arch with the openbox as the WM.

I'm glad you got passed the first install. That's probably the hardest thing you'll ever have to do with Arch. Let me encourage you to read the beginner's guide and the official installation guide on the wiki if you haven't already. They'll give you a good foundation to start with.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I'm gonna skate without a DE for now I think. Thanks again for the help.

That's a very good decision. I actually jumped right into an all keyboard-controlled tiling wm (Ratpoison) when I switched to Arch, so I was immersed in the command-line from the very beginning and forced to learn it well. If you want to give it a try, this excellent article will give you all the introductory info you'll need to get started with GNU screen and Ratpoison. Give it a week, and your life will never be the same.

P.S. I think I've gotten the excessively long posts out of my system now.