I have Ubuntu installed on two systems, a couple of weeks ago. I 've heard a lot of good comments, and enough people were very glad with it. But I am NOT. I think that this model does not work and we should look to another distribution.
For the people who don't know Ubuntu. Ubuntu linux is a distribution which is focussed on the desktop, wants to be bleeding edge and gives an update every six months. Current release is 5.10 called Breezy. Next will be Dapper 6.04. (First number states which year, second which month)
And there is where the problems come in. Nice example is Firefox 1.5. It came out in November, which was too late for the release of Octobre. So there is no easy way to install firefox 1.5. I am not afraid of the command line, but i did not manage to install it in a good way, and lost all my bookmarks and plugins.As you see does it not work to have only once in 6 months an update.
It also does not work for the reason they are bleeding edge. Because some of the packages are buid in, and are too new for other programs. For example again firefox. I had to downgrade my dc++ from 6 to 5. The same problem with gcc for compliling mplayer. I can not easily build these packages since the other packages are too new.
And the last problem is that they are officially based in US. So a lot of the packages I as a normal user want (DVD, win codecs, java) are there not allowed. This forces me to use third party software. So in fact Ubuntu forces me to open up a root shell for people I do not know. This completely throws out the advantages of debian apt-get.
So far the packages, but there is more. It sounds a good idea to disable the rootshell. What you have to do is use sudo to execute a program with root rights. This is a major security thread. Since most people will not use a complicated password to secure their personal account. But this same password secures the rootshell.
After all I do not recommend Ubuntu to be installed. I think a Debian unstable would be just as bleeding edge as the release of Ubuntu, but stay that all year long. Problem is that the installation is a bit more complicated.
Fedora is also a good try when i did it with version 1. But there you have the same problem of opening up you rootshell to people you do not know. If somebody has experience with Suse and Mandrake and advises them, I would like to hear from you!
Comments
Remember the target audience...
JjzD....
Some thoughts... Is Ubuntu ready for production? - Perhaps that is a misleading question. It is in production and has been steadily improving for a couple of years.
Ubuntu is committed to providing free updates every 6 months, and hey - they will even post you the distro CD's free of charge. (They even pay postage!)
Ubunto comes from South Africa, the millionaire space shuttle 'tourist' Mark Shuttleworth being the one donating his wealth to provode free software for the masses. Not coming from the US can be an advantage - why is anything 'foreign' a problem?
Sure it is not perfect but neither is your expensive MS operating system.
If you need a system with tech savvy tools and higher root security then choose another system. Ubuntu might be great for those on limited budgets with minimal needs.
I have played with Ubuntu, and will not (yet) replace my OS on my main system but keep an eye on it for the future and for others. I do like the heart attitude of the foundation developing it.
Blessings!
Mike Stevens
YWAM Dalarna, Sweden
GENESIS Global Development team
How we are exploring Ubuntu at Reef to Outback
Don't tell anyone, but right now on my desk next to my three year old Dell Laptop I have a three year old Mac iBook running Mac OS X and Ubuntu. Getting them both installed on the same computer was fun, you can read that here, Bill's Journal - Dual Boot Mac OS X and Ubuntu Linux, but it has provided me with a great test bed for both Linux and Mac OS X as we are trying to work a lot on cross platform compatibility issues on our mostly Microsoft Network.
Donovan wrote a good post about OpenSUSE, Good review on OpenSUSE, and there are also a few previous posts about Ubuntu including Authenticating it to Microsoft Active Directory. We have also been able to get it to work in Terminal Server mode, which you can read about here, Bill's Journal - Running Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP). We have even been able to load a patch onto our thin clients to connect them to LTSP, Bill's Journal - Linux Terminal Server Clients.
Of the few distibutions of Linux that I have tried it has so far proven to be pretty good as a desktop environment, but like Mike I am not in a hurry to replace my current OS. But I am quite tempted to look at setting it up as a Terminal Server for use by our students in our Internet Cafe instead of each student using a $75.00 Microsoft Terminal Server Licence + a Microsoft Client Access Licence.
You could maybe even look into thin clients
I was looking forward to use these in our setup at another base. In that way, i think that DSL would be a good bet, or even Puppy linux.
I will look into Suse. tnx.
Using Ubuntu for LTSP
I was just reading my last post and realized that it could be a bit confusing.
The disro that we have set-up and tested with Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP) was Ubuntu, not SUSE. I know that LTSP is available with numerous distros, but that was the one that we got to work succesfully.
I do like Ubuntu and linux
Hi Mike,
thanks for your reply. I really like the setup of Ubuntu, anbd i like the atmosphere on the site. Nobody shouting RTFM.
I know the distro is coming from SA, but the servers are located in US. That gives the problems with codecs, who are illegal in the US, but free for the rest of europe. They are not allowed on the US servers, but those are the only ones Ubuntu have.
You are right that it is a perfect distro concerning real basic needs. And in that it is doing a good job. Maybe you are right i expected too much. But with my experience in Linux i know that a lot is customizable, and thought that what not in there was, could do it myself.
You are right about windows, and Ubuntu has me hooked to Linux, but it is not a distro for me. And i also think not ready for deployment across a network. Ofcourse will standalone work if you only request internet. But for a rollout you will need more customizability.
Ubuntu @ ywammadison
After using Redhat for a short while to run early Mambo installs, we decided to try Ubuntu to manage several open source projects to get things moving at our base.
We have our Linux Server (ubuntu) running Wordpress (for Staff blogs), a couple of Wikis (for school development projects), Coppermine (staff photo site) and finally Moodle (learning & community site). So far we have had literally zero issues with it. In fact, it has been more reliable than our IPcop Firewall, our 2 WinSer2003 machines, our Exchange server and a bunch of other things.
There is certain software that you need linux boxes to run (especially with open source projects) and ubuntu is the way to go right now.
OS and our expectations
What did you (honestly) expect from an OS that is on the "bleeding edge"?
If you really want to be on the bleeding edge it's normal that some libs or what ever so stinking new that other programs that are not so on the edge are not working. This has nothing to do with Ubuntu.
The question is, what do you want to have? Always the newest (best??), even unstable stuff? Or do you want some that is 100% sure working?
I am using Kubuntu (for whatever reason I like the KDE Desktop more), but I'm "still" using the version 5.04. No, I am totaly not on the edge, in that sense, but still newer than a whole lot of other OS's. And guess what, I don't want to be on the edge because I don't want to be the beta tester for the others. I am not that much of an system administrator to do that job. Even if I would be that good as an admin, would I realy want to do that? But that's me....
Anyways, what means "ready for production"? Do you think MS is ready for production, or OS X, or any other Unix system? If ready for production means that everything is working, then I don't know any OS or software that is ready for production.
Befor I came to YWAM I tested software for a company for 4 years. I was working with Windows, Suse & RedHat Linux, HP UX, IBM AIX, Sun Solaris and another not so common Unix that I already forgot what it's called. Believe me, non of them where perfect, all OS froze or had whatever issues. However, Windows was the worst of all.
I did my "office work" with Windows (email, text documents, etc.) but the high performance test was always on a Unix machine with not even a third of the processor speed of the Windows machine. Not that Windows was slower, but the Unix didn't didn't gave up when I already had to reboot Windows the 2nd time. At this time I was working with W2k and XP was not out, so it was not an outdated system.
I tried out Suse 9 myself, and I didn't realy like it. Same with the RedHat in the office. Later I tried Debian and found out later that I actually had hardware problems, but it wored anyway, I was amazed that it worked. Now, I have Kubuntu and W2k installed and I'm happy with that. I am not ready to totally switch to Linux, but I'm not quit sure if I will ever upgrade my Windows. I never had a system like Linux that is working that stable, not that it's never freezing or causing trouble, but for sure I have less problems than with Windows or OS X.
Especially when we talk about server. In that company I worked we also had a Windows server, that was the pain-in-the-butt-machine. It needed at least one reboot a week to somehow work. Not speaking about my software tests.
So, back to the actual question.
I would say, absolutely no OS is perfect. Not Windows, or OS X, or any kind of Unix, FreeBSD or what ever other system. In fact, I heard from some people who work on systems for cars that they bought old cars, with the comment "If you only would know...." One of them I know personaly, the other ones I know from a forum.
My personal conclusion is, I am looking at what I need, not at the bugs or whatever other problems, if I would, I would not have any computer, bacause you will not find a bug free system.
So, what do you need or what do you want to have? If you want to be on the bleeding edge you will have other problems than if you have an older system, but you will always find something that causes you a headache. Choose wisely your system, and now that we have so many different to choose from I'm preety positive that you can find one that fit your needs in almost every area. Especially because latetly it's so easy to install Linux parallel to another system and it's free, so no extra cost for a 2nd system that could probably do some for you that another system can't or not that good.
But never ever expect from what ever system to work perfect.
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo
Adding another log....
Hi all,
A while back I did some research & experimenting with some different Live Boot Linux OS'es. Here are my reviews of the OS'es that I tried:
- VectorLinux (never booted - apparently a bad download)
- DSLinux (too limiting in its uses as a desktop OS)
- Knoppix (a little too resource hungry... not good for older machines)
- Ubuntu (not good for older or newer machines in regards to specifically getting sound to work...
very unpredictable in its installation & it's too limiting with the fact that it has it's own proprietary repository, which is an anti-Linux approach to allowing operability across OS'es... bottom line: I had way too many issues getting Ubuntu to work.)
- a straight Debian net-install (highly configurable, but too much work for what I was looking for)
- Dynebolic (great for a very, very niche market of DJ & VJ use but not good as an everyday desktop OS)
At our YWAM location in Latvia, we currently have 3 desktop machines that are running MEPIS Linux, which is Debian with KDE. At home, I have a dual-boot setup on my machine with Mepis & XP Pro. I generally don't work in Linux at home, unless I decide to use the desktop publishing software Scribus. At our location, the 3 machines that are running it have been running with no problems at all. Now, I must insert here the point that I have decided against frequent upgrades, as I'm beginning to adopt the philosophy that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Those 3 machines are used primarily for staff & students needing basic email & internet access. One machine, however, we've kind of pushed a bit with using it for graphics uses, i.e. brochure design, image editing, etc. As I said, Mepis has been running great. It's been a very stable OS & there are no limitations that I have come across regarding "foreign"software, etc. I have my Synaptic Package Manager pointing to a Latvia-based Debian repository without issue. Mepis is based in the US, but the Mepis guys seem to have a commitment to producing a desktop OS that allows all the same functions as Windows.
For what it's worth, I've been very happy with Mepis & what it offers as a Windows replacement.
Cheers,
Chris Bischoff
YWAM Latvia, Communications
www.ywamlatvia.com
www.chrisandlydia.net
Ofcourse is nothing perfect on this side of heaven.
But I was stating that the whole model does not work. And I mean that in connection with more clients running the same OS, so we could have the possibility to synchronize data.
In fact is Ubuntu not that Bleeding edge. You have to look upon it as a reaction to Debian. They have the pollicy that a package has to be for 18 monts in the tree, and then only it can be called stable. Still from the old days they were server focussed. But in fact is Ubuntu nothing more than a unstable release of Debian. And if they would have used the Debian way of releasing packages, they would not have the problems concerning the packages, wich are too new, or too old.
And Linux is the best concerning servers, but I would really like to see it evolve to the Desktop. And I don't think that the model would work.
Why should Ubuntu not work?
Again the question, what do you need?
It might be that K/Ubuntu is not working for you, for your needs, for your setup... But that doesn't mean that it's not working at all.
I have installed Kubuntu on 2 machines and it works fine. That, however, doesn't mean that I'm happy in every way. I agree with you that the missing root user is not really the best idea these guys had. Specially becuase I couldn't work with the command shell 'till someone told me that I have to add "sudo" to the command. I didn't know that before and it was a pain. I am not happy with that but honestly that's better than what every usual Windows user is doing, to give them self root rights on every user account...
As I said before, no OS is perfect, and we both agree with that. But just because Ubuntu is not working for you, that doesn't mean that it's simply not working.
For me, as someone still in the stage of a Linux Newbie it works pretty good. It was easy to install, even parallel to my W2k. Someday in the future, when I have more experience and I want to have a more customizable OS I might switch to another Linux distribution. But for now Kubuntu is definitely working pretty good for me.
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo
ubuntu and other OS'es
Hi
well to contribute with my expirience. Im just studying software engeenering so I'm not a experienced admin.
About the root password in Ubuntu I think theroreticaly this is a nice idea but it doesn't fit my customs so when I tried Ubuntu I just gave root the missing password back and all worked like before. But I think Ubuntu is a good working debian derivat who aimes on the desktop.
I mean every distribution brings it's own feel and averyone has to look for himself what he likes and what not. I currently use Fedora Core 4 on my Desktop machines and debian sarge on my server and I'm realy sadisfied with it.
Fedora is in one way just the beta test for the next redhat relaise. But it just works realy good. On a desktop machine I don't want to have so much hassle bringing the stuff to work and fedora just works. It finds my hardware and if I plug in a usb stick it bring it up and mount the thing without me doing to much. I'm kind of concerned about that way because then we get a distribution that gets as unstable as windows is but till now I think it is worth a try. The one thing that realy bugs me is that I have to install stuff from other sources to get something like mp3 and things like that to work but ok I understand the reasons. What I also like is that it's still easy to compile things myself with Fedora because the stuff is at the right places where other programs expect it to be.
Well and debian on the server is just unbeatable.
Something that might be interesting for the people who need to work with both platforms. I use a X - Server (cygwin) on windows the set the display variable accordingly and use my linux programs on my windows desktop.
Well just some thoughts from me
//Jörg
just a side note here
just a side note here fellows,
but i'm playing around with dapper at the moment and personally i think its starting to look good as long as you take it for what it is.
a desktop OS with the latest and greatest software, and yes!! you can take the bugs along with that!!!
but all i want to say here,
the first thing i do after an Ubuntu install is "sudo passwd root" and remove the user with the sudo permisions.