4 ms·

No. The main motivation behind Ubuntu (and its predecessors Knoppix, Mepis, UserLinux) was realizing that a knowledgeable person could get a nice, easy to use D

by ploum 4y ago

No. The main motivation behind Ubuntu (and its predecessors Knoppix, Mepis, UserLinux) was realizing that a knowledgeable person could get a nice, easy to use Debian desktop in a couple of hours and then let it in the hands of less knowledgeable persons. It was hard to install. On the other hand, you could boot a perfectly workable system from a live CD (Knoppix) but it was hard to install. So the motivation was: could we get the best of both worlds? Easy to launch/install and easy to use maintain once installed? This was also more or less coordinated with a huge shift in GNOME development where UX became the main goal and development switched to a 6 months based schedule. Detecting hardware was part of what was hard with Debian but was not seen the most important part. Having a nice coherent desktop at first boot was the goal. source : I was part of it.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
Hey, ploum, merci pour ces annees de plume et code francophone. On my side, I definitly kept ubuntu because that was the only distro that ran on my hardware on first try. I should not have implied that ubuntu would not have been launched, but rather that the story would have went very differently IMO.
- ploum 4y ago
  To be fair, Ubuntu had a hard time with lot of hardware too at the time ;-) source : I ran Ubuntu Install Party at my local university and, for some laptops, I had to spend hours figuring out what to do. Situation is way better now for hardware (but Ubuntu became too full of bloat for my taste)
Kye 4y ago
It's even embedded in the original tagline: "Linux for human beings"
yamtaddle 4y ago
Ubuntu's killer feature early on, for me, was picking the obviously correct defaults. No, I don't want Gnome or KDE's stupid browser, I want(ed) Firefox. A whole bunch of little choices like that, that meant I could just hit "install" without modifying anything or choosing any packages and get a desktop set up about the same way I'd have set up Debian, after a bunch of faffing about.
passthejoe 4y ago
Debian left a huge opening, and Ubuntu went right through it. Good for them — and us.

by ploum 4y ago

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

Hey, ploum, merci pour ces annees de plume et code francophone. On my side, I definitly kept ubuntu because that was the only distro that ran on my hardware on first try. I should not have implied that ubuntu would not have been launched, but rather that the story would have went very differently IMO.

ploum 4y ago
To be fair, Ubuntu had a hard time with lot of hardware too at the time ;-) source : I ran Ubuntu Install Party at my local university and, for some laptops, I had to spend hours figuring out what to do. Situation is way better now for hardware (but Ubuntu became too full of bloat for my taste)

Kye 4y ago

It's even embedded in the original tagline: "Linux for human beings"

yamtaddle 4y ago

Ubuntu's killer feature early on, for me, was picking the obviously correct defaults. No, I don't want Gnome or KDE's stupid browser, I want(ed) Firefox. A whole bunch of little choices like that, that meant I could just hit "install" without modifying anything or choosing any packages and get a desktop set up about the same way I'd have set up Debian, after a bunch of faffing about.

passthejoe 4y ago

Debian left a huge opening, and Ubuntu went right through it. Good for them — and us.