5 ms·

Why don't you like Ubuntu? Because of the Amazon store thing?

datkam 4y ago
Also snaps.. I haven't used Ubuntu in years. I used Manjaro for a while and now Arch for a couple of years.
m463 4y ago
I think canonical has taken control from users to its own benefit. As one example, ubuntu-minimal is the minimal meta package, but it has a sneaky dependency on ubuntu-advantage-tools and ubuntu-advantage-tools is sort of the master phone-home system.
- Osiris 4y ago
  How do they take control away from you? Under the hood every Linux distro is just a collection of packages. You can install or remove whatever you want. unlike Windows or macOS, you can replace or remove every single piece of the system.
  - m463 4y ago
    maybe there are "dark implementations" just like there are "dark patterns"
bguebert 4y ago
I'm not that guy, but snaps are the main reason for not liking Ubuntu recently. The impression I get is that Canonical is trying to monetize Ubuntu's popularity and a lot of people are resentful of that since Ubuntu gets most of it's value from the free software it bundles into it's distro.
- tsegratis 4y ago
  I think you're right, but Maybe it's my myopia, but I feel they were easily the most dev friend years ago, and poured their life and money into it, to benefit others But then after ubuntu phone, the level of ingratitude from us devs were shocking Project focus wasn't always on the ball, but we the community ripped them apart for it So yeah, snaps is a little more lookin' after number one. I agree with that assessment, but I hardly blame them
  - toyg 4y ago
    The list of Ubuntu "sins" is very long, and goes all the way to their founding - effectively forking the Debian ecosystem. As for being "dev friendly", it really depends on what you mean by that; their insistence on building their own things and discounting third-party input, over and over, was anything but friendly.
    - lproven 4y ago
      [Article author and submitter here] > effectively forking the Debian ecosystem The company and project were founded by a Debian user and developer, who employed and still employs a number of Debian developers, to make a version of Debian for ordinary people. How is that a bad thing? Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command instead of `aptitude`. It has the Ubuntu GUI tool for configuring repositories and so on. It has various bits of Ubuntu. ISTM that this was as friendly and cooperative as a sub-project can be, and Debian has benefitted significantly from it. I tried Debian before Ubuntu. It was hard and I didn't use it because it was too hard for me to bother. (I used Caldera OpenLinux and then later SUSE.) Nowadays Debian is a lot better and easier, and I reckon a lot of that is down to the Ubuntu influence. I find it hard to see that as a bad thing.
      - toyg 4y ago
        2004 called, they want their flame back. But seriously: Shuttleworth tried a classic EEE play on Debian, over and over and over. Obviously nerds mostly want to get along and will end up talking to each other, but it doesn't change the fact that, at the time, it was a (not-that-) thinly veiled, well-funded takeover attempt on the Debian ecosystem and community. > Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command It's nice that you bring up a classic case of unashamed namesquatting. People have been referring to "apt" in general terms since apt-get came on the scenes, 6 YEARS before Canonical was founded. But why give up the chance to piggyback on someone else's brand, eh...? So when the time came to churn on the umpteen apt-get frontend, they did just that.
        4y ago
maximus-decimus 4y ago
Not OP, but they deleted the boot loader of when windows drive when I installed Ubuntu on a different drive... not cool, Cannonical.
- nunodonato 4y ago
  how do you expect it to boot? At least linux keeps windows as an option, try installing windows after linux and you will be left without a way to boot it
  - dizhn 4y ago
    It would install its bootloader into its own partition and then it would be up to you to direct your boot sequence to look there. I just did this 2 hours ago with opensuse.
    - bmacho 4y ago
      While windows had its things in the bootloader, how could opensuse take over the boot, without touching it?
      - dizhn 4y ago
        Windows bootloader is at the mbr of the first disk. You have opensuse install its bootloader into its own disk. I am not sure if UEFI changes things here but if anything it probably makes things easier.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        Both NTLDR and Windows Boot Manager are capable of redirecting to subsequent bootloaders, this feature is intended for dual booting with older versions of Windows but can also be used to dual boot into Linux and other operating systems. As an example, if you install Windows 98, then Windows XP, then Windows 10 side by side, the following things happen: 1. Windows 98 installs its bootloader. 2. Windows XP takes a dump of 98's bootloader into a file and then overwrites the MBR with NTLDR. NTLDR is then configured with an option to chainload into 98's bootloader by reading its dump file. 3. Windows 10 takes a dump of NTLDR into a file and then overwrites the MBR with Windows Boot Manager. Windows Boot Manager is then configured with an option to chainload into NTLDR by reading its dump file. This means you can install Windows 10 (and Windows Boot Manager), install Linux and have it install its bootloader (eg: GRUB) somewhere, then configure Windows Boot Manager to chainload the Linux bootloader (eg: GRUB) by reading from wherever it's stored.

Also snaps.. I haven't used Ubuntu in years. I used Manjaro for a while and now Arch for a couple of years.

m463 4y ago

I think canonical has taken control from users to its own benefit. As one example, ubuntu-minimal is the minimal meta package, but it has a sneaky dependency on ubuntu-advantage-tools and ubuntu-advantage-tools is sort of the master phone-home system.

Osiris 4y ago
How do they take control away from you? Under the hood every Linux distro is just a collection of packages. You can install or remove whatever you want. unlike Windows or macOS, you can replace or remove every single piece of the system.
- m463 4y ago
  maybe there are "dark implementations" just like there are "dark patterns"

bguebert 4y ago

I'm not that guy, but snaps are the main reason for not liking Ubuntu recently. The impression I get is that Canonical is trying to monetize Ubuntu's popularity and a lot of people are resentful of that since Ubuntu gets most of it's value from the free software it bundles into it's distro.

tsegratis 4y ago
I think you're right, but Maybe it's my myopia, but I feel they were easily the most dev friend years ago, and poured their life and money into it, to benefit others But then after ubuntu phone, the level of ingratitude from us devs were shocking Project focus wasn't always on the ball, but we the community ripped them apart for it So yeah, snaps is a little more lookin' after number one. I agree with that assessment, but I hardly blame them
- toyg 4y ago
  The list of Ubuntu "sins" is very long, and goes all the way to their founding - effectively forking the Debian ecosystem. As for being "dev friendly", it really depends on what you mean by that; their insistence on building their own things and discounting third-party input, over and over, was anything but friendly.
  - lproven 4y ago
    [Article author and submitter here] > effectively forking the Debian ecosystem The company and project were founded by a Debian user and developer, who employed and still employs a number of Debian developers, to make a version of Debian for ordinary people. How is that a bad thing? Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command instead of `aptitude`. It has the Ubuntu GUI tool for configuring repositories and so on. It has various bits of Ubuntu. ISTM that this was as friendly and cooperative as a sub-project can be, and Debian has benefitted significantly from it. I tried Debian before Ubuntu. It was hard and I didn't use it because it was too hard for me to bother. (I used Caldera OpenLinux and then later SUSE.) Nowadays Debian is a lot better and easier, and I reckon a lot of that is down to the Ubuntu influence. I find it hard to see that as a bad thing.
    - toyg 4y ago
      2004 called, they want their flame back. But seriously: Shuttleworth tried a classic EEE play on Debian, over and over and over. Obviously nerds mostly want to get along and will end up talking to each other, but it doesn't change the fact that, at the time, it was a (not-that-) thinly veiled, well-funded takeover attempt on the Debian ecosystem and community. > Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command It's nice that you bring up a classic case of unashamed namesquatting. People have been referring to "apt" in general terms since apt-get came on the scenes, 6 YEARS before Canonical was founded. But why give up the chance to piggyback on someone else's brand, eh...? So when the time came to churn on the umpteen apt-get frontend, they did just that.
      - 4y ago

maximus-decimus 4y ago

Not OP, but they deleted the boot loader of when windows drive when I installed Ubuntu on a different drive... not cool, Cannonical.

nunodonato 4y ago
how do you expect it to boot? At least linux keeps windows as an option, try installing windows after linux and you will be left without a way to boot it
- dizhn 4y ago
  It would install its bootloader into its own partition and then it would be up to you to direct your boot sequence to look there. I just did this 2 hours ago with opensuse.
  - bmacho 4y ago
    While windows had its things in the bootloader, how could opensuse take over the boot, without touching it?
    - dizhn 4y ago
      Windows bootloader is at the mbr of the first disk. You have opensuse install its bootloader into its own disk. I am not sure if UEFI changes things here but if anything it probably makes things easier.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      Both NTLDR and Windows Boot Manager are capable of redirecting to subsequent bootloaders, this feature is intended for dual booting with older versions of Windows but can also be used to dual boot into Linux and other operating systems. As an example, if you install Windows 98, then Windows XP, then Windows 10 side by side, the following things happen: 1. Windows 98 installs its bootloader. 2. Windows XP takes a dump of 98's bootloader into a file and then overwrites the MBR with NTLDR. NTLDR is then configured with an option to chainload into 98's bootloader by reading its dump file. 3. Windows 10 takes a dump of NTLDR into a file and then overwrites the MBR with Windows Boot Manager. Windows Boot Manager is then configured with an option to chainload into NTLDR by reading its dump file. This means you can install Windows 10 (and Windows Boot Manager), install Linux and have it install its bootloader (eg: GRUB) somewhere, then configure Windows Boot Manager to chainload the Linux bootloader (eg: GRUB) by reading from wherever it's stored.