3 ms·
> Ubuntu might be Open Source, but it's not open You do realize that there is someone to make a comment, much like this, on every piece of software ever create
by pyre 13y ago
> Ubuntu might be Open Source, but it's not open
You do realize that there is someone to make a comment, much like this, on every piece of software ever created, right?
> I feel GNOME on my Arch install does the job admirably, so much so that friends want a piece of the action.
Since when has GNOME been banished from Ubuntu?
- orik 13y agoI think you're confusing transparent with open.
- milsorgen 13y agoI am confused on a few points myself. Granted I am the much quintessential Windows user but I have explored alternatives over the years in the realm of Linux. I must say picking up Red Hat at Fry's was indeed fun, but part of me wanted that boxed copy of Windows for Workgroups I saw nearby even more. The OP talks about bloated and forgive my ignorance but I though one of the most vaunted features GNU/Linux was it's user customization features. So why should Ubuntu really matter, or any distro. Why not give the user something easy to work with regardless of bloat or extraneous features as they can mature in knowledge and alter their OS to their hearts content. I am not trying to say one is something over the other. I'm just saying I use Windows and have for years and for my needs, cost and all, it really seems to fit the bill. I have used many flavors of Linux over the years but I rarely find it compelling enough to move beyond LiveCD or Pi usage. tl;dr Does distro matter, can the user not just customize at some point? edit: spelins
- StavrosK 13y agoThe distro matters in that 95% of users don't customize anything, but, yes, other than that, Ubuntu is just as customizable as any other Linux distribution.