crp Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Isn't Ubuntu the distro that used to insist on calling the OS GNU/Linux? Quote
securitybreach Posted March 18 Posted March 18 8 hours ago, crp said: Isn't Ubuntu the distro that used to insist on calling the OS GNU/Linux? Not even close. They are notorious for not even mentioning linux on their homepage. They have been pushing for their own brand for over a decade and separating themselves from Linux as a whole. 1 1 Quote
Hedon James Posted March 18 Posted March 18 11 hours ago, crp said: Isn't Ubuntu the distro that used to insist on calling the OS GNU/Linux? I think you might be thinking of Debian...formerly known as Debian Gnu/Linux. 1 1 1 Quote
Hedon James Posted March 18 Posted March 18 2 hours ago, securitybreach said: Not even close. They are notorious for not even mentioning linux on their homepage. They have been pushing for their own brand for over a decade and separating themselves from Linux as a whole. I think this is where a lot of "Ubuntu hate" comes from. Which I don't quite understand. If Ubuntu does something that elevates Ubuntu, by extension, it elevates Linux IMO. OTOH, I never quite understood Ubuntu's need to reinvent existing tools in the Linux ecosystem, rather than collaborate on those existing tools to make them better. I guess that's antithetical to the point of Linux, but Ubuntu seems to have a reputation for contrarianism, which is perceived as somewhat "bougeois", IMO. For example: Anaconda (Fedora/RPM) vs Ubiquity (Ubuntu) vs Ncurses installers. (although Ubiquity has actually gotten a lot of traction from other distros until Calamares appeared). Fedora developed Flatpaks, while Ubuntu insisted on Snaps; despite the existence of AppImages Ubuntu's insistence on re-working the Gnome desktop into Unity, which was roundly rejected by all other distros and eventually dropped by Ubuntu With the emergence of Wayland, Ubuntu insisted on developing Mir, rather than work on Wayland There are others, but these are what immediately spring to mind. 1 Quote
raymac46 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 Sadly for one who got started in Linux-land with Ubuntu, I now find it to be a solution for a problem I don't have. I have Mint for stability and ease of use, Debian and Arch for fun. I'm sure Ubuntu can provide a useful pathway for those who want to repurpose older Windows 10 computers, so good on them. 1 1 1 Quote
Hedon James Posted March 21 Posted March 21 21 hours ago, raymac46 said: Sadly for one who got started in Linux-land with Ubuntu, I now find it to be a solution for a problem I don't have. I have Mint for stability and ease of use, Debian and Arch for fun. I'm sure Ubuntu can provide a useful pathway for those who want to repurpose older Windows 10 computers, so good on them. That's what it was for ME. Looking to escape the shackles of Windows, I stumbled onto Linux and quickly became paralyzed with the plethora of options....SO MANY DISTROS. I was scared of choosing the wrong one, for the wrong reason. I needed someone to tell me "choose this one, it'll do what you want" or to tell me "they're all basically the same under the hood, it doesn't matter". But I didn't, and after MUCH reading, analysis, and LiveCD creation I eventually settled on Ubuntu. It was a good choice and it served me well. It's a good choice for other new users also. I still find Lubuntu to be interesting and worthy, and have it on my music production computer; but with the Ubuntu Studio "overlay". But it just makes sense that as people grow & change, their tastes and their needs grow and change. I outgrew Ubuntu, and Debian seems a better fit for me now. Although I forgot I have an Ubuntu Pro subscription (free for individual/personal use) which extends support to TEN (10) YEARS! Now THAT is an LTS that I can't complain about, and I may have to rethink my Debian selection, and jump back to Lubuntu for that 10-year support. But first, we'll see how things go with that Studio/Music computer installation. 2 Quote
securitybreach Posted March 21 Posted March 21 I am a simple man.. I moved to linux because I was in school for information security and all the "hacker" tools ran on linux. I started out with Slackware and used it for 10 years. Back then there were only so many distros to choose from. After 10 years of fighting dependencies while manually building and installing packages ( ./configure && make && su -c make install), I heard about Arch. It was basically Slackware (vanilla packages) but with a binary package manager. I switched and never looked back. I have played around with pretty much every distro out there and still do but I will always use Arch on my systems. 2 Quote
raymac46 Posted March 21 Posted March 21 (edited) I started with Ubuntu because I wanted to repurpose an old Windows Me desktop and I didn't want to buy another copy of Windows XP. I got the CDs for free from a local computer store. I knew nothing about downloading and burning distros on CD. When I wanted to go wireless with the desktop I wanted to use the best security, so I had to do it manually with wpa-supplicant, an Atheros wifi card and the madwifi stack. It was a nightmare but I learned a lot. I stuck with Ubuntu because I knew how wifi worked. Edited March 21 by raymac46 1 Quote
raymac46 Posted March 21 Posted March 21 When I first got started with wifi I got a lot of help on this forum from striker and Bruno although they were convinced that wifi would never be secure. They were probably correct, but look how far wifi has come. Now my TV is wireless, for heaven's sake. The reason I got into upgrading in place was that when you installed a new release of Ubuntu like Feisty Fawn the whole wifi setup was borked and you had to start all over with a wire connection and manual configuration. 1 Quote
securitybreach Posted March 21 Posted March 21 12 minutes ago, raymac46 said: they were convinced that wifi would never be secure. They were probably correct, but look how far wifi has come. Now my TV is wireless, for heaven's sake. Well to be fair you could crack wifi back in the day easily enough if you knew what you were doing. That was because they were vulnerable to dictionary attacks or they weren't configured and had default username/passwords. You used to be able to look up the default username/password based off the model of the router. That changed well over a decade ago and while it's still doable, it is a lot more difficult and time consuming. 1 Quote
raymac46 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Back in the early days, the network password was encrypted in WEP if you used Network Manager so you had to jump through manual hoops to use the more secure WPA. Of course, if you got into the router itself the password was clearly visible. 1 Quote
crp Posted March 24 Author Posted March 24 I stopped using Linux at home when Win7 came out. At work, I use Ubuntu LT, Debian and the last real version of CentOS. the ubuntu and CentOS machines are for "critical" purposes and in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" category. As for the Debian pc, I found Debian was the easiest to update/upgrade among the many distro's that were used and tested. (the CentOS machine is tightly secured, there is only one thing that can talk to it from the public internet.) 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.