Question: Has Ubuntu brought some structure...

[tek_heretik]

some standardization and stability to desktop Linux? IMO, yes, more so than Debian of recent, they took the Debian ball and ran with it, polished it a little, etc. Proof is going to download pages and seeing "Ubuntu 10.04 and later", most don't say Debian X.x.

[james147]

some structure some standardization and stability to desktop Linux?

I am going to say not entirely... look at redhat... it has been far more stable for far longer then ubuntu ever has (mostly by being 5 years behind everything else ) And as for standardisation? I cannot see this, ubuntu uses upstart, most other distros now use systemd, they have gone with unity rather then sicking with one of the standard desktop environments...

What they have done is created a very nice up to date user friendly platform for people to work off of making Linux a much more viable alternative to other operating systems.

And they have contributed allot to the Linux eco system in general, mostly for the better and probably more so then allot of other distributions.

I hate to say that although ubuntu does to a great job, it would be nothing without the hard work of the rest of the Linux community, the developers of the desktop environments, the kernel developers, the application developers... etc... I feel it is these people have have brought most of the stability, standardisation and structure to the Linux desktop. Look at any distro, they are far better off then they use to be, partly thanks to ubuntu, but not just because of them.

I don't mean to undermine ubuntu achievements, just that other also deserve credit as well.

[luckyone]

Don't mention the kernel.

[tek_heretik]

I am going to say not entirely... look at redhat... it has been far more stable for far longer then ubuntu ever has (mostly by being 5 years behind everything else ) And as for standardisation? I cannot see this, ubuntu uses upstart, most other distros now use systemd, they have gone with unity rather then sicking with one of the standard desktop environments...

What they have done is created a very nice up to date user friendly platform for people to work off of making Linux a much more viable alternative to other operating systems.

And they have contributed allot to the Linux eco system in general, mostly for the better and probably more so then allot of other distributions.

I hate to say that although ubuntu does to a great job, it would be nothing without the hard work of the rest of the Linux community, the developers of the desktop environments, the kernel developers, the application developers... etc... I feel it is these people have have brought most of the stability, standardisation and structure to the Linux desktop. Look at any distro, they are far better off then they use to be, partly thanks to ubuntu, but not just because of them.

I don't mean to undermine ubuntu achievements, just that other also deserve credit as well.

You are right, I agree, just being there as a central entity, they definitely brought attention to Linux and a lot of new users, their choice of DE is misguided and their fall in the DW ratings is proof of that, but you have to admit they have somewhat become the 'glue' for a lot of distros.

[whatthefunk]

You are right, I agree, just being there as a central entity, they definitely brought attention to Linux and a lot of new users, their choice of DE is misguided and their fall in the DW ratings is proof of that, but you have to admit they have somewhat become the 'glue' for a lot of distros.

Distro Watch ratings mean absolutely nothing. The stats page from Wikipedia probably gives us a much better idea about how many people are using what operating systems.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia...ingSystems.htm

Ubuntu blows every other Linux distro out of the water.

I dont think theyve brought any standarization, I just think they have a much bigger user base than other distros and are therefor catered to a little better.

[dmeyer]

Distrowatch is an awful indicator for rankings. This sounds silly but one example that always comes to mind for me is openSUSE. Almost all universities I've ever been to have used openSUSE for their linux workstations. Schools is a similar story. Ubuntu is by far the biggest Linux distro. At least an order or two of magnitude more than any other distro.

Also. as much as most of us hate Unity. Any newbie that I've ever shown it too, finds it remarkably, simple, fast and beautiful. So although Ubuntu might be losing popularity with die hards, its gaining traction with newbies.

[james147]

but you have to admit they have somewhat become the 'glue' for a lot of distros.

Not really, there have been a few distos based off ubuntu, but the same is said for arch linux, debian and many others... I don't see anything they have done to `glue` existing distros together. If anything, some of their developments have separated ubuntu from the other distros such as the ubuntu software centre, unity... for better or worst.

There is allot more to the Linux community then ubuntu, and if you look outside the ubuntu circle then you see they are not sole base that everyone turns to.

[luckyone]

Since ubuntu and its derivitives are debian based, I'd put debian at the fountainhead of those that use debian as a base. It is a fact that the ubuntu-based distributions are extremely popular and have for all intents and purposes eclipsed debian in numbers. It's also true that things flow downhill from debian.

[tek_heretik]

Distro Watch ratings mean absolutely nothing. The stats page from Wikipedia probably gives us a much better idea about how many people are using what operating systems.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia...ingSystems.htm

Actually, there are numerous 'spins' that identify themselves as Ubuntu, since it is at the 'core'. As for the DW ratings thing, yeah, I know it's fudgey (if that's a word, lol) and not a scientific benchmark and I take it for what it's worth.

[james147]

It's also true that things flow downhill from debian.

And sometimes uphill as well

[tek_heretik]

Since ubuntu and its derivitives are debian based, I'd put debian at the fountainhead of those that use debian as a base. It is a fact that the ubuntu-based distributions are extremely popular and have for all intents and purposes eclipsed debian in numbers. It's also true that things flow downhill from debian.

True, and when Canonical was deciding who to use as a base, they probably said nah ah to the legal tangle that would have ensued with Redhat/Fedora.

[luckyone]

I certainly would have. :eek:

[whatthefunk]

True, and when Canonical was deciding who to use as a base, they probably said nah ah to the legal tangle that would have ensued with Redhat/Fedora.

What legal tangle? There are dozens of distros based off Redhat and Fedora. Red Hat seems to have specific redistribution requirements but cant see anything funny about Fedora. Anybody know of anything limiting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ions#RPM-based

[sithlord48]

i would think its because debian is a really good base to start with and the debian packaging system is way better then that of those rpm style distros.

[bsniadajewski]

Plus, wasn't Shuttleworth a Debian developer once; and he wanted to make a better (and more current than even sid) Debian with a quicker release cycle?