Ubuntu Linux

The latest commercial DebianGnuLinux derivate, this one developed by CanonicalLtd.

The project has quickly gained great popularity, through several decisions: Official web page: http://ubuntulinux.org/ perhaps significantly, this now redirects to http://ubuntu.com

And compared to other Linuces, Ubuntu's desktop is hardly UserHostile!

Until you have to do something for which there is no pretty tools (e.g., configure dial-up networking over BlueTooth)... and there are very few pretty tools for system tasks.

Check tonight... it'll probably be there. Or you could roll your own and pass it around :-)
On the UserHostile front, Somebody has bullied the Linux distributors into crippling their MP3 support. You must pay for real PayWare? to listen to http://netcast.kfjc.org:80/ , for example.

"Somebody" is the MP3 patent holder (Thomson and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft). They own the patent so they get the royalties. That isn't "bullying", that's selling.

Oh, I'm shaking in my programmer's socks and sandals. I just rebuilt the source, and I got full support back.
They've replaced the BashShell? in ubuntu with the DashShell?. http://www.zend.com/forums/index.php?t=rview&th=2679&goto=7207 Unfortunately, dash has all kinds of problems with bash-style scripts, and how much space does it save anyway? So it's kind of a questionable decision. http://landley.net/notes.html#08-05-2007

Only for startup scripts. Default user shell is still BashShell?. [http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh] -- KakuradyDrakenar?
Interesting Problem I have had a problem building a modified version of GnuCpp (ConceptGcc) on the IntelSixtyFourBitLinux UbuntuLinux. I had built from the sources before on other Linux distributions, but this one did not compile with some strange error messages. The problem goes back to some design decisions which have been made when IntelSixtyFourBitLinux first came on the scene. It is necessary to provide for 32 bit and 64 bit applications, which need copies of the libraries they need to run. These are usually placed in different folders and so they have to have different names. On 32 bit only systems the name has been lib. Two different choices have been made when finding a new name.

The relative merits of these decisions are discussed here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec? (apologies, it is an https so it doesn't make a link)

from which I quote:

The current design used by Debian and Ubuntu also fails on a key point where the FHS layout does not:

The system used on UbuntuLinux means that software installed has to be patched to work there. I found one comment like this:

The fact that Debian maintainers go out of their way to modify and Debianize many software packages sometimes does mean that occasionally patches are required to get upstream sources to work. This is a feature not a bug, and it's one of the reasons why I happen to cherish Debian based systems above all others. If you want something that's just a bunch of software thrown together without any patches (= without any cohesion), by all means run far and fast from Debian; it will drive you crazy.

Words failed me, so I read TaoOfLinux instead. -- JohnFletcher

Note: FHS stands for FilesystemHierarchyStandard which seems not to have been updated since 2004.

If it ain't broke.... -- Anon

Have a look at it. It just doesn't cover the issue here.

It covers the fact that a system can have /lib<qual> for "variants of the /lib directory on systems which support more than one binary format requiring separate libraries", but doesn't specify whether the qualifier should be additive for future compatibility or reverse to break backwards compatibility. As a side note, Windows similarly uses a separate 'Program Files (x86)' for 32-bit stuff that expects to be in 'Program Files' while the 64-bit stuff goes in 'Program Files' (where the 32 bit stuff expects to find itself). It also puts 32 bit stuff in 'SysWOW64' while the 64 bit stuff goes in System32, just in case you weren't confused enough.

Perhaps you are confused by all the newfangled directory naming in Win7, but apparently M$ and their second and third party software partners aren't. The only desktop environment on the planet that has a smooth integration with dozens of vendors is published in Redmond. We don't have to like it, but we do have to acknowledge it without shaving the truth.

Yes, but that's not the point. It does indeed work well for newly-created programs, and surprisingly well for old programs, due to some magic that tricks them into seeing multiple directory trees as a single directory among other things. You just have to know where to look if you need to find the files that the program thinks are somewhere else. The point, however, is that we see a similar thing to what was mentioned with Linux - instead of continuing to use the old standard structures for old programs/libraries and having new ones for the new programs/libraries, they put the old ones in the new location and the new ones in the old location then add a layer of workarounds. Why would both Windows and Ubuntu do this? Perhaps the reason is not OS or distribution-specific?

Anybody had problems getting YouTube to play on Ubuntu?

No. What browser are you using?

You have to coax Aptitude to also pull non-FreeSoftware packages. Then download the free-as-in-beer-but-corporate-owned content streaming libraries. To get started, sudo vim /etc/apt/sources.list and look for goodies that are commented out, then Google them. --PhlIp

Aw, that's cute -- editing sources.list is so 2003. Now you just fire up Ubuntu Software Centre from the main menu and install "Ubuntu restricted extras". It's invariably listed near the top of the "Top Rated" section.

Is it still a text file or have they switched to a binary format?

It's still a text file.

Recently Ubuntu (Canonical) has been drawing the ire of many in the OpenSource and FreeSoftware communities because of its attempts to commercialize Linux, and because of Mir/Wayland and the UnityInterface?.

See: LinuxDistribution



View edit of April 9, 2014 or FindPage with title or text search