Since I don't use those distros, I don't know what the reasonable expectations might be.rick, how would a "real Debian User" compare to a "real Arch User"? Or a "real Ubuntu User"?
Good point.rickh wrote: I will say this; any distro could support "real" Linux Users, but Debian Users should understand and appreciate the things that make Debian unique.
Ubuntu is essentially 99% Debian Sid, so I'll just assume a "real Ubuntu user" is the same as a "real Debian User".rickh wrote:Since I don't use those distros, I don't know what the reasonable expectations might be.
I will say this; any distro could support "real" Linux Users, but Debian Users should understand and appreciate the things that make Debian unique.
Newbie oriented distros want to be appreciated for how much like MS Windows they are.
Nice try, except you'd have to show that the differences between Debian and Ubuntu are major. In fact, they're not. I interpret just about all of your comments in this thread--especially the last two--as trying very hard to distance yourself from others, and to make yourself part of a club that you can take pride in. The problem is when you take that club--"real Debian Users"--and try to make it exclusive and superior. At the mere mention of Ubuntu, you said that you wouldn't know about real Ubuntu Users, but then you had no problem commenting that newbie distros were all about being Windows-like. So which is it? Do you not know about them, or do you know enough about them to say what they're all about?rickh wrote:I suppose women are 99% like men. I'm mighty happy about the difference.Ubuntu is essentially 99% Debian Sid...
Well, we haven't had a big slap-down yet, but I'm sure one is coming, so let me just ask why both "Real" Debian Users and "Fake" Debian Users feel the need to beat up on poor Ubuntu.Telemachus wrote:This should be interesting...CocoAUS wrote:Or a "real Ubuntu User"?
I know plenty of Fedora, openSuSE, Debian, Arch, and even Gentoo newbies. There's nothing wrong with being a newbie, and it certainly isn't limited to Ubuntu. Ubuntu just has more marketing, thus a larger userbase, thus more newbies.edoviak wrote:
- Is it because so many Ubuntu users are newbies?
- Is it the bad habits they learn in Ubuntu Forums?
- Is it the happy trail of sudo that they leave behind?
- Is it because Ubuntu is a very popular distribution?
And that answer would be fine if the question were, "What does CocoAUS think about Ubuntu?" But if the question is "Why do other people not like Ubuntu?" then your beliefs about sudo are irrelevant. What I mean is that - as you know - lots of other people think that sudo is a bad option for system administration, and those people may dislike Ubuntu for that reason. (Just so there's no confusion, I'm not talking about me. I don't even particularly dislike Ubuntu. I just prefer Debian. But I think you misunderstood the spirit of Edoviak's comments. He wasn't railing against Ubuntu so much as trying to lay out various reasons that various people dislike Ubuntu. I've always thought the answer was easy: it's mostly envy, envy at all the attention that Ubuntu gets. Basically E's last reason.)</off-topic-tangent>CocoAUS wrote:There's nothing wrong with sudo whatsoever.
From my own personal experience, it isn't because they are just newbies, per say, but that some of them really have no clue. Nor do they want one. Many, MANY have just heard of Linux in the first place and thought they'd be 'leet and grab a Ubuntu ISO. They don't even know how to burn an ISO, much less install and administer a Linux machine. Nor do they give a crap. And when they aren't willing to put in a little elbow grease, they just start spouting about how "LINUX IS THE SUX0RZ", when in reality it is _they_ who are the SUX0RZ.edoviak wrote:...
[*]Is it because so many Ubuntu users are newbies?
See above. There's a ton of spoon-feeding that goes on there. Lending a hand is one thing. Spoon-feeding is another entirely. Spoon-feeding only begets more spoon-feeding.[*]Is it the bad habits they learn in Ubuntu Forums?
I honestly don't care about sudo. I don't use it myself, but then again, I haven't grown up using it either, so I'm unlikely to.[*]Is it the happy trail of sudo that they leave behind?
Popularity shmopularity. I wouldn't call Ubuntu the Paris Hilton of the Linux world, because that would be disingenuous, however, it does seem to attract the same sort of celebrity worship. For the life of me, I can't see why.[*]Is it because Ubuntu is a very popular distribution?
Therein lies the crux eh?I don't use Ubuntu, but I do recommend it to GNU/Linux newbies because
- they can get answers to common questions very quickly on Ubuntu Forums (is this a bug or a feature?)
While that may be a good thing - at first - it doesn't do much to sustain a community that's worked hard together for the better part of two decades now. It seems to sustain the "GIMME GIMME GIMME NOW NOW NOW" sort of attitude.[*]they get a clean, working desktop right after installation
Working for something isn't such a bad thing.[*]they can install PDF editor and NTFS-3G without having to deal with Backports or Lenny (makes my life easier).[/list]
Debian is an OS.Lavene wrote:a user should not need to interact with the OS it self
That's silly and untrue. I suppose that you can argue that you don't "use" an OS the way you "use" a program, but I certainly can (and do) interact with the OS in various ways. The OS is, in a sense, a series of choices about how various programs and libraries and scripts fit together. Debian has default choices - for example, that runlevels 2-5 are identical, and when I have Debian on a machine, I can (and do) change those choices. On this box, runlevel 5 has no X, while 2-4 do. There are hundreds of examples like this of ways that users deal with their OS. You have a point I guess that you can't open an OS directly the way that you open or start a program, but it's just verbal quibbling to say that users can only run applications. Users can (and do) also change and adjust the OS settings in nearly infinite ways.Issyer wrote:Debian is an OS.
An OS runs by itself.
There's no way for a user to run an OS.
A user's prerogative is to run applications only.
Rickh, confused by Martin Krafft, used wrong definitions. Many people disagreed, but almost nobody noticed that.
You can't say "Real Debian User". It's nonsense.
You can do all that as far as it is allowed by the developers. If someone runs Windows in the Safe Mode, does it mean that he/she runs the OS? It won't even occur to someone to say it.Telemachus wrote:That's silly and untrue. I suppose that you can argue that you don't "use" an OS the way you "use" a program, but I certainly can (and do) interact with the OS in various ways. The OS is, in a sense, a series of choices about how various programs and libraries and scripts fit together. Debian has default choices - for example, that runlevels 2-5 are identical, and when I have Debian on a machine, I can (and do) change those choices. On this box, runlevel 5 has no X, while 2-4 do. There are hundreds of examples like this of ways that users deal with their OS. You have a point I guess that you can't open an OS directly the way that you open or start a program, but it's just verbal quibbling to say that users can only run applications. Users can (and do) also change and adjust the OS settings in nearly infinite ways.
First, that isn't quite true. Even on "locked" systems such as Windows or Mac, people always find a way to change things. There's really no way to prevent a user from opening up an OS, if the user is determined enough. Second, it doesn't really affect this discussion, since we are talking about Linux operating systems which are all open to change by their users (so far as I know). Your claim that "users only can use programs" is just plain false if you apply it Debian or any other Linux system I know. (And that is what we are talking about, no?)Issyer wrote:You can do all that as far as it is allowed by the developers.
OK, you substitute one definition with another. Of course, you can interact with Debian as an OS as much as you like, since it is an open source OS. But that is another story. Let's start a new topic then titled "What is a "Real" Debian Developer". I bet they have a lot to tell.Telemachus wrote:First, that isn't quite true. Even on "locked" systems such as Windows or Mac, people always find a way to change things. There's really no way to prevent a user from opening up an OS, if the user is determined enough. Second, it doesn't really affect this discussion, since we are talking about Linux operating systems which are all open to change by their users (so far as I know). Your claim that "users only can use programs" is just plain false if you apply it Debian or any other Linux system I know. (And that is what we are talking about, no?)Issyer wrote:You can do all that as far as it is allowed by the developers.
Debian is an OS. Linux is a kernel. NT is not an OS. Darwin is not an OS. If anything, you could say Debian uses the GNU OS, since that's what people actually use. And with Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian kFreeBSD, etc...Debian is still Debian.rickh wrote:I have a problem referring to Debian as an OS. Linux is an OS ... Debian is a distribution which uses the Linux OS. The terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but it's not correct.
I just corrected the second point of my paraphrase of Krafft's, Reason's to Use Debian, in the OP to more correctly reflect what he actually said.
Maybe Linux is an OS, I don't know and don't care. I use Debian. To make the things clear, we won't go far. On the page http://www.debian.org/ , we can seerickh wrote:I have a problem referring to Debian as an OS. Linux is an OS ... Debian is a distribution which uses the Linux OS. The terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but it's not correct.
Developers called Debian OS.What is Debian?
Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer...
Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system)
What is Unix? Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnixYou should probably choose something else if:
- You are new to Unix.
If you insist on that, then this argue refers not to us, Debian users, but to a higher level located here.rickh wrote:The "OS" is the most rudimentary interface between the hardware and an end user. Like many things, there is a gray area at exactly where it begins and ends, but a Linux OS would include the kernel, a console, and arguably the X-windows core system. No more.
Desktop environments, and their associated applications constitute a subjective core of higher level tools to make the OS more usable for the average person. In the Linux environment, those "collections" of higher level tools are referred to as "distributions." Debian is one.
