>I'm not claiming to be a Linux badass or even claiming Ubuntu is better, just want to hear more about it
Just read the first post in this thread and you'll find an answer or better yet read the whole board and see there is no ubuntu bashing at all apart from this thread where you said it's a retard distro.

>>45
I think he means on another 4Chan, but, yeah you are right.

Anyways. I think Ubuntu is fine, especially for beginners or Windows transfers that want the performance of GNU Linux, but need the ease-of-use functionality from a Windows.

Debian (IMO)is better stability, but comes out rarely (1-3 years) so support for newer technology gets sluggish implementation. Gentoo is nice to customize, and is semi-reasonable to implement when compared to something like Slackware. PuppyLinux or TinyLinux are great for old systems, while Red Hat is good for servers and enterprise. The list goes on and on.

Really, I guess, it comes down to the different "flavors" you want. I use Ubuntu 10.10 and Gentoo.

[And, as a side note, I did not mention BSD (which is excellent, but slightly out-of-date) because it's not particular GNU Linux.]

>>48
that's me in a nutshell. I'm good with computers, but I'm certainly not a 1337 h4x0r of any sort. I don't like trying to do stuff in CLI. I don't know how to compile stuff. I'm willing to admit CLI is more powerful, but if you don't know what you're doing, you can fuck shit up real fast. I think Ubuntu is sort of a safety net for people who aren't up to the task of micro-managing the entire system, or just want the security benefits of Linux without the shell-shock of completely leaving Windows behind.

And yeah, obviously there's no bashing on here, but other chans seem to like pointing out why Ubuntu is inferior to all other OS's.

>>52
same here. i use Ubuntu and 7, and know the core of CLI but the rest has to be looked up.

I'm an IT student, and even I don't know the inner workings of a distro but enjoy the benefits of it regardless if I know the shell code or not.. Thumbs up for Ubuntu made easy.

I really like Ubuntu. Yes, I *am* in fact a linux noob, but I would definitely not go as far as to say that Ubuntu spoon feeds shit to you. Its because of Ubuntu that I've learned as much as I have about Linux. I've learned how to fix small problems, and I've learned how look at I/O data traffic on my WiFi card.(Though I don't know what any of it means lol)
The thing with other linux distros is that if something goes wrong you have to be a "linux badass" or know one to fix it. Ubuntu gives you the tools to fix it, and teach you how it works.

I still have no idea how to install tar.gz programs, but because of Ubuntu, I'm learning how.

>>55
For sure, Ubuntu community is very helpful too. If I went to a Gentoo, Slackware, or even Debian based community, I'd get laughed out of the water or given extremely complex logic code to implement (and have no idea how to either.)

And, yeah, Ubuntu definitely is no walk in the park. After a week or two of exploring, you definitely get the hang of it. I still use Tomboy Notes to store essential CLI commands, or things I might find interesting and fun but normally couldn't remember.

Also tar.gz is a compression format. It's like the .zip (of Windows), but the tar.gz of Linux. You can usually right click the file, then select "extract all" for it to decompress. If that doesn't work, there is a command line (i forgot, but i'll look it up later) to extract files or multiple files in a directory at once.

I know how to extract/decompress tar.gz files, I just have no idea how to install programs that are packaged that way.

>>64
unfortunately, it has been in my experience that programs that are distributed that way tend to require compiling before you can install them. that's another thing that irks me about linux.

>>64

Usually it's source code with makefile. In that case, what you need to do is this as root in the extracted directory:

1. Type ./configure

If you have all the necessary packages continue to step 2. Otherwise, install any required packages and repeat step 1.

2. make
3. make install

If it's a precompiled package just dump the directory in opt and remember the path to execute the program. For single binary executables just make a directory to dump them in and add the directory to your $PATH in .bash_profile.

>>64
You can usually figure out what to do by reading the README or INSTALL file in the untarred directory. The above poster's method is the most common way things are done though.

IMO, it all depends on one's needs. As mentioned earlier by other members, Ubuntu is good for newcomers, and those who prefer GUI to CLI (You can thank Microsoft for that).
Since the day I tried Archlinux, I haven't thought of switching to another distro. Easy-to-use, easy to customize, and it is thoroughly documented. Those are the main reasons why I love Archlinux.
Nothing bad about Ubuntu or any other distro. It all comes down to those using it.

>>48
>Debian (IMO)is better stability, but comes out rarely (1-3 years) so support for newer technology gets sluggish implementation.

If you want faster updates upgrade to Testing.

Use Debian Testing with Unstable or Experimental repos

Arch = Ubuntu is equal in my eyes.
Freedom vs. Simplicity

I think ubuntu is an excellent distro. What I do not like are decision made for me. example, if I install ssh service, ubuntu will automatic set it to run on startup, vs me setting it up the way I want. Also packages ubuntu thinks are in conflict are not really if you have control of your os, KDM and GDM live together just fine.

you can make ubuntu "harder"

1)minimal install
2)built up from there

it's like you had arch, you install what you want, do you want lightweight Ubuntu? install Openbox, xmonad, awesome and build up your desk

do you want eyecandy? instal GNOME/KDE and compiz, clutter, kwin, etc

you can make Ubuntu adapt to your needs. at the end, it's linux, one thing I won't do with Ubuntu is running a server, because it can be a little buggy and waiting for the patches it's awful (at least in a production server)


tl;dr: do you want a "harder" Ubuntu? try minimal install and forget about the packages canonical wants you to use

>Tenshi (if he's still around) used Trisquel.

Tenshi/Entia uses Arch and would always talk about how awesome it is.

>I guess the general assumption is that *buntu users have everything spoonfed to them and are the retards in the linux world?

I guess *ubuntu hate has nothing to do with it being more user friendly (how stupid would that be?) but with canonical and it's policy regarding software and software updates. Nothing that can't be dealt with, though. After all it's still a linux distribution and thus you can pretty much do whatever you want. Also, apt is pretty good and the community support is great ... so, those points go to ubuntu based distros.

I'm using Debian professionally and Ubuntu privately because both are very similar. Debian is more conservative and has more cross-development tools, that's why it's used by people working in the Embedded Linux field. Ubuntu on the other side needs less setting up in terms of video-codecs and it quickly supports new graphics hardware, so it may be a better solution on new hardware or hardware which is mostly used for viewing movies.
Both Debian and Ubuntu are available for the more exotic platforms.
In my opinion, trolling people because they use Ubuntu says more about the trolls than about the Ubuntu-users. Linux attracts people who want to be the coolest kid on the block, that's all.

Unity for ubuntu sux balls