FreeBSD fanboy tries Ubuntu
-
If you've seen my Ubuntu-related posts on Spiceworks or maybe even here or basically anywhere, I've been highly critical of Ubuntu for effectively crippling new comers into being dependent on and overusing sudo, and not knowing how to actually download, compile, and install things instead of using apt-get. I've seen in the real world how this makes people think they know Linux/Unix, but then suddenly they can't do anything at all except type sudo and apt-get over and over and not even understand why there's no pico or nano (welcome to the absolute hell that is vi).
I've used Ubuntu on servers before, in fact we used it in staging for a while even though in production we mostly use FreeBSD. We also use FreeBSD (or sometimes PC BSD) for desktops, but never had installed Ubuntu on them, so my perspective of Ubuntu was essentially always as a server OS.
Anyway, so I started to use it on my other machine and it's not bad. I thought the install was very easy, but even Mandrake had an easy installer 14 years ago, and overall from a regular user perspective it's pretty great. I think it would work well for regular people, and since regular people don't really need to know about sudo or apt-get, it's fine.
I still prefer FreeBSD though. Also, I never liked Debian, which is Deb-Ian, not Deeb-Ian, by the way, because it's a combination of the names Debra and Ian, and I've yet to meet anyone named Deebra. Then again, I still hear IT people say Ligh-nix for Linux.
I was a Slackware user from the mid-90s, and also I used SuSe (pronounced Zoo-zuh for those who don't know German pronunciation), back when the interface was almost only in German (I remember it being the only distro that worked on my HP N3402 Laptop). I primarily switched to FreeBSD in 2001.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
(welcome to the absolute hell that is vi).
Only editor I ever use. Every UNIX shop I know uses it. When I started on Solaris in the early 90s, the system admin taught us that you always use the minimal tools, because when things fail, that's all that you have and knowing them and being comfortable using them can be the difference between being a good admin and a useless one.
In 2000, I was at IBM and production went down on like my second day there. They came and got me because no one could fix anything. They were helpless. The issue? Only thing available was vi and the system had configuration problems. Even though I just started, I was the only person in the entire division capable of even looking at the config files. Fixed it, no problem. But had they not hired me, production would have stayed down until they could have contracted someone to come in and hopefully known vi.
-
@scottalanmiller Oh, I can use vi, I'm quite proficient at it, and I've used it many, many times (as implied by proficiency), but I hate it so much, I really do. I think from a design standpoint it's absolutely asinine. So many better editors have been created with the same functionality limitations.
First thing I did with IRIX back in the old days: install another editor, because it only comes with vi.
vi seems intentionally confusing and unnecessarily complicated. Insert mode, go straight to hell.
Picture me screaming like a maniac I HATE IT, I HATE IT! WHY!? WHY!?
-
I have very little experience with Linux and I use Ubuntu as a daily driver for two low powered laptops. Mine and my fiancee's laptop. She has no IT experience, but is pretty good as a user. She had no problems adapting to Ubuntu.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
If you've seen my Ubuntu-related posts on Spiceworks or maybe even here or basically anywhere, I've been highly critical of Ubuntu for effectively crippling new comers into being dependent on and overusing sudo, and not knowing how to actually download, compile, and install things instead of using apt-get.
I've felt this way about different programs, O/S's before, but the reality is the masses, even the higher use masses don't care about compiling (I'll admit, I don't care about compiling) they only want to download the app and move on. It's the primary reason that people like you and I have jobs, because we are the ones that need to understand how to compile when the regular downloads don't work.
-
@IRJ said:
I have very little experience with Linux and I use Ubuntu as a daily driver for two low powered laptops. Mine and my fiancee's laptop. She has no IT experience, but is pretty good as a user. She had no problems adapting to Ubuntu.
Before moving to Chromebooks, my sister in law's family was using Ubuntu on their only modern computer and had no issues with it. Wasn't ideal, but it did the trick.
-
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
If you've seen my Ubuntu-related posts on Spiceworks or maybe even here or basically anywhere, I've been highly critical of Ubuntu for effectively crippling new comers into being dependent on and overusing sudo, and not knowing how to actually download, compile, and install things instead of using apt-get.
I've felt this way about different programs, O/S's before, but the reality is the masses, even the higher use masses don't care about compiling (I'll admit, I don't care about compiling) they only want to download the app and move on. It's the primary reason that people like you and I have jobs, because we are the ones that need to understand how to compile when the regular downloads don't work.
I've never seen an enterprise shop that allowed compiling. Or if they did, it had to be done by a security controlled team and then deployed through normal means (RPM, DEB, MSI, etc.) I've never worked anywhere where compilers on the boxes wasn't a "no no".
-
So that begs the question, @tonyshowoff are you talking about corporate users or home users? or .______ you fill in the blank.
-
@Dashrender said:
I've felt this way about different programs, O/S's before, but the reality is the masses, even the higher use masses don't care about compiling (I'll admit, I don't care about compiling) they only want to download the app and move on. It's the primary reason that people like you and I have jobs, because we are the ones that need to understand how to compile when the regular downloads don't work.
I'm not one of those pretentious-Stallman-level jackasses who thinks manually downloading and compiling is the only way to do it and not doing it that way is wrong. My point about that thing was that people in IT who need to learn how to do these things get set back by never learning to do them in the first place. Apt-get is convenient as hell, I use it, just like I use the ports collection on FreeBSD instead of fetching everything I need.
However starting from the point of sudo and apt-get, from what I've seen, these people don't really ever learn to properly use Linux/Unix without taking extra effort, because I guess there's an assumption that sudo and apt-get are normal, when they're not. I said "regular people don't really need to know about sudo or apt-get" as well, because they really don't, there are GUI tools to do all that too.
IT people need to know beyond that though, especially if they want to consider themselves Linux/Unix competent at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I've never seen an enterprise shop that allowed compiling. Or if they did, it had to be done by a security controlled team and then deployed through normal means (RPM, DEB, MSI, etc.) I've never worked anywhere where compilers on the boxes wasn't a "no no".
That's true too, but my own point on that subject was that the sysadmins needed to at least know how to actually do it. There's nothing that beats a tool which will automatically get all the dependencies and everything.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
That's true too, but my own point on that subject was that the sysadmins needed to at least know how to actually do it. There's nothing that beats a tool which will automatically get all the dependencies and everything.
Agree on the knowledge of how, what, why, etc.
