Jump to content
Guest Jebereuen

Which is better - Ubuntu Or Mandriva?

Recommended Posts

Havn't experienced problems with GTK2 in Audacity (yet), but it's properly because I picked the beta version :P

 

 

For CMYK I use pixel32 (a photoshop clone for linux, commercial though). Though pixel32 uses its own widgets. But it's fastest as hell. A startup under 1 sec. is impressive.

 

For burning I use NeroLinux and/or Gnomebaker which cover my needs more than enough.

 

Also Gaim is covering my needs.

 

Oh well, I guess I'm a bit anti-QT and GTK fan, but I'm not bitching about it and keep it for myself ;) :lol2:

I know I miss some cool apps but as long those with gtk covers my need I don't see why I should install QT based application.

 

Each to his own I guess :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand you, fans of either camp. :P

I use whatever app is the best for the job, whether it is QT or GTK - couldn't care less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like distros to give a choice of which desktop, or both, to install and most importantly to have the best applications for each task installed by default. Eg. don't not install k3b by default in Ubuntu just because it isn't a GTK or GNOME app. App decisions based on religious 'this desktop is better' ideology is a Bad Thing IMHO :)

Its a complex issue ... certainly from the KDE side ...

If you have a KDE desktop and load an extra KDE prog then the resources used are minimal but if you are not running KDE and load the tiniest KDE app it loads up lots of libs and the DCOP server etc. etc.

 

This gives an impression its slow and clunky so a lot of distro's don't like the mix n match else if the compare to someone using a clean GTK or clean KDE it makes their distro look clunky...

 

This is most noticable from gtk based desktops loading a KDE app and since Ubuntu started off pure Gnome I think this was the reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ubuntu's rigid insistance on Gnome is perhaps a down-side if you're a KDE fan. I personally couldn't care less. Both Gnome and KDE get the job done for me. I guess if I was forced to choose I'd go with Gnome. Kubuntu is alright from what I can tell, although I agree that the split is perhaps not in the best interests of the Ubuntu community at large.

 

I guess you have to see where Ubuntu are coming from - the aim is to create a distro for the masses. It needs to be simple and stable, but still capable for advanced users. It seems that the choice to not provide much of a... choice... in terms of DE is a sacrifice on the side of stability and continuity for n00bier users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newer udev versions replace hotplug entirely. It's old.

 

Hopefully they will update this in 2007, its been a while that 2006 has been out - hotplug was probably the way to go then.

 

Mandriva are not using a pure dbus/hal based userspace automounting solution. If they were, then using other kernels, such as self compiled kernels would not break the setup. According to many posts from members around here, supermount still exists in mandriva and plays some part, as for what part? I'm not all too sure.

 

We've been through this on the other threads. Some users have trouble with their own kernels, some do not. Mandriva only uses supermount for floppy drives and some tape drives because they don't provide notifications to the kernel when media is inserted: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mandrake-c...4304570&w=2

They use the proper hotplug/udev/hald/gvm system for everything else.

 

 

From the posts on this forum it's evident that Mandriva's current setup isnt too reliable either, you still see posts asking how to mount pendrives and such.

 

I's one of the most common problems posted about any distro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like distros to give a choice of which desktop, or both, to install and most importantly to have the best applications for each task installed by default. Eg. don't not install k3b by default in Ubuntu just because it isn't a GTK or GNOME app. App decisions based on religious 'this desktop is better' ideology is a Bad Thing IMHO :)

Its a complex issue ... certainly from the KDE side ...

If you have a KDE desktop and load an extra KDE prog then the resources used are minimal but if you are not running KDE and load the tiniest KDE app it loads up lots of libs and the DCOP server etc. etc.

 

This gives an impression its slow and clunky so a lot of distro's don't like the mix n match else if the compare to someone using a clean GTK or clean KDE it makes their distro look clunky...

 

This is most noticable from gtk based desktops loading a KDE app and since Ubuntu started off pure Gnome I think this was the reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully they will update this in 2007, its been a while that 2006 has been out - hotplug was probably the way to go then.

yup.

 

We've been through this on the other threads. Some users have trouble with their own kernels, some do not. Mandriva only uses supermount for floppy drives and some tape drives because they don't provide notifications to the kernel when media is inserted: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mandrake-c...4304570&w=2

They use the proper hotplug/udev/hald/gvm system for everything else.

If it is a proper, clean, gvm based solution, then it should work irrelevant of the kernel in use, be it custom, or distro provided. Hence my suspicion that it isnt such a pure setup as they'd like us to think. Alternatively, it could just be poorly configured which wouldnt surprise me either.

 

From the posts on this forum it's evident that Mandriva's current setup isnt too reliable either, you still see posts asking how to mount pendrives and such.

I's one of the most common problems posted about any distro

that's hardly an excuse for it to happen. the idea is you *fix* it if that's happening. My point was that Mandriva's has seemed less reliable than other setups i have seen and used.

 

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is a proper, clean, gvm based solution, then it should work irrelevant of the kernel in use, be it custom, or distro provided. Hence my suspicion that it isnt such a pure setup as they'd like us to think. Alternatively, it could just be poorly configured which wouldnt surprise me either.

 

It is a proper, clean gvm based solution and it does work for me and I'd say a lot of other people too with many different custom kernels (2.6.13, 2.6.14, 2.6.16, 2.6.17) without any fiddling. I don't know what might be causing the problems that some people have, all I can see is it works fine for me.

 

that's hardly an excuse for it to happen. the idea is you *fix* it if that's happening. My point was that Mandriva's has seemed less reliable than other setups i have seen and used.

 

I'm not making excuses for it but my point was that it works for most people, just because there are posts in a forum from people who it doesn't work for doesn't prove its less reliable than other distros (which also have many posts in their forums from users who it doesn't work for).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is a proper, clean, gvm based solution, then it should work irrelevant of the kernel in use, be it custom, or distro provided. Hence my suspicion that it isnt such a pure setup as they'd like us to think. Alternatively, it could just be poorly configured which wouldnt surprise me either.

This is one of my major gripes ... people keep arguing that x,y,z doesn't work if you use a custom kernel or in my case had to compile your own... but the fact remains if I download kernel source I expect it to be kernel source and if I run ./configure && make && make install I expect it to make the EXACT same kernel...

 

and I know it doesn't .. same goes for supermount, hotplug and udev ...

 

same goes for downloading ISO's etc.

 

The fact is the info on mandriva's site is just plain wrong, the kernels sometimes don't match and noone is sure what the status of supermount is.

 

There are two end points: Mandriva is just plain lying, the information is deliberatly written incorrectly and its all just a series of errors but its more likley a combination of the two....

 

Being generous take the downloads iso's don't exist for 2006 statement ... well it WAS correct at some point and my guess is someone mentioned this and someone said yep but we have more important things than editing a webpage for freeloaders, we'll do it when we are less busy....

 

I think this more or less sums up the mandriva philosophy...which is if something is broken just don't tell anyone. Yes its commerical and yes commercial companies usually try not to draw attention to errors/weaknesses but at the same time i think it also detracts from people's confidence.

When you waste 6 months of your life trying to get the same kernel from what they say is the same source it tends to leave you jaded.

 

The same goes for advertising, my old powerpack says on the box "play's all your DVD's" but it doesn't...

What they mean is if you find plf and install the codecs and libs it can ....

 

The problem is it gives the worst impression because after being led a merry dance people are far less forgiving. Its one thing wasting your time because of a genuine error but another wasting it because someone has misled you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is one of my major gripes ... people keep arguing that x,y,z doesn't work if you use a custom kernel or in my case had to compile your own... but the fact remains if I download kernel source I expect it to be kernel source and if I run ./configure && make && make install I expect it to make the EXACT same kernel...

 

Get the kernel SRPM, not the kernel-source binary RPM and you can rebuild the exact same kernel.

 

The fact is the info on mandriva's site is just plain wrong, the kernels sometimes don't match and noone is sure what the status of supermount is.

 

The kernels don't match what? Mandriva are sure of what the status of supermount is - see the links in my 2 previous posts.

 

Being generous take the downloads iso's don't exist for 2006 statement ... well it WAS correct at some point and my guess is someone mentioned this and someone said yep but we have more important things than editing a webpage for freeloaders, we'll do it when we are less busy....

 

?? Its well known that they wait a month or 2 before releasing the free ISOs after they release the distro to the club members. Their original release announcement specifically states that you have to do a network install or join the club, the 2nd (a month later) announces the free ISO images are available. See http://www.mandriva.com/en/community/news/(offset)/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of my major gripes ... people keep arguing that x,y,z doesn't work if you use a custom kernel or in my case had to compile your own... but the fact remains if I download kernel source I expect it to be kernel source and if I run ./configure && make && make install I expect it to make the EXACT same kernel...

 

Get the kernel SRPM, not the kernel-source binary RPM and you can rebuild the exact same kernel.

No I couldn't and Im getting pretty tired of you saying I could ... you have no idea which kernel version it was, you can't because neither have I.

 

and the statement is completely meaningless anyway because if I know what mandriva patched I can download from kernel.org and apply the patches and theoretically make the same kernel.

 

The point is I recreated EXACTLY the stock kernel at the time ... built it and installed it and bulit against it but repeating the same steps did not build the same kernel as the -enterprise version.

 

Secondly, since my real aim was just to get the kernel source to compile against for the modules its completely irrelevant... I should be able to download the kernel source, change nothing and compile against it without rebuilding or touching ANYTHING except the modules....

 

Its maybe only coincidence that Mandriva withholds those drivers to club members but I rather think the idea is to piss people off to the extent they buy. well I already did buy ... the CD's were just faulty and Mandrake were exceptionally rude to me as a paying customer so they will never see a cent of my money ever.

?? Its well known that they wait a month or 2 before releasing the free ISOs after they release the distro to the club members. Their original release announcement specifically states that you have to do a network install or join the club, the 2nd (a month later) announces the free ISO images are available. See http://www.mandriva.com/en/community/news/(offset)/10

 

A lie is a lie is a lie ....

Fact the iso's are on the mirrors.... (http://anorien.csc.warwick.ac.uk/mirrors/Mandriva/official/iso/2006.0/i586/)

Fact Mandriva say they are not... (I already posted that)

This is the raw installation tree for Mandriva Linux 2006. If you are looking for ISO images to burn CDs or a DVD, look in a few weeks in the other section of this page.

 

Which part of this is not mandriva lying through their teeth?

 

 

Which part of plays all you DVD's is not misleading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I couldn't and Im getting pretty tired of you saying I could ... you have no idea which kernel version it was, you can't because neither have I.

 

and the statement is completely meaningless anyway because if I know what mandriva patched I can download from kernel.org and apply the patches and theoretically make the same kernel.

 

The point is I recreated EXACTLY the stock kernel at the time ... built it and installed it and bulit against it but repeating the same steps did not build the same kernel as the -enterprise version.

 

Secondly, since my real aim was just to get the kernel source to compile against for the modules its completely irrelevant... I should be able to download the kernel source, change nothing and compile against it without rebuilding or touching ANYTHING except the modules....

 

Its maybe only coincidence that Mandriva withholds those drivers to club members but I rather think the idea is to piss people off to the extent they buy. well I already did buy ... the CD's were just faulty and Mandrake were exceptionally rude to me as a paying customer so they will never see a cent of my money ever.

 

The Kernels on the pay-for version are the same as the ones available on the free version and the main mirrors. The Kernel SRPM is what the kernel RPMs are built from.

 

A lie is a lie is a lie ....

Fact the iso's are on the mirrors.... (http://anorien.csc.warwick.ac.uk/mirrors/Mandriva/official/iso/2006.0/i586/)

Fact Mandriva say they are not... (I already posted that)

 

What are you talking about? When did they lie? The ISOs weren't on the mirrors until about a month after the release, that's what they announced, that's what they linked to on their website.

 

 

Which part of this is not mandriva lying through their teeth?

 

Huh? What did they lie about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Kernels on the pay-for version are the same as the ones available on the free version and the main mirrors. The Kernel SRPM is what the kernel RPMs are built from.

Obviously not in the case I had...but you are still completely missing the point ....

I should be able to download the kernel source, change nothing and compile against it without rebuilding or touching ANYTHING except the modules....

 

What are you talking about? When did they lie? The ISOs weren't on the mirrors until about a month after the release, that's what they announced, that's what they linked to on their website.

Once again you are completely missing the point...

https://mandrivausers.org/index.php?s=&...st&p=242881

On that day (and presumably for a while since ianw1978 already knew they were there) the Mandriva website said

This is the raw installation tree for Mandriva Linux 2006. If you are looking for ISO images to burn CDs or a DVD, look in a few weeks in the other section of this page.

 

For all I know its still there ...

However I can't see how you can think that saying something is NOT available when it is is not lying?

 

The only question is/was is it deliberate or genuine error or lazyness or whatever but it doesn't change the facts it only mitigates them...

If I say I have $100 on me but I lost $50 its lie.... even if someone stole the $50 without my knowledge ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand what you're talking about. Goto www.mandrivalinux.com, click on the link that says 'Downloads' and its all there. Its been like that since they released the 2006 ISOs way back in November. Yes they had that ~1 month period where the ISOs weren't there but 2006 was but they were quite open about that - they always delay the free ISO release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...