On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Steve Holden email@example.com wrote:
Ubuntu is a victim of its own success. They now have to deal with the same diversity of hardware environments as Windows. I hope that Canonical will find a way to stabilize things.
I think it's actually worse. Microsoft can always (and, in my experience, often does) restrict their support to hardware sets approved for "Windows ver. N". Custom-built or upgraded ("tampered-with") boxes often get worse (or no) support than OEM boxes. Linux distributions, on the other hand, are expected to provide support for any hardware. In this respect, since Ubuntu has a larger user base, and therefore a larger range of hardware sets, yes, their job is difficult, but I'm not sure this is a victimization, rather more of an inherent issue exacerbated by its success. Either way, it does kind of suck.
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
This certainly conforms to what I've seen on that LUG list. Since nobody on that list is running Ubuntu server, the "scary one" (quoted above) can probably be discounted, too. That looks like some user-friendliness run amok.
True, most of the upgrade problems deal with packages that aren't in the server install. This should be an easy one, but now I'd ask, why not use Debian instead?
-- Cheers, Leif