Is Ubuntu Linux or not ?

Is Ubuntu Linux or not … I’ve ranted before about how little credit Canonical seem to give other contributors … calling Ubuntu an “OS” rather than a distribution, not mentioning “Linux” on their homepage (indeed barely mentioning in on their website at all), etc.

AND NOW … in the 12.04 (Precise Pangolin) Beta1 release notes:

They seem to be claiming the KERNEL as their work … I quote -

[url=][u][b]New Features > Ubuntu Kernel[/b][/u][/url]

Beta-1 includes the 3.2.0-17.27 Ubuntu kernel which is based on the v3.2.6 upstream stable kernel. This is an update from the 3.2.0-12.21 kernel which shipped in Alpha-2 (based on upstream stable v3.2.2 ). As with Alpha-1 and Alpha-2, the Beta-1 kernel no longer carries a separate amd64 -server and -generic kernel flavor. These have been merged to help reduce the maintenance burden over the life of this LTS release. AUFS also remains disabled in the Beta-1 kernel. Anyone needing AUFS is encouraged to migrate to overlayfs.

Indeed there is only ONE mention of “Linux” on that whole page, and that tries to give the impression that Ubuntu is something OTHER than Linux:-

On PowerPC, when installed [b]alongside linux[/b], the system does not automatically boot into the newly installed system. The workaround is to hold down option key to get a boot menu and proceed from there.

Original idea (blatantly stolen) from (and credit given to):-
C:-) :o C:-)


And before some bright spark tells me “YES, Ubuntu IS a Linux disrtribution” … I KNOW … I was being sarcastic :wink:

It seems to me that Ubuntu are aggressively hunting the Windows market and so as not to put Non computer types (most users) have distanced themselves from the name Linux. The Ubuntu 11.04 I have been running for over 6 months has been good (in classic) version.

I only hope that when I have to upgrade I can keep my classic style desktop and my Cairo dock I just love it.

I haven’t tried the 12.04 beta yet (probably will over the next few days), but I’d be VERY surprised if you can’t install the Gnome3 (shell) and therefore gnome-session-fallback (Gnome Classic) … but I’ll let you know more when I know for sure :wink:

Unless someone else feels like jumping in … anyone ? … BkS ? :slight_smile:

Question … why should the name “Linux” put anyone off ???

Now that’s put me off Ubuntu. :-/ I have the right mind to email Shuttlesworth and letting him know my anger towards this.

About installing Gnome 3, yes you can. 12.04 will ship Gnome 3.4 packages with it, but they won’t be installed, and not all of the Gnome 3 packages will be updated to 3.4, so they’ll stay at version 3.2.

Haven’t tried installing in the beta though.

I remember when I was a Windoze users and looking at Linux as an option, but I was put off because it was different and unless you take the plunge and actually dip your balls into the hot water, then Windoze users will continually be put off coming to Linux even if it’s shiny and pretty.

I think what Mark is trying to do, is “mask” the name Linux, and “distro” to make it sound appealing to people who have either never used a computer like the elderly or people thinking of buying a computer, but are a bit naive. Sort picking the girl who’s a bit of a slag and has no dignity than the one who looks after herself. Sorry for such a visual description btw!

Either way, this article has now made me consider using Arch. (glitch comes in a smiles…)

I guess “upstream” could be loosely translated to Linux, but it means something only to the ones in the know.
Ubuntu was a subject to complaints for some time, that it seems to hide it’s heritage,
as “Linux” seems to be a dirty word where image counts.
And it does not fit in with its grand plans either.

Some might say that Ubuntu is aspiring to become like Apple.

Also how many Mac users do know of the BSD links? I bet not many.
This worked for Apple.

Also how many Mac users do know of the BSD links? I bet not many. This worked for Apple.

Good point … it still just “feels” wrong though :o

Although thinking about it … I have seen the BSD heritage mentioned on the Apple site, and they still call their kernel the “mach kernel” not the “apple kernel” … so although they don’t shout it from the rooftops, they don’t seem as intent on hiding the heritage as Ubuntu do :frowning:

I’m still a bit baffled why the “Linux” tag should be seen as a “bad” thing … a lot of Android users understand the link, and it’s not putting them off ???

I agree the “average” Mac user doesn’t know or care about the BSD connection, but the few that do tend to be proud of it (as they should be).

Why should Canonical think the same thing wouldn’t apply to Ubuntu … those that don’t know or care wouldn’t be bothered, and those that do should be proud of the Linux heritage … as I said, it hasn’t harmed Android any.

Perhaps Ubuntu does not want to be associated (by the masses) with the perceived geeky/nerdy/freedom fighter users of Linux

I think I’m agreeing with Sezo on this matter. Ubuntu is becoming more and more “shiny” and “Apple” like. Though I would say it’s a mix of Windows & Apple in the UI, Windows being the “Launcher” although on the left, and Apple with Unity using “global-menus” everywhere. Canonical is also releasing Ubuntu TV… AppleTV rip off perhaps? Then you have the Ubuntu for Android, which I guess still means it “shows” it’s connected to the Linux world.

For whatever reasons, I do hope they don’t hide the heritage.

I’m not convinced the “masses” have either heard of Linux, or would give much of a toss … those that “know” of the connection to Android aren’t bothered/put off ???

Just feels like Canonical want all the credit … which is plain wrong, read this Ubuntu contributors thoughts on the Canonical Contributors Agreement that Canonical are forcing people who write patches etc. to sign:

amongst many others.

I’d also still like to hear your reasoning on WHY you seem to think Canonical are “right” in your implied assumption that Linux has “damaging” overtones ??? … yet this doesn’t apply to Android.

My point is … Canonical are both wrong is that assumption (if indeed that is their assumption), and massively wrong in denying other projects (and contributors) the credit they deserve … projects that Ubuntu couldn’t exist without.

Canonical are NOT in the same position as M$ and Apple, having written, financed, licensed, or bought the majority of the code in their OS … indeed Ubuntu isn’t even an OS … Canonical are mainly (as far as Ubuntu goes) just packagers and distributors of other peoples work.

I think why Android isn’t looked at that way is because it’s a smartphone OS, and from the people I talk too, your average joe basically they only know Android being linked with “Google”.

Indeed they are wrong in denying peoples projects where credit is due. I know that Ubuntu is not an OS, as it “shares” a lot of code with other distros.

It seems Canonical are trying to play with fire. If they keep going the way they’re going though, it won’t be long until someone gets hurt, and the project falls through.

I personally don’t think Canonical are going the right way about things. Certainly not by “asking” people to sign “their agreement” to contribute “freeware”.

your average joe basically they only know Android being linked with "Google".

I agree the “Google” link is probably what “made” Android … my point is, the LINUX connection didn’t HARM it :wink:

So why should Canonical think it would harm Ubuntu … I’m just not convinced that is their reasoning … to me it just feels like a grab for glory.

It seems you are not alone in questioning Ubuntu’s stance regarding linux

Yeh, that was the article that brought me back to ranting about it again … I have ranted before on this forum that Ubuntu don’t mention Linux on the website (unless you dig for it), and their claim Ubuntu is an OS … so when I spotted that article it got e going all over again :wink:

If you look at the top of the page, I did give that article credit in my original posting :slight_smile:

I missed that line in your post. Nothing implied :wink:
Like you, I just do not get it why is it so difficult to give credit to the “upstream” Ubuntu uses.

Heh :slight_smile: … It would have been pretty hypocritical of me to not give credit to what set me off :wink:


Nobody’s asking them to call it Ubuntu/GNU/Linux/etc. … just stop removing/hiding references to other projects that are an integral part of their “Ubuntu” DISTRIBUTION.

C’Mon Ubuntu … you wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Linux, Debain, GNU, Gnome (yes even with your Unity DE), Xorg, etc … etc … etc.

I’m not asking for a complete list of all projects and contributors, just that you stop actively removing references to them, and by implication claiming their work as yours.

the “Ubuntu Kernel” and “Ubuntu OS” indeed >:( … Grrr

Sorry folks … apparently I can’t stop ranting about this one :wink:

You need to calm down. Not good for the health.
I guess if asked, the Ubuntu folks would say that they are doing nothing wrong
according to the GPL, but sure leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

I guess if asked, the Ubuntu folks would say that they are doing nothing wrong according to the GPL

Agreed, and “technically” they’re not … but it’s not exactly in the “spirit” of the GPL either, and as you say leaves a bad taste.

OK, I’ll shut up now … if only for my health :wink: … at least until next time.

I thought I would give the Unity Desktop another go and spent 2 hours playing around.

It seems very much like my wife’s Vista was when we first started it and like vista it is not possible to change the size of the icons unless you install something and play with settings, that needs to be out of the box.

I do not see the point when there are a number of good Dock programs that provide a good experience. On top of that it failed to pick up some of the apps I have such as the weather and news but it did show programs from the Win XP drive.

I think they should dump this and aim at quick clean operating system without the eye candy…