Re: "I do consider Ubuntu to be Debian" , Ian Murdock
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Freddy Freeloader wrote:
>> To tell the truth the Debian way of doing things, and I'll admit I'm
>> biased because I'm far more familiar with Debian, is more
>> straightforward and seems more logical to me. It doesn't hide anything
>> like the Ubuntu way of doing things does.
>
> There's hiding and there's automating. Do you say that Debian hides how
> to install software because you don't have to make install everything ala
> Slackware or Gentoo or do you say that Debian automates it? To
> Slackware/Gentoo folk I'd wager a goodly portion would call it hiding while we
> Debian people call it automating.
>
> Same with Ubuntu. Just as there's nothing stopping you from getting down
> and dirty and make install on Debian there's nothing on Ubuntu to getting down
> in the dirt to configure what you want to the way you want to. On the other
> hand it sure was nice to have my video configured properly, sound working out
> of the box and on my game machine having Ubuntu detect and properly install my
> USBNIC which didn't even work on one of my two Windows boxes.
>
> Could I have done all of that on my own? Probably after hours of cursing
> and screaming and having to hunt the net over for esoteric incantations. Am I
> glad that Ubuntu hid^H^H^Hautomated the process for me? You're damn skippy!
>
I agree with this. In my experience, one can choose to configure every
detail in Ubuntu by editing configuration files, the same way as in
Debian. At the same time, Ubuntu also automates many things and provides
a nice simple GUI for others (source packages gui, update gui, package
installation gui).
At our univ. we had our Linux image changed to Ubuntu recently. I kind
of manage my own machine, and still use text files for administration
whenever needed, even though I could use Ubuntu's GUI. Just shows that
the user has more than one option to customize her/her system.
->HS
Reply to: