Linux for an association I work for.

[Geoff Shang]

Shlomi Fish wrote:

> On Saturday 28 February 2009 17:45:11 Yotam Rubin wrote:
>>  2. Linux distributions don't work. Even Ubuntu and other mainstream
>> distributions simply do not work. Package testing is poor, and various
>> programs do not integrate with one another. I often find myself having to
>> fix things manually, usually by digging deep into various
>> scripts/configuration files. Additionally, at least with Ubuntu, upgrades
>> tend to break horribly, requiring a clean reinstallation.
>
> Don't know about Ubuntu, and I'm using Mandriva Cooker, whose purpose is that
> users will witness the breakages before they reach the main release, so I
> cannot comment how well it suffers from this problem. But it's probably not
> worse than Windows, in case you have an expert ready. Many simpletons ("Aunt
> Tillie"'s and other) users will be perfectly happy in Linux. More so than
> Windows anyway.

Agreed.  As a guy I know is fond of saying, "If you break things in Linux, 
you get to keep all the pieces".  At least Linux provides you with the 
ability to fix things.  Trying to fix problems in Windows is somewhat of a 
black art, and is limited to how much you can actually do to fix the 
problem and how much the program or Windows will tell you about the problem 
in the first place.

As for "mainstream" distribuutions, perhaps this is an example of marketing 
over substance.  I use Debian and rarely if ever have package problems.  Of 
course, one of the criticisms leveled at Debian is that the stable 
distribution doesn't keep pace with current software releases, but this is 
the price you pay for stability.  I guess you need to choose then whether 
to use a distribution which tests for long enough to iron out all the bugs 
and puts out a release when it's ready, or  use a distribution with regular 
releases and more current software versions which hmight have a few rougher 
edges.

Disclaimer: I don't use X.

Geoff.