Robert's Technology Journal

I’ve been watching the Ubuntu project for the last few years, and I’m surprised at how well it has succeeded in becoming a mainstream Linux distribution. It has certainly reached its goal of becoming a user friendly Linux distribution that works out of the box with most hardware. Ubuntu has also gained much publicity for its efforts. This fame has also brought a large number of new Linux users that might not have joined the community if it weren’t for the easy of use of Ubuntu. It seems that Ubuntu has certainly made a name for itself in the Linux community. With that being said its hard to find a magazine, blog, or news article that doesn’t mention Ubuntu when covering Linux. To some Linux is Ubuntu and Ubuntu is Linux, but this is not the case.

Just what is Linux

I know I’m splitting hairs on this, but when one speaks of Linux they should be referring to the Linux Kernel (currently version 2.6.32.2 released on 2009-12-18). I’m not a GNU/Linux evangelist so I’m not going to ridicule you if you don’t properly refer to Linux, but for this blog post I want to make that distinction. In fact most all operating systems have a kernel, even Windows. The kernel is a bridge between applications and the actual data processing done at the hardware level. To the average user this all happens behind the scenes, so it’s easy to confuse the kernel with the applications that run on top of it. A good example of this would be the lastes version of the Debian operating system. The user is capable of installing with either the Linux kernel or the FreeBSD kernel. While the machine would have some fundamentally differences between each kernel, the average user wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two kernels just form the desktop environment alone. This is were the confusion about Ubuntu being Linux comes in.

What’s in a name?

When it comes to distribution names Ubuntu hit a grand slam. The word Ubuntu has its origins in the Bantu languages of southern Africa. Ubuntu is more than just a word, it is an classical African ethic or humanist philosophy focusing on people’s allegiances and relations with each other. With that said you can see how this is tied into Open Source. Ubuntu seeks to tie all computer users together with free and Open Source software. The concept of Ubuntu is an easy concept to get behind, and one could get easily think they are part of something larger simply by using Ubuntu. Weather it be the spread of Open Source software or the philosophy of every human as an equal.
If memory serves me correct it was Juliet who said, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2). This is certainly true with Linux distributions. While Ubuntu is currently the most popular, they’re are hundreds of others that are just as well put together. To suggest that one distribution is far superior than the others is foolishness.

Is Ubuntu bad for Linux?

This is really a tough question to answer. On one hand Ubuntu has made great strides into the desktop market. On the other hand Ubuntu may be digging its own grave with new Linux users. When Linux is touted as the best alternative to Microsoft Windows its stability, security, and reliability are usually highlighted. With each new release of Ubuntu these qualities are being questioned by new Linux users. Its true that new versions should offer enhancements, but they also should fix problem without creating new ones. Some people have experienced broken graphics, crashing installers, misconfigured boot loaders, USB drives not mounting, sound not working, broken wireless, the list goes on. This begs the question as to why. Could it be the short development cycle of each release? Apple’s OS X averages eighteen months between major releases and Microsoft averages years between releases. If a six month release schedule produces this many problems then why not push it back to twelve months?

Finding the Linux Holy Grail

Is there a Linux distribution that meets all of Ubuntu’s desktop goals without any of the drawbacks? I don’t know of one, but if there isn’t then I have a few suggestions for one. First of all stability, security, and reliability should be the main focus. Second there should be at least eighteen months between releases preferably three years between major releases. Of course security patches should be pushed out as soon as they are available, but do you really need a new wobbly window or transparent menubar every six months? Third the desktop environment needs to be familiar and that means the KDE desktop. Not the current version of KDE, but a version that resembles the Windows start menu that was predominant in Windows 95, 98, ME, and XP. Finally the developers of this distribution should work as closely as they can with Dell, HP, and IBM to make sure that their distribution runs flawlessly on their hardware. I know this may be a pie in the sky dream, but you have to admit this would push Linux closer to mainstream acceptance.