in response to what distro are folks moving to?
......
moving to Opensuse , interested in mint.

Ubuntu seems like it headed away from workstations for serious effort and toward tabletfaire.

1 members found this post helpful.

Exactly.

I really wanted to like Unity, and even though it looked good on my netbook, I found it difficult and buggy to use. Lately I've been using Mint 9 and Kubuntu 10.04 and Puppy Linux. All three of those work well on my Aspire One.

If you consider Kubuntu to be a different distro than I replaced Ubuntu with Kubuntu. Otherwise, I've changed my DE from Unity/Gnome to Kde. The reason is clear, Unity and Gnome 3.

1 members found this post helpful.

I've been trying out Kubuntu 11.04 for a few days now.

Wow! KDE/Plasma rocks! KDE has improved heaps from when I used it back in Mandrake 10 years ago. The file manager Dolphin has some great features and the file comments actually work (unlike Nautilus file comments which are broken and don't look like ever being fixed ... a pet peeve of mine ).

So, I'm definitely looking to switch to Kubuntu next year when Ubuntu 10.04 LTS expires.

I really wonder how many people will stick with Unity on desktops when it's the only option in Ubuntu?

Just my worth.

i moved back to fedora, though the whole unity thing for me is irrelevant, i use windowmaker anyways. i also didn't particularly like the ubuntu (debian?) way of handling runlevels compared to fedora.

No offense intended but you guys all sound like a bunch of negative nancys! You have to understand the purpose of Ubuntu's existence. It is not for the hard core linux anti-M$ uber geek who boasts about compiling his own kernel to do x, y or z. It's supposed to be a distro that can bring Linux to the mainstream. Ubiquity. It was designed to take on Windwos & Mac OS in the home and potentially the enterprise. IMO - it has done just that. Knowing I'll NEVER move to a mac - I felt I wanted to learn something more (as I have completely mastered Windows) and having run Fedora, CentOS, FreeBSD, etc... with some config trouble and frustration I chose Ubuntu. As soon as it booted I was cool with it (11.10). It pulled me over from Windows with ease to the point where I'm not even dual booting (do run VirtualBox however). This is the goal and IMO it's working. Imagine and organization that has a requirement to use Linux, but most of your corporate laden employees have only ever used Windows... enter Ubuntu. I believe google just switched over to Linux only environment from Windows (for reasons I forgot). As a business consultant myself who is starting up a new company I have a SERIOUS interest in running a Linux only shop. Maybe will need a Windows Active Directory server to help ease network admin functions as Samba4 isn't stable yet. Or I could use Resara on a Ubuntu flavored distro and proceed like it was AD. All of this matters to Linux lovers and coders who worked to take on MS.

If you don't like Unity, don't run it. You can use a different WM/DE. You can use a different distro. Since you're all supreme leet hackers who can't believe some desktop aesthetics and ease of use via launchers is too grade school then go over to Gentoo and compile all the packages you'll ever need from source. Problem solved. All of this lamenting about a Linux distro going awry and forcing it's way upon you is a bit ridiculous IMO as that's what Ubuntu intended to do. Make it super ridiculously easy to the most basic of users.

In the past I've used Linux to learn as I'm a developer focusing on data driven technologies so I had to be aware of linux for (Postgres/MySql). I never enjoyed the desktop experience in any *nix I tried including Mandrake. The hardware was always a massive issue, etc... now Ubuntu made it super easy and slick for me to move without so much as a manual or anything. Used mdadm to create a RAID array from Win7 dynamic RAID disks no prob. Didn't lose data had no need to get a spare drive to configure the RAID. Super simple and hassle free. This is the idea behind Ubuntu. If you want to get down and dirty you can. All this ranting reminds me of people complaining about GUIs over the terminal. lol. It also reminds of when Facebook makes a UI change and everybody starts whining cause it's not what THEY want/need, then, quietly the masses settle down and shutup and continue using FB becasue it's the best in its area out there. Same will happen with Ubuntu.

I think it's a good job and a great direction. And to simply shred it and dismiss is not cool. Guys have worked very hard to bring you what you use for free lol. Ubuntu has come a long way since the days of RedHat - and - I for one am very thankful! If you don't like it then run Kubuntu or Lubuntu. Let Ubuntu be for the masses or as a Linux guru would say dumb win/mac users. I don't think they're dumb. I just think they don't have the time or desire to fiddle with compiling source code or using emacs/vi to edit conf files. How 1970's.

Kudos to the *buntu team!

You are right, Canonical has done a great job to bring the Windows feeling into a Linux system: They have created a bug ridden OS that is aimed towards people who want rather shiny new features than running a stable system.

The kernel handles the hardware. Canonical hasn't brought much code changes to the kernel, so they are not accountable for better hardware support.

Same here, mdadm is not a program made by Canonical. Besides that, it is a command line program that works the same way in any Linux distribution out there, so how does it make Ubuntu easier to use than any other distro?

Buggy? I have no probs with bugs. I'm not trying to run this OS on 1992 hardware so maybe that's why (AMD 3.7Ghz 6Core CPU, 16GB RAM, 128GB SSD System Drive, 2 1TB RAID1 Data Drives in case anyone was wondering). Zero probs minus a few user mistakes on my part when tweaking. Nothing that a simple google search didn't fix. Also, don't know what you read, but most were lamenting about the new "shiny features" rather than bugs and instability. Again, my system is rock stable... so not sure what you're talking about.

Heh, ya, that's why some peeps were complaining earlier in this thread about Wireless drivers not working, hardware doesn't work on this distro, but it does on that distro... etc... point is not about the kernel but how easy the install is just like w/ Windows. Actually, even easier than windows considering I didn't need to pre-load any drivers for AHCI prior to installion (Windows cannot see the HDD unless you do with my hardware). They are accountable for running an out of the box distro that just works. Whether you like it or not.

What's your point... I believe everybody is aware that they are not responsible for the mdadm package. Who cares? Didn't say that it made it easier than other distros. Was describing my setup coming from a Windows background. You missed the point... which is - along with mdadm/RAID easiness comes a cool GUI for Mac/Win users that allow them to not feel so threatened by a Linux system. According to your disposition I'd figure you'd say that the win/mac users should easily transition to Gentoo right? lol

I have a quite similar system. Where did you got an AMD hexacore with 3.7 GHZ (or is it overclocked)?
Anyways, having slightly older hardware is not the same as having totally unsupported hardware, especially if it is hardware that is used very widely. Intel 945G on their 10.04 LTS anyone? That you don't have problems doesn't mean that there are no bugs in Ubuntu. Its release cycle is just to short to sort them out before they release it, but instead of fixing those bugs they concentrate on new shiny features. Not something I would like the developers of my OS doing.

You are aware that different distributions may be use different kernel versions? That the 2.6.32 of a stable Debian or the 2.6.37.6 of Slackware 13.37 may be does not support the same hardware as the 3.2.12 of Arch or other more cutting edge distros?

Since Windows Vista Windows runs out of the box on systems with AHCI enabled. Comparing a current Linux with an old Windows is not very fair.

Where did I say that? What I am saying is this: In my eyes Canonical is not doing anything good for the Linux community. They created an OS that is concentrating on a shiny appearance, but is not aimed at being stable (in the sense of bug-free). A user changing from Windows is most likely trying Ubuntu first, so he sees a buggy, but shiny OS when trying Linux, only that some of the common used hardware and their software/games will not work. Canonical also tries to make a vendor lock-in with Ubuntu One and their music store (clients available for Windows and MacOS X, but guess it: not for any Linux except Ubuntu). If you nonetheless want to contribute you have to give the copyright for your contributions to Canonical. Doesn't seem to be any different than Windows.
Canonical doesn't try to bring Linux to the masses (go to their webpage and find the word Linux), they try to bring Ubuntu to the masses. They don't make money with someone using Debian, Fedora or whatever distribution. I think that is harmful for Linux.
Just my

I'm impressed

Thanks =p I think I'll go buy myself several beers and make fun of all the Windows users in the bar...

Personally, I despise Unity, having used it for a couple of months. I found it glitchy, boring and a retro step in development. But...there are many other desktop that you can install, you dont HAVE to use Unity! A mate of mine had ELEVEN desktops installed on his system, yeah I know...crazy, but it shows the choice we have eh. I have just discovered Ultimate 3.2 and I am very impressed with it, there ya go...choice of desktop at startup, 3 of em. Dont knock Linux guys, after all...the alternative is too gruesome to contemplate!

My job affords me the ability to use whatever OS I want, assuming that I can access every Windows element required for my role. I'm running ubuntu 11.10 with selinux/efs and encrypted lvm on a i5 with 8GB of ram and it's really quite slick. I prefer my debian lxde or openbox alternative much more, but given that I don't really have the time or the motivation selecting this was the right call. Having been testing Windows "8" and seeing the (absolutely terrible) tablet interface, the Unity UI is sleek and sensible by comparison. Anyone who uses tablets for work especially can tell you how important of a step this has been.

If I wasn't using tablets and laptops to do my work all the time I might have a reason to be disuaded from supporting Unity. Sorry; I rely on mobile computing. I need something that will install fast and work out of the box. I'm selling out to functionality, with humility.

If I had to switch to another linux "in disgust" of this(probably not happening) I'd choose OpenSUSE. I much prefer Slackware, but as I've stated time is _______.