Ubuntu On Pandora


You might not like the source aspect of Gentoo, but it's really not all that bad. On my laptop, even the most complex things only take maybe 10 minutes to compile from source (except for some terrible packages that take 30-60 minutes for no good reason). It's perfect for rolling releases, has keywords to keep you from installing software not marked as stable, and is highly customizable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@sinbad how exactly are debian lenny`s packages that old now...it was just released KDE4 is a waste of time still at this point for most people

the only Arch install I have at this point is my grandpaw's computer with KDE4 and it is quite sluggish on a celeron/2.4ghz/512mb ram ... got the old i810 + xorg 1.4 drivers for 3d working out of an old backup repo though the new intel driver flat doesn't work on that chip for 3d acceleration

I quite prefer LXDE on Debian lenny these days... doesn`t look bad after enabling transparency and loading theWii-black theme or the like

@Vaporeal whereas most binary distro package installs take like 20 sec for small ones and maybe 5min for huge ones and pacman > apt > yum

OT: anybody notice than the OP is always at the top now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm the kind of person who needs speed when using a system.

The installation should be simple and provide the things I need, and not anything else. I don't want to mess with parted, I want to set up a LVM system and go. And I don't want to have to type 50 lines on the CLI just to get a basic KDE4 environment, i want to be able to leave the installer to do it's job for me.
Package management has to be extremely fast, too...
For example, when I program some pulseaudio stuff and I lack a library, or a header etc, I want to be able to do this:
CODE
$ yum provides /usr/include/pulse/simple.h # lists packages that provide the header
# yum install pulseaudio-libs-devel # installs a package

...and be able to continue working in 5 seconds. Sometimes, I also need to be able to install binary packages quickly.

I also need to have the cutting-edge stuff; some applications I release are for use the newest APIs and therefore I need the newest platforms to work with them.

Now, Fedora is the only distro that does this for me, at the moment. It has all the things I need: KDE 4.2, PulseAudio, PackageKit, ConsoleKit, PolicyKit, the latest GNOME libs, security through SELinux that stops you from screwing up etc. The next release (11) will base on ext4 and things like the cutting-edge open source nouveau driver (that hopefully has OpenGL/Gallium by then, I happen to have nVidia)
All the other distros are either too 'limiting' like Ubuntu, where you don't get much space to maneuver, or give you too much freedom like Gentoo or Arch, where you can spend an afternoon installing a system (and where things that should be simple become complicated).
 
'cb88' said:
OT: anybody notice than the OP is always at the top now?
No, but one time the forums randomly changed to a tree format.
Maybe you accidentally changed your viewing format of the forum somehow?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Consequence9' said:
'javaJake' said:
And that's a problem? The vast majority don't want to learn how their computer works, they just want it to work. Ubuntu is all about being a system that Just Works. Ubuntu is giving the vast majority what they want.
It's a problem because when something goes wrong the vast majority don't know how to fix their own computer and we re-start the windows complex. It may 'just work', but at what cost? (see 'ugly hacks'& whatnot previously mentioned)

And that's the problem you'll have with every system. Some people just don't have the aptitude or the desire to learn about their computers. There are two solutions to the "problem" that you're demonstrating: either make the systems (as much as possible) "just work" so they don't have to learn everything about them; or prevent people who refuse to learn every nuance of their computer from owning one.
I don't need to know how to rebuild my engine to drive a car, and I shouldn't have to know how to rebuild a kernel to surf the net.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not what Consequence9 is talking about here (or is he? :p)
If you compare Ubuntu with, say, Fedora, you'd see the same ease of use on both. Sometimes, Fedora is even easier, for example:
In the next release, you will be able to dobule-click on a file, and if there's no application installed to open it, one will be installed, automatically. no messing with packages, no googling for the 'best program', you will just get a list to chose from and just have to click.
Or another example:
In Ubuntu, you need sudo or gksu (aka the password box that pops up when you start administrative apps). If this gets too annoying, there's nothing you can do about it. While, in Fedora, there's PolicyKit, where you can give privilieges to certain users (for example, you can give them the ability to install packages without a password, or you can allow them to give others privileges) through an easy-to-use GUI...

THE PROBLEM is that Ubuntu is easy to use, yes, but at what cost? Under the hood, it's messy, greasy, and the like. Let's use your car comparison.

Fedora is like your regular, ordinary sports car; if you can drive, you know how to use it, it has neat extra features, and if you want to you can play around under the hood to make it go faster, but you don't have to. It's not for everyone, but it's easy to get used to when you have played around with it a bit.

Ubuntu, on the other hand, is more like a go-cart car you find somewhere in an old village fair... (ok, that's harsh, I know, but it's difficult to come up with cars to compare with :p) It's easy as heck to use, and everyone in the villages use it, but underneath the hood is a horribly contrived engine that is doomed to fail if you use it slightly differently than the use it was made for, and if you want to go slightly faster, the engine combusts and what remains is a puddle of a molten 8% blend of lead.

See where I'm going? And yes, I used extreme examples here, but you get the idea :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'WizardStan' said:
'Consequence9' said:
'javaJake' said:
And that''s a problem? The vast majority don''t want to learn how their computer works, they just want it to work. Ubuntu is all about being a system that Just Works. Ubuntu is giving the vast majority what they want.
It's a problem because when something goes wrong the vast majority don't know how to fix their own computer and we re-start the windows complex. It may 'just work', but at what cost? (see 'ugly hacks'& whatnot previously mentioned)

And that's the problem you'll have with every system. Some people just don't have the aptitude or the desire to learn about their computers. There are two solutions to the "problem" that you're demonstrating: either make the systems (as much as possible) "just work" so they don't have to learn everything about them; or prevent people who refuse to learn every nuance of their computer from owning one.
I don't need to know how to rebuild my engine to drive a car, and I shouldn't have to know how to rebuild a kernel to surf the net.

no, but you should know how to move the configuration of a single program if it stopped working after an update. You should know how to update your system frequently and how to just kill a task with a task-manager.

There are so many things people have to know until they are allowed to drive, but operating systems must be headed to idiots not willing to learn anything but the most obvious. Anyway, Linux is even usable by anyone not willing to learn, as long as there is someone to support them in certain situation.

I have to support a lot of computers, all in my free time and for mostly no money. At some point I had to say "stop. Either we switch to linux, or I'll stop maintaining your computer. You are free to choose." Everyone has decided to switch, they are all very happy they did and I only have to look at their computers once in a while to check if everything is going right. They sometimes ask me to install a programm for a certain task and I can do that remotely via ssh.

Last year, I switched them all from Ubuntu to Debian, since Ubuntu wasn't maintainable that easy any more. They introduced one minor bug after another and everyone was complaining for this and that. My conclusion is: It is not userfriendly if it's buggy. Period. Ubuntu is almost ready for everyone, featurewise, but they lack a whole lot of quality insurance. If the waiting for the next debian release will take to long, I will have to look for a distribution that offers me enough stability to go on with and hopefully an up-to-date package repository. At the moment, I find even Archlinux easier to support then Ubuntu.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've always been curious about Fedora. I just don't trust rpm, I've had too many problems with it on SuSE and CentOS. It may be a wrong impression, but hard to change.

Anyway, the point several people have been trying to make is that the answer to "Will it run ubuntu" is "Why bother?", since Ångström can run all the software Ubuntu ARM can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, yeah, back on topic: Ubuntu on the Pandora is useless anyway, since Ångström has all the apps you need and more. Only positive thing about Ubuntu would be eventual support from Canonical, but I doubt it's usefulness.
 
'dflemstr' said:
I'm the kind of person who needs speed when using a system.

The installation should be simple and provide the things I need, and not anything else. I don't want to mess with parted, I want to set up a LVM system and go. And I don't want to have to type 50 lines on the CLI just to get a basic KDE4 environment, i want to be able to leave the installer to do it's job for me.
Package management has to be extremely fast, too...
For example, when I program some pulseaudio stuff and I lack a library, or a header etc, I want to be able to do this:
CODE
$ yum provides /usr/include/pulse/simple.h # lists packages that provide the header
# yum install pulseaudio-libs-devel # installs a package

...and be able to continue working in 5 seconds. Sometimes, I also need to be able to install binary packages quickly.

I also need to have the cutting-edge stuff; some applications I release are for use the newest APIs and therefore I need the newest platforms to work with them.

Now, Fedora is the only distro that does this for me, at the moment. It has all the things I need: KDE 4.2, PulseAudio, PackageKit, ConsoleKit, PolicyKit, the latest GNOME libs, security through SELinux that stops you from screwing up etc. The next release (11) will base on ext4 and things like the cutting-edge open source nouveau driver (that hopefully has OpenGL/Gallium by then, I happen to have nVidia)
All the other distros are either too 'limiting' like Ubuntu, where you don't get much space to maneuver, or give you too much freedom like Gentoo or Arch, where you can spend an afternoon installing a system (and where things that should be simple become complicated).
With the Gentoo graphical installer, you can just choose that you want KDE and it will install it and every dependency. The fact that everything is installed from source makes it REALLY easy to do development, as all development libraries are installed already so that you can compile and install programs.

To each his own. Fedora seems to work for you, that's good. (Though if you _REALLY_ need cutting edge, I don't think you can get more cutting edge than Gentoo.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'conso' said:
no, but you should know how to move the configuration of a single program if it stopped working after an update. You should know how to update your system frequently and how to just kill a task with a task-manager.

There are so many things people have to know until they are allowed to drive, but operating systems must be headed to idiots not willing to learn anything but the most obvious. Anyway, Linux is even usable by anyone not willing to learn, as long as there is someone to support them in certain situation.

I have to support a lot of computers, all in my free time and for mostly no money. At some point I had to say "stop. Either we switch to linux, or I'll stop maintaining your computer. You are free to choose." Everyone has decided to switch, they are all very happy they did and I only have to look at their computers once in a while to check if everything is going right. They sometimes ask me to install a programm for a certain task and I can do that remotely via ssh.

Last year, I switched them all from Ubuntu to Debian, since Ubuntu wasn't maintainable that easy any more. They introduced one minor bug after another and everyone was complaining for this and that. My conclusion is: It is not userfriendly if it's buggy. Period. Ubuntu is almost ready for everyone, featurewise, but they lack a whole lot of quality insurance. If the waiting for the next debian release will take to long, I will have to look for a distribution that offers me enough stability to go on with and hopefully an up-to-date package repository. At the moment, I find even Archlinux easier to support then Ubuntu.
I'm confused. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or arguing against me. I'm pretty sure we agree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well, we probably mostly agree, but the points are added are
a) that ubuntu may be easy to get into (I started with suse but only with the first releases of ubuntu really got into linux), but isn't the easiest to support any more.
B) there is an additional option "let the users use it and the geeks maintain it", that is proven to work well and a good alternative to the options you named in your post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Pickle' said:
The problem I see with using Ubuntu or any outside linux distro is the kernel. If you run it your going to get a generic arm kernel, that means no 3d, no dsp bridge, etc.
The same could happen with the gentoo project, unless of course they add it themselves.

Of course like Chip said you can run what ever you want, but dont count on it supporting everything in the pandora, or expect to be faster than stuff running off Notaz's kernel.
Not true. You can either copy the kernel and /lib/modules/<kernel> directory from the official image to your own OS or build it yourself from the pandora.devs git tree (which is provided and fairly easy to do).

Being a part of the Gentoo Pandora project I'm a little closer to what we are doing. At the moment we are using our own kernel based on 2.6.28-omap1 instead of 2.6.27-omap1 which the official kernel is based off of last I checked. We use the same tree and many of the same patches but also may add a couple like Gentoo specific patches, UnionFS & SquashFS support, etc. You have the option to use ours or the official, your choice. If you would like to talk about kernels, you are more then welcome to join us in FreeNode#gentoo-pandora


Separately, (not targetted to Pickle)
While there have been some interesting points made about operating systems on the OpenPandora in general, I doubt a fraction of the effort used to belittle different points-of-view has been used to actually provide useful and productive work towards the community itself. Healthy debate is useful and always welcome. Please, next time you want to spend your evening trolling the forums for the next topic that doesnt meet your idea of whats right then come talk to me and I will happily point you to a dozen projects that are in desperate need of your help.

Ubuntu Pandora users,
Not my operating system of choice, but I would love to talk to anyone that is interested in organizing the project and talk about some lessons-learned. I dont want to change my focus from Gentoo (I have enough work as it is), but I am confident that the gentoo.pandora.devs can help you get started down the right direction and provide a source of troubleshooting knowledge. We have spent some time with our documentation and we are always welcome for some new/creative ideas.

Respectfully,
Viridior

EDITED: Made sure that the topic wasn't brought out-of-context.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'lulzfish' said:
'cb88' said:
OT: anybody notice than the OP is always at the top now?
No, but one time the forums randomly changed to a tree format.
Maybe you accidentally changed your viewing format of the forum somehow?

Actually yes, he did. See the "Options" button at the top of the Posts tree? (Top right corner) The one with an arrow pointing downwards? There you change your view from "Standard", to "Linear", the one he has right now, or "Outline", that's the "Tree view" one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'borgqueenx' said:
ubuntu is the best os....i only use vista and xp, but thats becouse compability problems...
please dont make broad sweeping statements like that unless you're ready to dogfight with half the internet

also, i think gentoo is a great os. i dont really see it being practical for most things, but it really gave me a greater understanding of the way operating systems work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's all preference.
I think GoboLinux is by far the best by concept, but I'm using Ubuntu because it's well supported.
And my Pandora will probably run Angstrom because it's the default and it doesn't really need anything else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What really is the difference between Ubuntu and Angstrom.. Not in terms of "that has that and that has that" but what one has that the other doesn't
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ubuntu probably has far more packages than Angstrom and better support, since Ubuntu is the popular starter OS with all the binaries compiled for it, whereas Angstrom seems to be mostly an ARM system for Pandora and BeagleBoard.

Ubuntu also has the backing of Canonical and a good-sized team of "user-friendliness" people who make it very easy to configure. I don't think Angstrom has this.

Basically, one's specialized and installed by default and supported by the Pandora team, and one's popular and supported by ... some guys on the Internet?

Ubuntu might be a little more user-friendly, but I think someone will need to configure it to the Pandora's hardware, even to get the ARM netbook or mobile or whatever version running.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Raz' said:
What really is the difference between Ubuntu and Angstrom.. Not in terms of "that has that and that has that" but what one has that the other doesn't
ubuntu has a much bigger userbase and and therefor better tested.
Ubuntu aimes to give a good experience on the desktop/laptop and currently working on atom-based netbooks/umpcs,
Angstrom tries to provide a set of packages that is usefull for developers making a customized operating system and software-stack for embedded devices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder which one will end up being popular... Well, I guess time will tell.. I might consider dual-booting with Ubuntu on my SD card
 
Back
Top