On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote: > > I landed in the Kubuntu environment. Kubuntu 9.10, in my experience, > fell flat on it's ISO. I assumed it was growing pains of the latest > KDE. I installed Ubuntu on my "it has to work" machine and then used > the other laptop to tinker with 10.04 (starting with Alpha 2) of both > Ubuntu and Kubuntu. Neither seems to be very spectacular in what it > does. I haven't had any major problems, though I am far from a power user.
My thought: Ubuntu might not be the best choice for an "it has to work" machine. That's not to insult or disparage Ubuntu, it's just a reflection of Ubuntu being a reasonably bleeding-edge distro, akin to Fedora. Any bleeding-edge anything is likely to have some bugs & burps that creep into the shiny and new. Often, the problems that distros get blamed for are the result of bugs (or, design decisions or implementation changes that might be controversial) upstream, as Drew already mentioned with regard to the missing xorg.conf. To some extent, it is the responsibility of distros to put together a fully functioning whole, but in practice there are so many moving parts that it simply isn't possibly to be up-to-the-minute and completely free of sometimes show-stopping bugs or usability issues. And when upstream devs do something that annoys a lot of users, it's always the bleeding-edge distro's users that get exposed to the annoyance first. Personally, I'd stay with something that doesn't prioritize the latest and greatest over stability or usability for an "it has to work" machine -- especially in light of your unsatisfying experience with KDE/Kubuntu. In the Debian universe, there is nothing more stable than Debian stable itself. In the Red Hat universe, many here have talked about Scientific Linux or CentOS. Michael M. _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
