Meteorswarm wrote:I strongly contest the notion that a distribution has to be hard to use to be instructive...
...The whole "it has to be hard to use" is nothing but masochism. Who seriously argues against usability?
I'm not arguing against usability, at least not until the features that promote usability actually get in the way of what a user is trying to accomplish, or are annoying and or/difficult to turn off for those who don't want/need those features.
archeleus wrote:I've used Slackware, Debian and (k)ubuntu and some more but they don't matter.
In my opinion *buntu is only good if you are newbie. It's naming system is annoying (suspected furries behind this) and they have Kubuntu, Xubuntu and god knows what just for different desktop environments. Since you can install KDE and GNOME on the same system, I don't see why anyone would bother (if not for disk space).
There is a lot for support for *buntu I guess, but if you ask a query in a slackware/gentoo channel you are more likely to get a good reply.
I'm considering LFS but I'm too lazy and lack the motivation.
Agreed, *buntu is for people who are new to Linux. The naming system might be annoying, but it's still simple and informative, and it may very well be true that Shuttleworth is a furry, but that's his...um... preference.
Ubuntu has EXCELLENT support, as long as you stay off the IRC channels. The forums aren't too helpful, mostly because they're terribly organized, but enough searching and you will find at least a partial answer. Community docs are where most of the relevant information goes, and are decently easy to search through.
I don't think that's what anyone is saying? OK Arch is slightly harder to install than *buntu (but only to the extent of following pretty clear instructions on a CLI installer rather than running a graphic installer) but once you've got it running I find Arch much easier than *buntu -- largely because there isn't anywhere near the amount of cruft between user and machine.
You can have an Arch system running Gnome and Firefox in about 120MB of RAM, whereas in Ubuntu you'll be using maybe 250MB or so because of all the pointless services it installs and runs. For instance, why have CUPS running in the background all the time when I don't even own a printer?
Arch was EXTREMELY easy to install for me, mostly because I had Links running in a virtual console, telling me what I needed to do. Getting it running the way I wanted took me LESS time than it would have on an Ubuntu install, and my ancient computer has never been faster. Back in Ubuntu, I had to spend 10-15 minutes disabling services like CUPS and Bluetooth, and pacman seems way faster than dpkg, from a speed of package prep and install. I haven't learned my way around pacman 100%, but I'm liking it so far.
And about my bemoaning of GUI tools? Yeah. I don't like all of them in Ubuntu. Especially when I go release to release, and I'm thinking "Where the fuck is xyz
?" Ubuntu just seems to frustrate me more and more with each release, rearranging and moving everything around for the sake of "usability", when to me
it seems that Ubuntu is getting less and less usable as time goes by: they've switched the 'gnome-app-install' for their package, 'software-center', which I think is extremely cumbersome and irrationally complicated, as compared to gnome-app-install; Empathy, which can't seem to remember that I keep importing my contacts from Pidgin, and often IM's someone with the wrong account; and the new "Let's put the minimize/maximize/close buttons ON THE LEFT!", just to name a few.
Maybe the Unity desktop I've heard that's going into 11.04 will change everything.
Arch didn't do any of this bullshit to me, and I'm very happy with it. Sure, it took a bit of effort to set it up, but I didn't have to deal with a bunch of crap I didn't want.