Why does everyone run Ubuntu :( Why not Arch?

Post Reply New Topic

Probably the biggest reason?

Marketing. People hear about Ubuntu long before they ever hear about the existance of arch.

True. Google "Linux" and Ubuntu is the second or third hit. Ask anyone to start you out in Linux, and they'll point you towards Ubuntu. When I came here interested in trying out Linux, I was told to go for Ubuntu.

I think Ubuntu is popular because people want to load something up and then be ready to start computing, kind of like they can do with Windows, and can do more so with Ubuntu since these days, it comes complete with OpenOffice. I have my system dualbooted with Ubuntu and XP and I like the fact Ubuntu runs faster on my old 1.583ghz system, and installed so quickly.

I didn't like the fact to get it to do multimedia, I had to go download a bunch of stuff to install on it, reminds me of the earlier days of Windows. I know some distros ship with all that stuff now, but one thing Ubuntu has going for it is good support forums. Any problems I've had I can find the answer to pretty quickly in the forums.

Ubuntu, and most Linux distros for that matter, don't have as much hardware support as does Windows. I previosuly had a scanner that wouldn't work to its fullest on any Linux distro, it would only scan 100dpi and it was capable for 2400dpi. I've since switched to a HP Printer/Scanner and works fine with SANE and HPLIP. Thanks HP for supporting Linux.

If more get interested in Linux, perhaps more hardware manufacturers will sink the resources into creating Linux drivers for their products.

Ubuntu is a good way to get into Linux, easy to use and install, and alot of support for it. I always recommend it when asked about Linux.

[Oops... a slight double post - removed by lau, who echoes the sentiments]

I run Ubuntu mainly because I REALLY didn't want to wipe my EFI partition(I have a MacBook), and the Ubuntu website provided instructions on how to dual boot, which seemed to be very clear.
If Debian had first party instructions on their OWN site, then I definitely would have installed that instead and plan on buying a new HDD soon. When I do, I'll most likely install Debian along side OS X(the new on will be my primary HDD, and the current, standard 120 GB HDD will probably just be used as another portable external HDD ).
I'm also, admittedly, new to the GNU environment, and the support from Ubuntu, in my opinion, is superior to any other distribution I've came across.
I'm also considering Open SUSE, but I prefer the Debian package manager than RPMs and such, when I tried Fedora out, RPMs seemed to be so incredibly slow...
EMZ=]

Why does it matter if they got first party instructions, etc? When I first started back in Ubuntu 5.10 I think it was I found ubuntuforums.org or something far better in terms of support then the actual Ubuntu site. I think Ubuntu's official support is horrible compared to other third party support sites.

But for Archlinux Wiki, it's GOD.

Because I feel uncomfortable when I read the Debian documentation and it says "We think this might be possible, some people have figured out how to do it" in regards to dual-booting my Mac. With Ubuntu, I can find a Wiki not only dedicated to my specific model, but also my specific revision (MacBook 3,1) with detailed instructions on exactly what issues I am likely to run into and how to resolve them.

Bloat has to be some excuse geeks use to call whatever they use more hardcore than the other thing. I don't really care as long as it runs just fine in my 6 years old computer, and ubuntu does.

Edit: I can't think of anything more pointless than running an OS, any OS just for the challenge. Ok, maybe when I was young and had a lot of time... Right now, I want to install an OS and just begin programming my own stuff. I don't really think I'll get any bonus points for spending hours tweaking it. If the prize for this simplicity is getting hardcore Linux users calling me weak. I'd say it's fine.

Edit: And I know there are many distros out there that are very good. But I don't really feel like fixing something that is not yet broken for me. I don't have enough space to triple boot and add a new distro either. Download time is another thing that doesn't motivate me...

Arch installs to a CLI. If you want a GUI you have to install it yourself. That pretty much puts it out of the running for average user friendly.

(I'm going to try it though)

The first ubuntu I tried used a Console install program, it wasn't really that bad. So does XP.

Well, sure. I use the alternate install disks with the debian installer. Its text.

But what I mean is that Arch apparently installs you and drops you at a command line.. once its done. ie: useable system. IF you want gnome or KDE.. go get it yourself.

The Arch Wiki has an EXCELLENT "Beginner's Guide" that walks you through everything from installing to setting up the GUI.

Now there's the difference. The Ubuntu CD has this excellent beginner's guide, which goes "put in the CD reader".

Ubuntu is so easy it's not even funny. I mean, with Ubuntu Linux is now easier than Windows has ever been.

Yes, it does matter if it's first party. If I have to go to a third party site to get help installing software on my computer from a popular Linux distributor.
Ubuntu's official support site has been great for me personally, like Orwell, I dual-boot Ubuntu.
Also, Ubuntuforums.org are Ubuntu's official forums.
EMZ=]

I actually tri-boot Windows, OS X, and Ubuntu. But as an aside, even when I have to rely on third-party documentation... there seems to be more third-party documentation for Ubuntu than any other distro. When I google problems I create in OS X I get answers for Ubuntu.