Mark Shuttleworth Reveals Ubuntu Netbook Remix

Glyn Moody writes "In an interview with the Guardian today, Mark Shuttleworth talks about the upcoming Ubuntu Netbook Remix, a tailored version for ultraportables, produced in collaboration with Intel." The new version of Ubuntu is barely mentioned in this interview, but it's tantalizing -- SUSE looks nice on the HP Mininotes, but for people who are used to and enjoy Ubuntu, it's an option to look forward to.

Netbook remix on Launchpad

[LotsOfPhil (982823)]

There isn't much on the project's website: here [launchpad.net]

DJ Mark?

[argent (18001)]

Aww, you mean it's not "Ubuntu Castlevania Goron Temple Remix?" Damn.

Re:Dislike Ubuntu

[allanw (842185)]

What's wrong with /etc/init.d? It's just a matter of preference or old vs. new. I'm not quite sure how it works in Ubuntu, but in Gentoo, there's a tool that manages the services that run with each runlevel, and I prefer using that instead of manually moving around shell scripts.

Re:Dislike Ubuntu

[ChrisA90278 (905188)]

"What's wrong with /etc/init.d?"

The only real problem is that if is to slow. In a standard system that uses init.d each script is run one at a time. But what if you happen to have one of those eight-core systems and a very fast disk array. Whouldn't it be great if the system could take advantage of those eight cosres to make startup run 8X faster? Solaris does this. It looks at dependancies between services and starts up as many as it can in parallel. Once you have a dependancy graph (that says for example that FTP and Apache need networking but FTp does not need apache then you can launch both FTP and Appache in parallel. You can also take advantage of the graph wen you stop services too to prevent errors like bringing down the network when it is needed by FTPd. The whole init.d and "run level" idea is just not well suited to this new idea.

Re:Dislike Ubuntu

[by Anonymous Coward]

As a Linux user, I despise Ubuntu, I can't explain why, but I think it's too GUIsh along with other things like

Not using conventions i.e (at least in the Ubuntu versions I've used) /sbin/dhcpcd doesn't exists.

I prefer the slackware way of /etc/rc.d/rc.X instead of /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d/rc.(level)/rc.ssh?

but there are few good things about Ubuntu, it made Linux and Open Source much better to new-comers, works almost always out of the box
It's friendly (but silly IMhO) to people who migrate from Windows, and it's the greatest achievement made in the last few years. friendly OS for Windows migrating users.

I can tell you why you despise it. Because it's considered mainstream linux, and you are an arrogant prick who previously enjoyed looking down on the masses.

Re:

[kesuki (321456)]

As a Linux user, I despise Ubuntu, I can't explain why, but I think it's too GUIsh along with other things like

Not using conventions i.e (at least in the Ubuntu versions I've used) /sbin/dhcpcd doesn't exists.

I prefer the slackware way of /etc/rc.d/rc.X instead of /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d/rc.(level)/rc.ssh?

but there are few good things about Ubuntu, it made Linux and Open Source much better to new-comers, works almost always out of the box
It's friendly (but silly IMhO) to people who migrate from Windows, and it's the greatest achievement made in the last few years. friendly OS for Windows migrating users.

I can tell you why you despise it. Because it's considered mainstream Linux, and you are an arrogant prick who previously enjoyed looking down on the masses.

not only that, he's a command line bigot. command lines are powerful tools, and i can't imagine an OS without one, but they're clunky (have to learn commands and switches and make sure things with spaces all get re-parsed with quotes around them, i scripted a lot in my Free BSD days, needing to add quotes all the time in scripts drove me batty) CLUNKY i say, i avoid the command line as much as possible, it is my last resort, the #1 reason i stopped using Free BSD was all the Bias towards Command Line Inter

Re:Dislike Ubuntu

[debatem1 (1087307)]

Slackware is older than Ubuntu, so it must be the better distro.
Solaris is older than Linux, so it must be the superior operating system.
Monarchy is older than democracy, so it must be a better form of government.
I can make my examples more absurd, if you want.

Re:

[jwkfs (1260442)]

Pretty sure the placement of init scripts in /etc/init.d is a LSB requirement.

Re:Dislike Ubuntu/sbin/dhcpcd doesn't

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

/sbin/dhcpcd doesn't exists.

Uh, that's because it's called /sbin/dhclient3. It's called that because that's what it's called in Debian.

I prefer the slackware way of /etc/rc.d/rc.X instead of /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d/rc.(level)/rc.ssh

/etc/init.d is POSIX and SVR4 ccompliant. Additionally, all major distros that support LSB put it there: Red Hat, SuSE, etc. So, uh, it does use conventions.

He didn't say Ubuntu is unlicensed.

[XanC (644172)]

He said the future is in unlicensed software. Which, IIRC, was the end-game goal for GPL. GPL is a temporary system to enforce freedom in an age of copyright restrictions. If software in the future becomes truly unlicensed, then there's no need for GPL.

Re:

[zebslash (1107957)]

I know this argument is every frequently used, but even in a world where copyright would not exist, the GPL still brings another feature: it prevents a free software to revert to a proprietary one. If copyright law were completely abolished, it would still be permitted to take any source code, modify it and distribute it without disclosing the modifications. The GPL on the other hand says: ok, you can use my source, but if you redistribute to the public, you cannot close the source and you have to release y

Re:

[Jherek Carnelian (831679)]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a temporary system to enforce freedom in an age of government and capitalism. If society in the future becomes truly Communist, then there's no need for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of course, we know how well that works out, too.

So, you are saying that because a lot of ignorant people confuse Free software with socialism that any analogy with socialism is valid?

I think you have that backwards.

Re:

[bsDaemon (87307)]

I'm saying he's making argument straight out of Marx to justify free software, he just changed the words.

Free software works more like third position distributivism, as advocated by Hilaire Belloc in The Servile State -- that is to say, there are three remedies to capitalism - socialism, slavery and property. Unchecked capitalism leads to slavery, but also necessitates socialist revolution UNLESS you take the third option - property.

That is to say that the means of production and exchange must be distribut

Re:

[XanC (644172)]

You're certainly right about that. But in a case like this where the "dictatorship" gives us an awful lot of software while oppressing nobody, I'm okay with letting the dreamers dream and letting the "temporary" system keep working.

Re:

[harry666t (1062422)]

It's not the idea of communism that was so bad, it was the implementation.

I like to think of Free Software as "communism done right", with real sharing, with real community, with people that are actually willing to help each other, without repressing the outstanding ones, and such. And on the long run FS seems to have less in common with communism that one might think it has in the first place. It has many of its advantages, but less of disadvantages...

And I think I know why it succeeded. The people who sta

Re:He didn't say Ubuntu is unlicensed.

[MrNiceguy_KS (800771)]

You know, I had never thought about it before, but in a way you're right about Free Software as "Communism done right". Communism as an idea is not bad, except that the idea ignores everything we know about human nature, i.e. that people are selfish bastards who will get as much for themselves as they can while doing as little as possible.

But when we're dealing with non-physical property like software, it works, simply because people taking as much as they can doesn't reduce the amount available to others. "To each, according to their needs," really does mean everyone can have as much as they want of what's out there.

I think the correct phrase isn't "communism done right," but rather "Communism the only way it can actually work"

Re:

[bsDaemon (87307)]

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm [marxists.org]

Pull your head out of your math books once in a while and read something. You might learn. I'm not making this stuff up.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'll give him the benefit of doubt and say he probably meant unlicensed software as in you do not have purchase a license to use the software as it is given to you with it.

Re:Why reading the article is important...

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Ubuntu is unlicensed, eh? And everything that's included in it, eh?

Sure. I've used an unlicensed copy of Ubuntu many times. It says right there in the GPL: If you don't want to accept the license, you don't have to in order to use the software. So I didn't. :-P

So I guess I can change some #IFDEF s, release a "new" operating system, and get rich, eh?

You could if you agreed to the GPL. If you didn't, then I imagine that the various Linux authors would take issue with your attempt to ignore copyright law.

Free software is not "public domain," which is what unlicensed/uncopywritten means.

No, unlicensed means unlicensed and public domain means public domain. Just because public domain software is unlicensed doesn't make all unlicensed software public domain. (i.e. A car stays in a garage. Is everything in a garage a car?) Unlicensed means exactly that: You didn't agree to a license to obtain the software. I don't agree to a license to obtain a book, either, but copyright law is still in full effect.

Re:

[Sancho (17056)]

Others have pointed out the flaw.

I don't have to accept the GPL in order to use Linux legally. I do have to accept whatever Microsoft's EULA of the day is in order to use Windows legally. GPL software is generally unlicensed for use.

I think that the problem is that lots of people believe that "unlicensed" somehow means that you're running afoul of the law. It's bad PR to call Ubuntu "unlicensed", but that doesn't mean that it's technically inaccurate. License-free would probably be a better term.

Re:

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

A guy on my team has the new hp mininote or whatever it is - with Suse. Out of the box wireless causes system crashes and the camera doesn't work. Maybe Novell wont mind the lack of publicity.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Diversity differs!

Hah! Prove it!

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[paroneayea (642895)]

One of the things that's with Ubuntu is that it's the only group with a real sense of marketing. Granted, it's viral marketing, but if you look at http://ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com] versus http://debian.org/ [debian.org] you'll notice that one is quite pretty and modern, and the other looks like it fell out of a wormhole circa 1996. I even tried talking about a site redesign on #debian on freenode once and got flamed by someone saying "why the hell should the look of a website matter?" Perhaps it somewhat matters because when I was a newbie and knew nothing about the merits of distros, I overlooked Debian as being a fairly amateurish distro because, well, its website looked amateurish. Yes, I know better now, but we should acknowledge at least a little that appearances do matter.

Of course, it's not just the website. Ubuntu also has an army of Diggers, and it's overall just a really easy distro to get started with when you know nothing about Linux, because the project has made appealing to that crowd one of its goals.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[Djatha (848102)]

Maybe you are right. Ubuntu has a very good PR machine running and it is easy to install and use, even for simple users. However, I fear that, as a result of all the publicity, when people start thinking about an alternative to windows, it'll be automatically Ubuntu, not the best distribution for their situation.

Seriously, are we looking forward to milions of clueless Ubuntu users?/P

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[trisweb (690296)]

I don't understand why "monoculture is bad" necessarily. It does lead to more possible security breaches, but it also leads to a coherent support network, familiar UI standards across most desktops, and a larger developer and user base with which to improve/test the software.

I myself see no need to switch away from the distro that gives me everything I need and has the most active community. This idea that users will switch to other distros once they see the "choice" is missing the point - 1: users don't want too much choice, and 2: given the choice, users will usually choose either what's familiar to them or what everyone else chooses. This is how Windows achieved and kept popularity! It simply became the standard. Linux needs this.

The other misconception is that this is bad -- it is not. It creates underlying standards and consistency across the board, which will confuse users less and help them adapt to the change faster and easier. It's also a lot easier to support a single distro than a dozen.

So it may not *always* be ubuntu, but it very likely will. I think Ubuntu has reached the tipping point where its momentum will support its growth. More power to it, in my opinion.

Re:

[mhall119 (1035984)]

I don't understand why "monoculture is bad" necessarily. It does lead to more possible security breaches, but it also leads to a coherent support network, familiar UI standards across most desktops, and a larger developer and user base with which to improve/test the software.

It's "bad" because it's dangerous. A single change by a single Debian maintainer caused a security vulnerability is a whole lot of installations, including mine. In this case, it wasn't that everybody was using OpenSSH, because OpenSSH wasn't the source of the problem. Redhat/Fedora and Suse both use OpenSSH and were not effected. This diversity contained a security vulnerability to just the Debian family, and not all Linux installs.

This idea that users will switch to other distros once they see the "choice" is missing the point - 1: users don't want too much choice, and 2: given the choice, users will usually choose either what's familiar to them or what everyone else chooses

Users do like choice. Go to any common user's home, and they'll have

Re:

[FishWithAHammer (957772)]

An argument for a Linux-distro monoculture, though, is that more likely than not a de-facto "main distro" will be scrutinized far more by upstream. If the OpenSSH guys had looked at the Debian changes (because, under this hypothesis, Debian would be THE DISTRO), this error would have been found and fixed far sooner.

Re:

[mhall119 (1035984)]

I think Debian is the parent of enough distros to be "the Distro", so recent events would unfortunately prove your hopes wrong. The OpenSSH guys aren't ever going to be evaluating distro changes to their package, it's not their responsibility. As long as it works right in OpenBSD, they're happy, doesn't matter to them if some Linux guys break it in their package.

Re:

[kesuki (321456)]

"Think of Ubuntu as a gateway drug, uh, distro."

I've been using FOSS software since 1996, and the only 3 Linux distros i like are smoothwall, ubuntu, and knoppix. in 1996 i gave up on slackware (what all the Linux people were talking about then) for something that worked out of the box as a cross platform Internet gateway/file server... Free BSD.

I've never been cured of my desire for simplicity, never, and neither will the masses.

I don't want to fight with my software for 7 hours to get it 'just right' i w

Re:

[foobsr (693224)]

but if you look at ubuntu.com versus debian.org you'll notice ...

Alternatively, one may as well realize that there exist different target groups with different attitudes, needs, (and average age, (and knowledge), presumably).

CC.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[satoshi1 (794000)]

Yeah, but which one is more appealing to the know nothing-"ooh this is pretty" crowd? That's where Ubuntu's website has it.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[story645 (1278106)]

The Ubuntu site is a very clean interface-see button, go to section, then get into the detail. It's perfect for the user who doesn't know anything 'cause they'll never even know what they're missing. The site's incredibly easy to navigate-it just requires more buttons to get somewhere. The Debian site has the standard F/OSS interface-throw just about everything at the user under a couple of subheadings. Less clicks, yeah-but not that much better for it.

Website design is as much about the audience as anything else-and the Ubuntu site is perfectly geared towards it's audience, as is Debians towards it's- which is why it looks any other F/OSS project page where as Ubuntu's looks like a standard corporate page.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[griffjon (14945)]

It's perfect for the user who doesn't know anything 'cause they'll never even know what they're missing

As an Ubuntu user; I find that vaguely insulting. Linux in general is missing an easy entry into its world for outsiders. Ubuntu helps with this by bring friendly on the outside; having good support forums and services, but being a full distro under the hood.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[kipman725 (1248126)]

minimalist and EMACS.. two words I never thought could be next to each other.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[hey! (33014)]

Well, the big problem isn't with the Debian site; it's with the aspect ratio of most monitors these days. Flowing to fill the full horizontal width of the screen is actually a bad idea for such a text-heavy site, because such long lines are hard to read.

Look at the Debian home page in a browser window that is narrowed to allow about 7-10 words per line in the main text, and it looks -- nice. Not coincidentally, the Ubuntu site squeezes about ten words across into the main text.

I'm sitting here on a laptop with a screen that's designed for watching wide screen movies, but it'd be better for me to rotate it 90 degrees if I'm reading text.

The classic linux expert criticism..

[fantomas (94850)]

I'm sure you don't intend it but your first lines of posting come over as the classic linux expert user criticism of newbies - "it's not the software that's wrong, it's you!".

I'm very pleased that many of the linux distros have got their act together to appeal to a wider audience these days.

Re:

[FooBarWidget (556006)]

Just resize your browser window?

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[osu-neko (2604)]

Agreed. The Ubuntu website is the amateurish one that breaks the rules. For example, it is fixed width and doesn't flow to fit the screen, and it fails validation [w3.org] (Debian's site passes validation [w3.org] and flows). I also feel it just isn't as functional as the simpler, cleaner Debian site.

Like most people, you're confusing two different concepts here: skillful vs. professional. Debian's site is clearly more skillfully done, and wins on technical merit. Ubuntu's site is clearly more professional; people are more likely to pay for a site like that. Debian's site is both technically superior and more amateurish. The very qualities you mention as signs Ubuntu's site is "more amateurish" are common and even to some degree desired in many professional web designs (fixed-width, for example, is required to accurately control precise layout, a common client requirement). If the Debian developers were trying to sell the site design, it'd look more like Ubuntu's, which is to say, more professional, albeit not as good in many ways.

Never confuse "professional" with "better" or "amateur" with "worse". The first terms relate to the compensation for the activity, the second refer to subjective criteria which are usually utterly unrelated to that.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[Xabraxas (654195)]

There's nothing wrong with the layout of Debian's site but the design is awful and hurts my eyes. It looks like it was made by one of the developers because it validates but looks like crap. By the way valid HTML/CSS doesn't make a website good. If it did I would be raking in money as a web developer because it seems that next to no one validates their websites except for coders. The really sad thing is that when using CSS you could alter the debian website quite dramatically with little time or effort and it would look 100 times better.

Re:

[Kjella (173770)]

Their front page is a little sloppy, but it's hardly the worst I've seen. Out of the 18 errors, 8 came from one leftover </p> tag, a few missing alt texts, some missing ids on display mappings (they had a name attribute instead) and a border element that should be moved to CSS (maybe some browser doesn't understand the CSS right). No browser is going to choke on that. Of the four errors left the first two look invalid to me since they're '<img... >' strings in javascript and not actual page elem

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[LingNoi (1066278)]

Debian overloads you with so much information that it's impossible to get anything done.

I wanted to learn how to package up software and I found the full circle magazine more helpful then Debian's 6000 page document on it, such a useless website.

Re:

[goltzc (1284524)]

I think Ubuntu is a fine OS. I know there are other distros that are great and if you like them you should use them. However, Ubuntu provides two things a decent user experience with a great community for both novices and power users and more importantly momentum for "non traditional" Operating Systems. Any exposure people get to alternative platforms is a good thing. It's really nice to show people that there is alternatives to the crazy M$ way of things.

Re:

[ubrgeek (679399)]

I decided to re-purpose a G4 powerbook that I wasn't doing anything with and decided that it was a decent time to give a newer *nix ditro a shot. I had recently used Ubuntu to create a headless fileserver [bit-tech.net] and was pleased with it. On the laptop, not as much. Airport Extreme support - from the OS, _NOT_ the Ubuntu support forums - was really, really painful. I tried YellowDog, SuSE and a few others but no love from any. I went back to Ubuntu (actually Xubuntu [xubuntu.org]) and spent a number of hours working through t

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[lytles (24756)]

I'm on the bandwagon. I've been using linux for 12 years, longer if you include machines administered by others. Ubuntu isn't perfect, but from what I've seen it's the best thing out there - it just works.

Everything is easy. Install a new package. Get the source for that package that isn't quite working right. Configuration. Update packages. Upgrade to the new version. It's all trivial, and just works. /etc is simple and clean.

And my folks are running it. When i visit I f with things. But when I'm not there, they can still upgrade packages, etc. And they're on dialup, and it still just works :)

We run suse on the servers at work, and i needed a very recent gcc with fortran and gomp. Ended up building from source, including a half dozen dependencies. On my workstation (ubuntu) "apt-get install gfortran libgomp". done. 5 hours vs 5 minutes. Actually, I think it took several iterations, maybe spent 2 full days installing it on suse.

Great for the power user.
Great for the beginner.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[miffo.swe (547642)]

I manage SUSE, RedHat, Ubuntu and Windows server boxes at work and i can concur. Ubuntu is by far easier to manage and keep running. When i need something or want to test something out its just an apt-get away on Ubuntu while it can take many hours on the others. Package management is where Ubuntu (or debian to be true) really shines. That coupled with the enormous repositories with most packages known to man makes it a very handy tool for me. I tried to use SUSE for a terminal server but i had enormous problems with it. For every new package i introduced i had conflicts all over and had to resolve them by endless sessions with "--force".

Debian should be very proud of Ubuntu. It just works and the biggest part of that in my view is that it got a package management system that really shines above everybody else. If it works because of hard work or technical merits i don't know but i do know it saves me endless of hours in the end.

I think Ubuntu chose the right way when they start at the desktops and then go for the servers. Even my boss runs Ubuntu at home and at work. When he run it at home chances are much greater he wants me to use it at work for our servers. Novell/SUSE must be out of their mind when they drop the desktop and gives it away freely to Microsoft. Why go for the enterprise market where competition already are fierce when you can go for a desktop market and the small company market? You can never take a market top down, it has to start from the bottom.

If Ubuntu do a real push for servers with easier setup of services and more or less key ready solutions they will make a real dent in the Linux server market. All that is needed is some polishing on the configuration procedures of some key components like OpenLDAP, SAMBA, Cups and some Groupware.

Don't confuse diversity with diffusion

[flattop100 (624647)]

For the vast majority of Windows users, Linux needs an identity. They see Windows, OS X (Apple), and the great confusion and diffusion that is Linux. If Ubuntu is putting a face on Linux, then more power to Shuttleworth et al. For most new migrants, Ubuntu gives them the impression that Linux is fast, easy to use, and (more and more) friendly. These are tremendous inroads. Perhaps they can be starting points down other Linux paths.

here's my (brief) SuSE experience on the 2133

[nguy (1207026)]

There is a new version of Ubuntu, so what. In the summary there was also e mentino of Suse's package for the HP notebook, why don't I hear anyone about that?

The version of SuSE that ships with the HP 2133 has big problems: it's slow because it's burdened with inappropriate packages like Beagle, its wireless connectivity is poor, if you try to install packages, it asks you to insert a non-existent DVD into a non-existet DVD drive, external screen configurations are limited, and there's something wrong with the touch pad driver causing it to "stick". In addition, I found the administrative menus and preference menus to be cluttered and pretty obscure at times.

I used to be a SuSE user. I was going to give SuSE another try with the 2133, but it was such a miserable experience that I just blew it away and installed Ubuntu.

So, now you heard about SuSE on the 2133.

Re:What is it with Ubuntu

[LingNoi (1066278)]

Sure why not, i'd just switch to Exherbo [exherbo.org].

OK, I Want to Try Exherbo

No you don't.

Yes I Do

OK, maybe you do, but we don't particularly want you to try it because we don't want to deal with you whining when you find that absolutely nothing works.

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

They do that because they get better integration that way. For example, when you install Ubuntu, it installs OpenOffice with GNOME support, but when you install Kubuntu, it installs OpenOffice with KDE support. Plus all the art differences, etc. Plus, problems with KDE packages won't hold up an Ubuntu release and vice-versa.

Re:ZOMG ANOTHER UBANTO *FAP FAP FAP*

[nguy (1207026)]

That's great. I don't get why ubuntu needs to release a new "distro" for every single configuration.

Because it's easy for end users. And that's what should count. One reason Ubuntu is so popular is that they understand this.