Ubuntu 8.04, the Hardy Heron, Is in Alpha 4

Alpha 4? I can give you Warp 5, Cap'n, but we'll blow the engines!

Super - I can start planning to upgrade my 6.06 LTS systems at home (release is planned for late April.) As overkill as it might seem, it may be a good time to install Puppet so rebuilding systems is as simple as firing up the Puppet client on a fresh system then moving data.

And why aren't you using Fedora or Sabyon Linux. You know it unfortunate that people think that Ubuntu is all that and a bag of chips when it comes to linux, but I think they are mistaken,there are many choices out there for linux. That is the wonder of Linux - choice, let us not forget that. Fedora is already using these improvements in the latest release: Fedora 8 so while you are trying the latest Ubuntu out why not give it a try. Oh and yes the Fedora team is dedicated to free software so get over it. And I am proud to read this blog and its support of free software but let us keep a eye on the ball!

I've been using Hardy for about a month now. The batch of updates pre-alpha 4 caused all sorts of crashes and headaches, but the issues seem to be resolved now.

Overall, any improvements over Gutsy have been hard to see for me on the surface. Either they are more "behind the scenes", or simply in areas I don't deal with too much.

Also, I just want to add that I find it ironic that MrDeadworry espouses that there are many linux choices available, while at the same time criticizing those who choose Ubuntu.

I don't recall anything in the post claiming that Ubuntu was the best thing since sliced bread. I like it because it works as well or better than any other distro I've used.

I started with Slackware install back in 1995, migrated to Red Hat and stayed with it from 4.5 to 5.1 or 5.2. From about 1998 onward I used SuSE until I had some hardware failures in 2006. I was not impressed with the changes Novell was making (surprise) and since they decided to follow Red Hat's lead of dropping their consumer line, I took a chance on a Debian-based distribution and I'm very happy I did.

My choice has nothing to do with hype or dogma. To be frank, I don't like RPM-based distributions. Invariably you will need an updated version of packaged software or software that hasn't been packaged and you'll either have to install from source (not viable if you're maintaining a number of machines - see my reference to Puppet above) or you'll have to rebuild a package. It has been my experience that many specfiles are completely unusable due to the amount of hacking and patching they use (case in point: the RHEL4/CentOS4 specfile for Ruby.) Having much more experience building RPMs than deb packages, I've found the deb package creation scheme simpler and more sensible.

The same can be said for Ubuntu's Apache layout; it makes module and virtual host management much simpler, cleaner, saner, than anything that either Red Hat or SuSE has put forth.

Granted, I won't claim to be the typical linux user. I maintain two servers and a desktop system at home plus three obsolete laptops and a few experimental boxes - those are predominantly Ubuntu systems. I've had bad experiences with Red Hat and RPM-based systems in general and Ubuntu seemed to have a solid commitment to supporting a server platform (via the LTS distros) as well as a more frequent update cycle and a commitment to usability.

At work, I maintain a learning management system (Blackboard, a curse on it for all its days...) and various database, web, and application servers - all those systems are using CentOS because they're easier to manage and update than equivalent RHEL systems. Since most commercial software vendors only support RHEL, Fedora isn't viable in our environment.

The upshot is that I have more than a little experience with various linux distributions, I know my wants and needs, and I use Ubuntu because it works well for me in the role I need it. I'm glad you're happy with Fedora; it's neither fair nor accurate to characterize Ubuntu users as a bunch of dogmatic rubes and n00bs.