I would like to point out that comparing Ubuntu to...

2009-06-04T10:36:30.019-07:00

I would like to point out that comparing Ubuntu to XP and KUbuntu to Vista is a little miss leading in that the difference is only in the presentation.

Yes, KUbuntu has more eye candy that say Ubuntu or XUbuntu, but the other two are much faster and snapper to user responses. The underlaying software in all three are the same versions, and thus software for one is compatible with the other two. Very much unlike XP and Vista.

It's important to note that all active distributions try to keep up to date, to a certian point. Since open software is often the projects of smaller teams, with many outside colaberators, they don't always get the pre-release quality assurance testing that you would expect from a business who's income was dependant upon their products. So they often release beta versions and ask the community to help with the testing. Some distributions will quick grab the new software, like Fedora to insure you have bleeding edge features, but as a side effect, some of the features are often broken. On the other end of the spectrum is Debian, when is often a year back in released due to their extremely high standard of quality. For this reason, if you do use their software, you can be assured that it's better than rock solid, it's diamond solid. The Ubuntu clan tends to sit right about in the middle.

A Distro does not always have a GUI bundled, look ...

2009-06-04T00:16:57.318-07:00

A Distro does not always have a GUI bundled, look at INX for example.

Nice artice furtherly

Comments on From Windows to Linux for the average Joe: What is a Linux Distribution?

I would like to point out that comparing Ubuntu to...

A Distro does not always have a GUI bundled, look ...