digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Ubuntu Keeps Building Momentum

workswithu.com — With Windows XP going the way of the dodo, Ubuntu looks to us like a good fit. We wouldn ’t recommend Ubuntu as a primary OS for our other builds, since it won’t let you play most games or run Photoshop out of the box, but this is a sub-$300 small-form-factor PC for basic desktop tasks.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • hamobu, on 08/29/2008, -13/+132I love linux, but curb your enthusiasm. It will take a long time to overcome windows momentum. PC Market is mature now and it does not turn on a dime.
    • iampriteshdesai, on 08/30/2008, -14/+4Linux Mint is better than Ubuntu here are 10 reasons why:
      http://helpforlinux.blogspot.com/2008/08/10-3-reas ...
      1. Linux Mint = Ubuntu++: Linux Mint is basically Ubuntu with various goodies pre-installed. Linux Mint has a stellar “out of the box” experience.

      2. Better media playback: Linux Mint comes with various codecs pre-installed, so no that you can play those mp3s right out of the box. DVDs too play out of the box.

      3. Looks Good: Linux Mint comes with a beautiful blue theme. Even die-hard Ubuntu fans hate the ugly brown theme, Linux Mint simply looks better. As a general overview Linux Mint's default look is very pleasant and professional looking showing the road to other desktop-oriented distros (listening Ubuntu?
      5. Inclusion of essential softwares: Linux Mint comes pre-installed with Adobe Flash, Java and also Envy. I know, all these softwares can be downloaded for Ubuntu too but there are few things which can go wrong with the Ubuntu approach. While installing Adobe flash for Firefox I selected Gnash. Although I support open source, Gnash sucks! Hope it improves.

      6. MintUpload: An FTP client that uploads files to a server by right-clicking on the icons and selecting upload. The user will then be given a link he or she can give to other people for quick and easy sharing. An easier Rapidshare.

      7. Linux Mint users can use Ubuntu forums too, since most hacks which are applicable to Ubuntu also apply to Mint.
      • theOster, on 08/30/2008, -0/+13because 6 is the new 10

        (or 7 if you rtfa)
      • hamobu, on 08/30/2008, -0/+7Mint is Ubuntu slightly improved in some ways. And Ubuntu is debian slightly improved in some ways..
      • specialK16, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3@hamobu:

        And Physics is applied math!
      • RaulMuadDib, on 08/30/2008, -0/+8Where is 4?
      • Keithamus, on 08/30/2008, -0/+9Thats such a non list! Besides being 6 not 10 (missing number 4) they can basically be boiled down to "ubuntu + extra software"

        1. "various goodies pre-installed"
        2. "comes with codecs pre-installed"
        3. "comes with a beautiful blue theme"
        5. "inclusion of essential softwares"

        Linux Mint is basically install ubuntu, then "sudo apt-get install flashplayer-nonfree gsteamer* blubuntu* java* envy*" May aswell have made it a PPA, as opposed to a whole new distro.
      • tHeSiD, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3seems like number 4 in Linux Mint.. i want 4.. so ill stick to Ubuntu.. thanks
      • tHeSiD, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3seems like 4 is missing.. but i cant do without 4! ill stick to ubuntu thanks
      • Allender, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5Nah im not really into pokemon
      • Dylson, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2I dun get it.
    • Myztry, on 08/30/2008, -4/+16Who's says Ubuntu, or Linux for that matter has to overcome Windows.
      Computing was brilliant back in the 80's when there was a whole lot of Operating Systems in competition.
      Not much has changed in the way of 32 bit computing in the last 20+ years. A sad fact of life.
      Microsoft is a reactive company, and waits for pioneers to devleop markets before stirring to life.
      Even people who'll eventually die sitting at a Windows machine have to recognise a good thing.
      • BrainInAJar, on 08/31/2008, -0/+6I think it's not so much 'linux' overtaking windows, but 'open source' overtaking windows

        I use OpenSolaris, sometimes coders are jerks and use linux-specific nomenclature when they write things, but by and large I use the same software as what's available on Linux ( with a couple little quirks )... Linux's success then is my success as well
      • mcfara, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1I agree with Myztry - I love Ubuntu (I dual boot with Vista) but for some things (games, iTunes, Adobe products) I prefer Windows. I enjoy both worlds.
    • therocksays, on 08/30/2008, -4/+2It's pretty prettttyyy preeettyyy prettttyyy good.
    • ubrikkean, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4Agreed... this is kind of community hype. It's like with Ron Paul: everyone thought he was the strong, obvious republican candidate because of the environment here, where he had a lot of support. In reality, that only amounted to about 6% popular support.

      As awesome as Linux is to us, it's still a very long way from being adopted in a mainstream environment.
    • DangerCollie, on 08/30/2008, -0/+8Linux is already making inroads into mainstream use. Our office is now about half Ubuntu, we're also experimenting with PuppyLinux on some of our old IBM laptops. I got the CIO job at the company I'm with precisely because of my open source experience and preference. The other candidates were equally qualified, but I was the only really willing to move OSS into widespread use. And it's going really well.

      Moving people off Outlook was surprisingly easy. I expected more resistance. We switched over to corporate Gmail and most users voluntarily dumped Outlook even though we offered to support it. Many were already using Gmail anyway.

      Replacing the "Windows only" staff and vendors has not been difficult...even fun in a perverse kind of way. But the bottom line is I can prove more reliable service and better ROI with Ubuntu on Linux on the desktop. We spend less time and money supporting our Linux machines than what's left of the Windows environment.
      • mrBitch, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1RE: " Replacing the "Windows only" staff and vendors has not been difficult ... "

        Um, you had staff that would rather get fired than change to non-Windows software?
      • ubrikkean, on 09/01/2008, -2/+1Oh, yes, because obviously your office is representative of all computer-users.
    • moduc, on 08/31/2008, -2/+2I am a Linux power user. Today, I found another reason that Linux is still behind Windows in usability. When I take out the graphic card (NVidia), the GUI stops show up. So, I have to change the xorg.conf file. In Windows, at least, a low resolution, default screen would show up, and I can download new driver from the net to get the new card to work. Similarly, the computer falls into commandline mode when I switch to a different NVidia card (the two use different drivers). Until all of these things are fixed, or most of it, Linux will not be able to go further than hackers.
      • ThomasHung, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1It does that in ubuntu, and it has for quite some time now.
  • johndavidjack, on 08/29/2008, -41/+36Yeah, Ubuntu has a long way to go. It works great, but you as a linux user have to "set it up" for a newbie to linux. They aren't used to searching for codec support, because usually Windows directs them to where they can find it. For the most part, most don't even know what to look for, or how to look for it. Although we might find simple command line solutions easy, and the gui ones as well, to someone used to Windows for a long time, it's different for them.

    The biggest problem is the differences between the Windows executable or msi installers, the menu layout, and the added responsibility for finding new programs/solutions, and fixing small problems when they occur...

    Oh, and buried as more ubuntu spam...
    • hamobu, on 08/29/2008, -6/+30I respectfully disagee with the premise of your comment. Problem is not that Ubuntu is not ready, but that it is different from wondows.
      • johndavidjack, on 08/29/2008, -2/+16Ehhh, I don't know yet man...

        It's "ready" for people that are a little more intuitive with computers, and more willing to take the time to learn to contrast the differences.

        The problem is the people that don't care, and they just want things to "work". Yes, Ubuntu "works", and works fine for most people's computer usage. But since a lot of computer users don't know what's going on under the hood, just working could be turning on, and going to the internet, clicking on their spyware-induced desktop weather shortcut, checking their aim through their favorite chat client, etc. Most of that can be done on ubuntu, but that means changing from something they know, that works.

        Most people don't know the difference between better security, faster startup time, an easy-package management system, and regular upgrades. So why would they switch?

        Want to get people into Ubuntu? Provide out of the box support for almost every type of regular media, have user interface tutorials (video), possibly a search bar that goes right to Ubuntu forums (not everyone knows the beauty of Google), and have a nice welcome video explaining the benefits of switching, but also, what not to expect, and the differences between Windows and Linux. You'd have to put that on a LiveCD too.

        That way you explain the differences and use, but also familiarize new users with the OS.
      • hamobu, on 08/29/2008, -12/+28 Why would anyone use Ubuntu?

        For regular people there is absolutely no reason to switch from windows to Ubuntu. Most of my family uses windows that came with their computers. They use the same computer for a few years until some piece of hardware breaks, then they buy a new computer and use what ever it came with. My family has no problem with viruses because they don't do anything that dangerous or risky. They do email, go to a few sites, some digital photography, etc.

        Not only do regular people have no reason to use Ubuntu, but almost every piece of software that runs on ubuntu will run on windows as well.

        So why would anyone use Linux? Why so I use Linux? Because of freedom, that's why. The main reason why people use Linux is to preserve their computing freedom. For this reason, I am not only willing to use Open Source software, but I am also willing to be inconvenienced when using open source software. I think most people would be willing to go trough trouble of learning to use Ubuntu if they knew what is at stake.
      • johndavidjack, on 08/29/2008, -2/+4Hey man, you are preaching to the choir here, I agree.

        The only thing I don't agree about is that "most" people would be willing to learn. They won't, or ever know what is at stake, until something radical happens, and I mean a computer Windows platform computing failure; globally, and all over the news. I don't think that will happen.

        Also, you don't sound very inconvienienced in using linux. Hell, I run OpenSolaris Nevada Build, and it took me a week or two to set it up to my liking, and I still constantly experiment and tweak it. You said it best, you want freedom in your OS, but some people don't. Sad but true...
      • BigManOnCampus, on 08/29/2008, -5/+26I agree there's no reasons for the average user to switch to Ubuntu from Windows, no reasons other than:
        1) Consistent speed over the life of the computer due to a total lack of parasitic trojans/worms/spyware/adware
        2) Easy install of free applications that meet basic needs for word processing, e-mail, image manipulation, media management and enjoyment, etc..etc..
        3) Crash free and re-install free operation for years.
        4) A large fanboi base that puts paid support to shame as far as resolving issues.
      • hamobu, on 08/29/2008, -6/+7See that is the thing: My PC at work and PCs of most people that I know run windows for years without crashes and without viruses. As for large base and Internet help, that is true for windows as well. I can google "curve fitting in excel" and get ton of useful hits.
      • mickstephenson, on 08/30/2008, -1/+8Do you have access to loads of software and a centralised method of keeping everything up to the minute?
      • norman619, on 08/30/2008, -6/+1And let's not forget the complete lack of mainstream software support. Linux finds itself in an almost impossible position. In order for it to be adopted by more users mainstream software vendors like Adobe will need to start supporting it. The problem is that these vendors will not support Linux until more users start using it. See the problem? Linux is a great OS but as long as using it means losing access to your favorite applications and/or having to learn new ones people will stay away.
      • norman619, on 08/30/2008, -13/+6BigMan: My god man. You really are out of touch. Lets go through your points shall we?

        1) Consistent speed over the life of the computer due to a total lack of parasitic trojans/worms/spyware/adware
        Answer: This is a fact of life for ANY OS as widely used as Windows. If you actually think Linux would not have this issue if it didn't command 90% of the market you are fooling yourself.

        2) Easy install of free applications that meet basic needs for word processing, e-mail, image manipulation, media management and enjoyment, etc..etc..
        Answer: Free applications can't hold a candle to the great commercial applications out there. They tend to be substandard. Plus most of the commercial applications out there don't have an open-source counterpart.

        3) Crash free and re-install free operation for years.
        Answer: This is meaningless. The average user does not install their own OS. It comes preinstalled and if/when it fails they simply to a recovery. Only techies and geeks do their own OS installs.

        4) A large fanboi base that puts paid support to shame as far as resolving issues.
        Answer: If by this you mean they are more frustrating than the paid support then you are correct. I don't think answers like "You're such a n00b" or "google is your friend n00b" are very helpful. Linux fanboys tend to be elitist and arrogant. You don't get that kind of answer when looking for help with OSX or Windows on the various user sites out there for either of these OS's.
      • greevar, on 08/30/2008, -2/+13@norman619

        You are the one that is out of touch.

        1. The security design of Linux prevents the average user from loading crap into their system by not letting the user run as root.

        2. Open source applications are not generally inferior to their commercial counterparts. That is a myth. Also, most of the commercial applications DO have an open source counterpart.

        3. Wrong again. The average user does not just wipe their machine like that, they ask their local geek to fix their screw up so they don't lose their illegal music collection or other precious data because they don't know enough to do a proper backup.

        4. Actually, the forums at Ubuntu have a lot of knowledgeable and helpful members that are passionate about making the experience as exciting for others as it is for them. Bigman is right, their help makes commercial tech support look like a monkey flinging their poo in your face.
      • DonCarcharo, on 08/30/2008, -3/+3"2. Open source applications are not generally inferior to their commercial counterparts. That is a myth. Also, most of the commercial applications DO have an open source counterpart."

        I agree with the other points, but let's be fair here. Most open source desktop apps are highly unpolished works in progress. I'm not saying I don't enjoy toying around with Ubuntu (or Linux in general) and as far as the server market goes it's my platform of choice, but the open source desktop apps are often novelties at best.

        And there's too much overlap. Want an FTP app? We've got 15 similarly named apps in the repository all with different dependancies and different UIs. And of course very few of them (if any) compare favorably to commercial apps. Ask for help picking one and you get this:

        "just use 'ftp', it's text-based and lightweight."

        Yup, exactly what I wanted when I asked for a Linux app comparable to Transmit on the Mac.
      • Theli, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4"1) Consistent speed over the life of the computer due to a total lack of parasitic trojans/worms/spyware/adware"

        This is an often overlooked problem with Windows. The most common complaint I get from inexperienced users is that the computer is too slow. But it is very seldom the computer that is slow, mostly it's their Windows installation that has deteriorated over time. It doesn't have to be viruses or trojans either, it just slows down from regular usage.

        Dvorak did an article on this recently:
        http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328808,00.as ...
      • BrainInAJar, on 08/31/2008, -1/+3"2. Open source applications are not generally inferior to their commercial counterparts. That is a myth. Also, most of the commercial applications DO have an open source counterpart."

        Now come on... let's be honest... GIMP sucks. OpenOffice is pretty good, but so was StarOffice back when Sun bought it and open-sourced it, so how much of the "OOo is good" comes because it used to be closed source?

        Most of the best open-source projects have heavy corporate backing ( Eclipse is an IBM product, which happens to be open source, not an open source project that IBM helps fund. subtle, but there's a difference ).

        Mind you, MySQL is corporate backed and controlled, but PostgreSQL is better, so take from that what you will
      • BigManOnCampus, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1@normam619

        "You really are out of touch."

        I doubt I'm out of touch, I use Windows at work/lab and all linux at home. I think I know both OS's and their requirements for maintenance pretty well.

        "Answer: This is a fact of life for ANY OS as widely used as Windows. If you actually think Linux would not have this issue if it didn't command 90% of the market you are fooling yourself."

        Wrong. Windows is vulnerable because there is no control over what is allowed to run with full privelages. Linux by default does not allow much of anything, much less Java/script and flash to run with full privelages, so such open doors to your CPU are closed to exploiters.

        "Answer: Free applications can't hold a candle to the great commercial applications out there. They tend to be substandard. Plus most of the commercial applications out there don't have an open-source counterpart."

        Wrong. For most consumer applications, Gimp is a perfectly acceptable replacement to photoshop. That is only one example. The reason it is a perfectly acceptable replacement is because for most people in the home they don't need all the expensive bells-and-whistles that the commercial apps make you pay for. Also, if you had ever used any modern large linux repository, you'd know there are counterparts for most everything.

        "Answer: This is meaningless. The average user does not install their own OS. It comes preinstalled and if/when it fails they simply to a recovery. Only techies and geeks do their own OS installs."

        Exactly. Your point? Just just made it sound worse for Windows users, as they now have to rely on a hokey recovery process which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. As opposed to just avoiding such problems to begin with.

        "Answer: If by this you mean they are more frustrating than the paid support then you are correct. I don't think answers like "You're such a n00b" or "google is your friend n00b" are very helpful. Linux fanboys tend to be elitist and arrogant. You don't get that kind of answer when looking for help with OSX or Windows on the various user sites out there for either of these OS's."

        So, the real answer is, you just don't like the people who like linux. So I see I've wasted my time replying since you've already decided to hate the people before even trying the operating system.
    • Vadi0, on 08/30/2008, -2/+18I believe install issues are null, after having to install windows from scratch myself. It's definitely not the half-hour installation Ubuntu has, and after both OS's are installed, Ubuntu is even more feature-complete.
    • hartley, on 08/30/2008, -2/+15Wrong.
      Ive never had windows tell me how/where to get a divx codec. You get the same generic error message with WMP everytime.
      Now totem on the other hand actually pops up a repository window allowing you to download the appropriate codecs. Totem does this as soon as it realizes it can't open the file without the right codec.

      For the average user *ie idiot* linux couldn't be simpler. No need for all of those msi and exe files. Just go to the repository and download whatever program you need. A slightly more advance user who wants newer files or maybe not listed in the repos yet, theres always deb packages which are just as simple as exe's.
    • Mistwaver, on 08/30/2008, -5/+0That goes for any Linix "poweruser" distro. That's just how Linux is. Now that's not to say that there aren't distros out there that don't automatically install anything essential you need so a Linux newbie can operate it out of the box. These distros are just that -- distros for newbies -- distros that are used to get newsbies familiar with how Linux operates. Once you outgrow that "newbie" stage, then you advance to a more advanced distro, such as Slackware. Then you may move to something even further up the ladder, such as Gentoo (or you may just stick with a moderate distro -- it's your choice).

      I started out with Redhat and used that for a while. Although it is one of the most newbie friendly Linux distros (and bloated and slow because of that, since it comes with a lot of preloaded crap you never use, and crap you do use), I learned how to manually install and confgure programs through shell on this distro, and then moved on to Slackware, which is more of a poweruser Linux distro. Out of the box it has some stuff on it (Firefox, GIMP, XMMP, etc), but it's not bloated down like Redhat or Mandrake is. It still requires a lot of user-end customization. Once I got familiar with operating and maintaining Slackware, I moved on to Gentoo, which is completely maintained by the user. Out of the box nothing is on it, literally. You use a nifty console program called "emerge" to install programs (at least you did back then -- there's no telling what all has changed since 2002). You only install what you want, which means it doesn't come bloated with software and utilities you never use. Mandrake, Redhat, and Slackware have packages you can choose from, but they are still sluggish and bloated because there is still stuff in there you don't need that you can't disable.

      I'm not bashing Ubuntu -- I think it's a "decent" distro, but it is quite a bit behind distros of its type, such as Slackware. It has come a long ways in the last several years, but it still has a long ways to go. It's a great newbie distro, but it definitely don't hold a candle to distros that has been around longer such as Slackware.
      • Paranormalized, on 08/30/2008, -0/+11"Once you outgrow that "newbie" stage, then you advance to a more advanced distro, such as Slackware. Then you may move to something even further up the ladder, such as Gentoo"

        As someone who cut their teeth on Slackware, I just have to say, get over yourself. There is no clear progression that says Gentoo is "further up the ladder" than Ubuntu or Slackware, they're different systems with different strengths and weaknesses.

        I never understood the Gentoo elitism. Watching gcc output scroll on the screen doesn't make you more virtuous than someone who uses binary packages.
    • rzrgenesys187, on 08/30/2008, -1/+5I totally agree with you. Most of the people I've helped install it on have had some issue that, as a newbie, there is no way they would have been able to solve easily on their own. Also I've noticed that the package manager seems to be confusing at first, mainly due to the fact windows users are used to .exe files. I've had many come to me asking for help installing a program and they are trying to do it by clicking on the .exe file. Once set up everyone loves it, but there is a learning curve.
    • explodingzebras, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3I prefer Kiwi Linux, which is Ubuntu with all the restricted extras preinstalled, plus encrypted DVD playing out-the-box.
  • AwesomeInTheory, on 08/29/2008, -21/+13I'm just not that big into pokemon...
    • KeithHewitt, on 08/30/2008, -2/+1wrong.. on so many levels
    • keeganspeck, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2Oh come on guys, seriously? XKCD reference.
      • AwesomeInTheory, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2it was a pretty vague reference, to be fair.

        *tip of the hat for catching it, though*
  • cyphin6, on 08/30/2008, -24/+10This article says Linux keeps building momentum but strangely I find myself "still" using Leopard...
    • hamobu, on 08/30/2008, -4/+11Good luck paying $100 every few months for an upgrade.
      • Disease, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3And $2000 every 2 years for a new computer.
      • mrBitch, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1Wow, since my MacBook is going to be 2 years old in 3 months this means I need to get a new computer ?

        I just checked specs, and my MacBook Pro is still up there with current high end laptop specs from Dell and Toshiba.

        Even better is that quite a few laptops are only RECENTLY just starting to offer an option of back-light keyboards (although webcams and microphones are standard on almost all laptops now).

        Although, to be fair, I DID do a little bit of an upgrade in that I swapped out the hard drive with a 320 GB drive a few months back.

        Since it's almost 2 years now, I have also upgraded my original Tiger OS X with Leopard via good old piratebay.

        There was not even any need to crack Leopard OS X since Apple has no "Apple Genuine Advantage" serial number checks on their OS.

        Wow, almost 2 years since I switched from Windows, and I can't believe it took me this many years to finally give Windows the flick!
  • SugaryToaster, on 08/30/2008, -14/+53Sub 300$ is kinda misleading. Hell its free. Just go download a copy from the official site. They will even send you a live cd free of charge and they pay the shipping as well. I made the switch a long time ago and didn't find it hard to get used to at all. I could never go back to windows. If people still have that favorite windows based app they want to use, just install wine. (sudo apt-get install wine).. Done.
    • noctiferis, on 08/30/2008, -11/+8Unless your favourite app happens to be steam and the games related to it

    • overshoot, on 08/30/2008, -2/+41It's not misleading, read again. The $300 mentioned is the cost of a computer.
      • SugaryToaster, on 08/30/2008, -1/+12heh.. Yeah I read a bit to quickly I'm afraid.. Oh well..
    • theWaterboy, on 08/30/2008, -11/+6Just install wine?? I have yet to get ANYTHING to work with wine. The people who can are Linux experts. The rest of us just can't do it.
      • thePTS, on 08/30/2008, -0/+10I am not an expert, and I've gotten wine working easily, just played a game of WC3 under wine.

        1. Like with anything linux, every issue has been encountered and discussed on the net before. Google your error and you will usually find a good description on the first hit.
        2. Follow the descriptions for each application on appdb.winehq.org.
        3. ensure your wine has been upgraded.
        4. since it's upgraded almost fortnightly, and there are so many "linuxes" to run wine on, there have been issues for me in about 1 out of 10 wine releases. in this case, downgrade to last version.

        oh, and how long ago since you tried? wine 1.00+ is out, and it is pretty good.
      • theaceoffire, on 08/30/2008, -0/+8O.o your doing it wrong.

        Just install wine, then double click an exe... it works a lot for random programs I needed (And some games, like WoW)
      • OneLess, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6I'm far from a 'Linux expert' (I barely know how to install from source) and I've gotten about half a dozen Windows programs running on Wine, including Photoshop and Battlefield 1942.
      • Disease, on 08/30/2008, -2/+5I'm sick of hearing that Wine can run WoW.

        There are other games besides WoW...
    • malkiev, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3I tried using Ubuntu sometime ago. The only thing that frustrated me is the video drivers, which I couldn't find.
    • skaspud, on 08/30/2008, -2/+4ya. because wine supports crysis, after effects, photoshop , premiere, and practically the whole Adobe CS3 Suite...
      • nnagflar, on 08/30/2008, -2/+3Photoshop runs flawlessly on WINE.
      • evanct, on 08/30/2008, -4/+2@nnagflar

        i can attest to that not being true.
      • ThomasHung, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2@evanct

        I can attest to the fact that Photoshop runs flawlessly with wine. You somehow did it wrong.
    • zomglolcats, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1Wine is great, but there's still apps that have issues, and even new releases of Wine sometimes break what previously worked. Maybe it's changed since then, but I specifically remember issues with trying to get Civ 4 to work on Wine.

      I don't feel like googling forever trying to get something to work when I could just install it on Windows and be done and playing.

      Of course, dual-booting solves that issue, but I'd rather just use one OS for my needs than switching back and forth.
  • carby, on 08/30/2008, -14/+2This it THE year of linux.


  • Asshate, on 08/30/2008, -27/+48I recently tried installing XP on my PC, which has been Debian/Ubuntu based since the 90's as a running upgrade. For starters, XP came up in a text based installer! Then it couldn't even see my hard drive to install on.

    After googling I discovered I needed a floppy disk with a driver on it. After a while sifting through some chinese website, I found the SATA driver I needed and went through the arcane commands to make a floppy. I had to get a floppy drive out my parts bin.

    After it finally installed (took three reboots), I had to follow similar outmoded procedures to get drivers for my video, sound and network cards. Luckily I could boot into Ubuntu and figure out the specific models that were autodetected.

    Then I had no software installed, so I had to jump through hoops and potential virus infection to get codecs and players for popular media, flash player and firefox all had to be downloaded from the source.

    Man what a ***** drag, Ubuntu did all this ***** for me and took a couple of clicks to set up. This XP behaviour reminds me of the old days when I used to run Debian Bo 1.3, before apt.
    • Flummoxer, on 08/30/2008, -5/+20Well, XP is getting up there in age...
      • Disease, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2Like fine wine.
      • JonForTheWin, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4More like cheap beer from mexico left in a tool-shed.
      • mrBitch, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1RE: " Well, XP is getting up there in age... "

        True, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that the XP install MUST have a floppy drive to install SATA drivers.

        Back in the days of Windows 2000, Apple had already given floppy drives the flick.

        Why couldn't MS have copied that lead back then and allowed driver installation from USB as well as floppies?
    • gothicform, on 08/30/2008, -13/+8Unlike say... Ubuntu which could install but I couldn't actually view because it didn't have the video drivers and lacked HDMI support?

      You know how you could have sorted out your SATA problem? Turn off the RAID on your motherboard so you have only one h/d, the main one :) That way the motherboard and Windows both treat it like IDE.

      Imagine that though... an ancient piece of software that doesn't have the latest codecs included out of the box. Who'd have thunk it but at least I can actually see my desktop in Windows! Was funny posting on Linux boards asking for advice... go into the control line they said... and I can do that how when I can't see a thing? Stupid.
      • manacit2, on 08/30/2008, -0/+10"You know how you could have sorted out your SATA problem? Turn off the RAID on your motherboard so you have only one h/d, the main one :) That way the motherboard and Windows both treat it like IDE."

        er.. I have *one* sata drive with *no* raid, and guess what, windows XP AND Vista install didn't recognize it!
      • airencracken, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6What's a control line?
      • explodingzebras, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2even if X is messed up you can still get to the command line with CTRL + ALT + F1
    • Greg2k, on 08/30/2008, -14/+12Considering the workarounds needed in Ubuntu to get simple MP3 playback I don't consider you can compare the situation between Ubuntu and XP in terms of codec support. I still haven't managed to get a proper Gstreamer installation going because my Ubuntu is acting stupid, and without that I can't listen to anything on my computer unless it's in OGG.

      If Gstreamer came bundled with Ubuntu just like restricted video drivers do, it may not be such a problem. But having to manually install a plugin to get MP3 working is more retarded than XP not recognizing SATA drives without a driver (doesn't happen with Vista btw).
      • basotl, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5This should be a link in Ubuntu: http://www.medibuntu.org/ follow the repository how to.
      • BlackJacket, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6You might have a problem there for real, because the first time I try to play an mp3 (after a new installation) it just tells me I have to download a package, and it offers to do it automatically. All I have to do is say yes and type in my password. Then it plays.

        If you said no to this the first time it might not come back, but you can always install the package manually.
      • pjvandehaar, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3Im running hardy, and I go to Rhythmbox and drag and drop them in. That simple. Oh, and hit play.
      • zwaldowski, on 08/30/2008, -2/+5"If Gstreamer came bundled with Ubuntu"

        ***** troll.
      • JonForTheWin, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4Gstreamer comes with Ubuntu. Your argument is invalid.
      • KataLieb, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2WHAT hoops?? Open Synaptic, enable all repositories (in my country they ARE enabled, suck it up US copyright law) if applicable, then just install LAME. Voila, you have mp3 playback, and a reference standard codec (in the internets and portable players world at least - lame v0 vbr is greatly appreciated!). (and Gstreamer - doesnt that play mp3s too?)

        What was so difficult in that...
        And for Windows, wont you need to get some decent player from the Internets as well, afaik WMP isnt "decent" in most senses of the word.

        Not to mention that while installing Windows, you need to UNPLUG your ethernet cable, if you have a direct connection to net - or you will be pwned before you can say "I love Microsoft". I know, Ive tried - when I forgot to unplug it. Also if your install media is pre-SP2, it has that nice USB bug (took me 5 tries to realize something IS wrong) - many machines will get stuck installing at "Installing devices" if any USB devices - mice, keyboards, those kind of weird things - are plugged in.

        And then you need to get antivirus and firewall stuffies, on sneaker media, since you cant safely connect to net to get them. Nice!

        Thank god I lost it, 5 years back...Took a large Norwegian hunting knife to my original XP Home cd after I almost burst a vein in my head, due to Activation related woes...And installed Linux instead.
    • carrtoonist, on 08/30/2008, -5/+21I agree and not sure why you are getting dug down. I install windows(all flavors of Xp and Vista) on client machines about two to three times a day and neither vista or XP are an easier install then ubuntu, even with manufacture supplied restore disks.

      Then ubuntu flies ahead of any windows when it comes to software other then the os. To get office, photoshop, winamp, nero, etc on my own windows machine takes several hours and many restarts(and breaking a few laws). The equivalent programs in ubuntu are already installed or take a simple command to get.
      • palta38, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1you can try appsnap http://appsnap.genotrance.com/ just select the software you want and click install, copy - paste from their site:

        "AppSnap is an application that simplifies installation of software. It automatically figures out the latest version, downloads the installer and then installs the software in one seamless step. AppSnap is primarily designed for Windows which does not have any decent package manager such as APT and RPM as in the Linux world."
    • djgreedo, on 08/30/2008, -13/+18You know that XP was released 7 years ago, right? There is a new Windows version called Vista that is much more up to date.

      I just did a Vista install the other day. Stick in the DVD, choose which disc to put it on, wait for 10-15 minutes then choose a user name and you're ready to go.

      Of course 7-year-old software is going to be less user friendly than current software.

      What are you going to complain about next? Your DVD player won't play Blu-Ray?
      • sirhomer, on 08/30/2008, -6/+11Windows Vista just isn't an option for many people and organizations.
      • zwaldowski, on 08/30/2008, -6/+10What the ***** version of Vista are you using? I've done two fresh installs of Vista on my laptop, and the only thing that was supported out of the box was the ***** processor.
      • zomglolcats, on 08/30/2008, -6/+5That's a hardware vendor problem then. What hardware are you using? Vista always detects all of my hardware. It actually has a lot better driver support than XP.
      • EmperorPsiblade, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2As much as I love Linux, OP is right. Vista's install and config is much improved over XP's install and config... (though not as smooth as a Linux install)
      • ThomasHung, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1Well vista is terrible
    • gcauthon, on 08/30/2008, -3/+4I got prompted for a floppy disk during XP setup as well. It's ridiculous that an OS released in the 21st century still requires a floppy disk. I actually had to go to the computer store and buy a 3.5" floppy drive and a blank diskette. Then I had to go find a computer to copy the drivers from the CD to the diskette. MS just doesn't understand that if you're installing an OS that you probably don't have an easy way to copy files around and format diskettes. The Windows installation program is pathetic and outdated even by 1990's standards.
      • ashura001, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3Its because floppy drives were still common when XP was released and lots of hardware still included the drivers on floppy.

        I still find new ethernet cards that come with floppies on occasion.
      • mrBitch, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1@ashura001 RE: " Its because floppy drives were still common when XP was released ... "

        Well, not if you were buying a Mac back then -- as usual Apple saw the hardware trends years ahead of every other computer hardware manufacturer.

        In fact, I remember the outrage and general disbelief when Apple gave floppy disks the flick, "wow Apple is so out of touch with the real world".
    • JerichoCane, on 08/30/2008, -8/+3Yeah, Ubuntu has software pre-installed. Because that's so cool. Well, unlike Ubuntu, where packagers decide what's the right software for me, Windows XP is all about choice. And that said, the Ubuntu repositories are just plain bad. They still serve Transmission 1.06 which was released, wait, just half a year ago! Too bad that all following versions contained numerous enhancements and bug fixes. But, hey, it's just Ubuntu's standard BitTorrent client.
      • pjvandehaar, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4I've never used Transmission, but everything else works fine. And I think it would be just as easy to get a "good" Bittorrent in Ubuntu as in Windows- its not like they have a way better Synaptic-like program than Ubuntu.
      • cutchyacokov, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3@JerichoCane

        I like choice too, so I use gentoo. You don't have (and probably wouldn't want) a small fraction of the choices I had during installation.

        http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86 ...

        Everyone is different and while some people (like you) want a moderate amount of customization others (probably most people) would prefer to have everything working out of the box without having to download anything at all . . . and then there are crazies like me, who get upset when someone chooses their bootloader (or kernel, or window manager, or task scheduler, or shell, or dhcp client, etc, etc, etc) for them.
      • ScottyDelicious, on 08/30/2008, -0/+8http://www.getdeb.net/app/Transmission

        Click the download link and choose "Open with GDebi Installer" or, save to disk and double click the file to install. It's so easy, even a tool like you could do it.

        The fine folks at getdeb.net keep the packages very up to date, if you like the bleeding edge thing.
      • mrBitch, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2@Jericho RE : " ... unlike Ubuntu, where packagers decide what's the right software for me, Windows XP is all about choice. "

        OMFG, I can't believe you actually posted that without any hint of the irony in your words.

        You're saying you use Windows over Ubuntu because " it's all about choice? "

        Are you an idiot or a retard ?
  • KeithHewitt, on 08/30/2008, -2/+6After just a bit of tweaking, it works great for me.
  • scabbers, on 08/30/2008, -15/+8In 2008, I need more than "basic desktop tasks".
    • kdesu, on 08/30/2008, -2/+7It's a $300 Intel Atom-based computer. You'll find it a little difficult to do anything more than basic desktop tasks with that; that is why they recommended Linux.
      • scabbers, on 08/30/2008, -5/+2Nope. It's all about the software. You can run office2000 on a way, way crappier machine than that.
      • kdesu, on 08/30/2008, -3/+6You can also run Microsoft Office (95, 97, 00, xp, 03) on Linux.
      • Disease, on 08/30/2008, -3/+2There's also OpenOffice.
  • krustaceo, on 08/30/2008, -33/+55"You said it best, you want freedom in your OS, but some people don't. Sad but true..."

    This is what I don´t understand about most Linux users. Why is it sad? Why is it sad that I like using Windows and OS X, but find Linux un-compelling to get on with my daily computing?

    Because it´s free? No thanks.

    Freedom? Freedom from what? Big, bad M$ who just want to profit? Don´t care.

    Because it has no viruses? Never seen those, but I hear dumbasses who visit porn sites get them.

    Because it has support? Who and where, and for what distros?

    Which flavour of linux? Who knows, with so many out there...
    ...

    Windows and OSX have it´s failings, but I like both OS´s and that is it. I am free to choose, and I made my choice.
    I will use Linux the day it has profit written all over it. Until then, it´s just another OS.

    Concluding: It´s sad that you feel sad for the rest of us. We are condemned. We are lost without your guidance to true OS wizardry...
    • smotpoker, on 08/30/2008, -17/+12Glad to see you are content wasting money, being forced to wait on others to get around to fixing any problems, being restricted from playing/using certain content, risking infection and whining that people actually give enough of a ***** to provide you with free alternatives that are typically better, usually as easy (or more so) and do not have nearly so high a risk of congesting the 'net with ddos drones, worm propagation (endangering other's pcs) or stolen personal info.

      You are hereby exempt from any obligation to comment on Linux-related submissions, your "choice" is noted for future reference. Have a nice day.
      • gluon, on 08/30/2008, -4/+12your arguments are biased and mostly factually incorrect. there is a place for religion and operating systems is not one of them. people use the best tool for the job, not the tool that has the loudest proponents.
      • smotpoker, on 08/30/2008, -14/+4@gluon

        Are you suggesting that MS hasn't been pushing hardware-based DRM solutions and the leader in software-based ones, isn't the primary platform of ddos drones and worm propagation due primarily to inherent insecurity or doesn't cost money?

        I'm confused as to what is supposed to be factually incorrect... The only part that is even remotely debatable as far as I can tell is whether FOSS alternatives are as easy to use. By and large they are from what I've seen, at least in the desktop realm (I cannot speak for the server realm as I've never used Windows as a server platform)

        Please clarify what you think is incorrect so that I might omit those statements from future discussions or correct your misunderstanding.
      • djgreedo, on 08/30/2008, -5/+13@smotpoker

        In what way is using Windows (or Mac OS) wasting money? Sure, I can use a free alternative. I could also buy cheap brand groceries or listen only to free music, watch movies only on TV, etc. but I am willing to pay for a quality product I want to use. That is not a waste.

        I'm more than happy with Windows. I have the choice to run countless bits of software and to install whatever hardware I want knowing it was designed to be compatible with my OS. I have the freedom to use my computer in any way I wish, and that is what's important to me. If Microsoft get $100 for that, then they've earned it. That is a small price to pay for the software that underpins all my work and leisure.

        I am not sure what you mean by 'restricted from playing/using certain content' in this context. I can play/use any file I want to on Windows. You can't legally play Blu-Ray on Linux, but you can on Windows Vista. DRM is the domain of the content provider, not the OS. I choose not to buy content with DRM. It has nothing to do with which operating system I use. Windows includes the ability to play Blu-Ray because MS wants to provide a product that can play these discs. Do you hold it against Blu-Ray player manufacturers for incorporating DRM systems in their players?

        As for DRM in audio/video files, you seem to be implying that there is something inherently wrong with this technology, which is blatantly stupid. Without DRM we wouldn't have iTunes. Without iTunes we wouldn't have iTunes Plus, and without either we wouldn't have Amazon MP3. The recording industry is responsible for protecting their content, and MS (and others) simply created software that enabled the future of digital music.

        DRM is a choice, and it has its uses (e.g. Zune pass, digital rentals, games). I have a Zune, but the DRM capability doesn't affect me because I choose to play MP3 files and WMA files without DRM.

        Risking infection? Not really a big issue. It is actually quite difficult to get a virus or malware if you take a little bit of care. I have never had a problem with such things since the days of Windows 98 or thereabouts, and I don't know of anybody who has actually had a serious issue as a result of a malware/virus infection.

        Free alternatives typically better? I'll have to assume you're not joking. Is OpenOffice better than MS Office? No. I write for a living and OpenOffice is simply not good enough (but it's pretty good). MS Word is the industry standard for a reason. The same goes for games and operating systems (in general) as well as pretty much anything in life. There are thousands of free games out there, but none anywhere near as good as Crysis or Age of Mythology, etc. These games cost money because they cost upwards of millions of dollars to create. They use professional writers, artists, musicians, etc. and it shows in the end product. This doesn't mean a free game made by some 14-year-old in 15 minutes can't be truly great, of course.

        Being forced to wait around on others to fix your problems? What are you talking about? For typical users, Microsoft and Apple provide support for their software (which is one of the reasons the software isn't free). Typically the support people are trained to know the answers to most queries. I've never come across an issue that I couldn't fix with a couple of minutes on Google or a downloadable patch (Windows has such a huge user base that any problem you run into has usually been found and remedied by people already).

        And with Vista now gaining popularity I no longer get hassled into helping friends and family as much as I used to because it tends to just work better.

      • smotpoker, on 08/30/2008, -11/+6@dj
        "I have the freedom to use my computer in any way I wish"
        Except that you don't.

        "I am not sure what you mean by 'restricted from playing/using certain content' in this context"
        I am referring to MS's advocacy and implementation of DRM "solutions", both hardware and OS based as well as the predominance of it in the proprietary application world. Remember, we are not talking strictly about MS/Windows we are talking about software too.

        "As for DRM in audio/video files, you seem to be implying that there is something inherently wrong with this technology, which is blatantly stupid."

        There is plenty wrong with current DRM implementation and I submit that supporting it by paying for it (which you do with every Windows purchase) is blatantly stupid. Sure, DRM may seem fine until content providers decide to forego fair-use considerations and you are stuck with whatever you are given. The average user doesn't always bother with reading any/every detail of every license agreement thrown at them. In fact, one of the key factors that switched my mother to Linux was Rhapsody DRM implementation (when she signed up, she didn't even know the files wouldn't be mp3s).

        The biggest problem with MS's DRM implementation and stance is that their current implementation forgoes legal fair-use considerations and they support hardware DRM which can prevent users from installing specific software/hardware/oses as well as content.

        "Risking infection? Not really a big issue."
        Unless you use outlook or a browser... if you use an AV... and don't let anyone else touch the system...

        "I have never had a problem with such things since the days of Windows 98 or thereabouts, and I don't know of anybody who has actually had a serious issue as a result of a malware/virus infection."

        Most people do not even know they are infected, at least for a bit. This however does not mean there is no problem. Not knowing you are infected does not mean your system isn't infecting others' or being used to attack others'. Every virus or worm does not instantly get it's signature registered with all of the major AV companies, it often takes weeks and then a few more days to get updated to all systems that might be infected and, depending on sophistication, can be a bitch to properly remove (or know if it was properly removed).

        "Free alternatives typically better? I'll have to assume you're not joking. Is OpenOffice better than MS Office? No."
        Typically, I only use OO for resumes and essays and it meets my needs fine. I suspect the vast majority of people do not need it for much more than simple word processing. I realize it does not have as many features as MSO but I also realize most of those features are useless and OO has several that MSO doesn't. I have no idea about the games really, I was mostly referring to application software that actually serves a purpose other than wasting time. As for games, however, there is a considerable selection of free games and a lot more games (as well as other applications) come installed by default. The games may not be on par graphically with some of the PC games but the average PC user is not a gamer and I think they would be content with many of the games available on Linux for casual gaming.

        "Being forced to wait around on others to fix your problems? What are you talking about? For typical users, Microsoft and Apple provide support for their software (which is one of the reasons the software isn't free). Typically the support people are trained to know the answers to most queries"
        I said "problems" not "queries". The last time I called MS for tech support (admittedly a while back), they wanted to charge us $10/hr because the system was > 1 year old. Every time I tried resolve an issue every site that showed up in google was a site selling a competing product, a forum with unanswered questions and everyone's solution was to restart/reinstall.

        "And with Vista now gaining popularity I no longer get hassled into helping friends and family as much as I used to because it tends to just work better."
        I can only assume you're not joking. I helped my friend pick out an amd x2 5800+ a few months ago that was "vista ready" and came with vista preinstalled. It couldnt' stay booted for more than 10 min. We exchanged it for another and had essentially the same result. We had to get an older system with XP.
    • Ymeg, on 08/30/2008, -4/+9Krust, you make a good point.

      How is it even possible for Ubuntu to be more free (not in regards to price or it's source) than Microsoft, when you agree to the terms that Microsoft sets?

    • thePTS, on 08/30/2008, -9/+12Krust, you make a poor point.

      "Which flavour of linux? Who knows, with so many out there..."

      With linux, my strategy so far is to go with the most mainstream alternatives when possible. In these cases, you will get less of the negative sides of linux that you and others point out. In the distro discussion, the default now is no doubt (K)ubuntu.

      "Because it has support? Who and where, and for what distros?"

      For all distros, but more for the most common ones. Because linux programs output to a terminal, there's always an error message, and because there is little official support, issues are discussed online. Because the programs are open-source with comprehensible text-based config files, you don't have to be the developer to understand a program. Too put it shortly:

      1) it's easy to find issues, since they very often have an error text
      2) there's tons of text-based discussions / support in forums where the solutions are explained in a down-to-earth manner.

      Paste your error message into Google, you will almost always find the solution immediately. So far, in my opinion, I find troubleshooting on Linux(Kubuntu) way easier to work around, than Windows problems, which are often more graphical and have less problem solutions online.

      "I am free to choose, and I made my choice."

      Yes, you made the standard mainstream choice. Congratulations. *golf clap*
      Now the question remains: Why did you have to make a point out of it?
      • timsline, on 08/30/2008, -6/+5"1) it's easy to find issues, since they very often have an error text
        2) there's tons of text-based discussions / support in forums where the solutions are explained in a down-to-earth manner."

        My computer is broken and I can't get on the Internet. How am I going to post a question or google a fix when my computer won't even start up. They have support staff I can call on the phone, right?

        LOL
      • pjvandehaar, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4@timsline
        Most people get Ubuntu through a live CD, and so unless you've totally destroyed your computer, it should still work and have everything you need to get to a support site.
      • krustaceo, on 08/30/2008, -6/+3What are you? An OS rebel? The James Dean of computing? Yes, it´s the "standard mainstream" choice, but it´s also the best, in my view. Respect that, or joint the ranks of elitist douchebags that think that somehow an OS makes them a better person than the rest.

      • JerichoCane, on 08/30/2008, -5/+0Yeah, right. Your attitude is the exact reason why Linux will *never* make it on the desktop. Linux is free, developers are (for the most part) volunteers, users can't exert leverage, which is the reason why users can't demand a damned thing, and instead end up looking at console output and have to go bug hunting with the help of Google. Hey, it's all about choice, baby!
      • thePTS, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6"My computer is broken and I can't get on the Internet. How am I going to post a question or google a fix when my computer won't even start up. They have support staff I can call on the phone, right?"

        Working at an ISP, I know that most people would "troubleshoot" this by calling their ISP, and not think it was something wrong with their OS or setup. Most people don't see Windows as a separate piece of software, so when something is wrong, they tend to blame other things.

        Most OS-related support will be in relation to installation. With these PCs, linux is pre-installed.

        That said, Linux distros like RedHat and SuSE have phone-based support packages too, and there will be more solutions for this with all the new "netbooks" coming. Face it, Linux is coming.

        Oh, by the way: capital "LOL"? Are you 50 years old or something?
      • svivian, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5"Paste your error message into Google, you will almost always find the solution immediately."

        I was gonna reply and say that this obviously works with Windows - and generally to a greater degree since there are more tutorials/forums for Windows.

        But then I remembered that this is impossible, because you can't copy-paste text from Windows error messages. :-o
      • thePTS, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3"But then I remembered that this is impossible, because you can't copy-paste text from Windows error messages. :-o"

        Haha, truth. Seriously, though, the biggest problem of windows using popups for error messages, is that you can't really "spam" error messages that way. This means that a lot less errors and feedback will be output, and thus you have less info to work with.
      • thePTS, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2"What are you? An OS rebel? The James Dean of computing? Yes, it´s the "standard mainstream" choice, but it´s also the best, in my view."

        Again, you are just stating the blatantly obvious, that you are one of hundreds of millions of people who "think" Windows is the best choice. Again, I have to ask you: why do you make this into some kind of statement? Why do you feel the urge to make some point out of being mainstream? Do you really think we don't know that a lot of people like Windows for certain things? Most Linux-users do too. I, for instance, have dual boot for a reason. I use Linux more, but I wouldn't want to lack access to Windows.

        "Respect that, or joint the ranks of elitist douchebags that think that somehow an OS makes them a better person than the rest."

        Low self confidence anyone? You act like the growth of linux is some kind of personal threat to you, and then you make a personal point on the amazing fact that you, like millions of others, prefer the safe and familiar Windows. THAT'S MINDBLOWING MAN

        Another thing to note is that just because someone is better than you at development, general computer use, system/server administration, etc, doesn't mean they are elitist. Sometimes "knowing more" just means "knowing more".
      • mrBitch, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1@thePTS RE: " You act like the growth of linux is some kind of personal threat to you, and then you make a personal point on the amazing fact that you, like millions of others, prefer the safe and familiar Windows. THAT'S MINDBLOWING MAN "

        You hit the nail right on the head, it's EXACTLY like the growth of linux is some kind of personal threat.

        It amazes me how much of a violent reaction you get when you use a non Microsoft sanctioned OS.

        Does this make those violent objectors that constantly spam the comments with replies of "fanboy fags!!!!" as the ultimate MS fanboys?
    • sirhomer, on 08/30/2008, -2/+5"I will use Linux the day it has profit written all over it. Until then, it´s just another OS."

      Um, if you want till something has "profit written all over it" you are already too late, Mr. Pointy Haired Manager.
      • BlackJacket, on 08/30/2008, -5/+0You're right. You don't understand. Its okay. Go play with your calculator.
    • U83RMENSCH, on 08/30/2008, -2/+1you lose.
    • slugicide, on 08/30/2008, -2/+9You are simply ignorant about the issues. Which is, in itself, pretty common. What is less common, though, of your celebration of your ignorance. You are saying here, essentially, "I don't understand the scope of the problems, therefor your concern is something to be mocked."
    • Theli, on 08/30/2008, -0/+7"Because it has no viruses? Never seen those, but I hear dumbasses who visit porn sites get them."

      Dumbasses need their porn too.
      ...and most computer viruses are invisible. That's kind of the point.
      • ScottyDelicious, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4Yeah, pr0n sites are great.

        If you are using the internet for anything other than downloading porn or stealing music, then you are doing it wrong.
    • Baskins, on 08/30/2008, -2/+4"I will use Linux the day it has profit written all over it."

      Profit for whom? If you're talking about for the developers then I am saddened because your blinders have isolated your acceptance of a product solely based on its financial return. You will progress no further than any of the rest of the sheep.

      And based on your tone, I'll also assume you've never even tried it.
      "We mock what we do not understand"
  • imacbook, on 08/30/2008, -13/+5Call me when Ubuntu runs Photoshop and Final Cut Pro.
  • KezG, on 08/30/2008, -12/+21Building momentum but it still doesn't support my sound card....
    • iampriteshdesai, on 08/30/2008, -11/+2Ubuntu is Ugly.
      http://helpforlinux.blogspot.com/2008/08/ubuntu-in ...
      • djgreedo, on 08/30/2008, -6/+1Wow, that is ugly. I thought Ubuntu was supposed to be the user-friendly, pretty Linux. It looks like Windows 2000's inbred cousin.

        I really like the look of Vista (though I liked XP when it was fresh, and now XP looks terrible to me). Microsoft have a good design philosophy. They get a nice blend of formal yet fancy.

        But that's all opinion anyway. I just happen to see eye to eye with the MS designers (I love my brown Zune and I love Windows Aero). Xbox looks crap though, but I don't own one of those.
      • Disease, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6You know you could always, I dunno, change the theme yourself?

        http://instancevariable.files.wordpress.com/2007/0 ...

        http://aroche.net/shared/imgs/screenshots/ubuntust ...
    • sirhomer, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4What sound card?
    • metalgel, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4what sound card do you have? hardware support is pretty damn good, hell linux supports more hardware than mac or windows. i just bought a brand new HP laptop and put ubuntu on it and everything works out of the box with it. even the top row hp "touch sensitive/finger slide" volume and dvd controls work. its beautiful!
    • DestroyFascism, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2Audigy X fi (this is simply because Creative refuse to support not much at all including MAC and recently Vista, Creative want you to buy their "elite" stuff then piss off basically)
      Asus / Nvidia on board Chips on M2N have routing issues sending part of the output through USB and not PCI.
      Some other on board chips have problems but overall most mainstream chips are supported.

      Pro gear lacks drivers as the makers don't support Linux or Linux coders have no access to the cards as they are often $1000 +. If you want support for your card get an email address and "support request" these card makers until they do.
  • mogebier, on 08/30/2008, -28/+23Why do you Linux people NOT understand computers at all?
    People want computers that WORK. Work right out of the box. Linux will NEVER have a large market share because you have to screw with it way too much to get it to do anything.
    The average person is a technology moron. Until Linux evolves into something more useful, it will always be a fringe OS used only by uber geeks.
    • diablozx9, on 08/30/2008, -11/+24I know from your reply that you have never tried linux.
      Ubuntu is:
      - Easier to install/build than Win XP
      - No adding drivers for each component
      - No Anti-Virus software needed
      - Boots as fast after three years of use as day one (not true for XP).
      - Comes with Office software loaded
      - All other software free

      So what is your definition of "Work" ?
      - Ubuntu is more stable
      - Ubuntu is more secure
      - Ubuntu loads up with drivers, office sw, etc pre loaded.

      What is "works" ?
      • Vulphaestion, on 08/30/2008, -5/+10Wait, "No adding drivers for each component"? I've used Ubuntu for a bit and finding a few drivers were a pain in the ass trying to find. I couldn't get my wireless/sound/touchpad working on my laptop until after a day or so of feddling around with it.
      • belumaves, on 08/30/2008, -10/+2wait... you mean the desktop looking like hash every time I come back from sleep is "working" that I was supposed to stop using wireless networks when I upgraded to the newest version, and that it is supposed to take 4 times longer to boot that bloody Vista???

        you my friend have an odd idea of work. I know you listed more things, but these shortcoming are why I wiped out my ubuntu install (twice, I tried reinstalling fresh, no go) and gave vista the whole thing
      • djgreedo, on 08/30/2008, -11/+4Why are you comparing Ubuntu to XP? Compare it to Vista. I doubt Ubuntu is as easy to install as Vista (the most difficult part of installing Vista is choosing the language).

        - Windows ships with drivers for pretty much any device you can throw at it - TV tuners, USB wifi, scanners, etc. all work out of the box.
        - Anti-virus software is not needed with Windows Vista (Defender is built in and detected the one virus I was infected with in the last 2 years and wiped it out instantly). AV software is available free anyway, so this is not a very strong reason for choosing Linux over Windows.
        - Vista's boot time doesn't increase unless you install software that's set to load at boot. Why are you comparing Ubuntu with a 7-year-old version of Windows agian? And Windows PCs generally don't need to be rebooted very often anyway. I never reboot my Vista machine, I just use sleep, which is essentially instant on and off. So what if my computer takes 40 seconds to boot the one time a month that I install something that needs a reboot?
        - Office software is a moot point (stretching for ideas were you?). Windows users get Wordpad and Outlook, which is enough for most people. They have the choice to install a free or commercial office application if they need to.
        - free software is also a moot point. There is no free software on Linux that doesn't have a comparable free product for Windows. With Windows you also get the option of commercial software, which is generally better. Freedom of choice is better than simply free software.

        Please show evidence that Ubuntu is more stable than Windows Vista (not XP. XP still crashes and gets blue screens quite a lot). You can't. Vista is quite difficult to crash, and near impossible to blue screen (in the first 9 months or so of Vista's life drivers were bad and crashing was common - now it's a non issue). I literally forgot what a crash felt like until an XP machine crashed on me after only using Vista for several months. It was strange to think that a few years ago computer crashes were a fact of life. Now I might get an app freezing once in a while, but Vista handles that without breaking a sweat.

        Ubuntu is more secure...well that's not entirely true. Sure, Linux doesn't have the malware/virus issue, but as far as security goes, Windows has proven as secure as Linux in tests. Any difference in the security of the actual OS is negligible, and the biggest risk factor is the end user, not the OS.
      • mogebier, on 08/30/2008, -5/+2"Work" as in installing ANY program you want and not having to ***** with things to make it work.
        You know what I was saying, you just chose to be a douche bag.
      • mrBitch, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1@djgreedo RE: " Sure, Linux doesn't have the malware/virus issue, but as far as security goes, Windows has proven as secure as Linux in tests. "

        You have GOT to be kidding. Yes Vista is FAR MORE SECURE than XP, but that's not saying a lot for Vista Vs Linux :

        Vista needs to fix up these security issues NOW :
        http://www.itnews.com.au/News/75846,research-sugge ...

        " ... research found that while Vista had improved upon XP’s ratio of 1,021 per 1,000 machines, there were still 639 threats per 1,000 machines running Vista.

        Strangely enough, some of Vista’s biggest security problems may actually stem from features that were supposed to increase security. "


        Another hobby horse while we are on the topic of Vista's security issues :

        Microsoft says, “Windows Vista has fewer than half the security vulnerabilities of Windows XP"

        - but that claim relates directly to the fact that Microsoft itself releases the majority of vulnerability reports for its products because the open source community doesn’t have the same access to discover and make public its weaknesses as Linux, Mac OS X, or other products making use of open source code.

        Microsoft’s "report" on Microsoft Vista vulnerability count is therefore about as useful as China’s reports on its own human rights violations.
    • cougar618, on 08/30/2008, -6/+5Linux now a day does work out of the box for most hardware. That can NOT be said for Windows. Sure, you might have to install the video driver in linux, but thats no different than windows.

      There are some things that still do need work on, such as sound drivers, and maybe better video drivers.

      There are things linux could and I think should do, most importatnt of which is unification of core components across the board, esp. among the larger distros to help hardware developers when they write drivers, instead of them having t write 5 different drivers for 5 distros.
      • palta38, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3"you might have to install the video driver in linux, but thats no different than windows."

        installing drivers on linux can be a pain, this is what i have to do to make my video card work in ubuntu http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99 ...
      • belumaves, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1umm... so I had to install drivers for Vista? MS actually has gotten the driver support to a pretty good point, there are some things you have to get from the manufacturer, but ubuntu hast the same thing...
      • djgreedo, on 08/30/2008, -2/+4>> Linux now a day does work out of the box for most hardware. That can NOT be said for Windows.

        That is a lie. I won't even bother explaining why, because even the most extreme Linux fundamentalists know that Windows has better hardware support than Linux. It may be a closing gap, but your statement is simply a lie. Windows recognises new hardware immediately and downloads drivers if it doesn't already have them. In my experience (I build computers regularly) I don't recall coming across hardware that needed to have drivers sourced manually since the early days of XP.
      • djgreedo, on 08/30/2008, -3/+3@plato38

        Wow...I could probably install Vista from scratch, surf the web, do some work, and play a game of Age of Empires II in the time it must take you to do that.

        Micro$haft look out! This is the year of the Linux desktop!
      • palta38, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2@djgreedo: usually takes me 20 minutes to do that now that i know how (still thats 19 minutes too long to just install a driver)but the first time i wasted 2 days trying to find a good guide to install my video card.
    • carrtoonist, on 08/30/2008, -2/+7Strange thing to say. I switched to ubuntu because it is easier to fix then windows when something goes wrong. If ubuntu is for uber-geeks then only a super-uber-duper geek would think that windows was easy to work with.
    • thePTS, on 08/30/2008, -4/+12"People want computers that WORK. Work right out of the box"

      And windows does that? Haha. Are you serious? Pull yourself together..
      • mogebier, on 08/30/2008, -3/+3I have 2 computers. And BOTH of them worked right out of the box and I have never had any software problems and I leave them on 24/7. And they are both windows XP.
        You Linux people have top ***** and fix and mess with everything to get it to work.
        Admit it.
      • thePTS, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2"You Linux people have top ***** and fix and mess with everything to get it to work.
        Admit it."

        Any computer user over "grandmother" level knows that both Windows and Linux have plenty of problems and quirks. It is no secret. In general, Linux has small, fixable flaws, but more of them, while Windows has fewer, but more rigid and serious problems.

        If you don't know any problems with XP / Vista / Windows in general, you are not experienced enough to discuss operating systems.
    • codereview, on 08/30/2008, -3/+4Then, sir, riddle me this. How with Windows (out-of-the-box) can I:
      - search through logfiles using regexes (no, I don't want to click-click-click through some log reporting screen, I don't have the time for this)
      - simply not be bothered to download and regularely update software and drivers by hand in a manner of sieving through the respective websites (ONE command with apt-get or ONE GUI app for all)
      - work with several virtual desktops to avoid window clutter
      - Have at least one well working code editor with syntax highlighting

      Just 4 scenarios that popped into my head right away. I can come up with tons more.
      OSen that do this without a lot of hassle work for me. Linux/BSD yes, Solaris mostly, OSX somewhat, Windows (any version): no.
      • ashura001, on 08/30/2008, -2/+2- Most users don't have a reason to sit there and search through log files. They want to install the OS, get online, and get on with their lives. I installed Vista on my system and, aside from installing video card drivers (which I had to do on my Ubuntu box too), I was good to go.

        - Windows Update is an application in Vista. No website necessary. Your argument is null.

        - I have yet to find the practicality behind virtual desktops. If I've got too many windows open, you know what I do? Minimize the ones I'm not using.

        - And how many regular users need a code editor?
      • mogebier, on 08/30/2008, -2/+2How about the average person that just wants to play games, surf the web and do their taxes.
        THAT is a computer that works right out of the box.
        Not doing all the ***** you state.
        Idiot.
      • thePTS, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2"How about the average person that just wants to play games,"

        these people, the last years, generally buy consoles. Many of them, in fact, are your beloved "normal" users, who say they changed to consoles, because of Windows' instability, issues and difficulty of installation, and need for tweaking and drivers.


        "How about the average person that just wants to surf the web and do their taxes."

        Hmm.. I wouldn't know, but a lot of these people seem to buy subnotebooks preinstalled with linux these days.


        "Idiot."

        Your whole argument here, for Windows, has been that you don't really know/care that much about computers. So I wouldn't use words like "idiot" if I were you. Luckily, I'm not you.. idiot.
      • belumaves, on 08/31/2008, -1/+1do you realize that your entire argument is that windows is inferior because it is not linux? that is the same as the OSX people saying that linux sucks because it's not Leopard, an argument that gets pretty short shrift around here usually.

        clearly for your uses you want something other than windows, but news flash, most people don;t even know what you are asking for, or it's already a feature (heard of automatic updates... yeah)
    • BlackJacket, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3This comes back to the OEM answer. If you buy a copy of Windows Vista from, say, Best Buy and take it out of the "box" it came in and install it, likely, you'll have to configure something, or maybe install a driver here or there... Maybe...

      However, if you buy a COMPUTER from best Buy with Vista pre-installed you probably won't have to install anything. Actually, you'll probably have to uninstall a lot of nonsense software, but otherwise the computer will "work".

      This argument works exactly the same for Ubuntu. If you install it yourself, you'll probably have to configure a few things or enable a driver or two. If you buy it pre-installed on a Dell, for instance, its gonna work just fine.

      "out of the box" is a stupid term because a computer might "work" right away "out of the box", but an operating system usually won't work "out of the box". This figure of speech has too long been applied to the wrong idea.
    • slugicide, on 08/30/2008, -5/+3You don't use Linux and never have, so you're basically talking out of your ass. Almost all of the anti-Linux FUD comes from the ignorant and un-informed.
    • exomni, on 08/30/2008, -4/+4Are you kidding me?

      For "usability out of the box", the operating systems stack up like this:

      OSX > Ubuntu > XP > A pile of raw carbon, plastic, aluminum, and a soldering iron >>>>>>>>> Vista
    • SeaFour, on 08/30/2008, -2/+5First you ask: "Why do you Linux people NOT understand computers at all?"

      And then conclude with: "...it (Linux) will always be a fringe OS used only by uber geeks."

      Make up your mind, man. Do Linux users know too little about computers or too much? And new Linux distros are constantly evolving into more stable and user-friendly operating systems. Linux is not perfect, no one seems to be claiming that it is, but Windows has it's share of problems too (problems with Windows is actually why I switched to Linux). The difference is that Linux is open source and there's not a whole lot of money in it; most people who write code for Linux do it because they want to contribute something to the greater good- FOR FREE. If you don't want to use it then fine, stick with Windows or Apple, but you don't have any grounds to bitch about Linux being beyond your comprehension if you're not going to use it anyway. Linux IS catching on, that's why Dell now ships computers with Ubuntu preloaded. So either everyone who uses Linux is an "uber geek" or it is in fact good enough at this point for many "average technology morons."

      It is absolutely inexplicable to me that some of you people get so damn upset at being offered more than one choice.
  • Bloodwine, on 08/30/2008, -0/+21I started a new job this week where they use Ubuntu at work. I've dealt with headless Linux servers before, but I'm pretty novice at desktop Linux. I must say, I'm really impressed with Ubuntu. It even has a Terminal Service Client that allows me to RDP to Windows 2003 servers.
    Gnome is a bit too different from what I am used to (Windows XP), so I took Kubuntu for a spin. Unfortunately the KDE desktop seems buggier on Ubuntu. I randomly had dialogs disappear on me and other small annoyances. Such a shame.
    • smotpoker, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2gnome is basically the same except computer/places and system settings have their own menu separate from the menu where applications are listed instead of a submenu like kde and windows...

      I'm not most familiar with gnome (I prefer fluxbox personally) but I know if you wanted you could drag/drop the taskbar to the bottom and probably drag/drop the computer and settings menu into 'Applications'
    • thePTS, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3Same experience here, it's way more userfriendly for a work environment.
      Much more possibilities, easy to find and install new technology etc.

      Yes, you have to work around some things. I have both VmWare, wine, dualboot and like you say an RDP connection to a windows box. Meaning, in short, you can make anything that works on a Windows only setup, work.

      For me it is dualboot all the way from here on out. I'm in big love with Ubuntu and I am never going back to the windows only setup.
    • djgreedo, on 08/30/2008, -7/+3>> I'm really impressed with Ubuntu. It even has a Terminal Service Client that allows me to RDP to Windows 2003 servers.

      What I don't understand is why people are impressed with features in Linux that have been taken for granted in Windows for years.

      People say stupid things like 'Ubuntu has a UI' like it's a breakthrough, whereas it's just an OS playing catch up to the industry leader. And yes this is an extreme example, but it's serviceable.
      • secleinteer, on 08/30/2008, -0/+7But support for VNC is NOT available in Windows by default. Ubuntu having support for RDP is like Windows having support for VNC. If I want to graphically connect to a remote Linux computer from Windows, I have to hunt down a VNC client. In Ubuntu, doing the opposite is possible with no additional software installation.
      • djgreedo, on 08/31/2008, -4/+1Then replace the above example with one of the following:

        "I rarely need to use the command line in Linux"
        "I can get my video card working in Linux"
        "I can run in Wine under Linux"
        etc.

        You get the point, right? If it could be done in Windows 10 years ago it's not amazing that Linux can do it today. If it's ALMOST as good in Linux as it is in Windows I'm not impressed (e.g. OpenOffice is nowhere near as good as MS Office, and it's available on Windows anyway. I have it myself).

        Tell me something you can do on Linux (and that is useful to people) that I can't do on my Windows Vista computer and I'll be impressed. I've heard Linux still crashes a bit, which is certainly something I am having trouble making Vista do. I don't think that counts.
      • smotpoker, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2@dj

        "Tell me something you can do on Linux (and that is useful to people) that I can't do on my Windows Vista computer and I'll be impressed"

        -access my systems remotely any time from anywhere out of the box
        -launch gui programs remotely out of the box
        -open any email without worrying about infection
        -visit any site without worry of infection
        -use multiple workspaces without having to manually download 3rd party addons
        -fix software myself if necessary
        -get more support from more knowledgeable people who do not try to obfuscate details so that I might better support myself
        -find and install most apps via gui with a few simple clicks
        -upgrade all or most software on the system at once automatically or with a few simple clicks
        -install the same os/distro to multiple architectures if I so desire and have them work nearly identical
        -install most hardware without having to manually find, download or install third party drivers (remember I said "most" not "latest and greatest state of the art cutting edge")
        -run it on lower spec hardware that would be useless for other newer OSes
        -configure how the OS functions at a lower level (memory management, task scheduling, etc)
        -support more processors, cores and memory without having to pay thousands of dollars
        -ability to run multiple custom GUI environments
        -get newer versions of most FOSS apps before they are ported to win32
        -more compatibility with other technologies (platforms, filesystems, networks, partition types)
        -better backwards compatibility (programs from 10-20 years ago are more likely to work in Linux)
        -generally more secure (no, this is not a simple by-product of unpopularity)
        -more alternative software you can try if you run into problems. software you do not have to bother with managing keys for, pirating (and risking infection) or pay to fully test and risk wasting money on something you don't want
        -no rebooting for simple installations or even major ones in most cases
        -add and remove support from kernel on the fly without rebooting, making most efficient use of memory
        -more verbose error messages so you actually have a clue as to wtf the problem is when errors do occur
        -more and better virtualization solutions that support more OSes
        -greater speed/efficiency with cpu/task scheduling in general


        I really could keep going but really I do not feel like wasting anymore time. Those are primarily just the features that I personally have benefited from substantially over the years and Windows does not provide. I could provide a few anecdotes on nearly every one of those features if I wanted but I do not wish to bother indulging your retarded ass any longer.

        The only other part of your attempt of an argument I will address is your "10 years ago" statement. About 6-8 years ago I said the same thing about Windows regarding SMP, multiple-users, multiple desktops, etc when XP was released. Since then, I have seen very little substantial advances in Vista but plenty with Linux.

        The examples you provide to support your '10 years ago' argument are stupid since all of that stuff has been possible for for the vast majority of users WELL OVER 10 years.
  • mkriss5681, on 08/30/2008, -4/+18I work in IT and have an extremely strong XP/2003 background but, little to no experience with Linux. I decided to throw it on to a laptop. After several failed builds, Ubuntu worked best.

    I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me. I really like Linux, don't get me wrong, but I am embarrassed to admit I have a lot to learn. It is an extremely large learning curb. The install is easy enough but when it comes to customizing, it's a little tricky. With installing software from the console and synaptic manager, I feel Linux might be a little too much for an average user. For example my Totem player started mysteriously crashing and it took me 20 minutes in order to install VLC. On a PC I could download an installer in 5 minutes. Why did the Totem player crash to begin with?

    The beauty about Linux is that it can be customized. I feel Linux has a little bit to go to be a viable alternative for an average user. I am expert PC user and I feel like a total noob with Linux. I plan on studying my Linux+ cert soon to learn more, but the community needs to make strives to make it even easier to use. It seems that Linux users know the OS is the best and want to see it take a bigger market share but there needs to steps take to make it even more user friendly.

    Would you give my grandma a Mac with OSX, or would you give her a PC with Linux? Until you answer yes to Linux, it's not quite ready to be mainstream (and that's why some people like to begin with).

    • SugaryToaster, on 08/30/2008, -2/+14How does it take you 20mins to install VLC? Sudo apt-get install vlc.. It takes all of 1min at the most.
      • mkriss5681, on 08/30/2008, -4/+15Sure, it's easy enough, but how does someone who has never installed anything on Linux figure it out. I had to research it online to even learn the command line. Not to mention I had to setup the Synaptic Manager to download 3rd party stuff.

        Sure that's what Linux is about. Solving your own problems and learning on your own, but like I said. How is grandma going to know "Sudo apt-get install vlc" and configure Synaptic? As a windows user it's a bit foreign for me to install on the command line. I haven't used command line to install a program since DOS. Most new users won't be able to understand that concept.

        Now that I know, I like how easy programs are to install. The fact is, it's a high learning curve. Not to mention the community sometimes gets a bit elitist when someone new asks a stupid new question, such as "How does it take you 20mins to install VLC? Sudo apt-get install vlc.. It takes all of 1min at the most." gawt!
      • SugaryToaster, on 08/30/2008, -1/+8Well if you're not familiar with using the terminal, you can always use the package manager.. Just search vlc and you can install it quickly and painlessly that way too. Also dont forget about the official ubuntu forums. Its a great community full of friendly people who dont mind helping out newbies.. ubuntuforums.org
      • opnickc, on 08/30/2008, -3/+9I'm not sure which is more annoying; people complaining linux is difficult to install software on or people who respond to these statements with a command line method.

        Yes, CLI is superior in some ways, but having to know arbitrary text strings to install things is not "easy" for a beginner, and is completely unnecessary in Ubuntu.

        Here's how to install something in ubuntu:
        1. Click on the "Applications" menu in the top left corner of your screen.
        2. Click on "Add/Remove"
        3. Search for what you want ("vlc" or "video player")
        4. Mark the checkbox
        5. Click "Apply Changes"

        That's it. No need to memorize commands, no need to search google, nothing. Just a logical and relatively intuitive procedure that's easy to come across (doesn't it make sense to add new applications using a tool in the "Applications" menu instead of some random installer file you have to find?).
      • djgreedo, on 08/30/2008, -10/+5And that comment is, in a nutshell, why nobody wants to use Linux.
      • opnickc, on 08/30/2008, -2/+13Because you add applications by *gasp* clicking on "Add/Remove" in the "Applications" menu?

        You're right, how could anybody possibly want their OS to be so simple and intuitive. Clearly, searching the web for apps, finding the download page, downloading, double clicking on something as arbitrary as "SETUP.EXE" and going through a long and annoying wizard is a superior installation method.
      • mrBitch, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1@opnickc RE: " You're right, how could anybody possibly want their OS to be so simple and intuitive. Clearly, searching the web for apps, finding the download page, downloading, double clicking on something as arbitrary as "SETUP.EXE" and going through a long and annoying wizard is a superior installation method. "

        - Zing! I think you just ate djgreedo's lunch! +1 to you, good sir!
    • TheMachine1, on 08/30/2008, -1/+8The only grandma I know that uses a computer uses it all most entirely for email and perhaps web but I'm not sure on that. So I would think some low cost Internet appliance using linux is the future of the grandma market.

      • mkriss5681, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4The article is about Ubuntu crossing into the mainstream. The soccer mom/grandma is that audience.
      • TheMachine1, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2I disagree that a grandma is the mainstream computer market. Also a soccer mom is like 20-30 years younger than the grandma market.
      • djgreedo, on 08/30/2008, -5/+1No. A low-cost Windows-based Internet appliance will be the future of the grandma market.
      • MattBD, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6djgreedo: You clearly haven't tried an Eee PC running Linux. The Xandros OS on that is at least as easy to use as Windows, if not more so. The vast majority of problems people have with Ubuntu are in getting it set up. Buy it preinstalled and it's easier to use than Windows. I'd be a lot happier giving my grandma a Dell with Ubuntu than either a Windows machine or a Mac, as it's so much easier to maintain.
    • smotpoker, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6"For example my Totem player started mysteriously crashing and it took me 20 minutes in order to install VLC."

      Weird, it took me about 95 sec to install vlc on my mom's system via synaptic across the network. This includes the time it took to skim a few package descriptions and download. Totem does kinda suck though, you're right. I usually stick to xine and (g)mplayer personally..
      • mkriss5681, on 08/30/2008, -1/+6It's easy now, but it was the first program I ever installed. I'm just saying Ubuntu needs to make some sort of bridge to help Windows refugees transfer over. Once they do that it will hit mainstream.

        Thanks for the advice. I'll try xine and (g)mplayer out.
      • theaceoffire, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2"Need to make some sort of bridge to help.."

        ^_^ Maybe React OS?

        If React OS ever gets off the ground... it works with Wine, and it wants to be 100% compatible with XP (Even using the same drivers).
      • Myztry, on 08/30/2008, -0/+7mkriss5681 - The worst thing that could happen is to do things the Microsoft way.
        Installing software using virus_setup_from_random_site.exe is just stupid.
        I much prefer the repository approach. It doesn't get much simpler and safer than APT:PackageName
        The consistent auto-update is great too.
    • greevar, on 08/30/2008, -2/+9The real problem with Linux getting into the mainstream is the lack of hardware manufacturers supporting Linux. If their hardware supported Linux out of the box, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Yes there are more flavors of Linux that you can shake a stick at, but I think if they just focus on Ubuntu, it would further cement its position as the flagship OS for the Linux movement. All we need it ONE version of Linux to hit the mainstream and become the average user's OS and we can still have the other flavors cater to the geeks and the technophiles.
      • richlw, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6the issue there is greevar is that hardware manufacturers are quite stubborn on Linux. They don't recognize it as being "significant" enough to release drivers for, or support at all. It took ATI at least a few years to get good drivers finally working with XGL and all that, while Nvidia was killing them in that aspect. It's one of the reasons I have an Nvidia card, period. But as soon as CompizFusion hit its big stride, they changed their tune quick hehe. The same goes for game makers, they just don't see a profit in a game on Windows and Linux, although Unreal Tournament 2K4 and UT 3 both have Linux client, so at least EA is cool about that.
    • phrstbrn, on 08/30/2008, -8/+17I work in IT and have an extremely strong Linux/BSD background but, little to no experience with Windows. I decided to throw it on to a laptop. After several failed versions, Windows XP worked best.

      I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me. I really like Windows, don't get me wrong, but I am embarrassed to admit I have a lot to learn. It is an extremely large learning curb. The install is easy enough but when it comes to customizing, it's a little tricky. With installing software from the .exe and .m