digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Ubuntu founder: We can surpass Apple in two years

theregister.co.uk — Billionaire, cosmonaut and founder of the fast-growing Ubuntu Linux distro Mark Shuttleworth dreams impossible dreams. That dream? To produce a desktop more beautiful to ordinary users than legions of Apple programmers supping on the milk of chief exec Steve Jobs' alleged brilliance are capable of producing.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Tribis, on 07/23/2008, -94/+182All this article talks about is how they want to make the desktop more "beautiful". I thought a good OS was compromised of good features and ease of use and not good art.

    The day that I can have my mother sit down at a Linux desktop and she never has to use a terminal will be the day Linux has finally achieved the same level of ease as other operating systems. I have used Linux off and on for many years and always find that tasks which are so simple in Windows or OS X often require an extensive amount of time Googling for answers. And once I find the answers, I never know what they mean, I simply copy and paste them into the terminal and hope for the best. An operating system should be intuitive, I should be able to learn it as I go and not have to rely on outside resources.

    But I have one final complaint. I work for a business in the real world, where we need powerful programs like Quickbooks that can handle all payroll taxes and employee's taxes online. I need to be able to take something to my accountant that he can actually work with. And the open source "alternatives" on Linux are NOT alternatives at all.

    Now bury me the ***** down.
    • linuxwarz, on 07/23/2008, -35/+10As you wish
    • BigManOnCampus, on 07/23/2008, -6/+54I use two linux distributions at home.

      Ubuntu on the laptop.
      Arch on the media monster.

      I use command lines in Arch all the time. In fact I actually find myself annoyed when I don't know the command-line-method of configuring something on my arch box.

      I can't remember the last time I needed to use a command line on my Ubuntu laptop. It certainly hasn't happened since 8.04. I simply never use one on it.
      • iampriteshdesai, on 07/23/2008, -7/+3http://helpforlinux.blogspot.com/
      • MoofTheStoof, on 07/23/2008, -5/+15Win2K recently crapped out on an old 800MHz PIII Dell I have in the front room for my kids to surf with so I put Xubuntu on it. Firefox frequently hangs and I have to open a terminal to find the PID and for the kill command. To be honest, I'm kind of missing Windows, and from me, that's saying a lot... (this is the only non-Mac I have in the house)
      • gandhii, on 07/24/2008, -1/+20i don't know what distro you're using... but in recent versions of ubuntu you just need open up the system monitor and kill it there. Practically identical to window's task manager.

        The problem with linux for me and seemingly most others is that after years and years of learning windows we feel we are experts and expect the learning curve to be quicker with linux since we have forgotten how long it took us to learn everything we know about windows.
      • greywolfexcel, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2@BigManOnCampus: It makes me happy you use Arch, and I understand exactly what you mean. :)
      • arjie, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5MoofTheStoof: I know this goes against Digg wisdom, but on the likely low memory computer you're talking about, use Opera. I've had better results with it on my Celeron 733Mhz.
      • Myztry, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Even 'sudo apt-get' to install software from the massive Ubuntu repository is all but a bygone.

        Just type APT:programname into Firefox and it will download, install, and be kept up to date.

        Worse case is you download the .deb package but I don't recommend downloading software directly from the Internet. It's too much like the generic SETUP.EXE method with has spread viruses and malware across the internet.

        Unfortunately Windows users don't really have any other option but to risk it.
    • Jektal, on 07/23/2008, -3/+48First off, an OS can be functional and beautiful. I see this as a call for more development on the oft-ignored beauty aspect in the linux world.

      Second, compliance with your business needs will come after increased casual adoption. Take a look at what is happening with Mac right now. Due mostly to Apple's emphasis on design and aesthetics people are choosing to use Macs at home, and pushing for them in the work place. This creates a need for business software which runs natively in OSX and is compatible with its Windows counterparts.

      The same should happen for Ubuntu if it gains home-user support, and Apple have proven that a great approach is a solid unix core and a very fancy interface.
      • mrsteveman1, on 07/23/2008, -0/+17***** man...logic....on DIGG....my head hurts now.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -3/+6Like the first poster said - if you get it to the point where you don't have to use the terminal to do normal everyday things (such as installing software), then Ubuntu will be ready for prime time.

        Along with beauty should come user-friendliness.
      • werries, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5seriously, the only way anyone has ever asked me about linux is when they saw the desktop cube with compiz on ubuntu. a beautiful desktop catches the eye of people.
      • Mejogid, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7Seriously, stopp with this "don't you have to use the terminal" stuff - you can download .debs and double click them, you can use the Synaptics package manager or you can use the Add/Remove Programs application (with a simplified interface and pretty icons to make things easier for first time users). You do not have to use the terminal for any remotely every-day task on Ubuntu. It's there because it's more efficient in many circumstances if you take the time to learn it, and if a problem does occur it makes it easier to solve it (whereas on Windows you have to play with the registry or just wipe and start fresh).
      • Elranzer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Businesses want the option to buy from any vendor (i.e. choose between HP or Dell). Apple is the only vendor who sells Macs, which means no competition, which means overinflated prices. Businesses want to buy hundreds/thousands of workstations at ~$500 a piece, not ~$3000 a piece (and they certainly will not buy iMacs or Mac minis).

        This is why Macs don't penetrate the work force, unless they need Macs for niche reasons (education, art/music, even medical).
      • mrsteveman1, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Apple doesn't really make business machines, their stuff is all purpose built for specific consumer markets.

        Mac pro and xserve are the exception, xserve is sort of aimed at business, who in that specific area do in fact buy expensive name brand servers.

        Mac pro isn't really a standard desktop either, it has a lot of things that are completely unnecessary for a desktop, like ECC memory and 8 cores.
      • clockdist, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1@mrsteveman1
        because the Mac Pro is in the "workstation" category; it is designed for intensive calculations, not just average desktop use, hence the 8 cores, etc...
    • kiwiboyus, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Compliance
    • iampriteshdesai, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1http://helpforlinux.blogspot.com/
    • hkbebe1, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3stfu Its all about beauty in the Computer Biz.. thought you knew ;)
    • NekstBestThing, on 07/23/2008, -7/+2I like you.
    • theOster, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4built a significant population of linux, and eventually the large software corps will realize the market (and how to profit from it) and write apps for it.

      if not the large corps, then the equivalent oss project might just become good enough (look at how far the major projects have come in relatively short time - oo.org, some of the top OS's, firefox)

      oh, and what does your grandmother do? i'd be willing to bet linux would be perfect for her.
    • mman426, on 07/23/2008, -12/+2STFU dude, everyone knows that all OS X uses as a selling point is Beauty, OS X is nowhere near easy, Windows is easier than OS X by far. Also, Linux will continue to get easier while this is going on, artists and programmers have different careers, making the desktop look good will mostly be a job for artists with some programmers that deal in graphics and the artistic aspects of programs. The ease of use and functionality will be worked on by the programmers. Now if you are not able to learn to use linux, then you are just too dumb and should go type "rmdir /s /q windowssystem32" into a command prompt so you can make your computer run faster.
      • barthrh, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8Have you ever used OS X? I'm going to make a safe assumption: no. If you have, your poor evaluation of usability is based solely on your inability to adapt your Windows knowledge to something that is somewhat different from the little that you understand.

        Really, your last statement just reinforces the point why Linux, in its current state and with advocates like yourself, will NEVER surpass either OS X or Windows or any other operating system where the concept of the computer-as-appliance is the underlying philosophy.
    • mrsteveman1, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Most users can now use firefox on any platform and get used to it quickly, which makes up a large part of what most users do on computers. Openoffice is good enough for most things, in time consumer and small business oriented commercial office apps will come, as will other things.

      Drivers will come too as they are already, they aren't a problem. The problem is that much of the rest of Linux desktops simply aren't up to snuff yet, there are significant things missing or functioning in a less than ideal manner, and it has nothing to do with dropping to the CLI to configure or fix things. The goal now is finishing the OS and putting all the pieces together well. Yea distros put pieces together, but not well most of the time, certainly not in such a way that consumers will say "hey, i want that!".
    • barthrh, on 07/24/2008, -5/+12No digg-downs here. Could not agree more. I moved my dad from Win to Ubuntu so that I would not have to spend hours cleaning his computer every time I visited. That worked. Then he needed to start using a business accounting package. There is not a single Linux accounting package worth a damn. Why? Because Linux users don't want to pay for anything. Quick: Name a successful commercial Linux desktop product.... Can't, can you? If it's not free open source, you're out of luck -- it'll never sell. If you do make it commercial, they'll bittorrent it and you'll make nothing for your work.

      Your other points are completely valid. Getting basic media functionality to run on Ubuntu is a pain the the ass. There are whole tutorials on how to install basic codecs and even Flash! The quality of the consumer software available is poor, at best. The best photo management software is a bloody Wine port, and at that it's not that great. God forbid you want to work with "movies", or connect to an "iPod".

      Two years? No way. Macs are gaining ground because friends are recommending them. You buy what your peer support network uses, so that you have others to rely on. I would never, ever, recommend Ubuntu to anyone who either needed to maintain their computer without expert help or needed anything more than mail and a Web browser. Everything else is for the expert user that makes up only a tiny portion of the user base. Even at that, if you look at screen shots on development sites those folks are moving to OS X where you get the power of UNIX with great commercial apps and a superb desktop.
      • cannonball, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7I don't understand why you're dogging down the fact that Linux is free. Who needs commercial apps?

        The reason codecs and flash don't come pre-installed is a licensing issue, so you don't have to pay a dime. Synaptic Package Manager is the easiest way I've ever installed a program on any type of computer, which makes getting those codecs a breeze. Big whoop!

        It may take some getting use to, I can understand, but I think Ubuntu is getting easier to use in every release. And its free!
      • maximumsteve1, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8barthrh is really misleading. Let's pick apart his comment:

        "Getting basic media functionality to run on Ubuntu is a pain the the ass. There are whole tutorials on how to install basic codecs and even Flash!"

        Go to package manager, search vlc. Download. You will never have to worry about a codec again

        Flash has direct support for Ubuntu. You will be taken to their site and it's as easy as clicking a button. (not joking)

        "God forbid you want to work with "movies", or connect to an "iPod". "

        The first time you connect your ipod when using ubuntu, Rhythmbox pops up. It comes preinstalled on ubuntu and you can not only put music on the ipod but you can take music off the ipod too. (Something itunes doesn't even do"

        I can understand bart's love affair with Mac OSX, it's a nice operating system, but ideologically for me I can't do it. Apple is worse than Microsoft when it comes to copyright enforcement, and I feel like my computer is locked down.

        While there are some nice apps for Mac, everything I do can easily be done in ubuntu. That includes some light photo editing and sound editing. (Audacity and the GIMP).

        Mac is prohibitively expensive and really the only reason why I'd want it is because it's pretty. Which isn't a selling point for me.

      • mrsteveman1, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1VLC works for some things yea, but its a poor player.

        The fact is, the media frameworks on Linux are a mess.
      • Norumeni, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I love Ubuntu, but the iPod support is still lacking basic functionality; namely, true syncing. Yeah, I know that various media programs that run on Ubuntu say that they sync, but I have yet to see one that actually does and doesn't mess up my iPod and make me have to plug it into a windows machine to restore it with iTunes. To all you wonderful developers out there, syncing means pushing a button and having the program scan the library on my iPod and the library on my computer, comparing them, and making up the difference on both ends! Sadly, this has not been the case when I've tried it, the 'syncing' that is usually done is just taking the ENTIRE library on my computer and trying to stuff it onto my iPod, which already has 98% of my library on it, and NO I do not want to go searching through all my music to find the tracks that aren't on my iPod and drag and drop them, because that would take forever!!!!
      • akeldama, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1"Quick: Name a successful commercial Linux desktop product..."

        Vmware?
    • gannina, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4I tried to bury you like you asked but too many people are digging you up :(
    • Quaoar, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4
      You are entirely correct! IMO, the day that Ubuntu can be installed without problems on my notebooks and desktops will be the day that Linux will rule, provided that Open Office, etc., can do the jobs that MS Office does for me now.

      Note that both Suse and Mandriva install perfectly on my equipment. Ubuntu refuses to install properly on all except my oldest notebook. I do want an attractive desktop, but I first want a decent installation, and Ubuntu, for all its hype, fails the latter.
      • fuckinhell, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1You mean the same way OSX can be installed on your notebooks and desktops without any problems?
    • maximumsteve1, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8I whole-heartedly disagree with this comment. Ubuntu is extremely easy to install, the package manager makes finding and installing applications a snap(something trivially small that you just want now and free can be a nightmare searching for on windows), and I personally find the layout of GNOME very easy and user friendly to use.

      About fixes you have to google for, I think that the file system of linux is EASIER to learn and understand than windows. Windows' config stuff is very obfuscated in the registry and the system32 files is hard to learn what is all there. Linux has man pages for all their binaries and the config files are usually in /etc. Very very simple. So I learn more from fixing linux stuff than just "run this script and all troubles go away" on windows.

      The only issue with ubuntu you could conceivably have these days is software that you're currently relying on windows for or (most likely) you have to learn a whole new operating system.

      But being free is definitely worth it, and you'll learn a lot more about how computers work in the meantime without even realizing it.

      And quickbooks is for noobs.
    • seshomarusamma, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8"The day that I can have my mother sit down at a Linux desktop and she never has to use a terminal will be the day Linux has finally achieved the same level of ease as other operating systems."

      My mother (65 years old) has been using Ubuntu for the past 2 years. She browses the web ,uses skype ,msn and thunderbird. She doesn't know the command line exists .
      • dsgamer, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1how the ***** does one use skype on ubuntu? Is probably the worst program I used during my brief fling with ubuntu
    • noelsusman, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3"I thought a good OS was compromised of good features and ease of use and not good art."

      I say why not both?
    • Fergy, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2I don't know about your mother but my mother is still learning how to do things in Winxp. I had her using Ubuntu for a week because her harddrive crashed. It took her 15min to learn the logic behind Ubuntu/Gnome. After that she could figure everything out herself.
    • westyvw, on 07/24/2008, -3/+9FUD FUD FUD

      My wife, child, mother, (a senior citizen), and several friends ALL use linux. It has been much easier to maintain then windows. They get it and find it easy. (As an aside they dont use Ubuntu. I dont care for it, I think its too limiting and fragile, but thats my choice). No command lines for them, and none setting up the computer. In general they have been happy because linux has made sense, whereas windows was a big confusing mess.

      You also have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to accounting. I had a business running Windows, MS Office and Quickbooks. I eventually got rid of ALL of that. Windows servers were too much of a pain in the ass to manage, license fees were out of hand, and quickbooks wanted to be only on one computer at a time. I replaced it all with Linux and Linux apps. Office apps became mobile, agile, and free (as in freedom, price really wasnt the issue).
      Just because YOU dont understand how accounting works, and YOUR particular program isnt available under linux, dont write it off the whole system.
      I too work in the real world, and just like the majority of wall street, we use linux to deal with money and we get by just fine. We simply made our own, using libraries that do direct transactions with the bank via a webservice, a database backend for transactions, and away we go.

      HOWEVER: if you like the crapware that is Quickbooks, you can run it using wine. It has worked fine since 2001. Dumbass.
    • Shinobi326, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Since when is Quickbooks a 'powerful program' in the 'real world'? I don't know what real world you live in, but most companies over 5 employees can't use such power you describe.
    • sn0w, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6My mother uses Ubuntu. She does not know what a terminal is.
    • Chaseb, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2My parents have been using Ubuntu for over a year, from Feisty to Hardy. They are in their late seventies. Once set up, the number of "tech support" calls to me have dropped from several a week when they were using XP to nil since the switch to Ubuntu. Dad loves not having to constantly update and run antivirus and anti-malware software on a daily basis. You need to get your facts straight before commenting on something you apparently know little about.
    • Randmitter, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1It is functionality. You're right. And no one's going to bury you the ***** down. Sorry, Mark Shuttleworth: you're just a loser.
    • Baryn, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2You are a *****. Commit suicide.
  • diggB, on 07/23/2008, -2/+174"His company Canonical, Ubuntu's commercial sponsor, is working to make the Ubuntu desktop "more beautiful" in the next two years, he told OSCON."

    More beautiful is fine so long as it includes an emphasis on UI improvements and consistency between applications.
    • hexydes, on 07/23/2008, -0/+44I consider all of that to be the same thing. Making it beautiful is more than using pretty graphics. If you have consistency, and elements are laid out in a way that is intuitively usable, that is all part of the larger design, and all moves towards making the interface more "beautiful".
      • diggB, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8Typically, when I think of beautiful, I think of all the colorful eyecandy and gee whiz graphics that's often included to improve curb appeal (overuse of transparency effects is a pet peeve of mine) . But if one was to use a more liberal definition of "beautiful" to mean great engineering and intuitive UI design, then yes, I agree with you.
    • petaganayr, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7I concur with emphasis on UI improvements and consistency between applications. I think a lot of things need to be automated, off with cmd line (unless you're a power user), and make it more user-friendly. Standardization needs to be implemented and also uniformity through out the operating system.
    • Shmock, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8That what gnome is all about.
      Of course it will be clean, gorgeous and consistent.
    • 4NDr01D, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2thats funny I didnt think the Graphics Drivers were included with this latest update....

    • kwilliam, on 07/24/2008, -4/+14Somebody's got to say it: Ubuntu will have a hard time being beautiful if they stick with BROWN as their color scheme.

      Kubuntu on the other hand... :-)
    • pjpark, on 07/24/2008, -3/+6After configuring, troubleshooting, and tooting around with Windows machines all day, it's nice to come home to something that just works. I even refuse to install Windows Media Player - I just don't use services that require it. I am plenty content to have fewer features that always work (like controlling iTunes on my Mac using my Phone-cool) than some of the half-implemented crap I have to deal with every day.

      I've tried Ubuntu. Not the latest version, it was some time ago. I never got it completely working and, frankly, it's just too much effort. I bought a Mac and it didn't take any time at all to get productive. I even use Safari more the Firefox 3. (Aside: what the hell is it with Firefox screwing up add-ins whenever you upgrade? I mean, I get it set up how I like it and, boom, it's time to start over from scratch).

      In conclusion. it's not the UI nor how pretty it is, it's the experience.
    • skyshock1, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5One thing that Apple has done and done very well is establishing STRICT UI guidelines for all their apps to follow. I think this is certainly an area where the canonical team could use some improvement. Especially if they're looking to unseat OSX.

      It's not just a slick looking UI though. Canonical can't just rest on their laurels at UI improvements. The other area where Apple has Linux under their thumb is the availability of really fantastic applications. Publishing and media editing applications such as Photoshop, ProTools, and Final Cut Pro are just the tip of the iceberg. Linux needs at a bare minimum to have a native port of these apps and more, not to mention graphics and audio drivers on par w/ Windows and OSX.

      Only then will it start to steal marketshare.
    • 3242130193, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4I fear that now that Ubuntu is paying more attention to appealing to a broad user base, they'll start to forget about the fact that their first priority is to make a functional, widespread and quality desktop. I hope that I'm wrong though.
  • JasonPeck, on 07/23/2008, -17/+18gotta think high to rise, i guess...
  • michaelpinto, on 07/23/2008, -38/+127About 90% of the Apple experience isn't just the desktop: It's either the hardware (like an iPhone or iPod) or the applications that work so well with the hardware (like iMovie or Safari). It's also not about the "legions of programmers" after all Microsoft already has that, but it's also about the usability folks, the hardware engineers and yes the marketing dept. In the meantime while Ubuntu is trying to be Windows 95 you have Microsoft reinventing the desktop on the web with Mesh. Ubuntu needs to invent the next thing or find the next big market, not try playing "catch up" with Apple.
    • kiwiboyus, on 07/23/2008, -8/+39Ubuntu doesn't need to do that, the Linux community does that already. The Ubuntu team just need to cherry pick the best and most ready apps and features that are being developed for Linux as a whole. That is a strength that Windows and Apple don't quite have. It's great that he is setting his sights on Apple and not saying Ubuntu is about to replace Windows which is a much bigger target.
    • iampriteshdesai, on 07/23/2008, -9/+2http://helpforlinux.blogspot.com/
    • rpgmaker, on 07/23/2008, -6/+20You can say anything you want about your Apple machines but if the OS was as buggy and bitchy as Windows it wouldn't even make a dent in the OS market. When people buy Macs what they really buy is the whole new OS, you can't get someone to buy a Mac just for how stylish the machine is: there are many machines out there that look better than the Macs. That's why you see people using and working on OSx86.

      And Ubuntu isn't trying to be Windows 95, we passed that milestone long ago :). Several of the features that OSX Leopard shipped were on the Linux world years ago. I acknowledge that OSX is ahead of Linux in the usability department but I think that it isn't going to be for long, the difference isn't too much either.
      • MtheoryX, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8Linux will catch up to OSX in the usability department one day...that is, if Apple stays put and doesn't keep advancing.
      • kmolnar, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Usability cannot be increased arbitrarily. Eventually they will reach a plateau - I would argue they're practically there already - at which point further "usability" just results in devaluing the system itself.

        Another problem for the idea is the fact that as generations grow up with technology, they are more apt with the systems and devices they use anyway, negating some of the need for "user-friendliness" which they end up viewing as the above devaluation.
    • frazw, on 07/23/2008, -2/+14I must protest your comment: "It's either the hardware (like an iPhone or iPod)" but this rant is not directed at you.
      The hardware in an iphone or ipod was never unique. Ever. In all respects they where beaten to the punch by someone. The thing which made them stand out was the firmware. User interface to be specific. It is fundamentally the most important thing with any device in terms of its public perception and uptake.
      E.g. I have a sony NW-HD5 HD mp3 player. I is, or at least was technically superior to ipods contemporary with it at release. It was smaller, more energy efficient and had interchangeable batteries amongst other things. However it sucks. The ipod had about a third of the battery life were bigger BUT the user interface was and is miles better and so it wins.
      I apologise for going on about it but it really annoys me that software and hardware developers seem to pay so little respect to how users will interact with their system. They always try to sell based on capability rather than usability and time and time again usability (or at least percieved usability) wins out. See Nintendo Wii vs Sony/MS, the iPod vs mp3 players, iPhone vs smartphones, Windows vs Mac or Linux, Each of the winners has a simple easy to use User interface but its hardware is technically no better than its competition.
      Consequently, I fully expect Linux MCE to be a driving force for Linux uptake. It is incredibly easy to setup and use and it functionality is pure genius. Even a monkey could do it. No other media centre equipment can do all of what it does and so easily and it is all down to its UI. Some may not like how it looks but you can tell me it isn't easy to set up. If you are going to argue though that you have to have the right hardware etc then I'd say that there are companies do that for you just like Apple does. e.g. fiire.com.
      All I'm saying and this is specifically to devs of all types. UI is paramount if you want to increase market share. Ignore the opinions of anyone other than novices. They are your target audience and what they want will work for the largest number of people. You may piss of the elitists and fanboys but those guys are arseholes.
    • mrblue182, on 07/24/2008, -4/+3Apple is nothing special. Safari < Firefox. Ubuntu has already surpassed Apple (I use Ubuntu, and many of my friends have macs). IMHO, OSX is worse than XP.
  • mmijatov, on 07/23/2008, -9/+240Dear Mr. Shuttleworth,

    Go for it!
    • alexforcefive, on 07/23/2008, -3/+10Dear Mr. Shuttleworth,

      I ***** ***** hate subscription based services. Be very careful with your next move, please. The whole point in FOSS is that you own the software you use
      • aeoo, on 07/23/2008, -0/+11You own the software but not the service. I like subscription models for entities that provide open-source solutions. I'd hate to pay a subscription to a closed-source company, that's for sure. With closed-source, I like to pay once and sever the contact. With open-source, subscription makes more sense, since the company has a lot less leverage to screw you over as a customer, and therefore supporting it via subscription is less dangerous for your freedom.
  • wTheOnew, on 07/23/2008, -13/+4Just carry a pile of live CDs and insert one into any computer you pass. I'm sure there are enough idiots out there that wouldn't be able to fix the problem that Ubuntu would surpass Apple.
    • rockefeller2, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7Don't forget to check the device boot order in the BIOS.
  • clak, on 07/23/2008, -17/+3WTF. Ubuntu is free and it still doesn't have significant market share. Maybe if they actually charged for it, Ubuntu people would pick it up.
    • Retrospekt, on 07/23/2008, -3/+11If they charged for it no one would use it. The point of Linux is to be free.
      • fredmv, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5You seem to be confused as to what "free" actually means. Free means freedom; i.e., what can be done with the software in question. They can damn well charge for free software. It just so happens that most free software is, in fact, free [of charge].
      • Jeffler, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4If they charged for it the mainstream person would probably get it, believe it or not. I watched a film in marketing about winery's. This one Japanese company had a wine that wasn't selling well, so they DOUBLED the price. You read that right. It went from $20 to $40 a bottle.

        Sales went up 350%.
      • tnoy, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4The point of Linux is open source, the cheapness of it is just an added bonus.
      • frontporsche, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1I use Linux because I can easily code whatever I need to code with it. For me, that's the point.
    • dave11980, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2If they charged for it people would start pirating it.
  • Tehrab, on 07/23/2008, -17/+4If he could have, he would have. End of story.
    • kiwiboyus, on 07/23/2008, -2/+12He and his team have done a hell of a lot in a short period of time, what have you done?
  • fakeXsound, on 07/23/2008, -43/+75rofl
    • usergentoo, on 07/23/2008, -33/+6Wow, did you just learn to spell? I'm so proud of you, did Microsoft or Apple help you with that?
    • brkhobowriter, on 07/23/2008, -16/+7I fail to see what's so funny.
  • TexasCanuck, on 07/23/2008, -21/+6Shuttleworth is insane. Ubuntu will never surpass Apple.

    Sure Ubuntu makes some great software, but couple Apples Hardware with their Software, and you have a strong combination which begs the question "Why even bother with Ubuntu with OSX is already so mature ?"
    • Dotcommer, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8Please, you're begging the question.
    • kiwiboyus, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7Ubuntu incorporates great Linux software, and can easily switch to the newest and best next thing every 6 months unlike Microsoft and Apple. Also it's free, secure and you don't even have to buy any new expensive hardware to run it unlike Vista and OS X.

      So there you go, question answered.
    • hexydes, on 07/23/2008, -2/+22Because I won't pay $1500 for a computer that is worth $700, that's why.
      • Galaxylander, on 07/23/2008, -8/+2The only $1500 dollar Mac is an iMac. The closest PC all in one is the Gateway One and it's more expensive and has slower performance according to CNET's tests, and they tend to be Microsoft biased. All of the PC all in ones are more expensive then the iMac and all of them were tested and had slower performance then the cheaper iMac.

        The "Macs are more expensive" myth is just BS. Apple doesn't use the same 2 GHz processor as a 200 dollar box PC. Go build a PC on Tiger Direct using the same parts you find in a Mac pro, and generally it will be around $200 dollars less and it requires you to build the whole thing. For a hobbiest or someone who enjoys that kind of thing it's fine, but the average consumer isn't going to do that. Car hobbiests don't expect everyone to be able to build their entire vehicle, so why do the computer hobbiests? Not to mention the deal isn't worth it to most people.
      • hexydes, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6a. I don't need a new monitor every time I buy a new computer.

        b. Your pricing on parts is well off. If you don't need a monitor, you can build something comparable to an iMac for about half as much.
    • waspbr, on 07/23/2008, -2/+22apple's hardware? you mean nvidia's, intel's , asus's, broadcom's, samsung's...
    • Arramol, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8Because I don't want to pay the premium for "Mac hardware," which is the same hardware I can get on a Windows/Linux PC, but for much more money. Cost of my computer when I built it in December: $1100. Cost of a Mac with equivalent specs today: $2600. A few months ago, it would've cost $3000. And on top of that, my machine's much more upgradeable - I can upgrade to any video card on the market without having to wait for an upgrade kit, and I have a second PCI-E x16 slot, large power supply, and NVIDIA chipset so that I can go SLI if I choose. Of course, that brings up the second issue, which is gaming, an area in which I haven't been able to dump Windows yet. OS X's less of a solution there than Ubuntu though, because of that hardware cost issue.
      • hexydes, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2This type of argument doesn't work with Mac users because to them, an upgrade path isn't a feature, it's a negative.
    • ruddy, on 07/23/2008, -1/+12"Sure Ubuntu makes some great software"
      /face palm

      I think it's very possible for ubuntu to surpass apple. First of all, linux isn't tied to any hardware, thus making it freely available.
      Ubuntu has what it takes to make it main stream - they're incorporating the best of the free world, with easy to use features to enable the technically inclined folks, which is how it should be.
      Mainstream has fairly recently recognized apple as a viable solution because they didn't know about apple, and I feel the same is happening with Ubuntu, except ubuntu has worlds more to offer than apple.
    • iampriteshdesai, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1http://helpforlinux.blogspot.com/
    • Cenobite, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8With such gems as "Ubuntu makes some great software", "begs the question", and "Why even bother with Ubuntu with OSX is already so mature ?" you could have your own radio show.
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4FREEDOM! Once Apple decides to do something stupid like forbid unsigned kernel extensions or enforce some creepy DRM in OS X, we'll have a nice alternative to jump to (Xenu knows Windows isn't the alternative we're looking for). A good distribution of Linux makes Apple and Microsoft work that much harder to stay ahead, which benefits everyone. Linux keeps them honest, since we can toss them like yesterday's news if they get too controlling.
  • Badandy127, on 07/23/2008, -32/+79This is about as likely as Apple surpassing Microsoft.
    • Apocalyptic0n3, on 07/23/2008, -5/+49Funny thing is that people were saying the same thing about Firefox a few years ago. Now it is up to 20% marketshare. 1 in 5 use Firefox. That'll continue to grow, too. Unless Mozilla screws it up, that is.
      • ruddy, on 07/23/2008, -2/+29and they nice thing about open source, if mozilla f's it up, then the project will just fork - leaving us with another variant of Firefox.
      • caseycoold, on 07/23/2008, -13/+5Freeware forking isn't necessarily a good thing.

        People like simple.
      • rpgmaker, on 07/23/2008, -7/+2So... if they keep doing what they're doing?
      • quomen, on 07/23/2008, -14/+2Lets think about who Firefox passed. Netscape Navigator? And Internet Explorer? Both of them sucked. Why would I (being a normal consumer [who needs Microsoft Office and thinks that OpenOffice sucks]) be compelled to go from a Windows or Macintosh system to a linux one? I tried Ubuntu last year, and I doubt it's any easier. It's okay, but I have other things to do than worry about my OS.
      • LocalDocal, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3I doubt Mozilla screwing it up will have any effect (unless it's a major, major screw up). As seen in the past with some other products, whenever a company messes up with a great product, people who uses that product either doesn't care or simply stick with an older edition under the problem is fixed.

        Now that so many people are using Firefox and are used to it, I highly doubt anything can really lower Firefox's marketshare, except for possibly another new successful browser (or possibly one of the existing ones) that eats up marketshare from IE or Firefox.
      • tech42er, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4@Local
        Or they can fork it from the last good release, thanks to the open source nature. If Mozilla REALLY ***** it up, it can still be saved and improved upon.
      • allnone, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2You are comparing a 5mb install, to an entire OS? Are you serious? Average users won't switch an OS like they would a browser. You simply install FF and still have IE. People aren't going to learn how to use a new OS like that. This isn't even close to the same thing. The only thing similar is, that they're both open source.
      • Batiu-Drami, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1No they weren't. Pretty much as soon as Firefox hit 0.7-0.8, basically the entire internet was like 'oh thank God, a *good* browser, finally! That ain't happening with OSX; at best it's a slow migration.
      • LocalDocal, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0@Tech
        Technically, that would also be losing marketshare.

    • loconet, on 07/23/2008, -3/+16Not really. As far as the desktop is concern, the Apple -> Microsoft is orders of magnitude larger than the Linux -> Apple.
      • Badandy127, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Do you have stats?
      • ileftfark, on 07/23/2008, -3/+14Numbers from June 2008:

        Market Share:

        Windows - 90.89%
        OSX - 7.94%
        Linux - 0.8%

        Linux is also growing faster than Mac. Windows is slowly but consistently losing its stronghold.

        By the way, these stats were found via the Internet, which apparently you also have access to. It's a pretty good resource for information and such.
      • OneAndOnlySnob, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

        Note how OS X and Linux are both around 1-5% with Microsoft basically taking up everything else.
      • niceyuk, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3or if you want the decline of Windows market share in a pretty graph:

        http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= ...
      • mman426, on 07/23/2008, -5/+0thats because Mac is too expensive and Linux is not easy enough for the average person
      • Nysul, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Linux...twice the users of windows 98!
      • barthrh, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3"Linux is growing faster than Mac". Give me a break. I have one customer. Now I have 3. 300% growth!!! Growth from an embryonic state will always be proportionately larger. A general consumer would never, ever, get Ubuntu without the pressure and support of an "expert helper".
      • Fergy, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3The stupid thing with these statistics ileftfark is that they don't really count as mindshare in my mind. If you look at browsers IE7 has the biggest marketshare but people using IE7 didn't choose it they just use it. If you use Firefox/Opera/Safari on windows you choose it and are therefore a better indicator of what is better. So those 70% of people that use IE7 actually don't exist for me. It is 75% marketshare for Firefox, 20% for opera, 1% for safari(all on windows)(on linux it is probably 90% Firefox and mac 75% Firefox+24% Safari).
        The same thing goes for the OS. Please just take the people that actually choose the OS they are using. I think you will get 50% windows, 30% apple/macos and 19% linux.
    • unixballer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1they did about 5 years ago
  • Steeple, on 07/23/2008, -14/+93get third party support, then we'll talk.
    it's really not about the spinning cubes
    • BlueSkyfish, on 07/23/2008, -3/+65You underestimate the power of spinning cubes.
    • ruddy, on 07/23/2008, -5/+24...Compiz IS third party. Canonicle didn't write it.

      And what kind of third party support are you talking about? Do you mean getting supported drivers from GPU manufacturers? Cuz it's happening.
      Or do you mean supporting a different OS's API? Cuz you guessed it, it's happening.
      • Steeple, on 07/23/2008, -2/+16no, none of that stuff, i mean mainstream third party software like popular games, office (and for me , photoshop) not the open source alternatives.
        if you want people to switch, it's all about giving people confidence that the stuff everyone uses can run on their system.
      • ruddy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+10you make a great point. So many solutions are available for linux that you don't even know what they are - at no fault of your own. It's not like people spend their time to research linux alternatives, but they're there, and they're great solutions - but thats where a corporate sponsor is needed, to advertise these solutions.

        I'm sure you've heard of Open Office, a great, compatible solutions for office.
        Gimp, a good photoshop alternative. But Photoshop can be run under Wine pretty well.
        Games can be run through Cedega, but it still needs work...

        Alot of these solutions are good solutions, but maybe not the EXACT equivalent.
        I think as popularity grows, so will better alternatives.
      • cesclaveria, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9I think you are right, but then again that would present us with a 'catch 22' problem.

        the big software companies do not release their products for linux, because not many people use it.

        Not many people uses linux, because the big software companies do not release their products for it.
      • Steeple, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2i've tried a few live cd's, and i'm hugely impressed at what's been achieved, but as a user i've been burned by word alternatives not displaying documents accurately, and as for big mission critical apps like photoshop running in compatible api's, how would you trouble shoot problems? how would you know whether the prob was with linux wine or adobe, certainly adobe support wouldn't be any help?
      • ruddy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Wine libraries are an immediate solution, and not a long term solution imo. If you have a bug, it's most likely due to a compatibility layer, but eventually large apps will be built for linux API's natively... i hope
    • sergiocarvalho, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Third party, as in driver-support? Hate to burst the bubble, but Linux has wider device driver support than out-of-the-box windows (any flavour) and way richer support than OSX (which runs only on Apple hardware).
      • rac1234, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2But the quality of the drivers seems pretty variable. Now if Shuttleworth were proposing to focus on high-quality driver development I'd be more interested, because performance and stability are more important in even a desktop OS than prettiness.
    • gandhii, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Are you talking to the Mac people or the Linux people?
  • meddle447, on 07/23/2008, -8/+38The problem the face is not just look and feel. Cocoa is a great framework for building OS X app. .Net is great for building windows apps. What sort of framework are they going to build to make it easier for developers to build apps for their system? Developers making great apps is what drive user adoption of an operating system.
    • g4nt1, on 07/23/2008, -12/+1If that were true Linux would be the top OS because Linux has the most advanced frameworks to build application with. The problem may be that there are too many.

      I'm looking at you Gnome, KDE.
      • TheCoreh, on 07/23/2008, -0/+15Ehrm... Gnome and KDE are not frameworks.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/23/2008, -0/+10GTK and Qt are the frameworks, Gnome and KDE are just the window managers built upon those respective frameworks.
      • cesclaveria, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I think he is talking more about the functionality that things like kdelibs provide or (I forgot the name of the gnome equivalent) as developer they provide you with easy access to many OS/Desktop features and with things like dcop they make integration with other apps something trivial.
    • rpgmaker, on 07/23/2008, -5/+15There are plenty of frameworks in the Linux world.
      • DraconPern, on 07/24/2008, -5/+3I see you have never tried any of them.
      • MJDub, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1Exactly. A standard framework is what's needed.
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 07/23/2008, -4/+10Um. Okay. You don't frequently hear people complaining about dev tools on Linux... But how about GNUStep or Mono if you think ObjC and .Net are so great?

      QT Designer and Glade are both extremely powerful and easy to use tools for developing interfaces, and QT Builder is a bit nicer on the eyecandy front too. (Though I generally prefer Gnome.) From there you can use practically any language you want, especially if you're developing a Gnome app.
  • buckchoris, on 07/23/2008, -12/+1Surpass Apple ,oh please Mark you are dreaming too much.I hope you read the comments here from apple fanboys to know the reality.
  • sandiegodude, on 07/23/2008, -21/+141Oh *****, the Internet is going to blow up. Linux vs. Apple on Digg has occurred!

    My 2 cents on the matter.

    Competition makes products better (uh, cept Vista. I don't know WTF M$ was thinking there) I want to see Apple and Ubuntu war it out, because the winners are truly us, the end users.
    • kayfouroh, on 07/23/2008, -10/+32Using 'M$' is so 1999.
      • sandiegodude, on 07/23/2008, -5/+18haha, I didn't even realize I did it! I swear! Old habit from my last job which was a 90% Linux/Unix shop, whenever we had to deal with our (few) Win servers we would always refer to them as the M$ servers.

        My apologies to the Microsoft fanbois out there :)
      • AzureRise, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4Don't apologize. Let them burn with anger!
    • zeptobyte, on 07/23/2008, -5/+19MS didn't really have any competition with Vista; hence, it sucked. So that doesn't counter your point.
    • brkhobowriter, on 07/23/2008, -8/+11I'm tired of people saying Vista is bad. I'm using Vista right now and it's not as slow as you would think. After a hefty bit of tweaking, Vista SP1 is as fast as XP SP2. Except for the crashes, now that has gotta stop.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5Vista SP1 is more efficient in some respects - many of which effect games positively so gamers should probably shut the ***** up.

        It does have some compatibility issues and crashing problems, though.
      • caseycoold, on 07/23/2008, -7/+4And....you're full of *****.
      • noctu, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5vista is slow on games I got a new system and compared to XP, vista was dropping fps like it had overdosed on laxitives
      • fugazied, on 07/23/2008, -8/+5"Vistas all cool man, my 4gb system runs it well"..
      • ScottyDelicious, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6It's not about the required hardware. The minimum specs to get smooth performance from vista will be commonly found on $199 PCs in < 3 years. It's not about the aero eye candy... That is just Microsoft trying (and failing) to capitalize on ideas found on Linux systems and popularized by OS X.

        It is not the broken drivers. That was the fault of hardware manufacturers. Many of the driver problems were related to Nvidia hardware driver conflicts.

        No, the reason Vista fails is that in an attempt to "simplify" the experience, menu items and configuration settings were moved, replaced, or discontinued in order to make the PC an appliance for consumers. As a result, I feel (and I am sure I am not alone) that Vista is insulting to use in that Microsoft does not believe I possess the knowledge to administer my own PC. Their so-called "IP" is more important to protect than my user experience. That's fine, that is their business decision, but if I wanted an appliance, I would buy a new oven. I want a PC that I can use the way I want to use it.

        Chew on that Microsoft... then get back to us, kthxbai.
      • Nysul, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3"No, the reason Vista fails is that in an attempt to "simplify" the experience, menu items and configuration settings were moved, replaced, or discontinued in order to make the PC an appliance for consumers."

        Uhg not this again. Vista's usability is so much better than XP's. People complain that they can no longer find things but after looking at the control panel for 5 minutes everything becomes clear, and even if you cant find anything all you do is hit the windows key, type the first 3 letters of what you are looking for and hit enter.

        /does anyone else's digg comment box work like ***** under firefox 3?
    • ruddy, on 07/23/2008, -9/+2You sounded so knowledgeable.. until you whipped out the M$

      • sandiegodude, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6If I could edit it. I would. Old habits are hard to break. Oh, and LOL brkhobowriter. "Vista is great! cept the crashes"

        Vista is (only) okay speed-wise if you throw enough RAM and tweaking at it. I know that for a fact (my lappy runs vista and honestly it's decently stable for me). The problem is "heavy tweaking" - You shouldn't have to tweak an OS out of the box to get merely "acceptable" performance gains, (i.e. the performance of the previous version.. wtf?) especially when you consider the fact you are tossing so much more RAM and processing power at Vista to get samish performance as a 7 year old OS.
      • ruddy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1...kinda

        Yeah, vista does use more memory than it should, but I'm only using 700mb at startup. You need 2gig to be fine.
        I actually didn't have to do any heavy tweaking, just the UAC edit (which was very annoying).
      • metalstorm, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Please read up on Superfetch before you complain about Vista using up more RAM than it should. IMO that and DWM are some of the best features added to Vista. Too bad people only look at the number RAM usage without looking into why it is higher.

        Also, no I am not a MS fanboy as I tend to use Fedora more for my person use, but I actually like Vista (might have liked it less if I hadn't gotten it for free through MSDN). The only major problem with it is that they didn't add enough from XP to justify such a long development time and high cost.
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/23/2008, -2/+16There is not much threat to Apple from Linux, since widespread Linux adoption will favor the use of open standards, which can typically be incorporated into Mac OS X if they aren't already. A computer OS landscape dominated by Linux will still allow for Apple to carve out their niche, since they will be able to interact with that Linux hegemony seamlessly. In fact, Apple would be able to integrate into such a world much more effectively than with the current MS stranglehold; Apple faces a much greater challenge in gaining traction in the current software landscape. Any small players will have a much easier time competing if the "standard" OS is open source and open standards-based. As long as Apple can continue to provide value by moving swiftly and pushing progress and consistency with their central planning approach, they should be fine, as it will be quite difficult for most open source projects to keep up with them due to structural challenges.

      So as a Mac user, I have nothing to lose by promoting Linux adoption, since it will help break the MS hegemony, encouraging adoption of open protocols and APIs that will benefit Macs as well as Linux distros, and it will keep Apple honest and working hard to stay relevant. It's never a bad thing to have a nice Plan B ready in case Apple gets their head too far up their own collective ass and starts fighting their users like Microsoft has, with cumbersome copy protection, activation and DRM. I can't wait until some decent Android and Mobile Linux phones come on the market, for example, so Apple might be encouraged to open up the iPhone to its users and make it a real general-purpose computing platform, or so I can have a decent alternative to jump ship to otherwise.
      • arvvvs, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Actually it also does help because you can use Linux software on mac.
    • fugazied, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5If they can get the usability (human friendly interface design and attention to detail) and ease of use (1 second to install any app on OS X), then ubuntu would have come a long way compared to distros of < 2004 when installing most things was difficult and they all looked like windows 95.
    • skittlebomb101, on 07/24/2008, -6/+1Fcuk you WiseWeasel!!!! Vista rocks mah sox, Vista is trying to protect the dimwitted from making dimwitted decisions with their PC. If you have not noticed you can obviously change settings in Vista to your personal preference including disabling UAC which you are so fond of ;)

      Oh yeah PC+APPLIANCE= OVEN? World Of Warcraft.
  • bbland, on 07/23/2008, -10/+2uhuh...rite.
  • mnk0, on 07/23/2008, -14/+7I would love the day when linux finally will take over, and it will soon enough, the only thing apple have going for them is the slick hardware designs, the os is ***** , and the fanboys even worse. and with windows vista takin a huge flop that leaves the room for linux to take strides
    • hexydes, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5Uhm, Mac OS X is extremely elegant, very usable, rock-solid steady, and just a flat-out good operating system. And please keep in mind this comment is coming from someone who splits their time almost in 1/3rd between Vista, OS X, and Ubuntu.
    • brkhobowriter, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Alright, now, the OS isn't that bad. I mean, nothing compared to some awesome Linux distros (which they ripped off of), but it's easy to use for computer newbies and it's pretty stable. And software integration is great.
      • ryanjanssen, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1OS X is UNIX, LINUX is a ripoff of Unix
      • brkhobowriter, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I meant the spinning cube, numerous desktops, and other stuff like that.
    • burnerz, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5I'd prefer linux over mac anyday. It's free and has no expensive vendor lock in.
    • Zorkon, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6I used to think that way. I was a Unix sysadmin who ran Linux on approximately 120 servers in my little corner of the data centre. I never had any support issues, licensing was a dream, and everything was good.

      I also ran Linux on my work laptop and my home workstation - had no problems maintaining them, and when I needed to get the laptop's onboard ethernet working properly, recompiling the driver wasn't a big deal. I ran Windowmaker, Enlightenment, and Helixcode's Gnome (remember those days?)

      I used to laugh whenever the Windows NT boxes bluescreened, and couldn't help but make snide comments to the Windows admins. We didn't even *talk* to the Mac guys. It was obvious to everyone in my group that Linux was just a couple years away from the desktop. This was in 1999.

      I believed in Linux so much that I quit that job and took a developer job at a local startup company. They were building software to turn any old computer into a office server appliance. After 3 months there I realized that management didn't have a clue, and I bailed. Good thing too, 2 months later the company folded.

      I spent the next two years working as an embedded Linux developer for another company that specialized in mobile device software/hardware. My job was to port Linux to different hardware platforms, so I got to be even more familiar with the internals of Linux that before. And I became even more convinced that Linux was THE operating system to replace all others.

      Around 2002 I noticed that Linux was still stuck in the data centre. Sure, "desktop" distributions like Xandros were available, but nobody in the mainstream computer world actually ran them. Mostly it was still tinkerers and geeks running Linux ... but OS X had come out of nowhere and was gaining in popularity. One of the strangest sites was attending an Ottawa Linux Symposium back then and noticing that a large percentage of the attendees owned PowerBooks - and they weren't running PowerPC Linux on them, they were running OS X! WTF?

      I had some spare cash at the time, so I picked a Mac up and started to play. Sure, it cost more than a comparable notebook but that first thing I noticed was that I didn't have to build my own keyboard driver in order to use the onboard keyboard (unlike my work-supplied HP running Linux). Also, Mac software was for the most part pretty damn sweet - nice UIs combined with honest to goodness functionality. Linux worked, but most open source UIs are pretty poorly thought-out in terms of usability and attractiveness in my personal opinion.

      Maybe it's because I've turned 35 recently and I now have less interest in tinkering with my OS, and more interest in getting things done with the computer.... but in the past 10 years I've seen little progress on the Linux front, and massive progress from Apple.

      I've been running OS X for a few years now and love it. But I haven't given up on Linux completely. I still use it on my servers, and I keep a VMware Fusion session around with the latest distros at hand so I can keep up to date. I even bought an HP 2133 mini laptop last month and tossed Ubuntu on it... and then installed ndiswrapper so I could use my wireless, as well as tweaked the grub.conf so the processor's speed-step functionality worked. Of course, the 2133 still won't wake up gracefully from sleep (the wifi will not come back) ...

      I *really* want to see Linux do well, and over the years I've tried to contribute to its success in various ways (yes, including writing code and even submitting an occasional patch) - but when it comes down to it, even after 10 years, Linux *still* requires a degree of technical knowledge that the average computer user doesn't have, and despite the efforts of KDE, Gnome, Ubuntu and others, it *still* has childish-looking UIs (or copycat ones) when compared to other operating systems such as OS X.

      What needs to be done? Gnome, KDE and Ubuntu need usability specialists, not engineers. Make the GUI functional, simple, and (here's the rub) *elegant*. Once you have those three magic ingredients, then Linux will start getting somewhere on the desktop.
      • Zorkon, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4just because I haven't written enough yet... ;)

        To elaborate on my last point regarding the UI: yes, Linux has compiz, various widget-like-clones, and other flashy user interface enhancements. But all of them suffer from over-featuritis... the engineers behind the projects become so starry-eyed at what they *can* do, that they add feature after feature (borrowing many from other operating systems)... without really thinking about how it all fits together, from a functionality and usability point of view.

        That's great for people like you (dear Digg reader) and me, but all those options are entirely mind-boggling for the average computer user and just serve to frighten them away from the platform.

      • UKsHaDoW, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Very true. Compiz tends to be very over the top and vulgular. Plus it doesn't change the actual look of the widgets.

        But there are engineers with design skills. Just very few. Most Professional UI designers are part engineer and part designer, since its needed for the job.

      • Norumeni, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Zorkon, abut your wireless cutting off after sleeping, are you using the default wireless manager (NetworkManager)? I had the same problem and become thoroughly frustrated, but then I did some searching around and found Wicd, which is much much better than the default NetworkManager in that it gives me a better idea as to what wireless signals there are around me and it doesn't randomly freeze up ever other time I try to reconnect because it dropped the signal for no reason.
  • obsolite, on 07/23/2008, -22/+3Ubuntu is the Ron Paul of operating systems.
    • dagamer34, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Trying to make the digg counter on your comment underflow and wrap around eh? Let me help you.

      *buried*
      • obsolite, on 07/23/2008, -2/+0I want to be buried so deep that I have as much mainstream exposure as Ron Paul and Ubuntu combined.
  • fezzasus, on 07/23/2008, -18/+19It's not about form but function.

    OS X is simple more than it is beautiful. It works because it has limited hardware to work with. Ubuntu cannot copy that so cannot offer the same user experience.

    Nothing wrong with competition, but I doubt it will come from ubuntu
    • caseycoold, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6without good form, function is useless
    • dn11, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2enough with this obsession with "beautiful UI" "gorgeous icons" "shiny taskbars" give me more usability first! it's not a fashion show it's a ***** OS that is supposed to run my programs - if they think the way to succeed is to "out shiny" apple they are doomed to failure. and until Ubuntu has better apps available for it, don't even bother bringing up any comparison. Linux and Ubuntu workstations are good for 2 groups of users IMO - code monkeys that just need a text editor and a command line, and people that do nothing but use web apps. Now, one can argue that web apps are the future, but for the time being there are too many users that still require industry standard, time tested, rich client applications. If ubuntu is setting out to be the shiniest, eye candy laden Facebook client around - well ok, good luck to you
  • ozid, on 07/23/2008, -7/+9He could do it if he was more innovative. He definitely has the capital, at least.

    I'm tired of Gnome and KDE. Make something new.
    • jokher, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4http://www.enlightenment.org/
      • rpgmaker, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8Enlightenment is far from 'new'...
      • tnoy, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Too bad enlightenment is a piece of *****.
    • KAMiKAZOW, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3> He could do it if he was more innovative. He definitely has the capital

      Yeah, he does but sadly he doesn't use it that much. Cannonical employs too few developers. Red Hat and Novell's Linux branch each employ roughly 10 times as many developers as Cannonical. (I read somewhere that Novell and Red Hat both about 500 Linux developers, while Cannonical has only about 50.)
      • innovati, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4the more you add the slower things go - Ubuntu has been born, raised and surpassed Redhat and Suse in only a fraction of the time because the team is manageable and fast-working.

        Bloated teams lead to bloated product.
      • KAMiKAZOW, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2According to your logic, the Linux kernel has to suck, because a huge number of people work on it. A large fraction of them are paid by Novell and Red Hat, btw.
        Cannonical employs less than 10 kernel developers. See http://blog.phunnypharm.org/2008/07/canonical-and- ...

        GNOME is not a polished DE because Cannonical made it that way. Cannonical has too few GNOME developers to achieve that. Most GNOME work is done by Sun (most of the initial GNOME 2.x polishing was driven by Sun), Red Hat, and Novell.
        The situation is even worse when you look at the state of KDE in (K)Ubuntu. My office PC runs Ubuntu with KDE (GNOME is installed as well). This sh*t is what I have to see almost every day: http://flickr.com/photos/19616885@N00/2535182834/
        Translations are broken, some windows are half English.
        openSUSE's KDE 3.5.x is wonderful in comparison but that's no suprise because there are about 20 people working on openSUSE's KDE while Cannonical only has 1 or 2.
        Having tried many Linux distributions, I can't say that Ubuntu surpassed the other mainstream distributions. I'd say that when you use GNOME Ubuntu, Fedora, and openSUSE are more or less equal in quality. If by "surpassed" you mean market share than you are right about the end users, but IMHO that's more due its free ShipIt service. In corporate environment Ubuntu is almost non-existent. Red Hat, Novell, and plain Debian are dominant there.
  • PueSi, on 07/23/2008, -18/+42Well good luck with that because right now Ubuntu looks really really bad, the fonts, the space empty spaces, everythinh looks amateurish and wrong. They should hire real designers for the GUI.
    • gandhii, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1check out ubuntustudio.org

      If you think that is bad design... then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and I'll leave you to your brushed metal texture
      • PueSi, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6It looks the same but black, the fonts still suck, there's too much wasted space. I don't like brushed metal either.
      • danwgre, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Wow... I'm underwhelmed.
      • vexadril, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Apple dropped Brushed Metal in Leopard. There's not a single brushed metal window to be found anywhere in the OS or its applications.

        You might as well criticize Apple for "having one mouse button" or "using PPC processors instead of x86."

        Update your arguments, then come back later.
      • barthrh, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1You're right, that is a really good example of UI design. Low contrast, hard to differentiate elements. GothUI!

        That was the point of your link, wasn't it?
    • life036, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Agreed. Why do the fonts always look like ***** on linux distros? I know I can change them if I want, but nothing seems to look right. Always looks amateurish to me as well...
    • mrblue182, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4To me, brushed metal is the single ugliest GUI decision. Apple's don't look pretty to me. However, my ubuntu looks amazing.
      • vexadril, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3Then you'll be happy to know there hasn't been a single Brushed Metal window anywhere in the Mac OS or its applications since October 2007 (when Leopard was released). Get with the times, man.


      • se1zure, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5It is obvious you are speaking out of your ass. If you truly think ubuntu has a more polished UI than Leopard then you are probably the same person who thinks pt cruisers are mad tyte.
    • UKsHaDoW, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Try making the fonts smaller on linux. The buttons get compacted, and the windows look more compacted.

      Standard linux disto's make everything look big. and childish, with huge OK/Cancel buttons. Changing the font makes everything look a lot less HUGE, and more pro.

      The proportions just look wrong.
    • innovati, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2dude, my dream job is to be a UI/graphic designer for Canonical and I won't let you down if I get in there :P
      • Fergy, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3So how many themes have you made for Ubuntu? Or do you think getting the job is like winning the lottery?
  • Airjuggernaut, on 07/23/2008, -9/+4Oh no he didn't.....
  • wonderchemist, on 07/23/2008, -11/+4So, 2010: Year of Linux on the Desktop?
  • electricwaffles, on 07/23/2008, -2/+78electricwaffles founder: We can surpass MrBabyMan in two years
    • Cenobite, on 07/23/2008, -1/+28The problem is standards: you have them.
    • Commodore84, on 07/23/2008, -0/+10HAHA. Dugg for a witty comment. Haven't seen too many of those in these parts recently.
  • Petrarch1603, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7I saw Mark give a speech in Portland on Monday. It was excellent to see him talk about Ubuntu and spaceflight
  • Br3ach, on 07/23/2008, -1/+31If anyone could live up to that kind of statement, Ubuntu could I think
    • Killerah, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Except that their color scheme is the ugliest one of all the linux distros of it's caliber.

      Ubuntu is great (I'm actually typing this from Ubuntu), and they continue to churn out great releases so I have faith in them that they can do this too. But still they've got to change the color scheme, brown just doesn't do it for me.
  • euroh, on 07/23/2008, -15/+1When Ubuntu has branded monitors, phones, mp3 players, laptops, desktops, etc. PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING TANGIBLE we can talk. They're going to have a busy two years if they think this is even remotely possible.
    • ileftfark, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Um, they make an Operating System. Why are you babbling about hardware?
  • usergentoo, on 07/23/2008, -19/+11It seems the Apple morons are out and about, and if you ask me most of them are a bunch of sissy cry babies that need that ass wiped a few times.
    • daPhoenix, on 07/23/2008, -7/+4Posting on Digg while waiting for Gentoo to compile one or the other again?

      Perhaps by 2020 you'll actually get the USE flags right and you can USE something.
      • specialbuddy1, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2That's hilarious. Everyone talked about Gentoo when I was in college so I used it for a while and had to install things at night so that I could use them in the morning. Gentoo is a pain in the ass.
    • MacParrot, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1And you're just the asswipe to do it!
    • thedogfatherx, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4Hahah...you made me laugh out loud. Ahhhhh good stuff good stuff.
    • usergentoo, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3If your ever in the Chattanooga area look me up we can go get something to eat drink a few beers and me and my brothers can take turns with a baseball bat bashing your mac. It will be fun come on and we'll have a blast or at least I will.
      • MtheoryX, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Uh-oh, internet tough guy is on the prowl.
      • thedogfatherx, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1@MtheoryX

        Those are usually the dorks who are the biggest pussies ever away from the computer. Some reason they think they can be assholes and talk ***** out their worthless mouth when on websites and forums. They are pretty much losers all around.
  • BradOFarrell, on 07/23/2008, -14/+15You've had over 16 years to do it. But I'm sure a new distro and a few more months and it'll become mainstream. My grandma is so eager to customize her GUI.
    • ileftfark, on 07/23/2008, -0/+12Ubuntu debuted in late 2004. So, that's like what, 25 years?
      • ryanjanssen, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2linux in general
      • ileftfark, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7"Linux in general" was never about becoming a mainstream platform for the whole family. That's what I don't think you get. Only in the last few years has it truly aimed to become desktop-friendly.
    • Gavagai80, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7Your grandma has an easier time with linux than windows, since it simplifies basics like installing stuff. It's the semi-competent people who know enough to get themselves in trouble and to want specific windows things who can't handle linux.
      • innovati, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2so very true. your grandma doesn't know 'the windows ways' of doing things, she just uses what she's been shown. It doesn't make sense to her so for her it's just memorization and reading.

        To you, you have part of Windows figured out, but not all because you can't see the inside......linux baffles you because it's POSIX (like everything but windows) and uses standards, and you don't know them.

        If you were a hardcore *computer* user and not just a 'windows user' you'd know unix, and coming from the unix-world linux and mac are paradise.
      • BradOFarrell, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1SUDO STFU. When did I say I used Windows? ***** Windows. I use OS X. I'm just saying, there are more factors to an OS becoming "mainstream" than how efficient it is or how open it is or how cheap it is or whatever. There's also a big "giving a *****" factor, which the 'mainstream' users don't. They will use the operating system that their computer comes with because they don't even know what an operating system is. Just like how most of us will keep buying Kraft cheese, it doesn't matter how much cheese connoisseurs jump up and down, the "giving a *****" factor is pretty hard to change.
  • ZakNicola, on 07/23/2008, -10/+3how much longer will people continue to buy computers when you cant get everything on the net for free.
    • ileftfark, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6They're giving out free computers on the net now?
    • tnoy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9Exactly. I downloaded a new video card yesterday.
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9Still looking for a torrent link to the new Intel chips...
    • ScottyDelicious, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7@tnoy: I just downloaded a new video card too. I am using it to download pr0n and steal music like twice as tall because it has a built in TIT-7200 magnetoptical drive and a 333 picklehertz short bus.
    • Atomic1fire, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1You still need to buy the hardware
      and not every free thing is compatible with every paid thing
      so people actually paying for stuff often have it better off then the users getting stuff free, but thats not always the case such as in the case of pirates( with jailtime and overly harsh punishments as an added bonus) and linux users (but there are program issues but as far as browsing and email linux is fine)
  • RomeyRome, on 07/23/2008, -8/+3pfft
    • Pusod, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Did you just fart?
      • RomeyRome, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1You wouldn't have know if your face wasn't so tightly mounted in my ass.
  • wildsnake, on 07/23/2008, -1/+19Go for it. Actions speak louder than words
    • zxof, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4yip, they need to stop talking about it and just do it, show us something just like what Google did!

      Remember "mylivesearch", where's that "better than google" thing?
      Wikipedia founder planned search engine to rival google?
      Creative claimed their product as an "ipod killer"?

  • bodycoach2, on 07/23/2008, -5/+10This will happen. With older computers being kept in use with Ubuntu/Xubuntu, it will pass OS X in numbers. Free Geek, ACCRC, and other such organizations are getting Linux desktops out at an ever-growing rate. As the numbers grow, popular software will be made available for Linux.

    Linux, OSX, and Windows isn't what people care about - it's the applications they want. As long as the applications are available and work on a system, the user will barely notice what's under them.
    • 4NDr01D, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4just remember Open Source did not invent the iPhone
      • bodycoach2, on 07/24/2008, -4/+3Actually, FreeBSD is the base of OS X, and the iPhone OS is a version of OS X, so....you're WRONG.
      • life036, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Actually, the FreeBSD creators are lifeforms based on carbon, and that means FreeBSD came from carbon, so... you're WRONG.
      • Atomic1fire, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1actually the iphone is based off osx
        which is based off some obscure open source OS or something if I understand right
  • lewhich, on 07/23/2008, -7/+7I wonder where Apple will be in two years!
    • MtheoryX, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9I think they'll still be in Cupertino.
    • hellahyphy, on 07/24/2008, -6/+1If I had some money I would invest in apple stock. ASAP!

  • yhan, on 07/23/2008, -10/+30No we can't, GTK as a toolkit is just not good enough anymore, the bigger issue though is that on average the GNOME, UBUNTU developer has the aesthetic sensibility of a stone.
  • Evildudetx, on 07/23/2008, -16/+4Sorry, but pretty doesn't cut it. Linux will still remain a hobbiest OS until applications run natively and not in some BS emulator.

    • Shmock, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Are you retarded?
      Seriously?

      There are hundreds of linux apps, and Wine Is Not an Emulator.
      • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -4/+3There are hundreds of linux apps, but not many good ones. I love linux, but you have to be really stupid to think that Kino, the GIMP, and KompoZer can be used over Sony Vegas, Photoshop, and Dreamweaver in a professional commercial environment.
      • FolkTheory, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4actually they can
  • Hax0rJimDuggan, on 07/23/2008, -21/+3Ubuntu is a big fat turd. Ubuntu is nothing but a little Digg boys wet dream.
  • flibblesan, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6It's all good saying that Ubuntu will be more beautiful, but in reality they need to make efforts to unify the desktop. There is a worrying problem with Linux desktops that so many things look out of place. There are supposed guidelines for Gnome applications, for example, but it seems that some developers ignore them and end up with absolutely awful looking applications. Apple has it spot on with the human interface guidelines. It would be perfect if Linux developers could all stick to one set of guidelines and build applications which are intuitive, functional and elegant.
    • Kingoftherings, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2The command line isn't good enough for you?
      • flibblesan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Good enough for me, but not for the average desktop user which Mr Shuttleworth wants to temp into using Ubuntu.
    • gandhii, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2This doesn't happen in windows and OSX? It seems to be the nature of programmers with limited time taking shortcuts.. or just not having design skills or interest. I use Macs and Windows at work.. and mostly ubuntustudio, mythbuntu at home. I can think of just as many apps on all these systems that don't visually mesh well with their OS.
      It is not anything new.. that is for sure.
      • se1zure, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1it is increadibly increadibly rare to find a piece of software for oxs that is not unified with the rest of the interface. Cocoas guibuilder makes it difficult to mess up in fact.
      • flibblesan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1It's not anything new, I agree. But the problem is more prevalent on Linux than other operating systems. I would say this was caused by having so many people working on a single project, each with different views and ideas. At least with Mac OS X applications, the developers make an effort to stick to the guidelines and make the applications look and feel like Mac applications. Some Linux apps feel like they just don't 'belong'
  • tomarocco, on 07/23/2008, -11/+18...and South Africa will control the Free World.
    • Vesper73, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4T'was definitely good for a chukle! Cheers!
  • designerutah, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7Go for it, but don't expect to accomplish much except making Ubuntu prettier. It's not the prettiness alone that makes OS X and Apple what it is today. It's the combination of hardware, OS, software, and overall experience that makes Apple lovers so fiercely pro-Apple. Until Ubuntu offers something better as an overall experience, it won't be really challenging Apple.
  • socketman, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Helps that it is free. Now if they could somehow make direct X and windows apps work without having to spend 2 hours tweaking things in wine, the sky is the limit and they'll bypass windows in no time at all
    • Tribis, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1If you want to run Windows applications wouldn't it make more sense to just simply run Windows? There is no triumph in making Ubuntu into a competing OS if all its good applications are Windows applications.
      • socketman, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I do. I am just saying, the only reason I am using windows is because 95% of the applications made, are made to work on windows.
        If I could play all my games on Linux, I'd switch right now.
    • innovati, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2funny, if I recall I used ot have to install DirectX on windows before 'windows games' would run on it. So I guess they didn't run on windows out-of-the-box anyway.

      Whatever happened to OpenGL, you know, that thing microsoft was involved in? oh wait, they left it because they are stupid.
      • westyvw, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1OpenGL is of no interest to MS due to the open nature of it. Too bad, directx has nothing over OpenGL, they are both effective.
  • ajb2015, on 07/23/2008, -7/+11can you make it so i don't have to use terminal to install stuff? kthx
    • waspbr, on 07/23/2008, -3/+20yes, it's called synaptic
      • ajb2015, on 07/23/2008, -12/+5still, not quite as straight forward as a mac, or even windows.
      • skoruppa, on 07/23/2008, -1/+16Its called .deb package. Duble click and you have program... easier than on windows...

        or apt:url - only one click in firefox. Or Ad/Remove... or.. or..
      • OneAndOnlySnob, on 07/23/2008, -2/+11ajb2015: "still, not quite as straight forward as a mac, or even windows."

        I disagree. Having applications vetted and updated automatically is very nice and I wouldn't go back.
      • waspbr, on 07/24/2008, -0/+11there's also the add/remove applications menu... how much more straight forward do you wanna get?
      • renegadeafk, on 07/24/2008, -5/+7Yeah but not every application is in a deb package or in the repos, compiling from source is annoying.
      • skoruppa, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Yeah, and try to compile something on windows. This is annoying...
    • Kingoftherings, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6O GOD WHAT IS APT-GET
      I'M NOT GOOD WITH COMPUTERS.
      • life036, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2O GOD, APT-GET IS INVOKED FROM THE TERMINAL
      • terminal157, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2That kind of attitude holds linux back.
      • Kingoftherings, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3O GOD NOT THE TERMINAL
    • mrblue182, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Unless you like using the terminal, you only have to use it as much as you edit registries in windows.
      • se1zure, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1not true. I had to use it to get my video card drivers to work properly.
      • Frostek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2So... once then?
  • fredmv, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6I see Mark's vision as completely feasible. Ubuntu market share has been growing at a steady and rapid pace. Who's to say that, given the time and effort, that Ubuntu won't surpass Apple? Really: what can't Ubuntu do that OS X can do? Other than the fact that it's 100% free? Once more eye candy is in place (and obviously UI/usability improvements across WMs), I presume even a lot of Mac fanboys will be won over by Ubuntu.
    • whitlock, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3- what can't Ubuntu do that OS X can do?

      Valid point, though to make Ubuntu do what OS X or Windows can do you have to know more than the basic user at this time. Until the day that Ubuntu, or any Linux distribution, can run out of the box and the user can intuitively install any application, use any hardware they want, and not understand a thing about the terminal you will not see Linux as a viable alternative to OS X or Windows.

      Sure you could use the grandma analogy but give grandma a new printer without any Linux drivers included and tell her to install it. Unless the drivers are based on an older set (like HP) she is going to go mad and call you for help. Then when sound stops working in her favorite application and she tries to fix it, she will be presented with at least two different sound drivers to tweak with before she tries to change the settings in the application itself.

      Don't get me wrong; I like Ubuntu. I just don't think it will be the second coming as soon as people want it to be.
      • Frostek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Grandma would likely be equally flummoxed by diagnosing issues with Windows and OS X.
    • 4NDr01D, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3Ubuntu can't invent the iPhone

      nor can it displace markets

      nor can it uproot itunes

      nor can it save the record industry
      • absolut1983, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Now who the hell wants the record industry to be saved?
    • Vesper73, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6I'll tell you what Apple can do that Ubuntu can't. They can enforce consitant user interface design across all applications! Which is precisely why Apple utimately has so many fans. Ubuntu is a mess in this department, please confess! Only then will progress be made. ....... oh and use the force!
  • Scott2, on 07/23/2008, -10/+7major yawn.
  • colincornaby, on 07/23/2008, -11/+40My problem with Linux is they just don't get it. Instead of improving usability, they just add some new whiz bang graphics thing. Here's a hint: I don't use OS X because my icons bounce in the dock. I use it because it doesn't do things like put my control panels in two different places. I don't have a problem with the idea of Linux. A free system would be nice. But please, work on usability before the whiz bang graphics. I couldn't give a damn about wobbling windows.
    • waydee, on 07/23/2008, -10/+2Linux is a kernel.

      • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6OK, Stallman, "GNU/Linux", now shut the ***** up
      • waydee, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1That's not what I meant.

        colincornaby wrote: "My problem with Linux is they just don't get it."

        Linux is the kernel, the distribution and its component parts is the what concerns usability, appearance and function.
      • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3Yes, Linux is just a kernel, not an OS, that's the same argument that Stallman always tries to make, but the fact of the matter is, it *doesn't matter*. Everyone, even Linus Torvalds, refers to the kernel and all its supporting software (including its UI like Gnome or KDE) as just "Linux". It's not technically correct, but who cares?
    • deadbaby, on 07/23/2008, -1/+13I think you're talking about the GNOME settings. I was annoyed by that too. I found out there actually is a very nice System Preferences like app that combines all the settings into one frontend but unfortunately it's hidden by default. If you edit your menus in Ubuntu you can enable it. I think it's called GNOME Control Center or some such thing. Why it's not on by default is a mystery to me. I am still, to this day, confused by Prefs vs. Admin menus. I can't remember what's where.
      • MtheoryX, on 07/24/2008, -3/+7Ah, I see. Yes, my grandmother would totally understand that on her own. I see the year of the linux desktop right over the horizon.

        /sarcasm
    • daftman, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7Admin menu require root
      Preference does not requires root and is only applicable to your account.
      That's why they are in two different place because they are TWO different concept.
      • colincornaby, on 07/24/2008, -5/+2Why would you expect the user to remember what preferences require root and which don't? Again, if that's how Linux devs expect users to mentally organize things, they have bigger priorities than whiz bang graphics.
      • Atomic1fire, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3why would you expect the user to require rootlevel
        the most change most users will go through is wallpaper and maybe a theme/window manager or something
  • venuspcs, on 07/23/2008, -3/+10You know if I had half the time (of the Apple Fanboys) and half the programming skill (of some of you purported hard core programmers) I think I could take an open-source OS like Linux and make it into something much better than what is on the market.....so why the ***** can't 2.5 million linux programmers do it?
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/23/2008, -1/+10Because they don't have Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (or some other supervisor) breathing down their necks and cracking the whip. There's a lot to be said for the competitiveness of hierarchical decision making rather than anarchical, as long as the people on the upper end of that hierarchy know what they're doing. 2.5 million programmers all going in their own direction has not translated into the most effective or consistent OS so far.