24 hours with Ubuntu
On Wednesday morning I was on BBC Breakfast talking about Windows 7, and each time I was on air I mentioned Ubuntu, the most popular version of the Linux operating system.
So were its devoted fans pleased?
Quite the opposite, because in my second broadcast I committed an unpardonable sin.
In a rather clumsily phrased sentence - my only excuse is that it came in the middle of a rather stressful live technology demo - I suggested that Ubuntu was a minority sport only for dedicated enthusiasts.
Afterwards, one blogger transcribed my conversation with Bill Turnbull and Sian Williams:
RCJ: "There's something called 'Ubuntu' which is launched next week. It's a whole sort of little community of enthusiasts building operating systems for absolutely nothing and trying to persuade us that we don't need to be in with the big boys but actually most computer users frankly they don't want to bother with that sort of stuff they want something that's there..."
BT: "...that everyone else uses.."
RCJ: "Yes"
Now I do know - as plenty of angry messages pointed out - that Ubuntu has been around for a long time and what launches next week is an update. But I should have also made it clear that Linux is not an amateur cottage industry, but a pretty substantial affair supporting a lot of firms that market the systems and teach customers to install and use them.
So when I was contacted by one such company, Canonical, I was glad to take up their offer to try out Ubuntu. They sent over a Dell Inspiron Mini, loaded with "Karmic Koala", as Ubuntu 9.10 is nicknamed.
Now we are going to have a fuller exploration of the system on this site next week, but in the 24 hours I've had the Dell, I've gathered some early impressions.
The first is that it starts up pretty rapidly - I timed it at 40 seconds compared with the 55 seconds the top of the range Sony Vaio X takes to boot Windows 7 - and that the desktop has a pleasingly simple look to it, especially once you've replaced the offensively brown background with something more attractive.
The left hand side of the screen has a strip fulfilling the same purpose as the taskbar in Windows or the dock in Mac OS X, with quick access to key applications. You are provided with a range of open source software, from Firefox to Open Office, and can go online to the Ubuntu Software Centre to seek out other applications.
Getting connected to my home network proved reasonably simple - though I struggled to see other machines and devices on my network.
I installed a few applications - including Skype, and a social networking application called Gwibber.
But when I tried to install a free open-source audio editing program, Audacity, it appeared more complex to get hold of an Ubuntu version than the one I've used on a Mac.
I also gave up on attempting to use the music streaming service Spotify, after a warning that, as there was no Linux version, I would first need to get hold of something called Wine which allows you to run Windows apps. Too much bother...
Navigating around an unfamiliar system was fine once I'd worked out that the Ubuntu logo in the top left hand corner of the screen took me home, and for all my simple computing needs - from word processing to e-mail to web browsing - I found Ubuntu pretty satisfactory.
But, even after some help from a Canonical advisor who came and installed a few add-ons such as Flash, I struggled to work out how I would organise photos, music and video with this system.
So would I actively seek to install Ubuntu or any other Linux variant on a machine I already owned?
To be frank, no, because it would not make my computing life any simpler and more pleasurable than it is now.
But getting a small cheap netbook would be another matter entirely, and the big hope for the Linux community is that more companies will follow Dell's lead in selling computers with Ubuntu pre-installed.
Mind you, some netbook manufacturers who've already found a degree of resistance to Linux netbooks have reverted to XP and are now more likely to look at Windows 7 than anything else.
Faced with such consumer inertia it's hard to see Linux making much progress in boosting its miniscule market share. But remember, the future of computing is mobile - and in that new market for operating systems everything is still to play for.
Risking another pasting from its supporters, I'll predict that Ubuntu will remain a very niche product - but it's Google's Android which could bring open-source to the mass consumer market.
Comments
I am glad, for the sake of balance, that at least one Linux distro is getting some attention. However this should be just a start, and more and more "obscure" technologies should be focused on in the BBC's technology blog. It makes a nice change from Apple, Twitter and Twittering about Apple!
Complain about this comment
Linux has a fanatical anti-Microsoft following, but they can't actually make their product work any better. Compared to mature consumer operating systems like Windows there are too many shortcomings, too many things that don't 'just work.'
Ask any Linux power-user how to do something and often the first thing they'll do is point you to the command line. This isn't 1994!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Interesting article Rory.
I think open source Linux operating systems are on the march, and Microsoft does see them as a threat. Where was Firefox 5 years ago? Today Mozilla's Firefox browser has 23.75% of the recorded usage share of web browsers as of September 2009.
Can you imagine if Ubuntu, Moblin or Linux Puppy make that kind of rapid progress in the operating system market?
".....I would first need to get hold of something called Wine which allows you to run Windows apps. Too much bother....."
Too much bother? Nonsense :) Wine is only a 10MB download. How much time does it take to install an antivirus program, malware remover, firewall on Windows systems? With Linux you are pretty much virus free as most hackers target Windows based systems. In the long run Linux can save you hours in downtime due to virus scares, trojan horses etc.
"....To be frank, no, because it would not make my computing life any simpler and more pleasurable than it is now...."
I appreciate your honesty, I still run Windows XP on some systems because quite frankly I'm used to that OS, but it's not the best out there for sure.
".....But getting a small cheap netbook would be another matter entirely, and the big hope for the Linux community is that more companies will follow Dell's lead in selling computers with Ubuntu pre-installed...."
Yes, eight years ago a typical laptop would have cost over a thousand pounds. Here in 2009 cheap laptops can now be purchased for under 200 pounds, with atom processors, 160GB hard drives and solid specifications to please all but the hardest of 3D gamers. Prices are going ever lower, and we may soon see a sub 100 pound netbook in the next few years. When that happens Ubuntu, Moblin et al will take off big time.
Regarding windows 7 I hope that first adopters of Windows 7 won't suffer as their early Vista brethren did. I watched many of my friends grapple with the bugs and crashes that arose from a new installation of Vista in 2007.
Complain about this comment
Linux continues to dominate the server sector, as it has for many years. Not *all* of the Linux community is all that interested in whether it makes it to the desktop any time soon :)
Complain about this comment
Rory, you're a brave man, but this is part of your job.
I'm a PC user, mainly as I'm a developer in all products MS. It's what keeps the roof over my head.
I appreciate that there are other OS's yadda yadda yadda, but what a lot of non PC users have to appreciate is that, yes, Ubuntu / Mac etc may be very nice, but if you spend 9-5 every day in a PC environment, then it makes sense to do the same at home, familiarity is the key to any OS. Hence why MS don't do too radical a change, as their users wouldn't like it.
Apple is a hardware company, that licenses OS. MS is a company that provides OSs / software to hardware companies.
Dell etc chose not to try to sell too many Ubuntu based systems, as the market share is tiny, and it's easier to sell a pc to a non linux favoured person. Mac users, will always buy Mac... hey, I'm tempted to, as they look good in the living room (if only it had dlna)... etc.. (brother is a graphic designer, only uses Mac's and they are nice bits of kit, but then so is my Vaio)
If people want Linux etc, they already know about it and will go and buy a pc, format etc and install.
Mum's and Dad's buying home pc's will get whatever suits them, their childs schools etc. MS was first to market, and thats how it goes sometimes. Horses for courses etc
But in the undeveloped world, if google can make Android a small foot print etc, and get Intel to install it on the One laptop per child pc's then in a generation we may see change.
Nice column generally.
Td
Complain about this comment
I like the idea of a linux based OS on my desktop but I keep running into the problem of complexity.
When you intal ubunto or similar, working out what hard discs are which is complex, and if you have more than one disc on the system, working out mount points and so on would be beyond what most people would want to do.
As I have mentioned before, installing software that is not already in an available package is laborious and often unsuccessful, unless you are not just familiar with the system, but fairly into heavy duty computing and trolling your way through help forums. And these forums, although having some very helpful people, are also well populated by user who treat you as a fool and sneer at you if you don't understand how the command line side of Linux works.
It is a pity really. Linux holds a lot of promise, but unless the community can get its head round the fact that most people want to be able to do most things with a single click, and really are not interested in the inner workings of the beast, then it will not compete.
MS and Apple, love or hate their business practices, have always got one thing right - the user interface and the basic system management.
When Linux becomes as easy to use as those, then it will really pack a punch.
Complain about this comment
I'm simply amazed. Not only do I see one of those precious few posts without any mention of some fruit-become-computer/phone-giant or some chirping-sounding messaging site or the done-to-death "oh how much vista sucks, m$ simply must do better" mantra, but it actually says that some piece of software that is not shoved down our throats by a corporation is better than previously thought. Sure, it would have been nice if our brave reporter had bothered to actually try to use it before giving it thumbs down in the first place, but i guess late apology > nothing
In unrelated news, Android is not open-source. It's mostly a kinda-open spinoff of open-source. And i don't think free software (as in free thinking) will remain "a very niche product", because it evolves much faster than corporate software, to the point it will at least catch up as functionality. That it will probably not overtake well-marketed bad software, that's another story
Complain about this comment
I've been using Ubuntu on my main computer for a few months now and am very happy with it. It does everything XP did (with one exception, which I'll come back to). I don't necessarily think it's any more difficult than Windows, just different - no more difficult than getting a new car where things are laid out just a little differently.
As for installing Audacity and Flash; I'm not sure why you found this so difficult....
There is a myth that Ubuntu is all typing lines of code in a terminal window - most things can be done with point & click inside GUIs - using the terminal is excellent for getting diagnostic results if something has gone wrong. It is little different to running the command prompt in Windows. In the same way few average Windows users ever have to delve into the registry, it's not often the terminal is needed.
There are plenty of programmes that will organise your music, videos and pictures; some are pre-installed and some you can download and install.
The one programme I did miss was iTunes - not as a music library but to actually manage my iPod, so I do run XP inside Virtualbox just for my iPod.
One other thing worth mentioning is that Ubuntu/Linux can often give older computers, that would struggle with new Windows, a new lease of life as they are quite happy with less powerful machines.
As I often tell people who don't know what Linux is - most of the Internet runs on Linux servers and Google and Amazons infrastructure sits on Linux too.
Linux market share will probably remain small but it's rattled Microsoft in the past and yes, they must be worried about the forthcoming Google OS.
Complain about this comment
I think what you miss Rory, is the move to Software in the cloud and software as a service. When this starts to hit the mainstream (as it already is in some respects, such as Google Docs, Flickr etc) then the OS becomes irrelevant and the web browser becomes all encompassing. Google, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla all recognise this too.
The future of computing isn't the processing power you have under your monitor, its the web browser you run.
Complain about this comment
I had an installation of a previous version of Ubuntu - despite the *clever* alliteration of the name, I can;t remember which one. It still had the brown colour scheme which is really nasty but I did find it easy to use, until you try to look for anything resembling the wide range of sftware that is available to windows machines.
Linux users boast about how the latest versions won't succumb to any viruses but that's because it is not worth the time of the malware author to write a virus that will touch less than a percentage of computers worldwide.
The biggest and best advantage of the OS that I had was that it could be installed on removable media. What an advantage. It means that you could have a portable OS. With Memory sticks getting ever bigger could this be the niche that you are talking about? Very thin clients with the memory stick as the boot drive?
Interesting though...
Complain about this comment
Rory - you spent 24 hours with a different OS and didn't like it. Well, that's OK! When I first tried Ubuntu (around v6 or 7, I don't quite recall), the default GUI, Gnome, disgusted me too and it put me off for some time. I went back from v8.04 and am now using v9.04. In response to "especially once you've replaced the offensively brown background with something more attractive", well yeah, most people change the rather horrible "bliss" of XP with something more attractive when they first use the system. Also, since I've been really using Ubuntu, the default theme is brown, but they've made their default backgrounds much nicer.
For those considering the change to Linux from Windows, please, read this webpage:- http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
Entitled "Linux is not windows", it provides an excellent and un-bais article on the two operating systems.
Personally, I was brought up on computers that you HAD to use the command line, Commodore 64, Spectrum and so on, so perhaps my mind-set is different to those who are bottle-fed on Windows only, maybe that's why I am more open to firing up Konsole, banging in a command and what not?
However, I do feel that Ubuntu has gotten rid of a lot of this; spend more time with it and treat it with some respect, it has earned it. Approach with an open mind, don't be afraid Rory, it might not bite you!
Ultimately, the linux community DO NOT CARE if you choose Linux or not; it's not out to take over the world, unlike Microsoft ;)
Oh, and finally (sorry, I will be quiet in a moment!), I only use Ubuntu on one of my 10 computers in my home network, the rest barring one, are OpenSuse 11.0.
Complain about this comment
@Snaggers make a great point, the key is familiarity to any system and if you use Windows everyday at work then getting one for the home is only natural.
It would be interesting to see what Rory would say about Ubuntu if he used it for a 2-3 weeks exclusively. The problem with reviewing any new system is that you can't comment immediately. It is perfectly natural to feel lost with a system, grumble about updates for the first few days..hurrah at a newly found shortcut.
The challenge for Ubuntu is always going to be the wider domain of software..companies will never focus their development on Linux OS' simply because the market share is not there which inevitably creates a vicious circle
Complain about this comment
Oh golly, I knew there was something else that I forgot to add before clicking post ... for server use, there's nothing at all that comes near linux/unix ... the majority of the world uses it!
My, something else - real sorry guys! - to comment #2
"Ask any Linux power-user how to do something and often the first thing they'll do is point you to the command line. This isn't 1994!"
No, you're right, but you used the term 'power-user' .. ok, ask a normal person and I am sure they'll give you point & click instructions; besides, the konsole is VERY powerful unlike is CMD counterpart and can reveal a heck of a lot of information and fault-finding diagnostics (again, unlike the CMD counterpart).
Ok, seeing as I'm re-posting anyway, I shall also add that the linux desktops are so much more configurable than Windows - this is something else which is a HUGE bonus, Linux makes it more personal, Microsoft make it so hard that without 3rd party software (additional cost too IIRC), you can only change very small features of explorer - try making the application task bar (semi) transparent in XP or W7, or try to personalise it beyond this, re-sizing the "K" menu horizontally and vertically to suit your tastes. Do that with the Start menu (which actually reads if you hover your mouse over it "click here to begin" - hence the jokes about having to click start to shut down).
Gah, things "just don't work" ... this is reasonably true but with Mono (.net for linux) and WINE, things are improving all the time - it's not happening as quick as it would because the guys who do the work DO IT FOR THE LOVE, not the money.
OK, I really am going to be quiet now. Have a nice day all!
Complain about this comment
To #2
Command line isn't necessary most of the time. While it might not seem modern, an administrator (or power-user) will likely want to use command line, because with it they can rapidly set up multiple computers with one script they can leave running, as opposed to going into a bunch of graphical menus they've seen dozens of times before repeatedly.
While it might seem a bit 80's, it is faster than quite a lot of graphical systems. And with it I can easily troubleshoot a problem with for instance a USB stick, since I can get an exact problem, rather than "A problem occurred during Hardware installation", which tells me something I likely already know.
And to the original blog, I wonder why you couldn't find Audacity in the repositories/Software center.
Complain about this comment
Linux is on the march and has been for years. Just look at Red Hat. Making sizable in-roads into the Enterprise web server market. Be very careful when using the term "Linux". It may still have a small share of the desktop market, but it has been a big player on the server market for a long time now.
If you could spare a little more time to explore Ubuntu (I find Google helps enormously), you would find it is in fact a very simple operating system to use. Installing Spotify and organising photos, music, etc. is really easy, you just need to look for help. Someone, somewhere has always done it before. That's the beauty of Linux.
Complain about this comment
very pleased to see you using Ubuntu!
The software is only half of the Ubuntu experience. It is community developed software and the community is ready to help you with it. Have a look in the software centre and install xchat-gnome. This will turn up in the internet category and when you launch it you will be taken to the Ubuntu UK IRC chat room where there are a bunch of folk willing to help you with any questions you may have.
Complain about this comment
As for the issues in the article, Audacity is in the Software Centre, should be easy to install. If you do an update you should find that the Gwibber avatars are now fixed (bugs happen in pre-release software)
Complain about this comment
Click on Applications -> Ubuntu Software Center, type in Audacity, click Install. Done!
Complain about this comment
Any first try of a new/different OS will inevitably be tempered by the fact that we've all been using Windows for 10 plus years.
I use XP at work, Ubuntu at home and look after my two son's XP machines - no probs switching between them.
My wife's attitude to Ubuntu was refreshing - no difficulties - just 'can I email, where are our pictures, can it scan my timesheets'. Yes, yes and yes.
badger-fruit - thanks for that link - excellent article, continued that car analogy that I mentioned above.
Complain about this comment
A very well written article! I use Linux computers every day and have Ubuntu on my home computer and netbook (the latter came with it pre-installed). I think the version you used here was Netbook Remix, optimised for small screens. Essentially there isn't too much difference when it comes to Ubuntu and Windows, namely the Start button is spread over several buttons:
- Applications = All Programs
- System = Control Panel
- Places / Home = My Documents
As for managing photos, music and video - FSpot, RhythmBox and Movie Player (under 'Graphics' and 'Sound & Video') do the job quite nicely in my opinion.
I think the fact that Spotify runs under Wine is great and perhaps Wine should be installed by default in Ubuntu. And also when it comes to Adobe Flash, Adobe Air and the multimedia codecs, I do agree that there should be an easier way of doing this. But it isn't too difficult and a quick Google search usually brings a number of 'how to' guides.
Personally I cannot wait until the release of Karmic Koala next week as it is going to bring a very sexy looking desktop! I look forward to your promised blog post (or perhaps even news article!) about it next week. Just make sure if you install it on a notebook or desktop to grab the full desktop version and not just Netbook Remix!
Complain about this comment
I made the move from PCs to Macs about five years ago and simply can't see myself making the return trip any time soon. I've played with Ubuntu off and on since version 6 but - and it's a big but - Macs make the whole computing experience so easy that my willingness to get involved in configuring and all the other nonsense is not what it once was. It's a case of "Why learn to double declutch when you can fly by autopilot?"
Complain about this comment
Not all Linux distros are alike. Most come as an .iso file which can be burned to a CD. You then boot from the CD directly into the operating system, which gives you a chance to try things out and see how well it could meet your needs before clicking a button to install it to your hard drive.
It's obviously easier to install to a blank disc (or to wipe any existing Windows installation), but some will offer to repartition your hard drive for you. As far as working out partition sizes, many distros can handle that automatically.
Software installation - I use Mandriva, which has a fairly extensive software repository. Installing anything from the repository will also install any necessary dependencies (additional 'stuff' [i.e. programs, libraries etc.] needed to make it work).
Wine is in the Mandriva repos and installs without a hitch, so installing Spotify (or, indeed, a lot of Windows software) shouldn't be too much trouble - except that written in .NET - the Linux equivalent, Mono, has only caught up to .NET v2.0.
-oOo-
Generally speaking, while Linux is not yet ready for the 'newbie', if you have moderate experience of computers, and are not afraid of Googling for solutions to computer hiccups / problems (something many Windows users get very familiar with!), then Linux shouldn't pose too much of a problem. Many versions should be able to install proprietary graphics drivers plus Flash and multimedia codecs either automatically or as an option (some are reluctant to do so as they're generally not FOSS [free and open source software]). Once these are installed, it should be able to handle almost any multimedia file you throw at it. OpenOffice isn't as 'gee whizz' as Microsoft Office, but it should be more than adequate for most users. There's often a built in PDF writer, and if you're after fancy effects and eye candy, Compiz is considerably better than Aero.
I generally only need to dive into a terminal (command prompt) if installing something that isn't packaged in .rpm format, using ImageMagick to batch process images (although there is a GUI interface available), or (very rarely) doing advanced level configuration as root.
Security is excellent - not just because hardly anyone writes viruses for Linux, but because it was designed from the ground up with something akin to UAC. Applications are designed to write user data / configuration info to the user's home folder, while keeping the programs themselves locked away.
-oOo-
As a final point, perhaps it's worth mentioning that Canonical isn't just a company that uses Ubuntu, but the company responsible for funding and publishing it...
And that UI you described doesn't sound like a standard KDE or GNOME setup, so it sounds as though they've done a fair amount of customisation themselves...
Complain about this comment
Just a simple question from me:
Why spend a mere 24hours with Ubuntu, when you spend a Week with Windows?
Seems very unfair and biased.
Complain about this comment
I have been using ubuntu Jaunty Jacalope for the past couple of months, I got sick of the slowness of Vista!
When I first took the huge step of using Ubuntu instead, I didn't think I would miss the glossy, complex world of MS Vista but now I cannot wait to install Windows 7.
On installation of Ubuntu, I found everything working straight away (Something you don't get on a fresh windows install!). I got flash working on my own, I installed a couple of programs from a CD I got in a magazine and I had instant messenger and Internet (the two things I used my PC for the most).
The only problem I have had is that I cannot watch video's (such as Iplayer) in full screen.
I preordered windows 7 and I cannot wait to get home so I can put it on to my PC.
my final word is that Ubuntu is good and there is a lot of support but it still cannot touch the look, feel, and ease of use of a Windows O/S
Complain about this comment
I follow Ubuntu with interest and am continually pleased to see it getting better and better with each release.
I think it's good for people in the sort of "middle ground" of computing.
I'd never really recommend it to anyone unless they already knew a great deal about computers/technology (in which case it wouldn't take a recommendation from me...) HOWEVER... if I know that all someone wants to do is a bit of web browsing and the odd bit of word processing, then it's great.
We should all be aware of the pros and cons of all main systems ie. Windows, OS X and Linux (various variants) and realise that they all have their good and bad points.
Looking foward to having a play with the new Ubuntu :)
Complain about this comment
It is absolutely riduculous to try and give a full and fair appraisal of any operating system within 24 hours if you have never used it before.
I have been using Ubuntu for six months and am in no way a power user.
To be honest, it took me about three weeks to get familiar with the differences from Windows, but there is certainly nothing to be concerned about, and I could use it straight out of the box
I have always found the on-line forums very helpful and not at all elitist when I have had any questions or needed advice.
There is nothing I cannot do with Ubuntu that I could do with Windows including...
Stream media to my PS3
Surf Net with Firefox
Use Open Office (compatiable with MS Office and free)
Have better bling - yes the start up screen may be brown, but once you start playing there is plenty of customisation out there
Watch movies and play music
Viruses and spyware are not a problem and the Linux platform is very, very stable and quicker.
IMO it is far easier to install new software than Windows
As for the command line prompt where you can input text commands....yes it exists, but it is in no way scary. I do use it occasionally as it helps improve my own productivity.
Also.............its free (as in beer and freedom)
It costs nothing, and you are free to adapt it and improve it yourself and share with others.
I bought a new PC recently without an OS installed which cost £229. With Vista or XP installed it would have cost £314
I will never have Windows on any of my home PC's again.
Rory - come back in three weeks having spent some more time with this and I would be very suprised if you want to return to return to Windows again
Complain about this comment
Rory, I'm a little puzzled by some of your problems with Ubuntu.
Audacity is definitely in the repositories for Karmic, so I have no idea why it didn't simply appear in Ubuntu Software Centre as a possible install. (It would have appeared in the marginally-more-complex-but-only-slightly Synaptic interface, but we can't expect you to try using the "manage software" menu items in another menu ;) .)
Wine, however, definitely *is* in Ubuntu Software Centre on Karmic (I know this because I installed it only yesterday on a Karmic system by this route), so I can't see how three clicks and a password authorisation are "too much bother".
Also, whilst I have some personal issues with it, you should have noticed that on inserting media containing photos, Ubuntu asked you if you wanted to use F-Spot to manage photos... which is a fairly clear indication of a (default) option for organising, well, photos.
(Amazingly, if you typed "photo" into Ubuntu Software Centre, you'd have gotten a list of other options for managing photos if you decided you hated F-Spot...)
Similarly, there are utilities for managing your music (Rhythmbox, which is perfectly respectable in most versions of Ubuntu, and (I've not checked this yet) Banshee in Karmic) - it's under a sensible heading in the program menu, so you can't possibly have missed it.
I shall, however, put a lot of this down to "first 24 hours" issues. When I first got a Mac for work, I spent the first week or so hating OSX (vs Ubuntu), but after I got used to its foibles, I warmed to it somewhat (I even switched back to Safari from Firefox !). Similarly, you probably need a longer period of adjustment to fully overcome the subconscious feeling of wrongness you're getting... how about trying it for a week or two, and giving us another update?
Complain about this comment
Not all Linux enthusiasts are anti-Microsoft. I have run various flavours of Linux at home for about 10 years - and I love it - but my software-engineering job requires me to work almost exclusively with Microsoft products. And I don't have a problem with that - Microsoft seem to be addressing the needs of businesses and developers pretty well. I also probably would not recommend Linux for most of my friends who ask me about what they should choose.
However, the existence of Linux (and other open-source software) serves a critical purpose. It ensures that the standards and protocols used by all that under-the-hood digital communication and storage remain open and accessible to all. The entire Internet depends on two such pieces of software: DNS and BIND. If these were not in the public domain and owned by a single corporation (and their usage commanded license fees), we would have a very different Internet.
Open standards ensure that all our digital stuff is accessible to us now and in the future. For example, say you had some important documents created about 15 years ago in Microsoft Word 1.0. If Microsoft drop support for these early formats in their latest products (what if Office 2010 had no support for Word 1.0 documents?) - you might never be able to open those documents again. And because the document format is not an open standard (it is a closely-guarded secret of Microsoft), then no-one else can produce a system which can open those documents. So think 10 years from now - will you still be able to open your cherished photos and documents, whose formats are the property of a corporation?
Open standards do exist, and the small but critical mass of open-source operating systems and software (such as Linux and Firefox) should continue to ensure that the big corporations play ball, and adhere to standards. The mere existence of Firefox has already forced Microsoft to adhere to Web Standards (as Internet Explorer 6.0 famously did not!).
It should be noted that Linux is particularly strong in the commercial server market - the home-user market share is not a reflection on the commercial server market share, which is significantly larger.
So while Linux is not for the masses, it's existence will ensure that hardware manufacturers make systems which won't tie our stuff into specific vendors. It's all about CHOICE.
Complain about this comment
But when I tried to install a free open-source audio editing program, Audacity, it appeared more complex to get hold of an Ubuntu version than the one I've used on a Mac.
I'd love to know the approach you took. Did you try going directly to the Audacity web site to download something, or did you use the built-in application manager?
If you did the former, you've fallen into one of the most common traps that catch people conditioned to the failures of Windows and MacOS; downloading binaries from some random website is a horrible way to install software. In the free software world we have a better way, you get to browse available packages right on your system, then install them in a uniform manner from a cryptographically authenticated source, and be certain that they've been tested and integrated so that they work well on your particular distribution. There really is no contest between the two approaches, but if you try to follow your old habits on a new system, you will inevitably find that they're not a comfortable fit.
Complain about this comment
I bought a new Dell laptop in January. I didn't want Vista, having heard the scare stories, but the only XP ones they offered had a lower spec than I wanted. I toyed with the idea of getting an Ubuntu pre-installed one, but eventually decided to just go for Vista.
A few weeks ago, I started getting told updates couldn't be downloaded. After a LOT of Googling, I eventually found what the error code I (sometimes) got meant, and tried to find a solution that didn't involve reinstallation. None of them worked, so I just had to go for the reinstall. Ever since, there have been a variety of niggling problems and it has been very slow, so I decided to try a dual-boot of Ubuntu.
Installation was far easier and swifter than Vista's reinstall. When I realised my wireless card wasn't working, I thought I was in for a big struggle, but a quick trip to the Ubuntu forums and I had a script and instructions that had me going in no time. Flash initially seemed troublesome, as I thought I was going to have to dig out my UNIX books from uni to relearn gunzip etc and do it all from scratch, but again, a quick trip tot he Ubuntu forum and I had instructions for getting it done automatically. Ever since, I've only used Vista when I need to use iTunes or when something occasionally just refuses to work without Windows. That might sound pointless, but it's just so fast compared to Vista, and there are never any situations where the CPU starts churning away and stops you doing anything.
Okay, so installing things is slightly more onerous than in Windows, but at the same time, you never have to bother restarting just because you've installed something new, something I hate doing on Vista due to how long it takes to completely boot up. Oh, and you know how Vista keeps repeatedly asking you if you're sure you want to install something, even though you're clearly an administrator user? None of that rubbish in Ubuntu. I'll have to give Wine a spin next and see if that stops any need for Windows completely.
Just think how much money would be saved from the public purse if all central and local government systems used Ubuntu, OpenOffice.org, Google Docs, Firefox, Thunderbird etc, instead of paying for Windows and MS Office licences...
Complain about this comment
Hmm, me again! Sorry, I can't keep away lol!
So I was reading the Ubuntu Forums as this blog is mentioned on there in their 'cafe' and someone's posted a rather interesting links but one in particular (page 2), they link to the netstats page for the news.bbc.co.uk domain:-
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=news.bbc.co.uk
"http://news.bbc.co.uk was running Apache on Linux when last queried at 19-Oct-2009 08:43:14 GMT"
Now, please excuse me why I lol all the way home ... ;)
Seriously, Rory, I tried Linux once many moons ago, I'd re-installed XP within 48 hours as it was so different, I didn't understand it! Where was C: ? What's /? Who's root and why is "he" so important?! But after I gave it some serious time, I am now very happy with it.
I challenge you to work on your nice new Ubuntu laptop ALL WEEK and be a real user of it, come, join the Ubuntu forums, ask real life questions and see the kinds of responses you actually get, not what someone else told you to expect; plus, you might even learn something in the process.
http://ubuntuforums.org/
"Ubuntu - Linux for Human Beings", if I read their marketing right ;)
Complain about this comment
i have been using ubuntu for 3 months, since finally losing patience with windows xp. i would have to say that i have never had so much help from an online community before.
using computers should be fun, linux definitely is. if Rory is too old to learn any new tricks perhaps he should let his kids have a go with it.
wine is installed in ubuntu by default by the way.
Complain about this comment
Before I put any comments, let us be clear about some fundamentals issues before comparing Windows and Linux. If I have spent about 10 years with Windows environment, whereas only one week or so with Linux, my comments would be biased as the effort spend on learning the two is absolutely unbalanced.
I spend money on Windows and very soon a new version is released, I have to spend again. I purchased legal copy of DOS 6.22 way back in 1994 or so. Soon Windows was released. I realised that as an individual I shall never be able to cope up with this race. Result was trial versions, pirated copies etc.
An associated issue is of viruses and anti virus. I kept wasting time and money. Ultimately, I had to settle with some free antivirus like AVast and others. But the antivirus has never been able to give me comfortable computing. Never sure whether my system was clean or infected.
Start adding the cost of other softwares - Microsoft office, Corel Draw or photo shop for graphics, Nero for CD burning, etc, the list is a long one. Spending money on all these unless I am using these for commercial purposes, was a herculean task. Even if I purchase them, how to remain updated with all the new versions! More and more money in required.
By this time I have already spent about eight months with Linux (starting with Ubuntu 8.10, 9.04 and now 9.10). To a limited extent, I tried other flavours also like Fedora 11, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 as well. I have put in lot of efforts in using Ubuntu 9.04 Server edition as well.
By now I find the following advantages with Ubuntu (9.04 and 9.10 as compared to Windows XP:-
1. No cost for operating system.
2. All updates free of cost.
3. OpenOffice is free and compatible with Microsoft Office. OpenOffice is free.
4. Almost all additional packages in Linux are free.
5. Free CD Burning software.
6. Free graphics image editor.
7. In general the hardware printers, scanners etc got recognised quickly. Very little time was spent on installing the hardware.
8. Free MySQL database server.
9. Free Apache WebServer.
10. I can do almost everything in Ubuntu that could do in Windows.
11. The is much more . . . . . the list would go on.
12. Most important, No viruses, therefore no antivirus required. The system therefore operates with full resources in terms of CPU time and RAM. This means no slowing down of system due to virus/antivirus!
Despite, initial difficulties, I felt highly comfortable with Linux (Ubuntu 9.04 and Now 9.10). I still use Windows when I am stuck looking for solution to some typical problem.
I scan the pen drives in Linux for virus. If I copy only one file on a pen drive from a Windows system and see its directory on Ubuntu, I generally find more files in the pen drive. Additional files are Virus files. Deleting these files means cleaning the virus. As simple as that! All this is for a laiman, technical persons need more discussions on technical grounds.
I am very happy with Linux (Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10) and I am grateful to the Ubuntu community.
Complain about this comment
I recently installed Ubuntu on my little Acer netbook, because it looked easier to do things with than the version of Linux that came pre-installed. I used Unix desktops at work in the early 90s before Windows 95 came along but it's been a while.
To me it is a delight to use something other than Windows (XP at work, Vista at home, Windows Mobile on the phone) and that if you follow the philosophy and install the pre-checked software in the repositories it is easy and works well. Rory mentions not being bothered to install WINE to run Spotify... well it was pretty trivial to do (and is Spotify's own suggestion) and I now have Spotify, Evernote and a few other Windows favourites on my lightweight computer.
Why? Well it doesn't cost anything for a start, and it is a bit different... it seems ideal for my 512Mb netbook and the more consumer use there is of "Linux for humans" so the support and tools will become less geeky and more widely adopted. And it creates competition and alternatives, if nothing else driving the cost of Windows down to consumers.
Complain about this comment
Ubuntu is ok, ive tried it on my netbook, but a few things didn't work and i had to go back to Windows.
I think its ok for such devices, i dont need Windows power or compatibility on a netbook, but its no good (for me) as a desktop OS. For a start i use my PC as an HTPC with Blu-ray capability. Linux Blu-ray is a no go really. Its possible in a round about sort of way, but you cant just put in a disc and have it play immediately.
Gaming is still a long way behind windows as well.
Sure there is Wine, but why fake it? You may as well just use real Windows and save yourself the bother.
For me Linux is second behind Windows, but ahead of MacOS. If you really have to be different and dont mind the limitations of not using Windows then at least dont pay extra for the privilege, that would be stupid.
Complain about this comment
Just to echo badger_fruit at 32; you should absolutely try getting help from the community because it's one of the major strengths of the OS. You'll undoubtedly hit problems, as you would with Windows or MacOS, but if you're running Linux you'll have hordes of smart and knowledgeable people falling over themselves to help you out.
Complain about this comment
One of the things that amazes me about people who try Ubuntu is that they never seem to try out the help. Its on the top bar of the screen its the button with a question mark on it. If that is too obscure you can also find it listed under the system link also on the top bar of the screen. This has lots of very useful information for new users and a very obvious section called "Adding, Removing and Updating applications".
Basically to add an application click on Applications on the top bar of the screen click on Add/Remove. On the following screen search for the application you want e.g. Audacity and install it. Alternatively you could try typing in the name of the application such as Audacity into the help applications are often mentioned in help with direct links to install them. Wine is easily installed using this method.
Once wine is installed all you have to do to get Spotify to work is to download the Windows install binary to your desktop and run it. The only problem with Spotify is to get the web links (e.g. to purchase a song) within it to work. The Spotify site has instructions on how to get this working if its important to you.
The iTunes is the popular application that there is no easy fix for in Linux. Personally I think thats a very good reason for not using iTunes.
Complain about this comment
Ubuntu desktop and Microsoft desktop as well as Apple all have their devotees.
I have all. I've been in computing since Kennedy was U.S. President, used Microsoft since DOS, and used Linux since Clinton was U.S. President. My 1st home computer was a MacIntosh. My first practical and useful Linux desktop was Ubuntu.
I'm locked into Windows because of commercial concerns, but I use Ubuntu primarily at home. Order of importance and use of desktops at my home office: (1) Unbuntu amd64 (2) Windows XP Pro (3) Windows XP x64 (4) Ubuntu intel86 (5) Vista Ultimate 64 (6) Windows 98SE (7) Red Hat Enterprise 4.6 (8) MacIntosh. All my servers are Linux.
I'll sum up my personal opinion like this: "With Ubuntu you will stub your toe, but Windows will cut you off at the knees and charge you for it." My ears are still ringing from the thumping I took from Vista.
Worth in computer desktops is about disappearing while enabling. Like a good pencil will. OS and Desktops enthusiasts are wont to forget the disappearing part. Asking a computer expert (or journalist) about desktops is kind of like asking your barber if you need a haircut. (Note: we still need barbers, &c.)
I suspect soon, if things progress as they have the last five years, employees who use Windows at work will begin to use open-source desktops at home. Then…
Complain about this comment
Very interesting article.
A few points:
Is it really harder to use than Windows?
My dad (who is a computer heathen) has an XP laptop, which regularly dies a horrible, slow death as XP reaches 6 months of age from the latest install, and grinds to a slow halt. I decided, on my most recent attempt to resuscitate his machine, to install ubuntu, very worried that it would go disasterously wrong. It hasn't. So far. In fact there haven't been any problems. Everything he needs is there, already installed. Wifi works beautifully (much much better than XP) - it's terrific.
Is it really not mature? (as a reader mentioned)
Given ubuntu's roots come from UNIX (1969), most people who know about linux know it is probably the most mature operating system around. Not to mention that the development for it is gradual and not the windows 3.1->95->me->xp->vista->7 or Mac OS 9 -> 10 paradigm shifts.
Is it 'not quite as good as Windows'
How about the opposite question - is Windows up there with Linux? Well does Windows have a central application server in each country? Er no. Does this mean that on windows you have to update all of your individual software in turn when you want to use it? Er yes, let me update adobe/office/windows/flash/realplayer etc.. before the annoying pop-ups stop. Linux is based on Unix, the quintisential network operating system, which explains why it is so au-fait with the internet. Does Windows have inherent file permissions? Er No. Does Windows have an inherent 'root user' system, which prevents accidental damage to important files, and much more importantly, does not allow software (i.e. viruses) to damage your system? Er no. Does Windows allow others to see their source code so that other programmers can easily create software that works seamlessly with the operating system. Er no.
But probably most importantly, Linux gives you autonomy over your own computer. With windows, you don't actually own your laptop - you use a service under Windows terms and conditions. In Windows 7, you will not be able to refuse 'updates', even if it means the update does something detrimental to your computer. I left (genuine) Windows XP, after frustration that I could not prevent WGA notifications installing on my machine. I didn't want another piece of software already slowing down the 2-3min boot time.
If only the writer could spend more time with linux, and discover all it's advantages, rather than just simply writing straight away about all it's initial differences (yes differences, not deficits). I'm a doctor, and as a profession we change hospitals on a regular basis. It's always a joke that whenever we change hospitals, we're very quick to say something like 'this hospital is crap! In my last hospital we had useful bits of tape with our venflon-stickers! It was SO much better!' Despite ignoring the 10 day wait for scans at the old hospital which is now not a problem. It's very easy to initially criticise a different product, but I can tell you that now that I'm used to Ubuntu and it's advantages, there is unlikely to be anything that will tempt be back to Windows (and yes, I have Windows 7 installed on another computer - I don't use it).
If you're intested...
http://www.slate.com/id/2223214/
Complain about this comment
I use a computer fulltime for music composition in my little studio, and have built a system up myself using Gentoo Linux. I'm no coder, and it was easy to follow the instructions. I still don't get why using the terminal at times is such a fear inducing anathema to users. It's much faster than cranking up a big GUI based app, and a lot more friendly on CPU cycles. Is the average user lazy, frightened, incurious, or a combination?
As a former user of both mac and win OS's, for what i do, since their inception as desktop based music production systems, i'd never go back. With a well setup linux box, i do the same as 5 boxes in the aforementioned OS, in 1 box, with headroom and power to spare.
I don't care that much about the brand on the box, as productivity, configurability, and user defined workflow is everything for me, but practically, linux is way ahead of the rest for stability and power in my particular field. There's no comparison, and most importantly, i get a lot more work done in the same amount of time, minus the crashes.
And let's stick the intent of a sometime lack of linux drivers exactly where it belongs. At the feet of the hardware manufacturers. Those that jump on board make new profits and get heavily promoted and supported in linux circles by knowledgable users who effectively "sell', and promote those companies for free, and those that don't are definitely missing out, as the linux domestic userbase grows.
Rory, you know as well as we do that using a new OS for a day is not nearly enough time to give a fair appraisal.
I'd ask the following.
If you'd been a Linux user for the last ten years, to the extent of running it by instinct, would a day have been enough to give a fair comparison of Win7, or Mac SnowLeopard? How long would it have been before you'd scurried back to the comfort zone?
:)
Complain about this comment
#2. At 1:43pm on 23 Oct 2009, CompactDistance wrote:
Linux has a fanatical anti-Microsoft following, but they can't actually make their product work any better. Compared to mature consumer operating systems like Windows there are too many shortcomings, too many things that don't 'just work.'
Ask any Linux power-user how to do something and often the first thing they'll do is point you to the command line. This isn't 1994!"
******************************
Erm, i'm not getting at you here, but workflow wise, there's a lot to be said for using a terminal from time to time, particularly when you were previously faced with a crash from too many gui windows open, as is usually the case in commercial desktop based os's.
So far from being 1994 and giving the impression that using a terminal is somehow.. "old school", i'd venture that a little user effort would open up a whole new opportunity for you, and speedup your machine no end, here in the smart user 21st century world we live in.
I'll bet you're addicted to the mouse as well, aren't you. :)
Complain about this comment
Is he indeed being racist when he says "offensively brown background", whats offensive about a brown background?!
He says that things are easier on a Mac/Pc, but how long had he used a mac for?!
This is one thing which really annoys me, when people care to write articles after spending a minimal amount of time trying to learn an operating system! Go spend as long as you did learning to use Windows or a Mac, then get back to us!
Linux can just simply work, I think that the "Ubuntu Software Centre" shows this, after more apps in there get screenshots I think that Ubuntu will stand up on top of Windows 7 and OS X after all, it's free!
You aren't locked into a stupid company who wants to rule the world either.
Complain about this comment
One of my several multiboots on several of my computers is Kubuntu (latest version except for the multi-monitor office machine because of the ATI drivers needing to be proprietary and somewhat unstable - but hey the windows XP on the same machine can't be successfully upgraded for the same reason to Vista and still work as well as it does in XP pro.) My servers only use Linux.
My reason for still sometimes using Windows is the ability to synchronise to a mobile phone - true MS Outlook has design flaws as does Windows (the Registry agggrrrrr!!!) But Windows does synchronise with Windows Mobile 6 and the plugs-ins to Kmail and Thunderbird just don't work. I have also been a Mac use since 1984 and again they are OK, but too expensive and the software tend to be too limiting and too expensive.
[ I wonder if it is possible to virtualise and divide the Window's Registry into application registry's to eliminate its odious consequences - I'll think on it.!! ]
We also develop for all platforms and write software and cross compile on one system for another for which we quite like Lazarus - an excellent free product (based on the Borland product Delphi) and Free Pascal as well as Assembler, C, C++ and Java and have experimented with D and many many other development languages over the years.
I think the point that we are missing is that users want to do something with their PC - they do not want to waste time. Unbuntu and other desktop Linuxes are stable and work and you can do most things with them and there is essentially no reason to be locked into a proprietary operating system. OK so if you 'must' use a particular software product that is only available on a particular operating system they you will have to get it - but there is no reason apart from fashion for most of us to use one rather than another.
Complain about this comment
i am a guy who play software for fun, from my perspective, ur review is extremely narrow, i sign up for bbc membership just to post this...
one comment posted that u are in your comfort zone in using windows, which i absolutely concur, to the point that it makes me wonder did u ever done your research as a tech. cor. on linux ?
i don't even know where to begin, so i'll start with bluring out whatever thoughts i have...
win is based on linux, so is OSX, so is ubuntu itself
taking a 24hr usage of ubuntu and post it as a review, omg, i can't believe you can held ur job THIS long.
i tried using it for at least a week before i defend it against my ms-based roomate in ease of usage, trouble shooting and time it took to bootup.
frankly, im so tempted to troll this review, after a minute has passed, i'll just say for now, read the comments posted before me, and you'll realize u ran head first into a big stone that is the foundation of computer, it didn't budge, while ppl are defending it as u stand to rub ur head. :P
Complain about this comment
"To be frank, no, because it would not make my computing life any simpler and more pleasurable than it is now."
Not as an attack on Rory, because we all have the right to make individual choices, but more as a reflection on how well this illustrates the slowness of adoption of alternative operating systems, I find this part of the article most telling. If a technology correspondent resists investing time to discover the true potential of technology, it for sure will take more time for the general public to do so. However Rory's comment surprised me as being less about technology but more about complacency (I found it very odd that as such the writer didn't even question what protocols that are used for communication between computers; how many *nix computers would for example a Windows PC by default find in network?).
Personally I'm from the Windows camp, both at work and at home (IT-administration of Windows environments is still my profession). I'm curious and quite stubborn if I decide to learn something and hence the oddity or difference in Linux, from a Windows' perspective, wasn't a problem. My journey has brought me to computing habits that I didn't look for, but found more efficient and productive than my previous Windows' ones. Today Windows isn't even an option for me, because I can't imagine computing without my tools of choice. Since I don't have any grumble with neither Microsoft or Apple, I don't lack money, my choice is solely based on what user experience I prefer, and to some degree on how I prefer media technology to be used.
Sure I'm not part of the "mass consumer market", but I'm enough to keep a lot of people belonging to that group up running Linux. On the other hand the whole PC concept (let's add MacOS to the mix as well since I'm talking about a concept and not a computer box identity), has been a success with huge failures. We've got a enormous gap between user ability and system possibilities, a dilemma that has been too easy to exploit for fame or greed (viruses and alike). Add to that another problem I now encounter, children that lacks the ability to concentrate more than a few minutes, something that makes them even unable to enjoy computer games that demand thinking and solving things.
This tells me that even if Linux would continue to be viewed as niche operating system, it's to some degree a necessity since the "mass consumer market" isn't interested in computing per se. What would otherwise be left to the ones who want to know what they're doing, and/or for example don't agree that "clicking" is the most efficient way of computing? Someone here referred to Linux user as uber-geeks, but even though it's a plain wrong description what's wrong with a system that geeks like to use? Must everything be dumbed down to a predetermined level? Even among the so called "masses" you find people who naturally do what most others view as difficult, so natural that it for them is the easiest way. Some people ask questions to find answers, some don't, and hence their ways differ.
Instead of focusing on some of the peculiar complaints in the article, I find the attitude behind them more interesting. The article could work as part of a case study.
Complain about this comment
I just wanted to add to the point that Hellwyn said in comment 29 "The mere existence of Firefox has already forced Microsoft to adhere to Web Standards (as Internet Explorer 6.0 famously did not!)." .
Microsoft at that time tried to use their dominance to sway away from the web standards in place. If they had succeeded in this you would not have the Choice of other Operating systems/web browsers etc that we do today because they where trying to own the web and stopping us from using any other software/platform but Microsoft. I think Ubuntu and Linux mint are great distributions of Linux that people should give a try , a chance, a fare chance. When i first started with Linux i was always going back to windows because thats what i knew. Over a bit of time though i slowly found my self in Ubuntu more than i was windows until now i honesty don`t go into my windows partition anymore. That dose not mean i will get rid of my windows partition because some times their is something that only works in windows that pops up eg, Games etc. I think what I'm trying to say is that Linux is going in a better direction that any windows or mac could ever go because Linux belongs to YOU , it belong to the people and the more folks that use it and as demand for it grows the better Linux will get for EVERYONE. The more venders like Dell that see the demand grow will use their powers hence more Linux hardware support will become available. Oh and it`s free! http://www.ubuntu.com/
I was quite impressed with the look of windows 7 so i thought I'd give it a try. After install though i thought ok nows time to install software... I personally don`t know anyone that does not pirate software and that is what i used to do on my old windows xp install and as someone that has seen first hand what cracked software can hide eg Keylogger,Trojans etc. even with scanners in place, they can only find what they know about. At that point of the windows 7 install i realized why would i pay for an OS that is so vulnerable when i can get in my opinion a better and safer OS for free? and at the same time contribute to the great community that evolves around free software. Freedom hippy rant over ;).
Just give it a Fare chance. Oh and Rory by the looks of it you where given the Netbook Remix of Ubuntu that is specially designed for low power low spec machines. Try the desktop Version on a desktop box. Thanks!
Complain about this comment
I could not agree more with you Rory and "CopactDistance" (and probably others speaking the truth about Linux). Linux is just not yet ready for the big time desktop deployment that it's fanatical followers wish it could be. They are so anti-Microsoft and so closed minded about it that they choose to ignore all the suffering they go through just to get one tiny little application working.
I'm a techie in my own right, and I suffered just to get my Dell 1721 Inspiron working with initially Ubuntu 7.10, which was available at the time time I got my laptop. It took days of pain to get it to work with RAID 0, for which the distro had very limited support. I had to go through yet more hell and pain to get the WiFi working, resorting in the end to using an app called Ndiswrapper, which essentially takes Windows drivers and fakes the Linux OS into believing their native drivers, because there is little Linux support for a lot of new hardware.
However, I must put things into perspective. From my personal experience, I think Linux does a good job of supporting legacy devices, unlike Windows (as I found out with Windows 7), and you can also get very good and quite serious server applications for 'free' on Linux. You can get up and running with server applications on Linux at 'little' cost (if you don't factor in the time it takes to get it up and running).
As for the desktop, it's a complete shambles. Hence, I dual boot my laptop between Ubuntu 8.10 (which at least was painless in supporting RAID 0), and now Windows 7 to get the best of both worlds.
It's gonna take Google and their Android to make Linux cool for the desk top. Untill then, the Linux brigage can keep wishing.
Complain about this comment
I do not understand how Rory could have missed the "Ubuntu Software Center" icon on the main menu. Both Flash and Audacity are simple one click installs from this easy to use menu. Perhaps Ubuntu's interface is a bit too simple for someone accustomed to the bizarre multi-level menus in windows. And to complain about not being able to run spotify (invitation only *beta software* that has not been widely released) is unfair in a review targeted at mainstream users,
Complain about this comment
Linux is just not yet ready for the big time desktop deployment that it's fanatical followers wish it could be
You know, some of us don't actually care that much. If the rest of you want to suffer the hassles of being locked into unreliable proprietary software then you deserve our pity, but really, it's up to you. We have our fully fledged easy to use desktop already.
there is little Linux support for a lot of new hardware
That really is a nonsense; Linux has built-in support for most hardware as part of the OS (supporting hardware rather being the purpose of an OS) so I can generally plug things in and have them work straight away with no driver CDs, no hunting manufacturer's web sites for updates, and no pointless reboots. Aside from all the usual internal kit my Fedora Linux systems have had a USB headset, webcam, graphics tablet, various digital cameras, a bluetooth controller, a bluetooth headset, and a mobile broadband dongle plugged into them, all of which have been supported instantly. I don't know about you, but that works pretty well for me.
Complain about this comment
48. At 11:16pm on 23 Oct 2009, MrFaulty wrote:
I could not agree more with you Rory and "CopactDistance" (and probably others speaking the truth about Linux). Linux is just not yet ready for the big time desktop deployment that it's fanatical followers wish it could be. They are so anti-Microsoft and so closed minded about it that they choose to ignore all the suffering they go through just to get one tiny little application working....................................It's gonna take Google and their Android to make Linux cool for the desk top. Untill then, the Linux brigage can keep wishing.
********************************************
I simply don't get this. There's no pain in installing "1 little application."
And i'm a user not a coder, or a techie. I'm using Gentoo, which has often been described as a geeks distro. It's not true. With a little effort, anyone can do it. Ubuntu is even easier still, with the auto install manager, Synaptic.
I defy anyone to tell me it's any easier to install Win or Mac drivers or apps, as years of having to do this told me otherwise. I'm not a rabid anti-microsoft flag waving tux user, but neither does it make sense to me that a "techie" can't install a simple application. Are you serious? Use what you like, and i hope you enjoy yourself, but let's be real and objective about this.
Most negative comments here seem to be based around "it doesn't do what windows does, so it must suck badly". And yet there's no mention of linux multiple workspaces, highly user definable key commands, and so on. That tells me a lot of users have done the same as Rory, tried it for a day, and gone back to their comfort zone, however better or worse that may be.
Again, i wonder how many users would have a different view if they tried linux based systems for more than a day, kept an open mind, and see what they come up with.
Accusing Linux users of being anti-microsoft and closed minded is singularly ironic, given the nature of successive Win releases, and the what seems neverending inability to deal with security issues, compulsory pay again updates, and "Your computer has stopped responding", with the inevitable reboot to follow.
As a techie, you would surely understand there are those in every camp, espcially the win userbase, that interact with their system in the pursuit of a greater skillset for efficent use, and the rest, who when confronted with something new, or different, retreat into their burrows, screaming "linux sucks! linux sucks!", because they think it's....cool.
There's enough FUD in each OS community, without jumping on the bandwagon, simply because you can't install 1 little application.
That's not our fault............is it.
Complain about this comment
Really, an OS should be transparent with the application being the key.
I am a professional composer and writer. Although I use Debian for my servers, really I am stuck to windows and/or mac because the software I use does not run on Linux at all.
But that does not bother me - when I get down to my work, my focus is the application, not the OS.
My mother got very confused about the difference between MS Office and MS Windows. She did not appreciate that there was a difference between the application, Office, and the OS.
Although it would be easy to be critical of her naivety, actually she had a point. She only uses a computer to write - MS office is her total focus. What interest has she in the rest of the rubbish that comes with her box?
I think this is partly what Google are looking at with Chrome OS. It will be interesting to see how "transparent" that really turns out to be.
Complain about this comment
"I also gave up on attempting to use the music streaming service Spotify, after a warning that, as there was no Linux version, I would first need to get hold of something called Wine which allows you to run Windows apps. Too much bother..."
It's easy, I was amazed by how well it worked (free music on a free OS on a free computer... nice) (I'm new to linux) - Imagine if all reviews were like this? 'I was going to read the last chapter but I gave up... Too much bother... I give it 5 out of 10 as the story didn't really go anywhere'
Complain about this comment
Rory wrote:
I also gave up on attempting to use the music streaming service Spotify, after a warning that, as there was no Linux version, I would first need to get hold of something called Wine which allows you to run Windows apps. Too much bother...
*********************
Rory,
perhaps you could send the Spotify team an email, and ask them to produce a linux version.
It is up to them after all, and just maybe they'll see the potential for an even bigger user base..........
Complain about this comment
The biggest hurdle that faces Ubuntu (including all other variants of Linux) is gaining public awareness and confidence, that other (more) capable choices do exist beyond the realms of Microsoft.
The marketing force behind Ubuntu has been fairly non-existent, so it's no surprise it's still relatively unknown within the mainstream.
Complain about this comment
Just a thought, how above getting Mark Shuttleworth (Ubuntu Founder) and/or Jono Bacon (Ubuntu Community Leader) into the Breakfast studio in time for the Karmic Koala launch next week?
Complain about this comment
Written before? Can't be arsed to read all the posts? Flash need to be installed? Get the relevant OS version. Windows , version of Linux, Mac OSX? You're supposed to be a technology nerd. What's the problem?
Reason why programs don't work on Linux? We don't have driver support from the tech companies. Horrendous amount of virii? Cheap and cheerful programing. Hidden source code? Windows. Windows did create modern computing for the masses but the price we pay. Is it worth it?
Complain about this comment
Ubuntu is easy to use.
'Shopping delivered to Great Grandma, by Ubuntu Linux'
http://dnc.digitalunite.com/2009/03/31/shopping-delivered-by-ubuntu-linux/
Complain about this comment
Interesting comments. I see a number of emotional "linux users are fanatic losers" type comments from those clearly advocating Windows and yet the so-called "fanatic" Linux user's comments seem quite sane and pragmatic. What does that say?
Complain about this comment
Where do I start? This piece has no balance whatsoever. Oh no, you have to run software designed for Windows using a compatibility layer which has been so successful in implementing Microsoft proprietary APIs that you can actually run a lot of games on it - please call the police! You say it as though it's a disadvantage that a program exists which allows users to run software designed for another Operating System. Even if you were taking on the perspective of an average user, and I fully accept that average users do have a problem in using Wine to run Windows software if they so need, what you fail to do is to say it in a balanced way. Had you said:
"One problem associated with Linux is the lack of support from software vendors. This means that some of your Windows programs will not run under Linux. However, the Linux community has written a program which will run a lot of Windows software with minimal effort including Microsoft Office and many popular games."
then I would have no issue with it whatsoever. Instead you opt for, Wine, oh too much bother. There’s not even a semblance of real understanding of the situation - or at least an attempt to explain it, nor the inclination to at least try out Wine to see if it works. So, you write off what is in actuality a fantastic program which broadens your software options as, ‘too much bother’.
It's clear to see that you haven't made a genuine attempt to use Ubuntu. "I struggled to work out how I would organise photos, music and video with this system." Well, that's just making an argument out of ignorance, besides the plentiful options available, many of which have already been named in the comments above, maybe that's something Wine could have helped you out with had you bothered to try it?
Whilst you seem keen to stress the downsides of small market share - lack of official support from hardware and software vendors alike, you seem less keen to mention the advantages of a smaller market share; far fewer problems with malware. You think installing software under Wine is difficult? Try dealing with some of the messes I've had to clean up for friends and family under Windows due to malware - the amount of times I've had to reformat and reinstall is unbelievable. Even if you're lucky enough that your Windows machine never succumbs to malware or identify theft, you still have to undergo the bother of installing a vast array of security software. That's not to say you should be complacent when using Linux, but is it safer than Windows due to a smaller market share? Yes, yes it is. Didn't care to mention that though did you?
What about other Linux advantages; repositories (mentioned briefly but unexplained); stability (not mentioned); the ability to personalise way beyond what is possible in Windows (not mentioned); multiple desktops (not mentioned); Linux-specific software such as Compiz Fusion (not mentioned). Yet, failing to install Spotify, due to his your own lethargy and/or ignorance, that's good reviewing.
This is a poor attempt at impartiality. I hope that, if you try Linux again - perhaps you could try another distro, you're more willing to approach it an open-mind and to increase your knowledge by experimenting more thoroughly and for a longer period of time before dismissing it so readily.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It is all very well slagging off this article, but:
1. It says there will be a fuller review later
2. Rory has a point with the phrase "too much bother"
Most users of Linux on this board love messing around with their machines and installing one bit so you can install another bit is what they live for.
However, for the other 99.99% of the world, they dont want to even think about it. They have expectations of a system out of the box - they want it to work exactly like their friends' machines and to be able to download and install, or buy a cd and install simply and easily without thinkings about it.
If they find they have to edit the list or repositories because they want Java from Sun rather than the OS version, or they want commercial versions, or whatever, then they will give an immediate thumbs down.
If they have to start a terminal as root every time they want to install something, then they will give a thumbs down.
If they are sold the system on the basis that "it is wonderful, you can take it apart and reconfigure it a million different ways," they will give it the thumbs down - it sounds far to messy.
Basically, the various Linux OS are amazing, but when it comes to the vast majority of computer users, they are just too Clunky. One mouse click more than Windows or Mac, and that is too clunky.
Linux has moved much closer to the usability of Windows, but it needs to move closer still. Most people dont give a hoot about the politics of all this, they just want an easy life - they dont want to have to find a sysadmin as a best friend somewhere in case.
To most people Linux has a feel about it - way too geeky. Even when you install Ubunto, for example, it looks really old fashioned and techy - you have scared people off even before they have chosen their language and keyboard layout. I know it seems an irrelevant small thing, but the one thing that Gates and his team really have understood is that people are affected by irrelevant and small things - those are the bits that sell a product at the end of the day.
Complain about this comment
MrFaulty wrote: Linux is just not yet ready for the big time desktop deployment that it's fanatical followers wish it could be. They are so anti-Microsoft and so closed minded about it that they choose to ignore all the suffering they go through just to get one tiny little application working.
I've never had a problem with installing any application in Linux, I go into add/remove (now Software Center) and then just pick the one I want and it installs. Just to make it clear, those are graphical interfaces, not console. As for being anti-MS, many people aren't, personally, I'd rather not use Windows because of the insecurity and problems I've experienced with it. I support a small network of Windows machines and have to deal with the random "it threw this error" and "it just didn't work all of a sudden" on a way too common basis. If they weren't locked into certain Windows only programs, we could switch to Linux. In fact, we are still looking for ways around (virtualization, alternate programs, wine, etc) the issue but currently, none exist. Considering your average user won't know what to do on those random errors, I can't see how Windows could be any more "ready for desktop deployment". Might explain how the various computer "repair" groups make so much money doing so little work.
MrFaulty wrote: It took days of pain to get it to work with RAID 0, for which the distro had very limited support.
Ok, cutting this one off there because you are looking at it completely wrong. Your average Windows user hasn't a clue what RAID is, never mind want to set it up. The group that has the most issues with Linux is actually Windows Power users because as mentioned before, it's out of their comfort zone. You would be falling into this category. Take a step back and look what most people do on the computer and what their needs would be, email, word processing, web browsing, photo manipulation and organizing, music organizing and playing. With that in mind, explain how RAID 0 support (or not) assists your argument above?
A few years ago, I doubt I would have been able to switch to Linux but now, I wouldn't switch back. The amount of work to set this computer up (laptop) was insert disk, install OS (small number of easy to read steps), change background, download and change theme (in same window as background), install dock, fiddle with it's colours and look.
All together, can be done by an experienced user within 40 mins and a non experienced user in around an hour and a half, mostly because the dock has alot of options and it'll take some wandering to figure it out. Obviously the dock can be considered optional.
Complain about this comment
Over the years I've dipped in and out of various Linux distros and found them interesting and a quality replacement. I'm fairly competant but I wouldn't say I'm close to an expert. It has been a while since I last used it, and back then if an application wasn't in the list of preprepared software installs (Software Center?), I had to use the terminal to install, which was easy enough once I rtm and found the correct command to do so (most software uses the same commends to untar and install).
My question about the current situation is this: Has a method been developed in which applications for linux (any flavour) can be packaged in an executable which installs with a double-click and a wizard? Or any kind of one click install package. Not all software is going to be in the Software Center and so an alternative "easy" method would be very useful. Mainly for software I find on the web and just want to try out. If there isn't this system available, then what is the primary method of installing software that is not in the Software Center?
Complain about this comment
Did you manage to install Compiz? It gives you a 3-d desktop and so many windows management functions it's impossible to list them all. Once you've spent a few days working with such a great interface it's hard to go back to a flat clunky windows system.
Complain about this comment
Gurubear
I can't help but think you're blind-siding a bit. There are difficulties and complexities in Linux, of course there are, but you're making that argument that everything is simple in the world of OS X and Windows when it clearly isn't. I'll give you two examples of complexities in the Windows world which occurred to me and a friend of mine in the past two weeks. This is the issue I encountered. These are the instructions I had to type into a command line:
"net stop WuAuServ
REGSVR32 WUAPI.DLL /s
REGSVR32 WUAUENG.DLL /s
REGSVR32 WUAUENG1.DLL /s
REGSVR32 ATL.DLL /s
REGSVR32 WUCLTUI.DLL /s
REGSVR32 WUPS.DLL /s
REGSVR32 WUPS2.DLL /s
REGSVR32 WUWEB.DLL /s
cd %windir%
ren SoftwareDistribution SD_OLD
sc config BITS start= auto
sc start BITS
net start WuAuServ"
Ah, don't you love one-click simplicity.
The issue my friend came across was that she had just done a reinstall and couldn't find the sound driver. I told her to run Unknown Devices and had to give her very specific instructions on how to find the hardware vendor number and the device ID, before we could find the right driver. That is NOT easy for someone who doesn't know what they are doing. I could go on and on with stuff like this. I get asked for help all the time from people with Windows machines, especially when they have human-unfriendly error codes.
I'll give you one more example from Windows 7. I like Windows 7, it's much better than Vista, but already I've encountered the need to use the Compatibility Mode. I really like it and I personally think it's easy to use. But again, tell an average user, oh you have to use Compatibility Mode for that software. Erm, what? *blank expression* I can talk them through it of course but it's not different from talking them through how to add another repository in Linux.
OS X can also be really complicated if you want to do advanced configuring or if you use a hackintosh and have to mess around with kexts.
Both Microsoft and Apple obscure the difficulties of installing an Operating System because they can sell masses upon masses of computers with their OSs pre-installed. Most people have never installed an OS and so installing an OS is a scary experience for them and makes Linux seem more complex than it actually is.
Basically, I think you're making out that OS X and Windows are simple and that you never encounter problems which require technical know-how whereas the inverse is true of Linux. I don't see it like that and nor do the people who perpetually come to me for advice. I think the only reason why people would consider something like Ubuntu more complicated than XP is because they're not used to it. I also think that anyone trying to insist that using a repository is more complicated than going to individual websites to download, install and update software is clearly mad. It's far less complicated, it just happens to be different from the way things are done in other Operating Systems. People are afraid of change and of venturing into the unknown. That's the real issue. Would people really have the same problems with Linux if they'd been brought up using it at school and at home? Not a chance in my opinion. Imagine such a world where everyone is used to using repositories. Then imagine telling them they have to visit individual websites to download, install and update all their software. Erm, what? *blank expression* Why can't I just download, install and update everything from one place?
Complain about this comment
I can't believe people are still 'at it', promoting brands of UNIX as if their lives depended on it. In my 25 years of professional IT, some brand of UNIX has always been just about to take over the world. Do the majority of people care? I doubt it. Each to their own, but please, please, ditch the holier than thou 'UNIX is the only true religion' attitude, because that in itself will ensure UNIX stays relatively marginal.
Complain about this comment
Wow, I really don't know what to say or where to begin with Rory's comments. I am simply gobsmacked.
"But, even after some help from a Canonical advisor who came and installed a few add-ons such as Flash, I struggled to work out how I would organise photos, music and video with this system."
Er, when we connect a smartphone, digital camera or SD card or, in fact, any storage device with photos to *any* of our Linux machines, via usb or bluetooth, a dialogue box pops up, asking us what we'd like to do with the pictures and files that are on it....are you honestly saying you really are incapable of selecting image files like jpegs, and moving them into a 'pictures' folder in your home area??? or creating a folder called 'music', and copying across your mp3 collection??? Coming from a 'technology' correspondent, this is simply shocking. :-o
"I also gave up on attempting to use the music streaming service Spotify, after a warning that, as there was no Linux version, I would first need to get hold of something called Wine which allows you to run Windows apps. Too much bother..."
Oh come on, Rory, this is just pathetic. You didn't even try. Do you have any idea just how *easy* it is to install programs on Linux?? If using the point and click method is too hard, have you tried this: open a terminal window, (yes, that little window with the prompt) and type in: sudo apt-get install wine
(in fact, typing in apt-get install 'program name' is the standard way to install stuff. How is this hard???? If you can type words into a word processor, you can do this...)
Moreover, in a single sentence you have pretty much dismissed all the hard work WINE developers, from all over the world have contributed to the WINE project over the years, in their own time and without being paid. WINE is an incredible program, do you not think that the fact that you can run loads of windows programs on another platform entirely is nothing short of amazing?
I was able to get my wife to install her favourite programs like Kaffeine and Amarok this way via text message when she asked me. Now, she's used to Linux, but has not previously used a debian-based distro like Ubuntu that uses apt to install stuff. But if this is too 'geeky' or 'hard' or 'scary' for you, then seriously, turn off your windows and mac PCs, step away from the keyboard and don't go near them again...
Oh, I dunno. I shake my head in disbelief...
Complain about this comment
Pixelvision
In Ubuntu, the software repositories can be increased to give access to an even greater range of software & applications some of which are not supported by Ubuntu, hence they don't give access to them by default. Two clicks of a mouse and they are all enabled.
On the rare occasion that something is needed that isn't in the repositories, a package can be downloaded from the website, just like downloading an .exe file in Windows. The file can be saved and then opened to install but personally I've got Firefox set up to automatically open those files with the package installer; it runs and installs the programme.
There is no need to scan the file with a virus scanner, no EULA to read, no file path to select where to install it, no "would you like a shortcut" question.
It's a very simple process indeed.
This is why I (and other posters here) are so surprised at Rory's problems with installing Audacity.
Some set up is required with whatever OS you use. If I was setting up Windows 7 today, I'd be installing Firefox (and plugins), Thunderbird, VLC, iTunes, Disc-burning software like Nero, anti-virus/malware software, Java, Flash, MP3 codecs, etc etc.
Complain about this comment
66. Skashion
Oh, I quite agree - Neither Windows or Mac offer tech-free sailing.
However, the development of windows over the years (possibly to the detriment of some security at various stages) has been orientated towards the non-technical user as much as possible.
Linux has only far more recently taken that approach and it is lagging behind.
I am no computer wiz-kid (and in fact am several decades off being a kid), but because my job relies on computers to such a great extent, and I am a one-man band, I have gotten used to getting my hands dirty, to some extent. But my family round me, especially the teen members, have such a complete disinterest on how things work that it is amazing.
I have tried to get them onto Linux (it would save me money), but it doubled my work because so much they wanted to do didn't have an instant plug and play aspect to it, and with the Teans, didn't have the same brand-name as their friends, and that was just a complete no-no!
Office 2007 made my life worse. With 2003 and Ooo being pretty close in looks, I was moving them happily to OpenOffice. Then MSO 2007 come out. Far sleeker and more fun to use (remember, people really dont give a hoot about the compatablily politics and so on). OpenOffice has been soundly dumped!
So, my point is that there are a thousand really solid reasons to move over to Linux and some Open Source applications (there are some commercial applications where the open source version is not up to scratch).
Unfortunately, most of those sound reasons don't cut it with the majority of users. They want the "looks like money was thrown at it" feel of Mac and Windows and the hope that they will never have to lift the bonnet and look at the engine.
I think that is one reason that cloud based OS's might make a large impact - though I am holding my breath for the day when the internet goes down for an hour and nobody can do anything at all!
PS: I am a great believer that the modern young generation are NOT as computer savvy as commentators like to tell us. They are great at knowing which button to press and how to text gibberish at an alarming speed, but when it comes to it doing something odd, they are as much out of their depth a the rest.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
sudo apt-get update
enter your password
sudo apt-get install wine
Watch it install...no reboot required. Simples.
Complain about this comment
@ "_Ewan_"
What is nonsensical about me giving account of my own experience of Linux? I had a brand new laptop which came with Vista and I tried, for days, to get Ubuntu 7.10 working on it, primarily because that distro had dodgy support for RAID 0. That is a fact! In the process of trying I even lost my Vista partition, at the hands of fdisk or some crappy partitioning tool. I eventually got it to work, thanks to some guy with lots of time on his hands who had figured out how to do it. It also took me ages just to get the sound working. It is THIS time, that is the hidden cost of Linux. And that is the lack of support for new hardfware I am referring to.
Then Ubuntu 8.04 was released and I made the mistake of trying to upgrade from 7.10, an act which rendered my Linux installation useless! Lucky I had my dual boot Vista working. I later found out that 8.04 had NO support for RAID 0. Thanks, Canonical. Before long version 8.10 was released which had support for RAID 0 and finally my system was rescued, because Canonical had eventually caught on with the new hardware in town.
I don't know about you, but I just don't have the time Linux demands. Goodness knows I love it for server systems, but for desktop, it's a NO from me. Just check how many of Google's cool applications support Linux. The Linux brigade can argue all they want, but in the real world where time is precious and commercial interests are paramount, Windows will rule the desktop! At least until such a time when Google takes away the pain from Linux, or when Apple Macs match PC prices. I personally can't wait.
Complain about this comment
We use Ubuntu at home on a daily basis, I have Linux mint on my netbook. We use computers a lot, but we are not power users. I am dyslexic, and use the graphic User Interface, it is easier for me.
We have no problems using iplayer or any of the other things we want to do. My 7 year old happily navigates around the CBBC site, and my 15 year old uses photo and graphic software (The Gimp) to do her art projects, open office for her homework.
Occasionally I have to use a Windows computer. I get frustrated by only having one desktop to do everything in. It feels loose and buggy after what I am used to.
Complain about this comment
I've just re-read Rory's post 'A week with Windows' - ironic that he went to the bother of installing Firefox and iTunes but with Ubuntu couldn't figure out Audacity and found installing Wine 'too much bother'.
Complain about this comment
Erm Rory,
May i ask what your work at the BBC is? You've tested Win 7 for a week so i imagine you are some sort of tech correspondent. So your lack of enthusiasm in giving ubuntu a chance is a bit of a shock to me. Sounds like you declared it unuseable even before you tried.
I only started using Ubuntu a couple of years ago and i'm no tech geek. Far from it. But having re-installed my windows over 10 times in the last 4 years i've had my laptop, its been a breath of fresh air with ubuntu. Granted some things can be annoying to do because many of the programs i've been used to in windows dont work straight away. But there's always a way around that. And once you get things working, they stay working.
I go to windows every now and then to use my printer (lexmark dont give the drivers for my printer in ubuntu) and Office occasionally. When i do however, its worrying. XP gets really slow and my laptop over heats. Ubuntu does give old laptops a new lease of life.
I'd recommend you give it a bit more testing.
Complain about this comment
Pixelvision: I just installed World of Goo, it's not in the repos, I got off the company's website. I downloaded the .deb file, double clicked on it, clicked install and when it finished, was installed.
So yes, on those rare times you end up not using the repos, there is definitely a one click install. Oh, and I didn't have to do any configuring either, just ran it from my Games section of "Applications"
Complain about this comment
Most of it has been said, I'll try to say some things that got left out. Not one person made a point about how simple Ubuntu install can be for a Windows user who wants to try his toe in the water: wubi (ubuntu installer for windows)! Just download wubi.exe, run it from Windows, define how much space to use for Ubuntu, choose login creds, take a coffee/ lunch break, return to your comp with a dual install! Days of Linux install have become simpler since Knoppix launched a live CD that announced vocally on what devices are detected and installed! Just when I thought it doesn't get any simpler than that, Ubuntu gets better with each release.
Microsoft is so greedy, that when I bought my Toshiba laptop, I was forced to buy it with Vista, with a caveat that said "Installing any other OS voids the warranty". Even if I wanted to have dual boot, I couldn't do that in warranty. Funnily enough, any reinstall of Vista and other Windows flavours arrogantly overwrites any other OS! Why?
For almost everything that Linux can do with a command line for a desktop user, Ubuntu can do with GUI. Another thing about people who just hate to use keyboards are missing a loud point even in Windows GUI: all those menus have keyboard 'short'-cuts! Sometimes, keyboard is faster than the mouse.
If you've tried detecting and transferring files between XP and Vista on your network, that would tell you why expecting all your Windows machines to just popup on your Ubuntu map, without any protocol setups, is plain bias.
MrFaulty talks of WiFi install issues as a techie. WiFi on Vista has been a pain for me; it gets some godforsaken IP on a DHCP mode and I need to hardcode it to work well! Windows should have perfected it by now, but no; OTOH, it works smoothly in Ubuntu. And he also talks of RAID 0 when the article is about a layman desktop user. What you can do with Win for RAID, a similar experienced person on Ubuntu can do it in a jiffy too. But then again, if you are a technology person, you ought to mention developers, rate at which bugs get fixed on Ubuntu and umpteen development tools that come free, all of these things beat down Windows to death.
Getting hold of Wine to run Spotify is not as much of a bother as needing to get hold of Win7 pro version to do something as simple as getting an XP app/ device to work! The latter means shelling more money out to get Win7 do something that your XP did initially, which you'd already paid for, and MS made you buy Win7 instead. The former means installing Wine with a couple of steps and you're ready to go... simpler than buying local wine! :)
Finally, Rory, I think Ubuntu survived your 24 hours with it. Had you been a Linux user as long as you were using Windows and had to spend 24 hours with Windows 7 instead, I'm certain you'd have flushed the Windows netbook/laptop by now! :)
Complain about this comment
@ MrFaulty What's nonsensical is your wild extrapolation from a singular failure to support a particular fakeRAID setup in a laptop, of all things, to asserting that "there is little Linux support for a lot of new hardware".
Linux support for fakeRAID cards is indeed rather poor because it's only used by unfortunate Windows refugees. Full time Linux users ignore it in favour of the considerably more flexible, more reliable and more open support for RAID 0, 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 that's built into the operating system as standard issue.
Complain about this comment
@ _Ewan_ For your info, fakeRAID is not the only problem I've had with Linux. I've had countless times where I've had to spend hours searching the Internet for that obscure driver and "howto". The fact is Linux has poor hardware support, whatever you say! Why do you think the whole of Dell had to make specific laptop models to support Ubuntu? For the fun of it?? PC makers like Dell are in it for the money, not to faff about or satisfy blind Linux followers like you. The day that people subscribing to your school of thought (on Linux) get that message, will be the day that Linux will begin to make serious progress. Canonical had to send a guy to help Rory out. That says a lot! I rest my case.
Complain about this comment
@MrFaulty:
To be fair, Rory was apparently incapable either of clicking three times to install Audacity or Wine (and he knew about the Software Centre, since he mentioned it in the review, so he has no excuse!), and was incapable of looking in the menus to find the (clearly labelled) solutions for photo and mp3 library management, so I'm not sure that Canonical "having to send a guy to help him out" can be unambiguously said to be a criticism of the OS itself. :D
(And, for what it's worth, installing Flash on Karmic is a three step process, all of which can be accomplished without the use of a command line interface. Not sure why Rory needed help with that, either, if we're using this as an argument for Ubuntu being horrible.)
Complain about this comment
"Canonical had to send a guy to help Rory out. That says a lot!"
I think it says more about Rory than Ubuntu.......
Complain about this comment
Oh, and a sort of meta-comment, not so much about the review as the presentation of Linux that Rory did on Breakfast.
Indeed, it is true that 90% of home computers (probably) have some copy of Windows installed on them. However, a majority of computers not for home use run some variant of *nix - all of the LHC physics is done on linux, for a start. Perhaps if Rory had picked his phrasing more positively, it would have served to edify people generally (maybe even Bill Turnbull, who seems to be grumpy about anything invented after 1960, would have been impressed ;) ).
Complain about this comment
Yeah, I tried some of these 'Distros' and had to give up, just couldn't get any of them to recognise my good old USB modem. So no internet. Oh yeah, I know, why not just change the hardware blah blah blah? Well, why not just change the software and save me the bother. Pity though, as I really wanted to dump Microsoft.
Complain about this comment
I've had countless times where I've had to spend hours searching the Internet for that obscure driver and "howto".
With a recent desktop distro like Ubuntu or Fedora? What on earth were you trying to do? As I said above at #50, I've thrown loads of random hardware at my systems and they've run it all without a whimper, using drivers that were built in and ready to go, and I don't think I'm just lucky. On the other hand I've certainly had the problems you describe with Windows.
I've also been following a discussion on Vodafone's forums about the various OSes support for their mobile broadband dongles. On Windows you have to install extra drivers, on Linux, you plug it in and it works, and on Snow Leopard it either does nothing or crashes the OS. So much for 'it just works' there.
blind Linux followers like you
Interestingly enough, I used to run Windows. Then I had a dual-boot system for a while, and wasn't completely convinced by Linux, and then I found that things that I wanted to do were just easier in Linux, mainly because of two things - the easy availability of a huge collection of software all freely available, and a large and helpful community to assist me with any tricky bits. Over a period of time I just found I wasn't using Windows any more, and now on the occasions that I do have to use it it's many deficiencies (no virtual desktops, no central source of software and updates, appalling documentation, and more) just annoy me. I really do think that for most people's computing needs a Linux system is a better fit that a Windows or MacOS one, but if people give it a fair go they can find out for themselves.
Twenty-four hours, however, is not a fair go.
Complain about this comment
I use Linux because I find it easier to use than the other OSs. The only time I need the command line is when I need to compile an application that is not very popular so it's not part of the official release.
I'm surprised that Rory found it hard to install Audacity, a few clicks should have been enough. Also, I use samba to connect to the other network devices and it's pretty easy.
Using Linux is easier because almost all the programs I need are in the official repository and there are no surprises in Linux. Linux program repositories existed long before the mainstream companies came up with "application store".
I think it took me about a week to get used to Linux, GNOME and KDE are not that different than the existing OS UI, but the naming of the programs is different and one needs to get used to them. 24 hours is not a long enough time.
I use Windows as well and I have nothing against Windows, but in my opinion it is not Windows that just works but Linux. Given two brand new PSs, one with Windows and one with Ubuntu, the one with Ubuntu would be ready to work out of the box whereas Windows would have to update itself 5 times before it is happy to let the user do anything on it. Installing Office would also take a long time on Windows, but it would be much quicker on Linux.
The automatic updates in Win and Mac can and do bring a few occasional surprises. One time, I had a few open files and when I came back from lunch I realised that my PC updated and restarted itself and I lost a few hours worth of work. My Mac user friend also had some problems with his updates.
It is a myth that Linux isn't usable... Give it a proper try!!!
Complain about this comment
The hard drive on my 12 year old autistic daughter's XP computer was on the way out so I took a hard drive from a redundant computer as a temporary replacement. I decided to try Ubuntu as the operating system so I burned a disc and left it sitting next to my XP machine until I time to do the installation. I came back one day to find she had installed Ubuntu as a dual boot option on my machine! She has been using computers since was a toddler but I did not realise how much she had picked up.
The Ubuntu instalation on her own computer was a success so I bought a new PC with no operating system and set it up wih Ubuntu. I downloaded a program that let her perform her favourite computer activity, downloading YouTube videos. Sometime I will set up a virtual Windows machine to let her play some of her games, but at the moment I hardly get a look in on the computer.
Complain about this comment
So, here's a slightly related question for Rory to ask around the BBC:
Linux and it's friends are installed on (supposedly) 0.5% of desktops, Apple's OSX operating system has just about 4.5%, and the rest is pretty much MS Windows.
So, how come whenever there is ANY computer shown on TV they are pretty much ALWAYS Apple Mac windows, never the MS Windows that will be familiar to 95% of users? Obviously it's because pretty much all graphic designers are Apple fan-boys and girls, but why are they allowed to get away misrepresenting the computer population in this way 8-) ?
It's a small point, but it irritates me!
Complain about this comment
I have worked in IT for 20 odd years and am currently Head of IT for a large Further Education college. I am therefore fortunate to have access to multiple different operating systems and network operating systems. I've used them all from Windows 2 to Netware 2.x. Apple OS's, right up to the latest Windows 7 etc, etc. Even obscure ones like OS/2! On a daily basis I support well over a thousand pc's running different OS's, but mainly Microsoft ones.
What do I use at home 100% of the time? Ubuntu. Enough said :)
Complain about this comment
I have been using Windows for more than 15 years and my use of computers (1x laptop and 1x desktop) are mainly for business use, and from that perspective Ubuntu is superior to Windows in every important area for me.
I have yet to find a single piece of hardware that does not work out-of-the-box with Ubuntu. That has especially been a blessing on my Sony Vaio laptop, which used to take hours to set up with finding the right drivers, using registry hacks to get some of them to work and so on. (I used to install Windows every 3-4 months just to get it running fast again, so I've installed it a fair few times). With Ubuntu everything “Just Works” out-of-the-box - sound, webcam, wireless networking, secondary display, video-out, etc. To my surprise even my 3G ExpressCard worked out-of-the-box when plugged into a PCMCIA slot! In fact, I have yet to plug in a device that has not been recognized immediately.
It is paramount for me have a secure system with encryption of important data combined with the automatic synchronization of my Dropbox account, so that it can be shared between two (or more) computers. I have yet to find a product for Windows that can do it, but with the built-in encryption file system in Ubuntu, it was actually fairly easy to set up and works perfectly.
In terms of software, well, must-have applications like Skype for Linux works perfectly, including the use of webcam and sending SMS messages, Google Earth for Linux works perfectly too, as well as Picasa and Adobe Reader, both Linux versions. With my iPods I use Rhythmbox, which is great because I can fully manage the music and films on my iPods instead of them being locked to iTunes. This is just a few examples as there's a huge number of applications.
The concept of repositories are pure genius. It makes software installation simpler and updates a doddle. Add a repository and you immediately have access to more software though the usual Add/Remove Software shortcut including, of course, automatic updates.
Then there's the regular effort and time you save because you don't have to do registry cleaning/fixing, clearing of junk files and defragmentation just to keep the system running smoothly.
In short, for my use, compared to Windows, Ubuntu provides the functionality I want and saves me a lot of time so I can get more work done!
Oh, and then I didn't even mention the many hundreds of pounds in savings for software and software upgrades...
Complain about this comment
24 hours with linux/ubuntu (not really a fair trial)
I have been using Linux for about 4 years now, currently on Ubuntu Hardy Heron, shortly to up grade on 29/10/09. Was introduced to Linux by my son who was then at Uni studying computer science.
All the programs I used on windows I found easy alternatives including Audacity for Ubuntu. Excellent music from Amarok. Ubuntu forums for people having problems is faultless.There are not many companies that don't have Linux servers. And no hackers.
And best of all no Microsoft huge cost's. It all comes free, as does your upgrades.
I'm in my sixties and find it very user friendly
Complain about this comment
80. At 5:03pm on 24 Oct 2009, MrFaulty wrote:
@ _Ewan_ For your info, fakeRAID is not the only problem I've had with Linux. I've had countless times where I've had to spend hours searching the Internet for that obscure driver and "howto". The fact is Linux has poor hardware support, whatever you say! Why do you think the whole of Dell had to make specific laptop models to support Ubuntu? For the fun of it?? PC makers like Dell are in it for the money, not to faff about or satisfy blind Linux followers like you. The day that people subscribing to your school of thought (on Linux) get that message, will be the day that Linux will begin to make serious progress. Canonical had to send a guy to help Rory out. That says a lot! I rest my case.
**********************************************
You can rest your particular case all you like, but you're barking up the wrong tree here, however you want to spell it.
The single reason why some hardware devices aren't provided with linux drivers (modules) is because some hardware companies lack the courage, business acumen, or a mixture of both, to build them in the first place. you only have to look at HP for instance, to see what happens when a hardware manufacture includes linux modules in their software portfolio. HP printers are strongly supported, in a plug and play setup, AND you don't even have to install the module yourself. It's already coded into the linux printer framework, called cups.
And others have already posted here with their plug and play success stories for various types of equipment they want to use. This isn't linux fanboy stuff, it's a simple fact.
Once again, those companies that actively support linux get not only an additional customer base for their products, but in the linux community they get strongly supported, and the viral/word of mouth marketing from users regularly communicating with each other and sharing experiences and knowledge is priceless for any company seeking to make a profit on their wares.
Any company that is brave enough to include linux, and resist the sometime legal and often oppressive business pressure to stay 'inclusive' of proprietary closed source software (google Dell, and find out why they were "required" to make separate laptop configurations for linux, for fear of losing special/financial support for closed source exclusivity), gets a lot of continued and sustained support from linux users, and are rewarded with ongoing sales and a giant "free" marketing team as a bonus.
Those companies are widely listed in communities and targeted websites (often paid for and maintained by appreciative linux users) as "Linux Supported', and reap the benefits as a result.
The hardware companies who DON'T support linux are the reason some users may struggle. That's not the fault of the OS, as common sense will tell you, because Microsoft and Apple don't write drivers for third party hardware. The companies involved do, and it's up to them.
A fact that's hard to ignore, if objective appraisal is your intent.
Complain about this comment
73. At 2:35pm on 24 Oct 2009, MrFaulty wrote:
......................
but in the real world where time is precious and commercial interests are paramount, Windows will rule the desktop! ...........
**************************
This might seem true in your case, but it's certainly not true in mine. So attempting to present this view as a "final" fact is nonsense.
As a fulltime classical/film composer with a particular requirement for working on a box, there's no comparison, Linux is way ahead of the curve. I use 1 box instead of 5 now (saving power costs, and doing my bit for the planet as a bonus), don't get crashed regularly (and no longer the embarrassment of trying to reboot in front of the client, as he or she waits "patiently" to hear their masterpiece in all its glory), and in a time/profit calculation, i get far more value per hour now, than i ever did with Win or Mac. The unlimited audio framework in Linux, a requirement for large and complex scores, audio and midi, is unavailable in Win and Mac, no matter how much money you want to throw at it. Multiple workspaces make handling multiple apps, another requirement of use here, a simple and powerful daily addition to saving time, and effort. Just two examples.
One only has to cite the now legendary acceptance of poorly written software, i.e., the blue screen of death, "your computer has stopped responding", or sat mesmorised by Apple's hypnotic spinning beachball to know that your idea of paramount commercial interests, could do with an update, or a new perspective.
Each user to their own, and personal satisfaction is the best result no matter the OS, but trying to imply only Win is the key to commercial user nirvana is frankly a complete nonsense, and easily refutable, with sound evidence, and personal experience.
More FUD, in other words.
Complain about this comment
A few notes. One, what they seem to have sent you is Ubuntu Netbook Remix, which is intended for netbooks and has a customized interface as you describe early in the article. The standard Ubuntu has a more 'conventional' desktop interface.
Two, installing software on Linux uses a different paradigm from Windows. It used to be a bit complex to explain this, but now there's a short-cut - it's much like the App Store on the iPhone. :) Instead of you generally going out directly to the app developers to download their apps, like you do on Windows, on Linux you usually go to a central system, provided by your distributor, which provides access to all applications from a unified interface and set of sources (usually called 'repositories'). I don't run Ubuntu so I can't give you exact instructions, but somewhere in the menus will be a software installation tool, which you can run and search for 'audacity', and it should find an audacity 'package' you can install. This is the general process for installing software on any Linux system, rather than the Windows process where you'd normally go to the Audacity website and look for an installer to download.
There are many applications available (use the same install process outlined above) for managing media on Linux. I'd recommend Rhythmbox for handling music, and F-Spot or Gthumb for photos. I don't really 'organize' my videos with an app (I just have a methodical directory structure). There should be a video player included with your Ubuntu system, just listed as 'Movie Player' probably (it's actually called totem).
Adam Williamson
Red Hat
Complain about this comment
Adam: Any chance of Red Hat lending Rory a laptop with Fedora? We can't be letting our brown wallpapered friends get all the attention.
Complain about this comment
I've had a fair bit of experience with Linux distros but my love for *nix just isn't as strong any more.
Years ago, when I was younger and had more time on my hands (with a keen interest in computing) I used to play with Linux quite a lot, I spent two years running Gentoo Linux, a very hardcore distribution that required you to literally compile your own operating system and software before you could use it.
After getting to University and becoming less and less inclined to bother with the tinkering aspects required to run Linux I gave up interest. Although I have dabbled with things like Ubuntu since.
However Ubuntu is far from perfect and is a long way off being the ultimate contender for Windows, in my experience anyway. If you're the average computer user and just require things like word processing and web browsing then it's probably fine but anything more then that and it's incredibly labour intensive to get things working.
Windows isn't a shining butterfly either but it's ultimately very simple to use, something which has made its dominance so prominent.
Complain about this comment
@ Alex1658 wrote:
The single reason why some hardware devices aren't provided with linux drivers (modules) is because some hardware companies lack the courage, business acumen, or a mixture of both, to build them in the first place.
What a load of nonsense! I will repeat what I said above to someone else; PC makers like Dell are in it for the money, not to faff about or satisfy blind Linux followers like you. The numbers speak for themselves, and if you really believe that the Linux fraternity are onto something so good and the rest of the world are missing out, then dream on!
Complain about this comment
I'm a recent user of a Linux OS (Mint r.7) - having used both mac and windows in the past - and I love the intuitive nature of the linux distro, you make of it what you will and fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants at times. Much support and advice is given freely in forums and on pages. The open-source nature is very rewarding to the user in that not only are apps freely available but you can actively contribute to their development (in many different ways). As a home media centre (my main use) the linux system works superbly with music, movies, and pics.
Let's begin to hear Linux in the same breath with microsoft and mac by so called 'technology' experts/journalists in the media......
Complain about this comment
That was a fun mini-review. It's really interesting for me, as an Ubuntu user, to see how people with a Windows background approach Ubuntu. I regularly install it on other people's computers so I see a lot of these stumbles in the first few months.
Familiarity is extremely important, I think. If someone is happy with XP, Vista, 7 or OSX and they know the ins and outs it can be daunting to the point where it's not worth changing. I know that feeling because I have it ever time I have to use a Windows or OSX machine.
I tend to say to people who want to switch that they'll spend 3 months in slowly decreasing frustration and at the end of that, they'll probably not want to switch back. The thing is, who has or wants to spare three months? Changing OS is a bit like renting a car in a foreign country where they drive on the wrong side of the road.
Just by the way, I think Ubuntu as it comes is not fit for the average user. I spend several hours (despite having automated the majority of the tasks) preparing a vanilla Ubuntu install for use. Out of the box you can't play mp3s, view flash based websites, play dvds ... the list goes on. The steps I currently take involve adding the medibuntu repositories (for skype etc), downloading 64 bit flash from the adobe labs site, installing every codec under the sun (admittedly OS will do this for you when you hit a file it can't play), installing wine, installing Spotify (which works well) ...
This takes a free OS from being able to deal with open formats to one that can use all the proprietary stuff that people _need_. The world would be better if this was not necessary and that people used ogg or flac for their music, no sites used flash (or silverlight, though that's pretty much the case anyway) etc.
My biggest gripe with Ubuntu at the moment is dealing with Office 2007 file formats (it doesn't very well) and Ubuntu uses Novell's tweaked version of Open Office that supposedly is better with these files.
Anyway, that's the really boring downside of changing OS. I wouldn't still be on Ubuntu if the grass wasn't greener.
I'm looking forward to the fuller review and I generally enjoy your take on things. If you throw the computer at a wall or anything, please take a pic :)
Complain about this comment
Linux isn't windows, so it is going to take a little bit of effort to use it. For some it is a little bit too much. For others, like myself, it has become as intuitive as the familiar windows is for most. It is free, great, but clearly not as well supported as an OS with the penetration, marketing and the money as Windows. Linux fanboys may be easily provoked into a flame war, by remarks as RCJ makes. But I think RCJ (and he won't be alone) is perfectly within his rights to refuse to give Linux that little bit of extra effort. But I will tell you one thing. That pressure from open source is the reason why MS is not standing still, why windows gets better, and why I can get MS Office 2007 for 9 quid from Microsoft. Not that I can be bothered to go back to windows...too much effort.
Complain about this comment
I am utterly and totally amazed that this is RCJ's (if I haven't mis-read the blog post) first use of Linux? Or is it just the Ubuntu distribution that this is your first experience of?
I am not trying to be all open source is great, or bashing the big corporates like Apple or MS - but seriously this cannot be your first usage? If it is it will really colour my impression of future comments because I thought dot.life / click etc were about consumer technology and Linuz has been big enough news and capable enough on the desktop to warrent a look for several years now. Agreed it isn't primetime yet for granny at home, but would have thought you would be more up to date than this.
Utterly shocked!
Complain about this comment
Now I've been using DOS/Windows since DOS 3.30 and Windows since version 3.0, I'm even a Novell NetWare 3.x and 4.x CNE and I run Ubuntu GNU/Linux on all my hardware at home, desktop and servers. Coming from WinXP it took some adaption to get the full out of the Ubuntu Desktop, not that it was difficult in any way.
In this moment I'm running Ubuntu 9.10 on my working computer and has done so since Karmic Koala Alpha 1 some 5 month ago and even in the Alpha-stage Ubuntu is stable and secure. And that's something I miss among the previous inputs: Security.
Knowing what I know about "security" in Windows I would very much like some Windows-fan-boy to tell me if even Windows 7 has on-the-fly encryption, or encryption in any kind made available from the moment you reach install screen 6?
Knowing what I know about MS I'd say the answer is NO. Win7 does not have default per-user /$HOME-encryption. Or even a radio-button that lets you tell the system that you want your $HOME-folder encrypted and unmounted as you log out of the system. Most every other GNU/Linux distro doesn't have it either. Once again: Show me the Windows that has that kind of security build in for free?
As already mentioned above - Most GNU/Linux users don't care if you use Linux or not. It isn't us who has to pay thousands of £ or $ for something that insecure and immature. But, hey. If you like Windows - Who care?
Complain about this comment
I want MY computer to be as reliable, easy to use and worry free as a toaster. Any web site. Any e-mail attachment. Any task. Any time. No excuses.
Linux enables me: fast, stable, secure, fun, worry free ... makes computing a pleasure.
Can I get you some toast and jam ?
Complain about this comment
You sound like me when I was first introduced to Windows 3.1 many years ago!
I was introduced to Ubuntu when Windows Vista self-destructed. I am a seasoned Windows user and was totally new to the Linux environment but setting up Ubuntu and getting it to work with all my hardware was very, very easy. Far easier and quicker than installing Windows as I did not even have to install any drivers.
After a couple of days I felt very comfortable in Ubuntu, installed the software I needed and even installed Wine. I was very surprised to find that I really missed Ubuntu when I was without it for a week while my computer was being repaired to fix the issue it had with Windows. When it came back I opted for a dual boot mode so I could continue to use Ubuntu.
I have only been using Ubuntu for just over a month but already I am preferring it to Windows. It is stable and secure so I can forget about crashes and malware and other nasties which affect Windows.
=========================================
To be frank, no, because it would not make my computing life any simpler and more pleasurable than it is now.
==========================================
Competition for Microsoft is good and will bring users of Windows better and better Operating Systems as the company tries to retain their market share. Therefore, Linux is not to be feared but rather embraced as, indirectly, it will help to make the lives of Windows users simpler and more pleasurable in the future.
Complain about this comment
All this is a row between techies and occasionally 'grandma' is referred to but never is actually present in person ('grandma' could also stand for the average student I meet in the freshers class.) OS's are basically DOS's with fancy front ends which can manage multitasking. The front ends go back to about 1986 and multi tasking to about five years before that. The metaphor for front ends (graphical displays) have since they were invented in the late 70's has been the 'desk top' which no one knows how to use sensibly or perhaps theirs like mine is just as disorganised as the their real desktop. More recently there has been some effort to transfer the action area to the browser.
What we need is a way of delivering various levels of usability to users. Apple does this by trying to deliver applications which alleged to be easy to use. But I have never learnt to use iTunes because I haven't got time and don't think iPods are good value. More seriously I don't know how to use iPhoto for example.
We also need the DOS/Interface to work. My XP has stopped downloading MS updates... despite the fact that the recognition software has be properly installed... One of my Macs has refused to install Firefox tidily. and my micro laptop needs a new linux distro which as yet is not completely finished...In the first two a reinstall is called for of course which I could manage if I had a couple of days but could grandma or her grandson.
Just give us the tools and let us get a life!
Complain about this comment
I work at an organisation ( www.access-space.org ) that helps people do creative things with free technology, including building their own free computer system from reused parts of unused PC's, and free software. Giving our users access to a cost free computer system, which just isn't possible legally with Windows / OSX.
We recommend a Linux based Operating System that should suit them, dpending on their needs. For normal desktop use (web browsing / email / home office stuff / photo storage) we tend to suggest Mint http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php . It's based on Ubunut but even easier to get going with.
The different distros have different priorities and one of Ubuntus is that is legal out of the box almost everywhere on earth. This mean due to US and Japanese law it can't ship with DVD or flash support etc.
Mint is based on Ubuntu and so has the same huge range of tested software but it's priority is that its main version 'just works' so it includes DVD and flash support from the start. This may be what a lot of people are looking for.
However must say that mint wouldn't exist without Ubuntu and the great team and community there and that the Ubuntu Netbook remix is really excellent for its target (honestly how often do you watch DVDs on a netbook). The obvious alternative of XP (which was pre-installed) took me 2 days and most of my mobile broadband quota for the month just to make safe before I used it (getting the latest updates, installing anti-virus and firewall and getting IE8). And Netbook remix looked and worked great straight away.
Complain about this comment
I use Windows and Linux. I use both servers and desktops using each OS.
Servers:
Linux servers, once configured, just work. They never need to be touched again. Linux needs to be rebooted for kernel upgrades whereas MS requires reboots almost every time it's patched or a new program is installed. This simple difference is enormous when you consider the nature of the internet - an always on, redundant resource. Sometimes Windows updates break programs running on Windows. It's a terribly messy affair.
Linux is free and of enterprise standard. Pay for someone who can use and configure and troubleshoot and the money you save in licensing (for business) is huge.
Example - MS Exchange 2007 email server with 200 user licenses - circa £20k
Postfix - free
Desktops:
If you use your desktop for the internet, word processing and little else, it doesn't matter if you use Windows or Linux. If you're a programmer for the web you may choose proprietary or open and choose a compatible OS. As a multi-media user you'll want the OS that has the most simple to configure multi media experience. Why search forums to install iTunes on Linux when you can click a program and install in Windows. Why follow instructions to do something in an environment you don't know when you can do it simply yourself in an environment you do know. Learning is fun but pushing people out of their comfort zone is counter-productive.
I'd love to see the Linux desktop take off but I've been shocked by using Windows 7. I think it's fantastic. I'll stick with Linux servers where I can though.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To those who complain about the lack of DVD support, mp3 support etc by default, that isn't the fault of Linux. That would be the fault of the licensing, since dvd video needs to be descrambled before it can be played. MP3 is also licensed, why this is is beyond me, since I can't see why the original makers don't just make it free,
If your company can pay for that (Apple, Microsoft) it isn't a problem. However the mechanism to break the copy protection for legal use (when not licensed) is for some reason not legal in some countries, so it can't be bundled by default.
Funnily enough that explains why people find it easier to pirate content, since then it doesn't come with copy protection that prevents legitimate use...
Complain about this comment
The bottom line with any operating system is usability, for whatever purpose you want it for. You also want it to be stable and secure. As for cost, well it depends how much you want to pay for the above, and how you want to pay, by which I mean either money or time.
Windows has high usability due to that widely familiar interface. It's also stable, while on stability everyone admits it has issues. We shall have to see about Windows 7. It's not free, but affordable, at least to the majority, and relative to it's features.
Apple Mac is just cool, usable, stable, and probably more secure than Windows. And guess what? It's more expensive than Windows!
As for Linux, the Linux brigade cannot even agree on which flavour is the most usable. A newbie might have to go through a myriad flavours, unless someone recommended something they were biased to or something like that. I'm not sure about stability, though admittedly that has improved tremendously in recent years such that it's gained traction in the enterprise server environment. And that's actually where it's success is, not the desktop. Generally speaking, to get it to work on the desktop can be a daunting and time consuming exercise, and since most of us are poor for time, we would rather spend the little personal time we have playing with cool apps like Picasa on Windows!
The likes of Novel have an enterprise desktop distro called SUSE Linux, which by and large works very well, and surprise, surprise it's NOT free!
Complain about this comment
I installed Ubuntu a couple of months ago, but never used it (my wifi password was in an encrypted disk image file that I couldn't open from Ubuntu). After reading this blog, I booted it up again (I'm using a multi-boot MacBook). It took a while to find the MacBook specific updates, but I have them now. I was surprised to find a window pop open to tell me there were 256 new updates since I had installed the OS. While they were downloading and installing, I thought I'd configure the desktop. I tried to set "Visual Effects" to "Normal" and was told I needed some nVidia drivers. I gave permission (twice) for these to be downloaded, but the install failed (because the other updates were in progress). When the 256 updates had installed I was told to restart, which doesn't actually work on a MacBook, but I can live with that. After the reboot, I installed the nVidia drivers. These drivers insisted on yet another reboot. I can see why some people don't see this process as any more convenient than the Windows update/reboot hassle. Especially since I now know there is a newer version of Ubuntu available. Should I be reinstalling every six months? Having said which, I'm writing this in Firefox on Ubuntu. And both Audacity and Wine downloaded and installed very easily!
Complain about this comment
After using every Microsoft version from 2.1 to XP, and struggled with viruses, trojans, compatibility, DRM etc. I finally took advantage of a very wobbly Vista release to switch permanently and exclusively to Ubuntu, and I've now used it for years on one machine after another. Of course its not problem free (what OS isn't?) but its a huge time and money saver over Windows and provides me with all the power, control and flexibility I need. I have never found anything on Windows including imaging, accounting, CAD-CAM and desktop publishing software that I cant get to work better and faster on Linux. When I do have problems e.g. with new hardware, the community has always come to my help promptly and effectively. Niche possibly, because proprietary file formats still dominate, but still a pretty big user base and growing. Incidentally the user statistics for Microsoft versus Linux are generally loaded in favor of Microsoft, because of marketing strategy with so many machines that have Windows preloaded.
I hope you give it a decent test run over a period of months, for a fair assessment.
Complain about this comment
Someone was mentioning about the GUI of Windows and that Linux is "imitating" it. Well, the Graphical User Interface, and the mouse as an input device, was actually invented in 1974.
Complain about this comment
@MrFaulty: "we would rather spend the little personal time we have playing with cool apps like Picasa on Windows!"
Why not play with cool apps like Picasa (for linux of course) on Ubuntu???
Complain about this comment
Rory, you are wrong to make an assumption on the usability of an operating system because it might require that you download additional software...
Don't the majority of Windows users have to download additional software to perform tasks?
You shouldnt review an operating system, or any software/hardware for that matter, unless you are willing to put effort in, which you obviously weren't.
Im not a "Linux Geek" and i am not necessarily backing Ubuntu,
I have a PC running Windows Vista, a PC running Fedora 11, a laptop running Mandriva, 6 servers running CentOS, 1 server running Ubuntu and one running Windows 2003 so i have a range of O/Ses to play with and i, unlike you, seem happy to put effort into each one and treat it as an individual operating system instead of expecting them all to run exactly the same
Complain about this comment
This was a pretty balanced review, and I thank you for taking the time to play with ubuntu. A few things in particular stuck out though:
Firstly I'm surprised that you had trouble seeing other computers on your network... I remember a couple of years ago having to mess around with Samba to set up networking but certainly from my experience those days are long gone. I'm on Karmic and it "just works" (to use a hackneyed phrase) out of the box, as it did in previous versions.
Secondly I find it odd that you had difficulty installing audacity, were you using the Ubuntu Software Centre? All you have to do is type 'Audacity' into the search box and there it is, click install and you're sorted. This for me is one of Linux's biggest strengths, not having to scrabble around far-flung corners of the internet for elusive .exes as in windows, but unfortunately it's an idea that recent converts from windows seem to take a long time to get used to. Most will do as (presumably) you did, visit a developer's website to download software, which the developer themselves may release only as source code (most packaging is done by the distributions themselves) and subsequently complain that installing software on linux is intensely difficult.
With regards to organising photos, music and video, F-Spot is a great photo management tool, and google has also released Picasa for linux. Amarok is the best music app for literally any OS IMHO, although Rhythmbox, Banshee and all the others are also great (actually, for media players you've got such a huge selection you should be in heaven). As for video I'm not so sure as it's not something I do, but I'm sure the Ubuntu Software Centre would point you in the right direction.
I can understand your comments about not choosing to install it. I do not tend to 'proselytise' for linux because people hate change - no matter how much they complain about windows the last thing they want to do is learn something different - even if the linux way (ie installing software) is a million times better. Obviously if people want to install linux then I'll help.
I find it interesting that you didn't mention Linux's security benefits, but perhaps as a mac user(?) you are used to a secure environment.
Also, I'm not sure if netbooks can use this (although I see no reason why not) but you really should try out compiz. It's fundamentally a compositing window manager, but more importantly it provides the sort of pizazz (and also functionality) that other operating systems can only dream of, whilst being very very light on system resources, unlike the hulking great beast of Aero.
Ubuntu and its ilk probably will remain a niche product amongst normal consumers (particularly in the developed world), but as an Ubuntu user I'm perfectly happy with that - Ubuntu is great for me, it's simple, powerful, easy to use and light-years ahead of Windows. Whether other people use it or not doesn't change that particular fact.
Complain about this comment
On a related topic; I downloaded my ISO image of Ubuntu 9.04 from a torrent file and left it seeding - am I likely to be cut off as a "pirate"?
Complain about this comment
As they say, it's not the nicotine but the habit that is hard to beat... It's an analogy that sums it up pretty well.
I do have my moments with Linux. If a driver isn't compatible out of the box, getting it to work properly is a huge ask. That brown colour that comes with Ubuntu is beyond belief. There are things I like about Windows as well, eg MS Office. However, when it comes to the ease of use, since the release of the Live CDs, Linux is one step ahead.
1. Finding programs is easy
2. Installing programs is effortless
3. It just works
4. It doesn't get stuck like Windows does
5. Has anyone mentioned that it's free?
6. The engineering of it is better than Windows. Experts value Linux kernel at $2,000,000,000. That's how much would have to be spent on it if it was to be rewritten today. Every Brit indirectly contributes to Linux through various EU research grants... We do actually pay a small fee for it, but most of the contributions come from companies that use it as a tool.
Complain about this comment
In addition to my previous comment, it's probably worth your time, Rory, reading this article: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzx9af3 . It's a little out of date nowadays, but it's still very valuable reading.
Also, might I suggest you try a program called Gnome-Do? It really is excellent and if you go into its preferences you can set its theme to 'Docky' - a really good dock which I find makes my computing experience so much better. Not sure if Docky is compatible with Ubuntu Netbook Remix, as obviously the interface for that is completely different.
Also I have to agree about Ubuntu's offensive brown-ness. Ubuntu is pretty famous in the Linux community for looking like a dog's dinner (compared to something like Linux Mint), but linux is very customisable so you're thankfully not stuck with it. Personally I prefer the Dust theme which I think is a work of art. Have a look on http://gnome-look.org to see the amazing variety of themes, icons and all the rest that the linux community has come up with (although again, I'm not sure how this all works with Ubuntu Netbook Remix).
Complain about this comment
Ppeaking as someone with 5 members of there family that want to use a computer, I cant afford to purchase 5 Windows 7 licenses and so moving to Ubuntu has been a life saver. Additionally, Ubuntu has enabled me to extend the life expectancy of most of my laptops (we have 3) far beyond there useful Windows XP life, since Ubuntu is far less memory hungry - i havent had to upgrade memory (if that were indeed possible).
Finally, I suggest you do try wine. It is simple to install and works great. I have spotify and microsoft office running fine under wine. installation is a complete doddle.
Complain about this comment
@badger_fruit
No, Ubuntu is a free piece of software that is actively encouraged to be shared and does not fall under copyright law. That's the whole ethos of Linux and open source software.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ewan (95): I'm not sure it'd be worth asking the BBC to go around trying every Linux distribution out there. For a high-level overview article like this, I don't think it really _matters_ which you try - I think the article would've looked much the same whether he'd gone with Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva or anything else. Those of us who work for Linux distributors (and some of our more committed users ;>) may have a lot of personal investment in the differences between them, but if you stand back a bit, you have to realize they're not so huge, especially for the purposes of this kind of journalism.
Having said that, if anyone at the Beeb does want to give Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise Linux a road test, or talk to someone at RH, do get in touch with me and I'll put them on the right track.
Adam Williamson
Red Hat
Complain about this comment
I can understand your difficulty in installing new software. I stumbled into the same trap when I first used Ubuntu two years ago. In Windows, Add / Remove software just helps you install the software you've bought. In Ubuntu (and Linux in general), it downloads and installs the software for you, taking care of any dependencies along the way. What's more, the software is maintained along with the OS from a single Update Manager giving you security and feature updates into the bargain (not numerous applets running in your system tray each checking for updates).
You can install Wine the same way. A few years ago, most of the Windows programs I tried with Wine either wouldn't install or wouldn't run. Now most of them install and run well. That said, I usually find the software that's available in the repository to be at least as good as the Windows equivalents and they have the added benefits mentioned above.
I'm glad you tried Ubuntu, albeit for 24 hours. I would strongly recommend you try it for longer - after 2 years with Ubuntu I really struggle now with the speed (lack of), inflexibility and unfriendliness of a Windows PC.
Complain about this comment
I cannot believe that having the occasion to spotlight Ubuntu to a BBC program, Canonical did not supply at least a small introduction booklet to its linux operative system to the reviewer and left him just guess-clicking around.
Or at least put well in sight a link to some help / migration webpage that contains a brief indication of linux-alternative-to-windows applications.
In similar occasions it is so evident that the point of view is going to come from a windows / mac user who need a bit of a hand to move around an unfamiliar environment.
I like Ubuntu a lot and it is so sad to notice such own goals
Complain about this comment
Windows, as many have pointed out, has its own foibles and oddities. For example, despite having a valid store brought copy of XP Pro on a computer it now pesters me that "I could be the victim of computer fraud" and wants me to spend £100 to "make things go away". Which is pretty much demanding money with menaces; see foibles and oddities. Friendly little bugger at times isn't it?
The fact that this is the BBC and there is a blog article about someone who has never used or heard of Linux before now is remarkably unsurprising, only last year (or the one before) one of the web techs for the BBC publicly announced only 200 people or so ever visited the BBC website with Linux and this was why iPlayer for Linux was a pipe dream. She missed off at least two zero from what I remember.
I too am sick of the mythical "grandma" character people throw around as being this rather dumb person. One of my inlaws has the start of altzhimers and has still managed to sucsessfully move from Windows 2000 to OS X 10.4, says something about ease of use that does. Another has only used Windows and brought an EEE PC 701, with their permission, I installed Ubuntu on it and the various tweaks to get the most performance from it. She is getting along swimingly, no major problems and nothing which the old Windows addage of "Press F1 for help" couldn't solve either.
I assume the author of this piece didn't do that. Press F1 that is. Yes, even Flash auto installed without a hitch.
So, "Grandma" and "Granddad" have no issues migrating to different OS's in my experience. Especially when the OS is logically laid out. Of course "Grandma" is always a euthamism for "I" in these cases "I couldn't figure it out".
Of course if the person writing this blog tried to use a Mac, they'd have exactly the same "It's not Windows" fear but would be see a similar "this sucks" article? No. We wouldn't. Why? Because the person would poke around at it and explore various help options such as "Press F1" and "Google". Before posting that it was good, but different.
But again, no, not surprised to see this from someone at the BBC. Not surprised at all.
Complain about this comment
To the most passionate writer MrFaulty
I've read through some, maybe not all of your responses here, and I get the impression that your argumentation is to some degree based on misinformation. From a subjective viewpoint any opinion is valid, even though it lacks factual support, and nobody is free from subjectiveness.
From a Windows perspective the vast number of distributions is confusing at first glance. Some distributions could be labelled as remasters. In the Windows world it's both difficult, because of its closed-source nature, and illegale to make remasters. In the Linux world differentiating is a natural part of its progress. All can invent, reinvent, refine and reuse the same bolts and screws. Another difference is also that Windows desktop OS basically exist as one product, but then crippled to fit Microsofts' commercial strategy. Linux could be a plain kernel, as it is per se, to whatever the user wishes, and stimulating a spontaneous growth of more or less specialized distributions. To force limitations to how diverse Linux is allowed to be would be the same as kill the motivation to contribute. Linux and Windows are totally different creatures and can't hence be judged equally.
When you point out the seemingly true conclusion that Novell Suse Linux Enterprise is good but "surprise, surprise it's NOT free", you illustrate how difficult it might be to understand Linux, and open-source in general, since this isn't the standard business model. What you buy from Novell isn't so much the software, because it's all free and used by the whole ecosystem of Linux, but support. Microsoft as a company has never been good in giving support, something it has delegated to third parties. Once more two totally different approaches and if you don't understand it your conclusions might look true but are still wrong.
I don't know why you wrote "I'm not sure about stability, though admittedly that has improved tremendously in recent years...", since few have doubted Linux' advantage in stability before the days of XP. It's not especially surprising since Linux is from the ground a system built to function well in multi-computer environments and also have a natural distinction between user and system space. It's rare for a Linux system to halt or crash if applications fail. That it has "gained traction in the enterprise server environment" is as true as saying that cellphones has become a standard device; Linux dominates the most critical server environments so completely that it's dominance is there bigger than Microsoft's in the PC market. In the for Microsoft pretty strong SMB server segment Linux eats up a few percent per year. Even though I view Linux as the technically stronger system I believe there's room for both, and that Microsoft still can offer good value for some solutions.
When it comes to drivers I don't care much these days. Whatever new chipsets, CPUs, get released I know that it has been tested by Linux developers long before we even could get our hands on it. For enterprise level hardware Linux is a too important player to be ignored. I run a kernel that support hardware that I'm not sure can be delivered to my door yet. Of course there's issues, especially among recreation gadgets or USB devices with broken design, but a couple of things are sure:
- it's easy to find devices with Linux support
- and it's definitely not whether a device is old or new that decides if it has Linux support
About the latter you nowadays see how Linux get support for new technology before the competition. The deciding factors are found elsewhere.
You don't have to like Linux, it's wise however to realize that your experience, or even the majority's, doesn't rule out that some of us, honestly and objectively, come to an opposite conclusion.
Complain about this comment
Hi, I'm sorry guys, but I have to agree. I have tried and tried with this operating system for years. I have been through revision after revision. Lacking drivers for hardware that I had purchased in good faith. Printers were a nightmare, also scanners. Then I would get them working, then a new version would come out, and the whole cycle would start again. Then there were all of those different looking interfaces, it was bad enough having to learn them once, but then again and again. Yeah, I've been through all that command line stuff, with the GUI pasted on top. But what was worse were all the empty promises... "next revision we will fix this, next revision we will fix that"... ok, sometimes they did but then software breaks, and of course I've had to install the next version once again, re-install all the new versions of the software to keep it compatible... it just goes on and on. The different OS versions, some that would give network features, some that wouldn't.
Then all the hype, "this is our most secure version ever", "the next one will knock your socks of", "just let us tell you what we have lined up for you next"....
Yeah, all the way from DOS, win95, win98, me, 2000, XP and vista.
For those of you who haven't heard the message yet, and it isn't coming from people that were brought up with Linux for twenty years, but from people that have spent up to 20 years waiting patiently for M$ to come up with what Linux offers now.
Small user base, NO, lies, damn lies, and statistics.... Purchases of systems pre-installed versus, free download.... hmmm.
Small user base, no viruses... half the internet runs on this stuff, if the mischief makers wanted to make a splash why not attack Linux... cos it's easier to bring down windows. Ever noticed that they never mention the OS when viruses strike... is it cos they don't need to?
Oh, just a thought, but OSX and Linux use a similar system to protect from Virii, that causes some people grief when they have to look under the hood, (OSX users, generally, don't so it doesn't usually bother them), Vista tried to improve, and ended up with a method that drives users even more nuts to work with. Somehow, I suspect that if Windows 7 is going to be an improvement it will have to be.... Linux like... as I said, just a thought.
Rory was too fed up to try installing Wine, but just how long do you take to install your anti virus software, please let me know if you have found one that really works, oooh and your adware stuff. How is the performance of your system now? I bet your glad you splashed out for all that extra processing power too... shame it doesn't actually give you an advantage over the last OS M$ provided but hey, haven't those manufacturers done a great job of jazzing up the boxes from those old beige efforts.
I'm just glad they got all their hardware ok'd to run M$ before we purchased, or was that Dell having to do it to make Linux run.... @Mrfaulty?
But then of course there is all those costly software products that can't open Office 2007 files, because there rubbish, or is it because M$ close the file formats so that other developers can't access them. But off course that's ok cos you paid for the new wizzy 2007 so you could open files from (fill missing ______) because your paid for copy of Office 97 can't do it either... even though it has all of the features that you, and your business need, and about 95% of the other features that you don't.
Or maybe you bought it because the feature you used in the old version was removed, skipped a generation, but was "promised" to be re-instated in the next, just for you...
Then how about all of that software that you bought that doesn't work in Linux, not too mention the virus scanner provided at discount buy PCWorld, Curry's, Comet to run on your Linux Netbook, bad system or bad (professional) advice? Of course it's Linux's fault because a simple computing factor such as software compiled on one OS doesn't work directly on another.... unless of course you take advantage of Open Sourced Java. Or ask the software providers to compile it, (they have the source code), for Linux.
Does all the open source software do 100% of what your bought software does... maybe not... but when was the last time you used 100% of it's features.
Or what about one of those great computing ideas you have, if you can only afford the software.... (maybe one day) have a look through Open Source, if it can be done it can be done on Linux.
Does that mean proprietary is pointless, no, there are a lot of great companies producing fantastic software, if Adobe ever port their stuff to Linux, M$ are in big trouble.
But Photoshop runs under wine already...
What did that last update to Vista cost you? Many hours hunting around trying to find where everything is. Searching the internet for advice, and feeling kinda stupid cos it should be so simple. The new machine to carry the performance, and of course up-dating much of your software to keep it compatible with the new OS. Of course, because your so loyal to M$ you will be looking forward to buying the new Win 7 because you trust them to not mess it up again.
Please Mr Gates SLAP ME HARDER
To all the other Linux users out there,
"Just smile and wave boys, smile and wave" - Madagascar Penguins
Complain about this comment
To commenter 121; I know full well that seeding Ubuntu is not illegal ... I just posted it having just read about how ISPs may soon be given the power to disconnect persistent "file-sharers", because everything downloaded and up-loaded via torrents is illegal isn't it.
I'm pretty certain that the blog "return of the file-sharing debate" will be appearing tomorrow on these pages .. I would like to see/hear/read that the BBC ask the powers that be this one single question:
"How do you know that the content you're cutting someone off the internet for is actually illegal?"
And not accept anything less than a straight answer.
Complain about this comment
I left Windows behind 2 1/2 years ago and never looked back. Ubunutu is incredibly stable and fast to use (and not just counting the boot seconds) I use it for multimedia, web design/maintenance and photography. Ubuntu comes with most software needed for everyday use; I have had no troubles downloading a few specialty graphics and audio programs. One points out all this, on the most part, is open source and "free".
Ubuntu performs wonderfully on older computers without need for constant hardware upgrades. Best of all the Ubuntu community is incredibly supportive and help is just a search away.
My new Ausus laptop (purchased this spring and Windows preloaded) had only demos of important software; to get the software I use would have cost hundreds of dollars. My only beef with this new laptop -- it came with MS Windows preloaded. I admit to grinding my teach when I read Microsoft saying how successful their Windows OS is, based on desktop and laptop sales. Ubuntu 8.10 was swiftly the only operating system on my laptop.
I am not a computer programmer, nor am I officially trained in any way; I'm just an "over 50" user who got feed up with with bugs, security nightmare's and instability.
Suzanne
Complain about this comment
I first gave Linux a try back in 2004, with the Mandrake Powerpack 10.1 It was all new, shiny and lovely, but like Rory, I felt out of my comfort zone and so after a while, left it in favour of XP again.
I returned to Linux nearly 2 years ago for reasons related to work. For you see, I'm a physicist and almost all scientific codes are written for Linux. All of the simulation packages I use - ion scattering simulations, electron diffraction simulations, desntiy functional theory calculations - only work in Linux. I really had little choice but to try out Linux and I'm damn glad that I did.
Ubuntu 7.10 still had some issues about it that I didn't really care for, but 8.04 and later releases have been really solid. 9.04 in particular was a really nice update. All of the PCs I use at work run Linux; my laptop, which I use for work and at home, is dual booted with Vista and Ubuntu and; my home desktop PC is dual booted with XP and Ubuntu. There is no question that Ubuntu is faster and much more stable. I have also been impressed with the advances Ubuntu has made in the last 18 months with wireless support - both bluetooth and wireless internet - and thus far, have found NO piece of hardware that will not work with it.
For many people, a simple point-and-click approach is all they will want to use and Ubuntu does deliver that. Everything you need can be found in a graphical menu. I however use the command line interface by default as it is much more powerful. Sure, it may take some time to get used to it, but I am able to do things in Linux that are simply not possible in Windows. And that is the big thing for me - Linux is far more powerful than Windows will *ever* be.
Complain about this comment
The IGNORANCE that permeates this blog is not only breathtaking but is a form of SNOBBERY that is best illustrated by the an epitome.ie I expect you go past a pub selling best Sirloin@£6.95 bogof to eat a Rump@ £10 down the road-cos that is what you have written here.I doubt if the rest of your life is run like this as I expect you have accessed a comparison website somewhen;yes? really! so why are you following the dogmatic mantra of the microsoft sheep and stumping up £145 or more to replace an OS that they have already charged you an arm and a leg for and that can ONLY start the computer, and has problems with out of date drivers regularly.I decline to get into a Windows versus Linux versus Mac debate but in the meantime I will use my FREE ubuntu OS, with NO ANTIVIRUS as Linux has a built-in antivirus as part of its kernel;when I want a particular software package for a particular job I can download an up to date version regularly updated for FREE from the repositories -no popping down to PCW Dixons Curry's or Staples to be ripped off for a commercial package that is probably out of date, probably IP from Open source, and I had absolutely NO Problem logging on or contributing this piece of criticism even though I don't have a computer here with Windows on it. Oh by the way Canonical compiles Ubuntu -a version of Debian Linux-and is not just some patronised little computer company like you make out. Also I was able to read the windows eula and having replaced the Windows Vista Basic on the Acer laptop I am using for an OS that worked better, was streets ahead in development and cost me £0.00, I was able to obtain a refund that I donated to the further development of Ubuntu. Yours truly, wallowing in my utterly cheap smugness.
Complain about this comment
Maybe its time the BBC got a new Techy guy in...
Complain about this comment
It's not the first time Ubuntu has graced the pages of the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/06/linux_ubuntu_blog.html), but the very man, Ashley Highfield has since moved onto to greener pastures (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/14/bbc.digitalmedia).
Complain about this comment
... and then moved to Microsoft (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/10/ashley-highfield-project-kangaroo) ...
Complain about this comment
Your previous post's title was "A week with Windows", and you gave Ubuntu just a day!!!!!!!
I think that's bias, or is it???
Complain about this comment
I've tried Ubuntu. Intrepid Ibex was the last time. I got rid of it. And I'm verging on being a techie (all my friend think I'm uber-techie). I want Ubuntu to work - but it doesn't for me - and wouldn't for 99% of the population. It's like Windows 3.1 - it needs effort to make it work. People don't want effort, they don't want to understand something, they jut want it to turn on, be intuitive, not have to read a manual, not have to consult a forum or download a driver, they just want it to work. Like a TV or Radio or Fridge.
I take a look at the posts of most of those singing ubuntu's praises - and they use words like RAID, authentication, root, drive mounting, distribution, kernel etc etc. I know what these things mean - but 99% of the public don't know, and most importantly they don't want to know.
Ubuntu, as a user experience is at least 10 years behind the curve compared to Windows and MacOS. I wonder if a technology developed solely by technologists can ever reach the masses? I doubt it. It needs design, user experience and marketing people behind it - and I see no evidence of their presences in any of the Ubuntu "distros" I've ever used. I suspect Chrome OS will outstrip Ubuntu within a month of it's launch because behind it is a brand and company that understands consumers. Chrome could be the open source solution - I don't think Ubuntu could be.
Complain about this comment
" not have to consult a forum or download a driver, they just want it to work."
- so this doesn't happen with Windows ? My triple boot XP / Windows 7 / Ubuntu desktop can only print from XP as neither Windows 7 or Linux have drivers available for the printer. Ubuntu works happily with a scanner that Windows 7 won't recognise, and so on.
The typical user experience of a pre-installed Windows OS is inevitably simlper than that of having to install an OS, but you can't use the fact that we are all virtually forced to buy Windows with a PC as evidence that Windows is better or easier than Linux, it's just that someone has already installed Windows for you !
The key advantage of Linux for me is that the Add/Remove Programs feature can actually Add programs from a vast range of software - Windows simply can't add software without you downloading it or going and buying it, what can be simpler than a package manager.
Complain about this comment
A quick analysis to the posts
94 from Linux "fanboys"
22 from Microsoft "aficionados" (slightly inflated)
12 neutral
rest not categorised or just too personal
Conclusion...several possible reasons: -
1) Linux users are too touchy
2) Windows users yawn when Linux is mentioned
3) 80% of reasers use Linux
4) RCJ likes to bait Linux users
Complain about this comment
I think familiarity is the biggest obstacle for people to start using Linux. However, I got a few new computer users to start with Ubuntu. I installed everything and using it seems to be a easier to learn compared to windows system.
Besides that, I don't really understand the remark about Audacity. Installing software is nothing more than selecting it in the package manager 'synaptic' wich is in the menu.
This is one of those blogs where a windows user is comparing Linux with a Windows version. If you turn it around, you would get the same remarks of someone who's starting to use windows after years of Linux. Back in the stoneage I started with dos, tried win3.xx and 95, used windows 98, NT4-ws and Win2000 but I started moving to Linux in the late 90's. I also still use Windows (XP and Vista) and using the one or the other is more or less the same, but in windows everything seems hidden, it slows down after time and the start menu clutters up within weeks.
My Dell Vostro had Vista on it when I got it almost two years ago. I installed Ubuntu after a day of annoyances and that install (8.04) has had some upgrades to the 9.04 it's now (upgrades, no new installs) and even although it's used almost exclusively it has never been reinstalled, is used by my wife for work, didn't slow down and is reliable (and runs everything I need). Vista has been installed twice since then, loses wireless connection every now and than, slows down and is s l o w. Vista Basic without the eyecandy. Ubuntu runs all the 3d graphic bells&whistles it has to offer without any problems.
Complain about this comment
saiftynet (139)
If you want a fair description and choose to use the word "fanboy", something I wouldn't recommend, then it applies to all camps, Linux, Windows or some other. Some Linux users are touchy, just as the case with Windows user and Mac users. The difference though might be that among Windows users you find one category that for some reason hate Microsoft, might be because of DRM or prices, but still want the latest games for the platform and certain media access only available for Windows, or wish there would be a choice exactly as Windows but not being Microsoft Windows; users against their will. Linux and Mac users are usually people who have made a conscious choice. Hence reactions might be different.
Another factor to remember when you apply the hazy term "fanboys" to Linux users is that a large part of them aren't loyally Linux users and could change to for example BSD just like that if it seems as a better choice. Still they might defend with passion what they believe is better computing, but the defence isn't solely in favour of Linux but a concept of computing.
I hope the "RCJ likes to bait Linux users" isn't true, because then it would disqualify him as a writer for BBC. If true he should be a bloger not affiliated with BBC, since BBC officially has higher standards for how to serve the public.
Complain about this comment
Rory mentions Linux's "miniscule" market share (I assume he means on desktop PCs since it's been a big player on servers for some years), but doesn't elaborate on this. I'd be interested to see some accurate figures on Linux use.
Since Linux distributions are rarely sold, and most new computers in the UK can only be bought with a copy of Windows, figures based on sales always make Linux look like the ultimate in niche products. In the last few months I've heard quite a few 'ordinary' people talking about Linux, so I'm starting to wonder how popular it really is. Maybe the BBC, with its huge resources and tradition of neutrality, could dig up some unbiased research on the subject?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In 1998 I bought a computer. It was pre-installed with Windows 98. I needed it to run an office; letters, spreadsheet, database, printer, scanner, network. I was introduced to the ´Blue Screen Of Death´. After three months of BSOD and rebooting into ´safe´ mode and screaming insults down the phone at the vendors a friend suggested Gnu/Linux. I have never looked back. I have never paid money for software. I still have the original scanner, I replaced the original computer four years ago, and am on my third printer. I expect my current computer to last at least another two years.
I can understand that there are things that Windows can currently do that perhaps Gnu/Linux cannot, but there is nothing in your average office that Windows can do that Gnu/Linux cannot. If you compare what my computer network has cost me over the years to what the equivalent Windows network would have cost, I have saved a fortune. I found it no more difficult to learn to use Gnu/Linux than it was to use Windows. It is virus proof and crash proof.
Over the years Gnu/Linux has developed far faster than Windows, I am amazed at some of the software available for Gnu/Linux now compared to ten years ago, and the ease with which it can be installed and used.
I cannot understand why commercial firms spend the vast sums that they do to upgrade their systems in Windows when they could save so much money. I am forced to the conclusion that the commercial market is driven by the domestic market, that people use Windows in the office because the boss uses it at home to run Quake II (or whatever, I confess ignorance of games programs) and therefore he buys what he is familiar with.
Another problem is that the arguments tend not to be based on utility, but on politics. Microsoft is the exemplar of capitalism and thus tends to be defended by those who prefer that political school. The prime movers and shakers of Gnu/Linux belong to the Free Software Foundation and are of an anarchistic cast. If you consider this for two seconds it becomes obvious that rational debate is going to be at a premium.
Complain about this comment
@ (127) KimTjik
I'm sorry, but you laboriously wrote all that and completely missed my point. I don't hate Linux, though I wouldn't say I love it, but and I am not trying to engage in a dogmatic Linux vs Windows war. My conclusions about Linux are based on a decade of using it, unlike people making conclusions from one encounter. My experience goes back from the early RedHat distros, through to Debian (of which Ubuntu is a derivative), Fedora and Ubuntu and a few others. If you had followed my 'scribblings' above you'd have realised that I actually have use for Linux, but not on the desktop.
Some Linux followers will not take criticism of it, which is just a shame. And Some of them are just anti-Microsoft, which is an even bigger shame. There are some open-minded ones, however, and one such gave a good review of Ubuntu 9.04 on ZDNET (I think), where he said it had missed an opportunity to make Linux an alternative desktop OS. I couldn't agree more.
As for your conclusion: "You don't have to like Linux, it's wise however to realize that your experience, or even the majority's, doesn't rule out that some of us, honestly and objectively, come to an opposite conclusion.
Well, it's also true vice versa, is it not? By the way, I have not attempted to dispute anyone's "good" experience with Linux. I have simply given account of my own 'nightmarish' experience (with Linux as a Desktop OS as opposed to server), and reflected that against my observations of the industry.
Complain about this comment
They sent over a Dell Inspiron Mini, loaded with "Karmic Koala", as Ubuntu 9.10 is nicknamed.
---------
That's your first problem right there. You have had experts set up your system for you.
99.999% of users will either have to install it for themselves or be buying a pre-installed shop sold variant which from personal expereince is often a far from perfect situation. So you are probaby starting with a system far better configured than most of us would be.
I am a fan of Linux but it will always lack behind Winows, MacOD and probably ChromeOS becaus it is designed by experts for experts and is not ready to compromise the level of control it gives users in order to make it bomb-proof for the average user and the realism is that until it can do this AND market itself as such it will always be a fringe option.
Complain about this comment
or wish there would be a choice exactly as Windows but not being Microsoft Windows
-------
I tend to ignore anyone with these tendencies, they clearly are happy with Windows but just like to whinge because it is cool to take pot shots at MicroSoft.
Complain about this comment
147. DwrDwfn
Sorry but no. First thing, your rate of hardware usage has nothign to do with the OS, neither really does the issue of 'cost' as there are free apps that do nearly all imaginable office functions for Windows as well as Linux and you would not necessarily have had to pay a lot for windows updates, maybe upgrading to 2000 and then XP which would have cost a total of £150 or so.
The growth of Windows in the home has been driven by the workplace, not the other way around.
Complain about this comment
I use Linux Mint on my desktop computer and find it works straight out of the box. It is based on Ubuntu and tweaked to make it an even easier distribution to use. Because of its European origin, it even comes with the basic codecs installed.
And no, you don't have to be a computer power user to employ it. I have installed it on a Sony Vaio laptop belonging to a friend of mine; a complete computer incompetent and, he has taken to it like a duck to water. It just works and can do things most normal computer users need!
Complain about this comment
I have to say that the overall tone of this blog entry just depressed me. A technical journalist is given a new computer with a new operating system on it and basically spends 24 hours using it, and the end conclusion seems to be "Meh, its too much like hard work but it boots faster than Windows"
You spent a week with Windows 7, would you have only given that a day, or only given Snow Leopard a day? Did you give up trying to find features on W7 because it was "too much bother" or did you dig around and find where Microsoft had moved things to compared to where they were in Vista or XP.
I think that it was that sort of uninterested, can't care less, attitude which grated with me the most. Every single of us who has had to "learn" a new GUI, be that GEM, Apple, TOS, Windows 3.1, CDE, Windows 98, OSX, Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 7 always finds it frustrating when what we used to do no longer works, or the app isn't where we'd expect to find it, or it looks different. That is just part of the whole experience of learning a new desktop environment. If we all said its too much like hard work we'd probably all still be sitting staring at various different command lines.
I do hope that we can look forward to a much more in depth blog where you spend more than 24 hours playing with Ubuntu, and that you find out just how easy it is to add software from the Ubuntu repositories, software that is maintained and updated by Canonical so you know it will just work. Of course you may still not like it, but please do give it a bit of time to grow on you.
Complain about this comment
hackerjack wrote:
147. DwrDwfn
-Sorry but no. First thing, your rate of hardware usage has nothign to do with the -OS,
So you can comfortably run Vista and Windows 7 on a four to six year old machine can you?
-neither really does the issue of 'cost' as there are free apps that do nearly all -imaginable office functions for Windows
This is true, however the ones that work well tend to come from the FSF and many have not yet been ported, it is easier to run them on Gnu/Linux.
As I say, it´s not about utility, it´s about politics.
Complain about this comment
Cheltenham_Steve #150.
"A technical journalist is given a new computer with a new operating system on it and basically spends 24 hours using it, and the end conclusion seems to be.."
sigh..
you (and quite a few others, apparently) may have missed the following:
"Now we are going to have a fuller exploration of the system on this site next week, but in the 24 hours I've had the Dell, I've gathered some early impressions."
Complain about this comment
Having done o/s reinstalls on windows, mac, and ubuntu machines, I have to say it was the mac that gave me the most trouble and required more messing around setting up partitions etc. Macs are only 'easy' and 'intuitive' if you aren't the one doing maintenance on them! And with respect to not being able to use Spotify on Linux - it used to be software that worked on macs was a niche market, but now apple have a much larger market share so people actually bother to write compatible software.
Complain about this comment
I have tried t use ubuntu for about a year now and get frustrated with it every time. It looks like windows, smells a a bit like windows but is anything but. The thing comes half finished and you have to tweek it to get simple things like wireless to work. You wouldn't buy a car that you had to finish ther interior of when you got home would you. It's really for enthusiasts only and the casual user will stick with their Windows or OSX.
Complain about this comment
thenumberten
A lot of people say Linux is for enthusiasts only but I really don't understand that logic at all. Obviously a lot of enthusiasts do use and there are lots of reasons for that but to say it's only for the enthusiast is not accurate in my opinion. I think Linux makes far more sense as an OS for the casual user. As long as the install goes ok and the hardware is recognised correctly (as it usually is in my experience), everything is there for the average user right away; web browsers; media players; codecs for most media formats (not in Ubuntu's case - see Mint); an office suite; photo software, music software, everything is installed and updated from one place; far fewer security worries - most people don't even bother with security software - although some are available and are often built in. To me, it's the more poweruser/gaming orientated tasks which are more difficult i.e. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD playback, and ATI Crossfire etc.
Complain about this comment
So you can comfortably run Vista and Windows 7 on a four to six year old machine can you?
-----
You can comfortably run Windows 7 on a four year old laptop yes, considering the lesser power of laptops I should imagie a six year old desktop would cope fine with it too.
Vista was not particularly fit to be run on anything.
the ones that work well tend to come from the FSF and many have not yet been ported, it is easier to run them on Gnu/Linux.
---------
OpenOffice is plenty good enough for most people, as ae googles cloud apps if you dont mind them being out in the ether.
My point was that you dont have to pay for apps on Windows, assuming windows users do pay for them is a poor comparison, always has been. The relative costs for the OS and apps is quite close overall, especially in the business world where support for linux based systems is generally more expensive than MS based ones purely due to weight of numbers.
And it's not about politics.
The average home user cares nothing for the politics they just want somethign easy, friendly and out of the box, they dont care if it's windows or linux but most will go with the safe option they have heard of, this is not politics it's marketing and until linux has a central body to market it this will not change.
The average business want's stability and like it or not the perception is that MS will always be there, once again it comes down to being able to pinpoint where the centre of their organisation is. It also helps that you can pick up a helpdesk tech with windows experience for £18k p.a.
Complain about this comment
#145 MrFaulty
Your own observations of the industry?
I can understand your own experience hasn't been good, and that's a shame, not for linux in particular, but just as a user experience in general. I had plenty of trainwrecks using win and mac in a commercial environment, when my income, reputation, and general stress levels were under threat.
Anti-microsoft is a "brand' that gets thrown around a lot. and as soon as a user offers a viable alternative, or questions MS, they get tarred as fanboys. But if their user experience with MS is less than enjoyable, then they have the right to offer their opinion.
It's amusing and ironic that whenever Linux comes up, and is presented as a viable alternative, the torches and pitchforks get dusted off, and the battle ensues. Why? What are some windows users afraid of? That someone else is having a better time using something else, and they can't figure it out? That the option they took suits them to a greater degree?
Anti-microsoft has as much to do with the company's questionable business practises, and the fines it's gathered as a result, as much as the limitations of the OS outside of a corporate imposed paradigm on the user. Their activities deserve questioning on a regular basis, as the Eu have done, and fined them accordingly, and i have no problem at all with that. The same should be true for any large company, that rather than improve their own products, seek to crush the opposition however they can. Google a free vid called "Revolutions OS", and you might gain an understanding of how the rot, and possibly unfavourable impression of MS's intent, got started early in their evolution.
(And the recent ISO debacle is another example.)
You're in danger here of giving the impression that Linux and Mac users are more intelligent than Win users, as they have the smarts to try something else outside the "accepted" norm, and shape it to their particular needs. I don't think this is true as far as intelligence of users goes, but one could be forgiven for thinking this, given some the blanket statements, and large assumptions being made. Let's not forget here that a lot of ordinary users started on Win, not linux first, and their decision to move on is more likely to be based on their own less than charming experiences with Win, and the what only can be described as legal extortion.
Anyone remember ME?
I don't know anyone that got a refund.
Once again, if you're having a good time using the software or OS you have, then that's good. But don't assume that your Win experience is the same for others, ergo, "it must be the same for everyone else, therefore Linux sucks."
I urge you to keep using the OS you have, and enjoy it.
Those of us who use linux (in this case) can then communicate with each other outside of the usual flagwaving nonsense, and make real progress free of the wave of former win refugees who come into the linux community and attempt to demand their "rights" based on their own less than optimal experience in the commercial world.
New users are most welcome, and will be helped from large communities of fellow users who themselves were helped by other users, in a non commercial collaborative environment that introduces a human element to the computing experience, beyond commercial considerations, and restrictions.
I'm not a fanboy, although someone is surely going to give me a lot of amusement accusing me of this. I'm having a great time in my linux commercial day, and have put in the effort to get the reward, as would be true for any workplace. My wife runs Ubuntu as she got really sick of all the viruses and trojans, and wanted to enjoy her computing experience again. It installed out of the box, i added the codecs she wanted, and it took 2 hours to have her up and running again (She could have done this herself, but, well, she's my wife, and she asked nicely).
Having read the comments posted here so far, i'd question the "breakdown" list presented as a kneejerk reaction based on the above. It assumes anyone who questions the operability of Win for users is a fanboy by default.
This in itself would confirm the opposite is the case.
I wish you the best of luck whatever you use, but don't assume to speak for the rest of the computing planet, based on your own poor experience.
Finally, i find it really amusing that the automatic assumption that Linux must be like Windows is still being used as an excuse.
Multiple workspaces, user configurability, drivers in the kernel instead of scattered across the globe, apps located in a central repo, strong user communities, unlimited setup and configuration options for different use cases, etc....
Who should be emulating who?
Complain about this comment
156. At 11:46am on 26 Oct 2009, hackerjack wrote:
"The average home user cares nothing for the politics they just want somethign easy, friendly and out of the box, they dont care if it's windows or linux but most will go with the safe option they have heard of, this is not politics it's marketing and until linux has a central body to market it this will not change."
---------------------------------------
I'd agree with this, but will add that Linux gets to choose whether it wants to market itself or not, as commercial considerations are not the priority. Providing services is the "new" business model, and linux base companies are finally on a level playing field here with their long established commercial competitors.
--------------------------------------
"The average business want's stability and like it or not the perception is that MS will always be there, once again it comes down to being able to pinpoint where the centre of their organisation is. It also helps that you can pick up a helpdesk tech with windows experience for £18k p.a."
----------------------------------------
This is sort of true. But for actual service delivered, i'd say it's just a perception, more than a reality. How many users who ring in desperation have been told by default "It must be your computer" when it clearly isn't. (as just 1 example)
I'm not sure MS will always be there, but who knows. Neither of us can predict the future, and it is just a commercial company after all, not a religion.
Complain about this comment
The thing comes half finished and you have to tweek it to get simple things like wireless to work. You wouldn't buy a car that you had to finish ther interior of when you got home would you.
I really don't understand this sort of comment; I agree entirely with the principle, but in my experience I can install a Linux system from one disc and have it support everything properly with no mucking around. It's Windows that requires chasing after and loading individual drivers and bits of support software.
Complain about this comment
After my earlier comment and reading most, if not all, of the other comments, I think there's not much 'fact' here. My comment was geared towards Linux (it was a reaction to the blog after all). But as far as I can see there are a few facts.
On the windows side: fact is that it's the os that's used the most on the desktop. Another fact is that any company that writes a piece of software will probably start writing it for Windows.
Same goes for virus and mal/ad/spyware writers.
Another fact is that there's a lot of backwards compatibility needed or at least wanted.
Facts on the linux side: out of the box it has great hardware support. Besides that it's far more stable, solid and durable than any Windows version (3.1 to Vista) I've used. On the downside: if a hardware vendor doesn't write drivers for linux or at least shares the info that's needed to write drivers, some hardware won't work. Same goes for software like photoshop (I love the Gimp btw, use it on windows also), professional DTP software, whatever.
From where I'm standing, I would say Linux is by far the better choice for someone who wants a pc for internet, home office use, downloading music or movies (Limewire works perfectly). The clean menu structure is a relief after using the cluttered Windows menu for a while, files are kept in your own home folder, sorry, directory, software installation is a breeze and everything is updated automatically.
The more advanced computer user will be able to make a choise. Which software do you need? Which hardware? What are my priorities? Based on choises like that I use Linux for about 90% of the time. I got one Vista machine in my house and one XP (both dual boot) which I use also when needed. It's just a tool after all.
Comparing it to a car in an earlier comment is funny. I rather pimp my car with, let's say, some aluminium items on the inside, nice rims, maybe even a spoiler and nice paintjob. Seems better than a car wich every now and then quits in the middle of nice drive and after a few years needs to be updated with a new engine, gearbox and suspension because the new sparkplugs won't fit otherwise.
Complain about this comment
" 159. At 12:21pm on 26 Oct 2009, _Ewan_ wrote:
...It's Windows that requires chasing after and loading individual drivers and bits of support software."
Having installed Windows 7 twice over the weekend - the first HDD failed, not related to Windows afaik - I had to reinstall all the drivers for my peripherals. 7 makes this so simple now - just plug in the device and a mini-window pops up showing the progress of installing the drivers. No need to find the original CDs, no searching the internet, it's all done for you.
How does Linux fare with this? Would the drivers for my Logitech G15 or Belkin N52TE keyboards be loaded automatically?
Complain about this comment
My sister-in-law needed a computer to Skype her mother in the US, download her email. read the Daily Mail online and type the odd letter. I loaded Ubuntu 9.10 (the Beta is out, and it's magnificent) onto a slow old Windows pc otherwise ready for the recycle centre. She was using it to the full in minutes and is delighted. When Forbes and CNN (and BBC reporters!) start talking about Linux for the desktop, you know it's come of age.
Complain about this comment
downloaded ubuntu-9.0.4 yesterday, booted it (Live version, not installed) and needed all of two 'Enter' presses (language and install-mode selection) to get to a fully working basic system. very impressive, very nice indeed.
Complain about this comment
As I am sure Rory expected, he writes a review of a Linux distro which is less than glowing, and 150+ people comment to tell him he's wrong. You've told him he needs to keep at it for 2 days \ a week \ 6 weeks \ 6 months, before he will grow to appreciate it.
But Rory's key point is shared by many who have dipped their toe in the non-Windows world and ultimately given up... is it worth it? What benefit will the average, casual user gain from switching OS (bare in mind, the aforementioned time-span required to acclimatise). Many, such as myself (and apparently Rory) have seen enough to determine that the gain is simply not yet worth the pain. There are no stunning leaps in functionality, no serious innovations over Windows, and it's not particularly any easier to use. Yes, it may be quicker and more stable... but for those of us who keep our Windows well-oiled and well-secured, that's not really a game-changer.
Incidentally, the Linux community is not as universally friendly and welcoming as some have suggested. There was always an air of elitism and frustration wih "n00bs" who hadn't "RTFM" (and understood it, which is the key point). This is something which I experienced first hand while trying to bridge the gap. It may be better now, but I suspect old habits die hard.
Complain about this comment
How does Linux fare with this? Would the drivers for my Logitech G15 or Belkin N52TE keyboards be loaded automatically?
A quick Google on 'logitech g15 linux' suggests that the basic keyboard + extra keys should work out-of-the-box, and that there is software installable from Ubuntu repositories to enable you to do whatever you want with the display.
Of course, if clever keyboards are your thing, you could move up to the G19 which runs Linux :-)
Complain about this comment
digital_elysium #164.
"What benefit will the average, casual user gain from switching OS.."?
as others pointed out above, cash savings and increased security, and (perhaps) more.
Complain about this comment
# alex1658
You just had to go personal, but I won't even dignify that with a response.
Complain about this comment
aardfrith
I agree with you. Windows 7 is much much better at hardware detection but I'm afraid your question, at least in my mind, is the wrong way around. Linux is the OS which has excellent hardware detection out-of-the-box and its Microsoft has been playing catch-up. I think Microsoft have done remarkably well and I think the days of endless driver hunting are over now. Another area where Microsoft seems to have done remarkably well is ensuring that Windows 7 will run on older hardware. I say seem because I haven't installed in on my oldest, and currently vacant, desktop as of yet but I'd be willing to give it a go. Performance benchmarks on Windows 7 on netbooks are a good indicator though. This was previously one of Linux's real strongpoints. Linux can be made so small that it can run on specs the likes of which OS X and Windows can only dream of. This is still true of course, but less so. So kudos to Microsoft.
digital_elysium
If you personally think Linux holds no tangible benefits over Windows - disregarding the obvious security and stability benefits (problems which, as you say, can be overcome if you know what you're doing in Windows), fair enough. But to say it possesses no innovations over Windows, I don't think that's fair. Built-in repositories and multiple desktops bring tangible benefits to many many people, even if you're not one of them.
Complain about this comment
The main problem I have with Ubuntu/Linux OS is from some hardware manufacturers. For these to release suitable drivers for Ubuntu/Linux is like getting blood out of a stone. They just don't see any commercial benefit from doing it so they don't and never will. SIS are guilty of this. I suppose if you buy cheap crap don't be surprised if it is!
Complain about this comment
One small point about Linux's miniscule market share, and perhaps Rory hasn't seen that Microsoft estimates Linux market share to be much higher than common estimates - which are often extremely flawed and depend on sales figures and/or web browser identification, is that Linux can hurt Microsoft without taking any market share off them. Microsoft's profits aren't based on market share. It doesn't matter if it sells millions of licenses if they don't have any margin. Now, obviously, that's manifestly not the case, but what Linux can do is ensure that Microsoft keep their margins at an acceptable level, especially in developing countries where budgets are far tighter and levels of infrastructure mean that vendor lock-in is a much lesser concern. Pirated software also fulfils this role and is Microsoft's strongest competitor. This is something, however, that Apple really cannot do. Apple can hurt Microsoft by taking market share - although they probably make a lot of money back from Mac customers buying Micrsoft Office for Mac, but they certainly can't compete on price as far as hardware plus OS is concerned.
Complain about this comment
This post has generated a huge volume of responses, so thought I'd clarify a couple of points.
First, the Audacity business - yes I should have gone straight to the software centre to install it, and when I did it was easy. It was just hunting the right version down on the web which proved tricky, so thanks for your advice.
Secondly, Canonical didn't send someone over because I was having trouble - the firm rang me and asked if they could come and install a few add-ons because they wanted to be sure that I'd get a good experience.
Thirdly, this was never going to be a full review, partly because the website already had Ubuntu coverage planned for this week, but also because I was going away on holiday on Friday night and wanted to get something posted before then.
What I find really puzzling is the idea that "RCJ likes to bait Linux users". The opposite is true - my aim last week was to make sure that amidst our Windows 7 coverage, we also took care to mention alternatives. This particular post was an honest attempt to recreate what would be the experience for average computer users, who are very much less expert than many who've responded here, when trying the Ubuntu environment for the first time.
Finally, is the kind of hostility shown in some of these comments really going to win over millions of the undecided to the Linux camp?
Complain about this comment
Rory,
First of all, I think attention by the 'big' media is welcome for linux. I really wonder what your impression will be after some longer use. As I mentioned earlier, an os is nothing more than a tool to make some things possible and I really believe Linux is great for the average home user (my experiences point in that direction, new users (I work with people with brain damage) find the Gnome desktop (default in Ubuntu) easier compared to the Windows interface), my wife prefers it after working with win98 and XP for years but did have some help from my part.
As far as the 'hostile' comments... I'm following Linux articles since the late 90's when I started with Slackware and Redhat 4.something and it got irritating when a review goes something like "it's not windows that's why it's difficult/not suited for the average user/will not get a big market share".
I too believe Linux will not be huge. Not soon and not in the long run, but I hope it will gain market share because having a choise requires knowing there is a choise. I also think one dominant software company is not healthy. It's all about information and open standards. It would be such a shame if information (tekst, images, audio and videofiles, anything you can think of) got lost because the (closed) format isn't supported anymore.
That's why objective articles outside the Linux world are so important.
Complain about this comment
Rory, I think you have to acknowledge that part of the hostility is your own fault. There was a tone of lethargy in your piece, I particularly objected your comment that Wine was 'too much bother', which suggested you'd adopted a defeatist attitude before you'd even begun. The Linux community in general will bend over backwards to help people who genuinely want to give Linux a fair chance, and thousands upon thousands of Linux users on forums devote their spare time doing so, but I suspect their perceptions of your attitude alienated people who would otherwise helped you to find your Linux feet.
Complain about this comment
Finally, is the kind of hostility shown in some of these comments really going to win over millions of the undecided to the Linux camp?
Who's hostile? Those supporting Windows by lobbing around terms like 'fanatical' and 'fanboy', or the Linux folks who've offered explanations, advice, and, lets not forget, an entire OS and stack of applications as a gift.
What I find really puzzling is the idea that "RCJ likes to bait Linux users"
I think some of that perception was down to the titles of your last two posts being "A week with Windows" and "24 hours with Ubuntu", which is certainly less than equal treatment.
I think it would be interesting for everyone if you could give an Ubuntu install a run for a week or two, get some community help with the tricky bits (as you've seen, just post here and you'll get advice by the bucket load), then give a balanced view at the end of a fair test. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
Complain about this comment
Wow, a reply from the man himself! Well played for stepping back in and providing some feedback, Rory, most welcome!!
I'd like to discuss further your new points if I may ...
"First, the Audacity business - yes I should have gone straight to the software centre to install it, and when I did it was easy. It was just hunting the right version down on the web which proved tricky, so thanks for your advice.
Yes, this is a common stumbling block, people are used to going to XYZ's website to download the latest "setup.exe" which will give them the latest version; as mentioned, the centralised approach means that you just go into the "control panel > add/remove programs" and search from there. There are a few "types" of distribution: "package managed" or "build from source" .. ubuntu is the former.
For build from source distros then yes, you need to download the GZIP or TAR files which hold the code, fire up a terminal and "make" it yourself.
Like I said, browsing the web for the latest version is just an old Windows habbit which will vanish with more use.
"Secondly, Canonical didn't send someone over because I was having trouble - the firm rang me and asked if they could come and install a few add-ons because they wanted to be sure that I'd get a good experience."
I am surprised that this wasn't done pre-provision of the laptop but I guess that like anything new, a user guide or expert on it is always welcome; linux is so very different to windows in more than just the GUI and one can be excused for wanting to help out the most they can.
"Thirdly, this was never going to be a full review, partly because the website already had Ubuntu coverage planned for this week, but also because I was going away on holiday on Friday night and wanted to get something posted before then."
All well and good, I don't recall seeing anything like this said in the review but I did see that it's due to be looked at further and commented on in about a week. I really am waiting to see what you thought of it!
"What I find really puzzling is the idea that "RCJ likes to bait Linux users". The opposite is true - my aim last week was to make sure that amidst our Windows 7 coverage, we also took care to mention alternatives. This particular post was an honest attempt to recreate what would be the experience for average computer users, who are very much less expert than many who've responded here, when trying the Ubuntu environment for the first time."
Rory, ANYONE on the internet, ANYONE, who mentions Linux and windows in the same article is bound for a huge "nix vs windows" discussion - it's a fact of life and as old as time itself. The good people here I am sure didn't think anything of the like although I do agree with some that some aspects of the blog did lean a little to the "I really don't want to leave my comfort zone and try this".
"Finally, is the kind of hostility shown in some of these comments really going to win over millions of the undecided to the Linux camp?"
Again, Linux does not care if people do start to use it in their droves. However, as with ANY comminuty, you have your hard-core of supporters who do not want anything bad said about their baby ... take for instance the NVIDIA vs ATI battle which, about 10 years on, is still going strong!
Did you go to the Ubuntu forums? Check it out - that's the real home of it, not the BBC; you'll see many very kind and helpful replies from people who have used it for a long long time. I loiter on there but as Ubuntu, well, Mythbuntu is in the minoriry of my home network (opensuse is the king), I don't really post too much but I do try to help people whenever I can.
Complain about this comment
#170: even as a Linux user, it pains me to admit it but Linux market share is minuscule. I don't know many Linux users.
IMO, Linux needs an outside support to get where it should be. That outside support may come from government institutions, I'm not talking about the UK. Some institutions prefer Linux because it's transparent, and it works better with their specifications. Eg, as far as I know the German army use Linux because they know what exactly it does, there are no surprises in it.
OLPC project is another one that was supposed to bring Linux to masses, as occasionally covered by Rory, that project hasn't really taken off yet. Probably never will...
As for Rory's comments. I don't think we are "hostile", we just think Rory's comments were unfair and we point out where he's wrong. I'll restate something I have said in one of my previous comments, using Linux out of the box is much easier than the other OSs. One needs to get used to the UI, and the idea of using package repositories. Installing programs is much quicker and easier than the other OSs. For most mainstream hardware, it just works...
if you are using some rare hardware unsupported by linux, then you are better off finding the windows drivers for it and sticking to windows.
Complain about this comment
What a narrow minded op-ed this is! The colour of the background can be changed, just as easily as i can in other desktop operating systems! Speaking for myself, the default background for all of the Windows releases can only be described as fugly! Bliss? Come on! It's a picture of Teletubbies land! the new default in Windows 7 can only be described as chintz. As for ease of use, I give you the single biggest UX gaff in the history of user interfaces - clicking start to shutdown! It's essentially still there too!
Joking aside, giving an operating platform that is entirely new to you just 24 hours to meet you own preconception of what an OS should be and how it should work based on your experience of Windows and OS X is at best narrow minded, at worst very stupid and in truth, naïve. Give it a week, then we'll talk. FTR; I use a Mac.
Complain about this comment
Who's hostile? Those supporting Windows by lobbing around terms like 'fanatical' and 'fanboy', or the Linux folks who've offered explanations, advice, and, lets not forget, an entire OS and stack of applications as a gift.
----------
Please dont pick and choose your words like that, there are plenty of examples of Linux fans hee who have been less than generous about windows users, there are also plenty of the same old tired arguments (safer, cheaper etc.) which have been answered in full. Most have also likely provided nothing to the OS itself.
Complain about this comment
300_thracians
Those were actually Microsoft's statistics I was citing, and though I don't know why they'd exaggerate the Linux threat purposefully (perhaps it was just poor research), I actually thought they were over generous in putting us on level pegging with OS X. However, Linux market share is bigger than the flawed estimates thrown around i.e. about 1%. We all know how hard it is to properly assess Linux market share because sales figures aren't accurate, download figures aren't accurate, and measuring the User Agents of web browsers isn't accurate. At any rate, the point of that post was not that Linux market share is not small, but that Linux poses a threat which Apple doesn't; a threat to Microsoft's margins rather than its market share.
Complain about this comment
hackerjack #178.
"..plenty of the same old tired arguments (safer, cheaper etc.) which have been answered in full."
where? can you provide references/links?
"Most [users] have also likely provided nothing to the OS itself"
how is that different from Windows/Mac/whatever?
Complain about this comment
Hostile comments - Mostly from Microsoft 'supporters' from where I'm sat, spouting propaganda that may have been true 5 years ago.
Apathy - The tone of the review that annoyed me, personally, into feeling the need to comment.
As I'm prepared to put in a bit of research and effort, something that seems to be unfashionable these days, I am able to make my computer jump through figurative hoops in ways I never could using Windows. As an example, I recently installed VirtualBox. I'm using it to try out Slackware 13, antiX m8.2 and a home brewed remaster of PCLinuxOS. RCJ, don't even think of looking into the first two. They'd use up your 'bothered' ration in no time at all but are extremely responsive to use if you do put in a little effort. PCLinuxOS might suit you better, but SuperOS or Mint (Both Ubuntu based.) would probably be more to your instant consumer tastes.
Would anyone who shares my enthusiasm for computing but who chooses to use Windows be able to try out three guest installations running on another host OS? No. Not without being deeply out of pocket. Also, not without considerably more powerful hardware than I own. The benefit to ordinary users? If they choose to use Linux then their friendly neighbourhood Linux using geek will probably have a far broader range of experience than the equivalent Windows 'power' user.
I look forward to the longer term review and hope you make some effort to ensure that whatever Linux distribution you choose to trial gets a chance to prove it can meet the needs of and enhance your day to day computing. Either take some time to learn something new or request help from a generally more than willing Linux community. Look up the Helios Initiative if you doubt the will to benefit others exists.
Complain about this comment
RCJ: "There's something called 'Ubuntu' which is launched next week. It's a whole sort of little community of enthusiasts building operating systems for absolutely nothing and trying to persuade us that we don't need to be in with the big boys but actually most computer users frankly they don't want to bother with that sort of stuff they want something that's there..."
Rory,
you've already acknowledged that this may have been a step too far in the condescending stakes, but you can hardly be surprised at the less than enthusiastic response.
i would think, given the additional affirmative response to "BT: "...that everyone else uses..", was merely more petrol on the barbeque, not only for linux users, but other OS's like Apple too.
You also forgot to mention the thousands of servers around the world that host linux in its various forms, including desktop varieties, from governments to academic organisations to large corporations. Users across the planet can download from the multiple servers in their own country if they wish, or from somewhere else. (including Ubuntu.)
Free.
Not exactly a cottage industry, it would be reasonable to say.
I look forward to your follow up, and see what you make of more time at the helm.
Complain about this comment
Hello!
Ubuntu is free software... really free, no charge AND you can do what you want...
For Windows you've to pay at least 100euro/dollars/pound before the first BOOT!
There's tons of software really easy to install for ubuntu.
I've been using Ubutuntu at work for more than 2 years without any problem...
Then try to build a new application on Windows 7, you've to spend other money for many compilers... while with ubuntu you've gcc ...
You've a problem with windows ... wait the next service pack, if any!
Bye
Complain about this comment
The fact is, that the two operating systems are not mutually exclusive: My home PC runs both - I choose which I want to use at startup. I tend to use Ubuntu for more "serious" stuff (software and web development) and if I want to play games or watch stuff, I use Windows. I'm not saying that Ubuntu won't run games, or that Windows is no good for technical stuff, it's just that I find it more comfortable like that.
It's not a question of "which is better?" The question should be "Which do *you* find better for a *given situation*?"
Complain about this comment
Hi Rory,
Sorry you seem to get a lot of flack regarding this issue, I can see why people got annoyed but, you can take any tech website which publishes a article with the slightest hint of bias and the comments start raging what ever side you're on. I think a lot of users are far harsher online as they are hiding in their homes/workplace and not face to face!
The best thing that could come of this as a Linux user is to finally have a proper TV article about linux, do realise that linux right now is an amazing worldwide achievement compared to coporate software development including the scale of the operation and even better, make sure the viewer also note that there is more than just one version. I happen to use openSUSE (Novell) and I have already seen someone dropping Fedora (Red Hat)
Just please don't be put off finding out more or encouraging others to
Complain about this comment
linuxrich #181.
"Would anyone who shares my enthusiasm for computing but who chooses to use Windows be able to try out three guest installations running on another host OS? No."
am enthusiastic (but prefer slackware to Windows -- sorry), however, Virtualbox and Vmserver both run on Windows too (using XP here).
Complain about this comment
After dissatisfaction with Windows I gave it up completely 8 months ago, for Ubuntu, and I have not regretted it in the least. On the contrary I find it to be far better than Windows. There is nothing I want to do where I haven't found an application to do it.
I feel that the review was unfair in regard to the difficulty installing programs.
Firstly, to make it all easy, in the current (Jaunty 9.04) and many earlier versions of Ubuntu there is a menu item 'Add/Remove Programs'. Just click on there, select 'All Applications' and enter the app name or the type of program you are looking for. Then when you find it just click appropriately and it installs. This applies to Audacity and Wine as mentioned. it is dead easy - you don't need to look around anywhere. I both installed Wine and downloaded and installed Spotify in just 4 minutes. It works perfectly!! Believe me it is soooo much easier to do than Windows. In most cases it is possible to obtain and equivalent app to one designed for other operating systems but, obviously, in the case of Skype and Spotify on is reliant on those service providers.
With the next Ubuntu version, 'Karmic Koala 9.1', there is also the option to use the on-line installer.
Further, although most apps. you will want can be obtained in the way I described it is also possible to find additional packages on
http://www.getdeb.net/
Windows? Pah!! I don't think I'd want it back if you gave me a free copy and paid me to have it.
Complain about this comment
Just a heads up for those that are reading this that may be considering trying out Linux (whatever distro):
Just be aware that many hardware manufacturers do not support Linux (probably as they are paid not to) so Linux has limited support with regards to the drivers.
So if you happen to have a piece of hardware from, for example, Broadcom (network adapters) or Nvidia (graphics cards etc) then there is a chance that, despite the communites best efforts, there may be issues with drivers.
I would recommend looking about to find out which hardware Linux users generally steer clear from before you make any big purchases.
That said, there are some companies (such as Intel) that invest a hell of a lot of time and effort into Linux so you are pretty much guaranteed a success story if you use their hardware.
Complain about this comment
Hi, I felt compelled to comment because so far no-one seems to have actually talked about what makes Linux very different from Windows and in some ways better. The issue is not over functionality or ease of use at all, I would argue that both systems have similar functionality and are no more difficult to use than the other, it just depends what you are used to. It is no more difficult to install and configure Linux than Windows - the main difference is most people buy a computer with Windows installed, and they wouldn't be able to install and configure Windows any easier than they could install Linux. The 1st real advantage of Linux is the fact that it is open-source, and this means that you have the right to copy it, modify it and distribute it to as many people as you want - you can even sell it to them if you want! You cannot do this with Windows, and the majority of people in the third world simply cannot afford a Windows licence, so they use pirated copies. Secondly Linux comes with all of the software you need preinstalled, you don't need to buy Office software etc as an expensive add on. Thirdly although not invulnerable Linux is far more secure than Windows by a long shot, I have been running Linux at home for five years without any anti-virus software and never had a single problem. I suggest that if you had only spent 24 hours with a Vista computer or an Apple Mac you would have struggled as well, but this is just because you have been brain-washed by microsoft - its called a monopoly, and that's why we have a commision. The dominance of Microsoft has damaged the development of software and hardware - keeping the control in the hands of the major manufacturers - who wanted Vista? Linux is an attempt by the people to take back control and develop their own software the way they want it. That's why Bill Gates called us 'Communists' (I am not joking). The reality is that large swathes of the world's governments and institutions are starting to migrate to Linux systems for their education and institutions and the UK and the USA are falling behind. So in summary, Linux is Free/Open-Source, it comes with all the software you need and there is no need to buy expensive anti-virus software and security software. "Nuff said!".
drbongo
Complain about this comment
I run a business that runs nothing but ubuntu. We have 8 machines the rest of the staff don't have an issue with this OS. We use it for accounting and any development needs we have. The staff now troubleshoot themselves because of the easy of the system.
The problem really is that you have had a life time of windows. When we took up ubuntu it took us about month to get enough of knowledge to understand. When you started with windows did you give it 12 hours of your time and then create an opinion?
Our IT bill has drop by 75%. Our servers have not fallen over once in three years and the desktops just keep going.
So I can't understand why people don't try this wonderful product
Complain about this comment
You're test driving a tank and complaning about it's maneuverability.
The majority of Web servers on the internet run Apache, mostly on Linux. This website http://www.bbc.co.uk runs Apache, most likely on Linux. There is a very good reason for this. There's also a very good reason why people pay good money for Windows for their desktop computing needs.
If you're desperately want to use Linux for your desktop computing but are missing Windows you can download an XP like GUI that looks pretty much identical.
Installing from the extensive linux universe couldn't be easier...
One line in the terminal...
sudo apt-get install wine
for example.
Now...
sudo apt-get install dssniff, sudo apt-get install mysql-server mysql-client php5-mysql, set up kernal IP forwarding, connect to your home LAN, put on your black cowboy hat and make 'Stop watching Porn!' websites appear when you kids are being naughty! That's what Linux is really good for!
Complain about this comment
@Haeltera
I just have to say one thing: hardware support in Linux these days is normally *very* good.
You happened to mention nVidia in your post, but actually, nVidia do provide a good set of (closed source) drivers that work well with Ubuntu (and linux generally). ATI are playing catch-up to nVidia, but their drivers have come on a long way in the last 12 months and actually do work pretty well (as far as I'm aware, having spoken to some friends who have installed Ubuntu in the last few months with ATI graphics cards).
You mention Intel in your post as being a company that has good drivers for Linux operating systems, but I'd like to echo what others have said and mention HP for their excellent printer drivers.
Moreover, I can think of nothing that I have attached to either my Linux desktop or laptop that didn't work properly first time; scanners, webcams, external mice and keyboards (some with funky buttons), wireless networking cards, cameras, USB keys, bluethooth equipment... The list goes on. And it all worked *first* time.
It is absolutely true that hardware support a few years ago was terrible. But these days it is generally very good and on the rare occasions you do encounter a problem, there is a *vast* array of forums to help you out, including and specifically, the Ubuntu forums.
@Rory
I don't really want to dig any more at you, but I think if you feel like you've been the target of hostile comments from Linux users, then you have to appreciate that your article was hugely apathetic and biased, even if you wanted to make an "honest attempt to recreate what would be the experience for average computer users [...] when trying the Ubuntu environment for the first time."
Moreover, even my mother, who by and large is not a computer whizz kid, was up and running with Ubuntu the first time doing all the things she wanted... and much more. Linux genuinely is a very easy, intuitive operating system to use, but you have to go in with fresh eyes and remind yourself that you're not using Windows and everything "under the hood" is done quite differently from Windows. Once you do that, you'll realise Linux isn't difficult... just different. And then once you've embraced the command line you'll discover a whole new world of possibility and discover all of the uber powerful things you can't do in Windows but makes life in Linux so awesome.
Really, I challenge you to give it a proper, fair crack, embrace the vibrant Ubuntu community on the forums who are always willing to help and see how you get on. If you don't like, at least you can say you gave it a proper go and can honestly say why.
Complain about this comment
I used to get lots of "support calls" from my in-laws when they had windows. I installed an anti virus on their pc and enabled the firewall, but hey ho, within no time it was crawling with all sorts and everything was broken, and their friends had been installing dodgy cracked software on it for them. I wiped it, put (now quite an old) version of Ubuntu on it, and haven't heard a peep since. It does everything they need, reliably, including one or two windows apps running on wine (apt-get install winetricks to make life easy with wine). Part of the problem that Ubuntu faces for wider adoption, is that most people see windows, office, photoshop etc. as "free" software just like Linux, since they can get it all for free from friends or file sharing sites. For those that take the plunge and give a modern Linux distro longer than 24 hours, it is pleasantly surprising. For those that will only give it 24 hours, its "not like Windows" equates to its "no good". That Dell linux looks like its got some "easy to use" replacement GUI instead of Gnome. Maybe that was why it was hard to install apps which should have been no problem. Top tip for new Ubuntu users - install the "ubuntu-restricted-extras" package to get a more fully-functioning system, for playing music, movies etc. Canonical cannot install this package by default due to copyright reasons. Also, if you just want to give it a spin, you can download a "live" cd image from Ubuntu which you can boot up and use without actually installing it.
Complain about this comment
Tell me if you get a new car do you just get in and drive? No, you get comfy - move the seats, mirror and tune your radio. Ubuntu is no different. You personalize any computer so complaining about the brown is a mute point.
Cant be bothered to install Wine? So for example if you needed to install a program on Windows to open a PDF file is that too much trouble?
Yes you have to install codec's on Ubuntu for flash/Java/etc but then you do on Windows again kind of a mute point.
Ubuntu is different but easy to learn you need to give your self time to get used to it before you form an opinion. Something you clearly have not done here.
Just to note someone said there were no virus for Linux because of its low user base. Not strictly true, a proof of concept virus was written but died out because to install any thing you need to input a super-user (Admin) password. Another reason is any virus code would show up as all open source programs release there code.
I use Linux, Windows and OSX.
Complain about this comment
@ MrFaulty
Maybe I missed your point, or more likely your personal view. I've gone through your comments and it's quite difficult to read into it the same meaning as explained in your response to me. I don't question you however, so if you so write then I choose to believe you, even if not agreeing with you totally. I never doubted that you use Linux, but got the impression that you still judged Linux from the wrong angle. For me there's a canyon between "not liking" and "hating", thus not implying the slightest that you hate Linux. Your response makes me think my choice of words isn't far from the truth, since you yourself say you don't like Linux as a desktop system, which is the system in focus here.
The problem with personal experiences is that they're anecdotal, subjective human liking and disliking. I can counter your experience with mine, but what would it prove? More important is that I found something that works for me, and hopefully you've done the same. What system a person run isn't particularly important to me. There are question related to ideas of open-source that I would validate as more important, but that's another discussion.
I belong to the group of Linux users who only see it as a tool and who appreciate that it's not conforming to Windows, just because I've got enough of Windows in my work and it's an awkward system for me to use. I don't view popularity or market shares as a goal, and I even doubt that it automatically would benefit Linux. In my view it would only benefit Linux if Linux stays true to its fundamental ideas. Hence I don't care much for the hype or dramatic estimations about Linux in the press. I use Linux daily, at home and at work, and I see how much more stuff I'm able to for each year that pass. Sure Linux sucks, but it's the system that sucks less for my computing, and I as a user have possibilities to engage and improve it on different levels.
Every man or woman shall choose for themselves. My only complaint about the article was based on the fact that I expect more from such a writer technologically, and I'm not sure it's up to BBC standards.
Complain about this comment
EarnestEdwards: "With Linux you are pretty much virus free as most hackers target Windows based systems. In the long run Linux can save you hours in downtime due to virus scares, trojan horses etc."
That's not the whole story. These problems don't affect Macs either, and MacOS is based on Unix too. With Windows, you tend to have to run as administrator (or belong to the administrators group), since many programs just won't run correctly otherwise. Secondly, you can run a program, which may be malware, even straight frm an email, in some cases even *silently* straight from an email you viewed or a website you visited, just because it has an "exe" extension, or some other extension recognised as a program by Windows. I suspect that is how my in-laws got burnt.
In the unix/MacOS/Linux/Ubuntu world, users don't run as administrator. The wider file system is locked down and users are restricted to their own "home" directory in the main. Since it has always been that way, rogue programs that force you to run as "root" don't exist. You cannot run an executable without saving it to the file system and changing the file permissions first (beyond the in-laws). Even then, as mentioned, a rogue program won't be able to damage the wider file system. By the way, instead of downloading stuff and running it, you use the Ubuntu package manager to install new software.
Complain about this comment
My experience is very similar to those other who've said they gave up windows in a fit of pique, turned to Ubuntu and never looked back - In my case my wireless card simply would not play in XP any more, despite countless driver updates etc I just couldn't get it to work... It worked seamlessly off the Hardy live CD my tech guy at work lent me, so I took the plunge.
As I'm not the world's most technically gifted person I have to confess it helped a great deal having said tech guy in the background to point me in the right direction when I got a bit confused - the online community has, to it's credit, never failed to answer my requests for help, but as someone with nowhere near that degree of technical knowledge It can be rather intimidating, though that probably speaks more to me than it does them...
I would never go back to windows - honestly I wouldn't. Why anybody is prepared to pay money for an operating system is absolutely beyond me. Think about it very seriously, I know the 'it's free' point's been raised before and essentially dismissed but I can't believe how little sway it seems to have.
It's Free.
Not £100+
Free.
And you get OPTIONAL updates almost daily.
And it doesn't crash. (In 9 months of Hardy I had a recurring display issue which occasionally forced me to reboot - that was rectified in Intrepid and Jaunty and I'm not exaggerating when I say I can't remember this 5 year old laptop which toiled horrendously under XP having crashed since)
It still confuses me at times, but as I've said I'm not the worlds most technologically gifted person, and the transition from some of the really drilled in aspects of windows (.exes and downloading from websites) does take a lot of getting used to - but when you think about it the 'app store' style system is really much more logical isn't it?
This debate will rage and rage and rage, and people will still buy windows (I absolutely cannot comment on Mac having never used it) and linux fans will still sit back and scratch their heads wondering why...
Part of the answer is that not one single comment of the nearly 200 now that have been posted to this blog have come from somebody who didn't already know about linux and have a preconception either for or against. The 'average' computer (and yes that does mean windows, it's just how it is) user just doesn't care - people will say 'I hate computers' meaning 'I hate windows' without ever realising there's a massive difference.
Could part of it also be that somewhere deep down we find it easier to trust our expensive hardware to the world's richest men than a loosely associated group of people with no real identifiable presence. Apple has Jobs, MS has Gates - Linux doesn't have that individual strongly associated with it, no one person attempts to embody its ideals...
Do we just inherently not trust free things? I can't remember the last time anybody willingly gave me anything for free that wasn't part of a marketing campaign designed to make me spend money down the line... Are people not using linux because they fear a 'catch' which the initiated know (or very certainly hope) isn't going to come...?
It's late and I'm rambling. I'm genuinely going to be interested to see how your week of Karmic goes Rory - if you get half a chance try the full desktop version too, rather than the pared down notebook distro.
Complain about this comment
I find two things a bit disturbing. For an author to post an article to a site like BBC, I find it incredibly shallow on effort. Ubuntu isn't that hard to use. Really. Put some work into it, chief. Your readers will appreciate it.
The second thing I find disturbing, and even unsettling is the degree of lameness in some of the comment posters. This isn't about market share and percentages. This is about a real experience brought to you by people like...all of us. Ubuntu is produced by plain vanilla people like all of us. It does have its quirks, but so does every piece of software out there. My desktop at home runs Ubuntu and has done so for over 4 years. Its Synaptic application shows "26937 packages listed, 1520 installed, 0 broken." And they are all free. I wonder how many of these commenters actually paid for their copy of Windows.
Oh, and Rory, some of us actually like brown. I find anything blue offensive. At least we all still have a choice.
Complain about this comment
@142: There aren't really any reliable numbers on desktop operating system use (not just Linux, actually). There's just no reliable way to track it. Most Linux installations aren't 'sales' so you can't track the sales figures. Many Windows installations are pirated so even Windows sales numbers don't tell you much either.
The most accurate measure is probably statistics retrieved from browser agents by web sites, but even those are subject to other factors: some people spoof their browser agents, and of course the audience of whatever site you pick is never going to be perfectly representative of the total of all computer users.
This is why you can only really cite ballpark figures.
Complain about this comment
the question: "What do French gendarmes, Andalucian school children, Wikipedia and San Francisco International airport have in common?"
the answer
Complain about this comment
Mr. Cellan-Jones.
I invite you to see additional comments on your blog and your additional comment, #171.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1302395
Complain about this comment
allabouttowler
GNU/Linux has Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman. The fact that they are not well known is indicative of the relatively small presence of Linux on the desktop. Within the Linux world, they are extremely well known, and if Linux on the desktop does take off some day, they will become synonymous with the OS as Jobs and Gates are. I'd also like to chip in on Woz's and Allen's behalf. Especially for Woz. Woz is the reason why Apple survived beyond the Apple II, not Jobs. Jobs would have ruined Apple's cash cow.
sv3rma
But market share affects the user experience in both positive and negative ways. It's certainly not irrelevant. Also, Rory mentioned it in the original blog so people were probably responding to that.
Complain about this comment
My first and only experience with Ubuntu ended promptly when I discovered that the English-language home page was littered with spelling and grammatical errors. If they can't proofread their content properly then I doubt the software is bug free either.
Complain about this comment
Linux is so Free that if you don't like it you don't have to use it, while for every computer you buy you've to pay for Microsoft product Windows/Office...
Complain about this comment
I was thinking when I read this, oh no, I'm going to have to do lots of typing to defend Ubuntu but then I saw the vast swathes of comments doing a much better job than I could ever hope to do. It's actually heartwarming to see that so many people are using Ubuntu. There is another aspect to using Ubuntu and that is it won't cost you a penny, figuring that into the equation and it is easily a competitor to the vastly inflated priced Windows and OS X. We don't all have the salary of a BBC correspondent and if anything Ubuntu discourages piracy because there is so much good open source software out there which actually makes you want to donate to the software authors. A lot of people won't like it because it's a community, dare I say it socialist, minded way of doing things but if it gets people into using PCs,Macs and other devices, getting online and getting involved for the minimum outlay possible then that's great, it lessens the number of disenfranchised who could otherwise not afford to join in and that can only be a good thing.
Complain about this comment
Installing Wine was "too much bother..."? You're supposed to be the Technology Editor for the BBC! Installing software with Ubuntu/Linux when connected to the internet is easier than falling off a log! Search for the completely free application and click the "install" button. It downloads and installs instantly.
Where is the huge repository of free open source software for Windows available from the desktop at the click of a button? Where is the free emulator that enables Windows users to run free open source Linux software inside Windows?
It took me a while to warm to Ubuntu. I tried several earlier versions without joy but I have been using it since 8.04 as my permanent laptop and desktop OS at home. I have to use Windows at work and I curse it's sluggishness and yearn to get back home to my fast and flexible home machines.
Complain about this comment
@ jr4412 post #186
Thanks for misquoting me, it gives me a chance to comment again and post a link to the Helios blog, on which is an article that is particularly interesting compared to Rory's effort.
http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2009/10/linux-t-180-days.html
For the record, btw, I never said VMWare & VirtualBox weren't available. I said you'd have to pay through the nose to test 3 versions of Windows on a Windows host.
Complain about this comment
I don't quite get why the BBC constantly goes on about Ubuntu, it really isn't that great.
What about openSUSE or fedora core? Both are far more powerful compatible operating systems, especially openSUSE as it is the industry standard as observed by Intel, IBM and microsoft.
Complain about this comment
Everyone (including the BBC) keep calling the operating system Linux. Linux is the name of the OS kernel. All of the other software which comes with Linux to make it into an operating system is called a distribution.
All of this extra software is widely available for other open source operating systems such as FreeBSD. Much of it is also available for the Mac OS.
Ubuntu is not based on Linux, it is a Linux distribution. Ubuntu is actually based upon Debian Linux!
Complain about this comment
RE: Linux vs Windows. Like many, I was brought up only really using windows, and only took the plunge in a fit of pique when XP locked me out of my PC screaming PIRATE!! after a hardware upgrade.
Yes initially Ubuntu seemed difficult and unwieldy, but this was more a case of having to unlearn the "windows way", like driving a car on the other side of the road.
My mum, a total computer newbie, ignored my "do not touch my computer on pain of death" warnings, and I found her happily sat using skype and email, having intuitively figured out everything because she brought no expectations or previous mindset to hamper her.
And thats the rub- Ubuntu IS much cleaner and simpler to use, when it works.
However, when it doesn't, it still can get pretty technical, trawling help forums and pasting code into the terminal – not proven impossibly difficult so far, but highly intimidating to users used to being spoon fed by windows.
Having used it for a year now, observations are –
MUCH more stable – no more crashes.
Far more customisable – icons, appearance etc can easily be changed, and many impressive visual effects via Compiz or Awn – several people were impressed enough to give it a try themselves.
Everything automatically detected/synched apart from my Nikon camera – that was a nightmare, but resolved in a subsequent release of Ubuntu.
Its a solid easily used system, but still has some quirks. However every release is noticeably an improvement.
Very soon it may be serious competition to windows, as everyone whos seen my computer loved it and wanted to try it themselves – the problem is increasingly lack of awareness that Linux exists, rather than difficulty of use, or lack of software - no problem getting Windows apps to run either.
I would not describe myself as a highly technical or IT literate person, but I’m pro-active, curious and if something doesn’t work will go and figure out how to fix things - Windows thrives on peoples inertia, unwillingness to experiment, and fear of change. The people with the least confidence in computing, would ironically, probably get the most benefit from a more intuitive system like Ubuntu.
Having used both Linux/Windows I can now see the many shortcomings, bad design and non-user friendly aspects of Vista or XP – which if they are the only systems you have ever used, you will be unaware of.
Linux, despite its teething troubles, gave me what I want – a highly customisable system that easily adapts to how I want to work – and not being funnelled into how Windows wants me to work.
- Carina
Complain about this comment
Another Perspective...
If banks can be 'too big to fail' then can operating systems companies...?
Monopolies are proven to be very bad in many ways. Microsoft is an operating system monopoly - I think that is a fairly uncontroversial and incontestable point of view.
The USA legislators (sort of) broke up the Exxon Corporation and at times has threatened IBM and indeed Microsoft. Microsoft's profits are monopoly profits which is (supposedly) anathema in a capitalist world. Do we need more operating systems companies? Should Microsoft (be allowed to continue to) dominate in both desktop applications and operating systems and does this harm the development of new (and better) software?
I don't know the answers to these questions but it does seem to be that they are part of the Linux/Apple/Microsoft debate and are important. (also Intel/AMD/ARM/Via in hardware)
PS Of course the UK needs 50 banks, not 4, but that is for another (currently non-functional and intellectually crippled) blog...
Complain about this comment
The BBC quotes Canonical's Chris Kenyon as follows:
"Before now, he said, many people installed the software themselves on laptops and desktops that formerly ran Windows. Their experiences varied because the development effort that helps to keep Ubuntu updated sometimes lags behind what people are using.
But, he said, with the software increasingly likely to be installed at the factory those days of frustration may be on the wane.
"Hardware problems are only really solved through installation," he said. "That's going to become increasingly the case over the next 12 months."
Well, well, well. I don't see much of a difference between what I've said above and what Mr Kenyon told the BBC. I raised issue with Linux's poor support for new hardware and some fanatics tried to lynch me (and failed, I should add). Perhaps it's more acceptable coming from Canonical themselves than anyone else?
After all has been said and done, I am simply happy that Canonical appreciate the problems people face with their OS and are doing something about it. Clearly Canonical are very sensible and not in any way obnoxious as some of their followers are. Perhaps they should include a "Howto promote Linux Open-Mindedly" in Kaola.
Lastly, I shall echo what some other open-minded souls have said above that Linux and Windows are NOT mutually exclusive.
Complain about this comment
addendum and correction to #211
Exxon ref. should of course have been to "Standard Oil Company and Trust" see court case of 1892(?) that dissolved the Trust...
Complain about this comment
Ubuntu is quite a nice OS, but one thing its advocates consistently ignore is that most people use computers to run applications, not to use a particular OS. Windows has by far the richest array of polished and professionally supported applications available for it. That is the main reason why having tried Linux I've gone back to Windows. (Though this is being typed on a laptop running Linux - if you need little more than a web browser and an office suite, Linux is great.)
I think the free software movement's insistence on freedom is becoming the Achilles heel of Linux. If there was a market for commercial software on Linux then you might get more, better quality applications, and it would become a more practical choice of OS. Most Linux apps are written by people in their spare time. Development proceeds as and when they have time available, and sometimes stops when the developer loses interest or has no time any more and no-one wants to take over. I'm happier using software that someone makes a living from - it gives them an interest in keeping their customers happy.
Complain about this comment
How can a BBC technology journalist not have a genuine working knowledge of Linux?
It's true that lots of people need windows, but it's equally true that lots of people (probably the majority of home and desktop work users in fact) can do 90-100% of the things they usually do on a PC on one of the main Linux distributions.
Personally my favourites are not usually media mentioned Ubuntu (although it is good), but rather Mandriva and PClinuxOS (which completely homebrew, but equally brilliant) - which almost never get a mention in the main stream media.
Both are much easier to install and just as easy to get straight on with as any Windows OS.
The only real issue Linux still somewhat has is lack of driver support for some devices (although it's a much smaller problem that it was even a few years ago), and PC Gaming (because it only effective exists these days with DirectX).
Anyway, try out Mandriva or PCLinuxOS, not just for a day or two but for a while, as least to get a genuine understanding of what is out there.
Complain about this comment
I am a gamer...Linux doesn't play well with games without extra resource hugging software installed....I use Windows 7 64bit (have done all the way through beta and RC)and have had no issues...the system is fast, reliable, easy to use, 'COMPATIBLE' and only cost me just more than you would pay for a PS3 or Xbox game that will be discarded in 3 months (people don't mind paying for that stuff though...funny that)
For the 'average joe' on the street linux is a no-no...people just want to pick up the PC and go, they don't want to be 'googling' for workarounds for stuff that just works on other OS's. As good as Linux is, until it becomes more mainstream it will struggle to be more than a hobbyist OS (yes, I know it runs most of the world's network infrastructure...but who looks after that eh....the geeks...that's who :) )
Complain about this comment
Reading though these comments I wonder if those who see Linux as “no alternative” have given it any more than the cursory trial that the author has.
All those using Linux will be conversant with Windows. I don't believe the opposite is true and this is evident from the comments.
If it were “all command line” I wouldn't use it.
I use Mint, a derivative of Ubuntu that comes with the "extras" required enabled and a better look.
It's a very good introduction to Linux.
Installing both Mint/XP on an identical machine it was XP, the best supported Windows on the planet, that presented more hardware problems.
Set up with the same wallpaper I sometimes forget which system I have booted into.
Why are the comments against Linux so vitriolic and inaccurate ?
Is there real fear of something different ?
I have used Windows since DOS. Any hate I have is for Microsoft's behaviour, not Windows.
Windows, by being the most used OS for so long, has been gifted some great software by others.
No Linux user denies this but Photoshop etc. isn't really Microsoft's is it ?
The reality for me is that using Mint (Ubuntu) is a joy. I can do all I want with it, often easier than in Windows.
When I first tried Ubuntu in 2004 it absolutely wasn't really an alternative for normal users.
In 2009 it absolutely is.
Frankly, anyone denying this out of touch or behind the times.
Bob
Complain about this comment
48. At 11:16pm on 23 Oct 2009, MrFaulty wrote:
they choose to ignore all the suffering they go through just to get one tiny little application working.....................................
I'm certainly not ignoring the suffering, I just haven't had ANY suffering using Mandriva or PCLinuxOS installations.
It was easy and it just worked (as did installing new software from the repositories).
Windows 3.X and ME (and early Vista) were real pains too, but that didn't mean that Win95, Win2000/XP and Win7 weren't ok.
Admittedly Gaming with non-Linux based/ported games is much like gaming was with Windows 3.1 (that is it's often more of a challenge to get the game working than it is to play it :-)), but general everyday "PC stuff" is easy as pie.
Complain about this comment
Looking at the subjects on Rory's blog, I note that he has one titled "A week with Windows" and another titled "24 hours with Ubuntu". It would be fair to compare them for an equal amount of time.
I bet that if Rory were asked to evaluate MacOS on a MacBook that he wouldn't spend only a day on it.
To the poster who says that Freedom is Linux' Achilles heel, I think you'll find that with proprietary software the lack of freedom means the boot is truly on the other foot. There are hundreds of commercial products that have been abandoned, leaving their users frustrated and unable to use their software on newer operating systems. With the free software model, the code is always available for new developers to take and re-use, they are required to provide their changes for others too. This approach is designed to prevent the lock-in that commercial products rely on, it isn't guaranteed to always provide future proof software but it is the best way of making it possible.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
212. At 09:33am on 27 Oct 2009, MrFaulty wrote:
The BBC quotes Canonical's Chris Kenyon as follows:
"Before now, he said, many people installed the software themselves on laptops and desktops that formerly ran Windows. Their experiences varied because the development effort that helps to keep Ubuntu updated sometimes lags behind what people are using.
But, he said, with the software increasingly likely to be installed at the factory those days of frustration may be on the wane.
"Hardware problems are only really solved through installation," he said. "That's going to become increasingly the case over the next 12 months."
Well, well, well. I don't see much of a difference between what I've said above and what Mr Kenyon told the BBC. I raised issue with Linux's poor support for new hardware and some fanatics tried to lynch me (and failed, I should add). Perhaps it's more acceptable coming from Canonical themselves than anyone else?
After all has been said and done, I am simply happy that Canonical appreciate the problems people face with their OS and are doing something about it. Clearly Canonical are very sensible and not in any way obnoxious as some of their followers are. Perhaps they should include a "Howto promote Linux Open-Mindedly" in Kaola.
Lastly, I shall echo what some other open-minded souls have said above that Linux and Windows are NOT mutually exclusive.
-------------------------------------
Man, you really know how to misinterpret a message, don't you.
This is completely removed from what you claimed earlier.
Chris has stated that there are problems with some hardware. Why? Because some hardware manufacturers refuse to embrace linux as a viable addition to their customer base.This isn't rocket science, and the interlink will reveal vast swathes of fora where potential hardware users who would like to use the kit with linux are asking the manufacturers to write linux drivers/modules with varying degrees of success. It's the same for windows and mac users. They are reliant on the HM's producing the software that runs their stuff.
It's not about linux's poor support, the same as it wouldn't be about windows poor support, if a particular hardware component didn't work because the drivers/modules weren't there. An obvious example is a soundcard manufacturer who took over 18 months to write software for their cards, for windows Vista, and left a lot of customers in the lurch. One of their own users decided to write the drivers himself (reverse engineered from the specs) and when he presented these drivers to the company, and other users with the same cards, they threatened to sue him.
Once again (sigh). OS builders are at the mercy of the hardware manufacturers to come up with the goods regards software. If the HM doesn't, then it becomes a real challenge, as the user already has the component, but no software to make it run.
Canonical, along with several other distro builders have the same challenges with the same hardware manufacturers, and try to solve this as soon as possible, either through continued negotiation, or in some instances (not including Canonical, because i don't know if they do this) reverse engineer software just to have the component working.
It's not fanatical to disagree with you, whatever you're trying to portray. (and being honest, you've been spectacularly obvious in your intent) We didn't fail to "lynch" you, as you put it, because we didn't have to in the first place. You're doing a great job on yourself, all by yourself, for all to see.
Computer users will use what they want to use, be it Win, Mac, or Linux. Your portrayal, from your posts, has been to try and dismiss Linux as, to use Rory's parlance, "a cottage industry." It isn't, and this thread alone is full of success stories for ordinary desktop users. In every OS there are users for whom something doesn't work, and Win and Mac are no different in this regard. (The interlink is replete with trainwreck fora as evidence.)
Yours, unfortunately, has been with a Linux distro. You then went a step further and more or less implied that "Linux sucks", and it's Linux's fault hardware doesn't work. It's simply not true to say this, for the reasons i and other have already posted. It doesn't make us fanatical, on the contrary, it means we're thinking for ourselves, and we're smart enough to know who's dragging the chain here. Your quick blanket condemnation says more about you, than us.
If you want to help, start sending emails to your particular hardware manufacturer, and ask them to start supplying linux drivers/modules for their gear. I'd be interested in hearing what sort of reply you get, if any.
Good to see you appreciate what Canonical is doing. They've been giants in building a great Linux distro for ordinary users (and building a great commercial company to provide services. I've yet to hear of anyone who's had a less than successful outcome with the professional services offered.), and deserve our support and encouragement. I'm a Gentoo user, but have, and continue, to help any new user with installing Ubuntu/Fedora/Suse/Gentoo if they need it.
Were it not for the determination and vision of Mark Shuttleworth and the Ubuntu team, the Redhat team, those from Gentoo, Mandarke, slackware, etc, ordinary users would only have 2 proprietary choices to make, neither of which would be affordable for very long. Those same proprietary OS's are being 'kept on their toes' by a viable alternative, and that's good for us all.
Complain about this comment
I started using Linux back in 1993 after no end of problems with Windows 3.1 at the time. I've moved through the distributions and used Ubuntu for quite some time now.
Familiarity is the thing, but I believe that Ubuntu is well designed. Its menu layout is well organised into categories unlike the mess of my Windows XP Programs menu at work. It runs the software I need well. Software installation is easy and appears well designed with central management of all applications and their updates. Network configuration is easy whether at home or roaming, and performance is good. My main day to day applications are Firefox (web), Evolution (mail), Amaroke (music), Bibble-Lite (a commercial photo processing suite) and Open Office.
I do not accept for a moment that Windows is easier to use - because I end up spending a fair amount of time around friends' and family's and friends of friends houses fixing problems with it. The biggest problems I have with Windows are its incredible complexity and that it tends to hide that important information that you need to work out what may be wrong with it.
Some people I know have installed Ubuntu for people like older relatives and set it up as a secure way of using the internet. I hope to see it grow, and as it grows more and more third parties to support it and provide software.
Complain about this comment
Nice Article, glad to see Ubuntu getting coverage.
However, please quantify "Linux" as Linux Desktop or Linux Server, etc. - when it comes to the server market, Linux rules.
As for realityleak - "Linux users boast about how the latest versions won't succumb to any viruses but that's because it is not worth the time of the malware author to write a virus that will touch less than a percentage of computers worldwide."
WRONG WRONG WRONG. Linux won't succumb to virus's because the entire user access model prevents it. Windows in architecturally in secure, Linux isn't. (by default, and not running as root) You might get an exploit that at the very very worst, wipes our your user account - but this will not infect the entire PC nor the rest of the PC's on the network. Just like Mac's - virus' don't happen
Complain about this comment
linuxrich #207.
oops, misread, sorry.
Complain about this comment
I look forward to a future posting after Rory has had a little more time to explore his new operating system. People seem to forget what their first experience with Windows was like because of the subsequent years of familiarity. Having spent many years without Windows I find the same thing on the odd occasion I have to use a Windows machine.
As far as #2's comment about command line instructions is concerned I appreciate why people are nervous of them. However the practical reason a lot of instructions include command line examples is it's easier than talking someone through the GUI steps:
sudo apt-get install firefox
Is equivalent to clicking through:
Software Store->Add/Remove Programs->Firefox
(or whatever the path through the GUI is, I use the command line all the time as it's generally faster than navigating a GUI).
It's part of the Unix philosophy (from which Linux derives a lot of it's design) that functionality and presentation (the GUI) shouldn't be too tightly bound together*. This makes it easy to do a lot of powerful things in the command line should people ever need to.
* Modern all-in-one applications like browsers and photo-editors not withstanding. Even they tend to share libraries that make it easy to embed for example a browser window in your specialised application.
Complain about this comment
For a quick run-down on Windows 7 features versus those of Linux,
see http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1009
Complain about this comment
The irony for me, is having used Ubuntu for quite some time, I now have to remove it and move to Debian, as they have dropped support for my hardware (ARM V5).
Complain about this comment
I think people are too set in their ways - Linux does take some getting used to but it is a fully functioning OS that is head and shoulders above windows on may fronts.
People don't complain about their mobile phones running different OS's they just get used to the new device and get on with their lives.
I've run Ubuntu for three years now and I've lost no data, had no viruses, had no hardware problems (but they do exist), had no annoying crashes, had access to the most amazing array of free applications just a click away.
I can not sing Linux's praises enough and I know that you can't just swap from Windows at the drop of a hat but I urge every one to give it a try.
Ubuntu is by far the best Linux flavour to try first.
Complain about this comment
Hi. I am a massive Linux/Unix programming geek and I think I know why Linux will not take off mainstream in the desktop environment...
Once you've learnt how to use Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, or any of the other mainstream Linux distributions, you feel like you are part of an elite club. You start learning to use Unix commands at the terminal (or command line as it's know in Windows).. which is frankly the strongest part of Linux, you then find yourself part of a smaller club.
Then you start looking for something more challenging; you build your own OS from source code (Gentoo) or from scratch (Linux From Scratch) and you feel like you've really achieved something truly special.
You then get this far and wonder what you can do to make Linux/Unix better.. the truth is, when you get to this stage you don't want to make the code far more complex to allow Windows/Mac users to easily migrate to these Operating Systems. Linux/Unix is great just the way it is!
I agree that Linux will not make your life easier than Windows (although you'd never get a virus, nor will your computer ever crash!). It is a completely different kettle of fish. I applaud Cononicals work for how user-friendly the user experience has become.. but I think you would ruin the magic of Linux if you made it as simple as Windows.
The truth is that Linux is difficult from a user's perspective, but simple and elegant from a developers perspective. Windows is the complete opposite (I'm sure most programmers who have worked on the Windows source-code will have nightmares for the rest of their life as it's SO complex and bloated). So it goes without saying that developers and similar would use Linux and the general public will stick to using Windows or Macs.
Complain about this comment
AlexBennee #225.
"..comment about command line instructions is concerned I appreciate why people are nervous of them. However the practical reason.."
I'd like to add that using the command-line is also more productive. it means not having to take your hands off the keyboard to manipulate the mouse, increasing throughput.
tommed #229.
"The truth is.."
the 'truth' -- like beauty -- lies in the eyes of the beholder. ;)
Complain about this comment
There are multiple things wrong with this blog and a few of the comments. First you were testing the Ubuntu Netbook Remix, which is designed for smaller screens and is not the full Ubuntu Desktop.
Second a commenter said linux is for geeks when it is clearly not, I use it a lot and I would never class myself as a geek, if you saw the Ubuntu slogan "Linux for human beings" it is designed for anybody & is good for everything.
Windows seems to have a lot of sparkly things on the side for looks.
Ubuntu, in my opinion looks better than windows 7, especially if you install a free and open-source program called Compiz.
Lots of effects and items will be able to be added and switched on or off depending on your preferences.
go to "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYgWE6Svpag" and see an example of a few of these features.
I struggle to find areas where Ubuntu is hard to use, it is much faster than windows and almost impossible to get a virus on a linux system.
I have only touched the tip of ice berg in things that I find good about Ubuntu.
Complain about this comment
I can understand that people still have trouble envisaging what linux as an os actually is these days, but the reality is, every distribution now is extremely user friendly and if you are not confident with the command line then there is no need to use it. Visually it looks great, its a very mature OS despite some comments, and there are applications available and easily installed to do everything you can do in windows and more. Oh yes, and its all free. To be honest, what reason is there not to try it?
It's just a shame this article was written by someone who seems to have little real experience of Ubuntu - for instance, Audacity is freely available to install, without hassle, via the package manager which is an absolutely fundamental feature of the OS and yet not even mentioned here...
Complain about this comment
24 hours with ubuntu and a week with windows?
Why are you not reviewing ubuntu for a week as well ?
I use ubuntu at home and have installed it on other pcs for my family.
If you want to use it for web surfing and for writing the odd letter it is briliant. It has been very reliable without any issues.
However one distinct advantage is that it can be used as a portable o/s on a usb key.
This is something I would love to try out I have used the live cd and it is good. Most things will work as soon as you boot up, it can be used as a diagnostic.
I think the vast majority of pc users would be able to use ubuntu very easily the issue is unfamiliarity and the fact that there will be a learning curve.
Complain about this comment
Changing operating systems, whether to OSX or Linux, needs time to adjust; that's just a fact. If the attractions of economy, security, performance and ease of maintenance are insufficient to want to outlay that time, forget it.
If you're just using the basic applications like Mail or Office, you will be operating as effectively as in Windows in an hour - truly. An you won't have had to load a single application outside of the initial CD install.
If you have more complicated needs, like Rory's Audacity, or say photo work, you will need a little time to adjust to the differences between these apps and their Windows counterparts.
And if you want to do something a bit more complex again, like MythTV, expect to spend longer still on it.
Linux is wonderful in its power and diversity. When I show people MythTV in action, with one pc on the network recording TV via a twin digital adaptor, and every other pc on the home network scheduling and playing back programs, they gape.
Rory wants to get beyond the first niggles of a new experience, and see how rich Linux is as a working platform, and then come back and tell us about it.
Complain about this comment
As a tech commentator the thing that I find amazing about Rory Cellan-Jones's article is that there is no mention that the version of Ubuntu is the netbook remix and not the normal desktop Ubuntu.
The remix is on purpose set up to be a different way of working to maximize the real estate of the smaller netbooks screens. (http://www.canonical.com/projects/ubuntu/unr)
It concerns me that Rory as one of the BBCs primary commentators on technology is so unfamiliar with Linux. Kind if affects credibility.
It would be like Jeremy Clarkson rubbishing everything except super cars because he doesn't know anything about them. Oh wait, maybe a bad analogy.
Complain about this comment
"What reason is there not to try it?", theoriginaldus asks.
* Familiarity with whatever we're using now, which for most of us is one version or another of Windows.
* 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' - Windows has it's faults, but even Vista *works*. I use it all the time on two of my machines (The others are XP and W2000).
* Simplicity - It's been there ever since I bought the machine(s). Loading something else will require me to either replace what I've got - NOT going to happen blind! - or dual boot, a complexity level I'm not comfortable with.
* Incompatibility - Sure most common business applications sush as wordprocessor, spreadsheet etc have Linux versions or equivalent programs. But When I get home I want to relax and one of the things I do a lot of is play games. Not many of them have Linux ports of any sort, and if they did I'd be unsure about how well it would work in any particular installation (Ubuntu version whatever VS Red Hat version Something).
* Carryover - I use Windows at work, therefore I use Windows at home. No need to rethink. Shimples!
So personally I think Rory's right: until something pretty major changes I can't see any Linux, or indeed any other OS, replacing Windows on MY systems. What's more likely is that I'll replace them with something different, something new - and probably something that's not even being built now.
Complain about this comment
@Rory are you lying for effect or deliberately?
I saw you on BBC Breakfast and in your intro to Windows7 you clearly said you dont use windows at home and prefer use an opensource OS but saying "thats a different story".
Now either you were lying then or you're lying in this article and pretending to be a Linux newcomer for effect so you have little need to be upset at the comments made
Complain about this comment
#221 alex1658
You need to raise your intellect to engage with me in any discussion or debate. Otherwise, just ignore me as I have ignored you.
Thanks!
Complain about this comment
Steveh11
Your only reason not to try it which made sense is where you said you wouldn't want to jump straight in but you don't want to dual boot. Maybe you should try a Wubi install then? You can install Ubuntu within Windows without partitioning anything. It's all automated and can be uninstalled just like any other Windows software.
Complain about this comment
I've just been watching the Gary Parkinson interview with Chris Kenyon. Overall, quite a good little piece until they both dismissed using the command line. I've blogged in the past about not dismissing the power of the command line, but I saw it very well summed up recently:
"Suggestion: forget the old farts who are afraid to type. Tell a young person that using the command line is faster, because it's directly text-messaging the operating system." - SilverBear.
It's a shame Chris Kenyon felt he had to apologise for what is actually an extremely flexible and powerful tool.
jr4412 #224 Not a problem.
Complain about this comment
"Ask any Linux power-user how to do something and often the first thing they'll do is point you to the command line. This isn't 1994!"
Telling someone to type something in is better than saying click the top right button, drag this here , click that button , type this , do that etc etc etc. What happens if you clicked the wrong button?
Lots of stuff can be done without the command line - but if your asking for help surely the best way to get it is something that cant be misunderstood.
Complain about this comment
ginajscott wrote: nothing except to complain about ubuntu.
Not heard this comment from an astro turfer before.
Complain about this comment
lanser
Likely Rory is confused and doesn't understand that OS X (Rory is a Mac user - a lot of people here have falsely assumed that he is a Windows user) is not open-source but rather has open-source underpinnings.
Complain about this comment
Although Linux has still away to go on the desktop - it is growing every year in the server space - companies are adopting Linux to run their business - email servers, web servers, application servers running Linux are commonplace within IT departments.
Power users will stick with what they need - but the "standard" users are not so tied into an operating system - they want to turn on their device and access their programs and data - no matter where they are.
I notice some PC makers are introducing "instant access button" - where if you want instant access to the internet you press one button, which will boot Linux / Andriod - if you want Windows you press another.
As the internet infrastructure improves and line speeds get quicker, the need for a "fat" desktop will diminish.
Windows will have to adapt - not just to the competition, but to the new way of computing.
Complain about this comment
MrFaulty #238.
MrFaulty -- nomen est omen (lat. 'the name is a sign').
;-)
Complain about this comment
Hi Rory,
Try to not simply think of Ubuntu as a Windows alternative, but as a secure, stable and productive OS in it's own right. Comparisons are inevitable, but it is not a Windows killer, and nor is it meant to be.
I liked your analogy of a minority sport for enthusiasts, and that's the point. It is a computer system for computer people, it is not a "white product". Yes, it is true it not as slick as Apple or Windows, and to get the most from it, you will probably resort to the command line, but even Windows does not have a GUI for everything.
I was an XP owner who was fed up of bugs, viruses and programme conflicts. The final straw was the introduction of the high priced ultimate edition to control my own computer. Had I been a happy Vista Home Edition user I would never have tried Ubuntu, and if you are happy with Windows stick with it. But if you are one of the windows whiners, well there are alternatives.
Linux on the desktop is rare, but don't forget that you probably do have Linux installed on more than one of your machines already. Check out your router and your PVR, it is a supremely versatile OS.
Windows is for Mondeo Man, but for those who live outside of the box, or aspire to take control of their lives, these are tools to help you. I look forward to your fuller exploration next week.
Complain about this comment
Great article but you should have pointed out that there are many different versions of Linux nit just Ubuntu. Maybe you should have posted a link to distrowatch. There are also many people who have posted on this blog with that seem to fear Linux saying it is difficult to use. The version I use works out of the box, extensive printer and network support, runs all media types. If anyone tries a version of Linux and has problems don't give up, just try a different version. Every version of Linux comes with a friendly helpful community ready to give there time and knowledge to resolve any problems you may have, and they give their time freely.
If there is anyone out there with an oldish PC and they are thinking of upgrading to Windows7 then be aware that Windows7 is very resource hungry and won't give very good performance on older PC's and that is another reason for switching to Linux, unless your happy to spend £500 on a new PC.
Complain about this comment
thorper #247.
whilst I agree with your first paragraph (especially RCJ "..should have posted a link to distrowatch"), I think that you're wrong saying "..be aware that Windows7 is very resource hungry..". if you have a PC that can run XP (ie. anything sold in the last eight or so years), you should be alright.
Complain about this comment
thorper
It maybe resource hungry compared to Linux but Windows 7 is much better than Vista and has comparable, even slightly favourable, performance when compared to XP. It benchmarks slightly better than XP on netbooks anyway. The mere fact that it will run on a netbook when Vista couldn't i.e. it wasn't usable, shows that Windows 7 is a step in the right direction.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Also, lets not forget that Linux is actually more popular than OS X in many mainland European countries as well as many eastern nations too.
Complain about this comment
I think using Ubuntu (and Linux) for only a day is not fair game when comparing it to Windows that the OP has used for years. I've been using Ubuntu for 3 years and there was a learning curve to become confident and productive with this new OS.
Complain about this comment
the8thstar wrote:
"I've been using Ubuntu for 3 years and there was a learning curve to become confident and productive with this new OS."
And there lies the problem.
There should not be a learning curve. This needs to be a tool that you just pick up and use.
Windows has not got that perfect, but they are closer than Linux when it comes to instinctive usability. Linux of many flavours does lag behind in that respect.
I installed Ubunto desktop recently again for fun - I normally use Debian servers when it comes to Linux.
I have to admit this was on an old system that was struggling a bit - a little short on the RAM front, poor thing.
However, the first thing I thought was how dated and clunky it felt. Far more along the lines of Windows NT or 2000. (Though WAY more secure!)
Now for me, that is no bad thing. I set all my systems to the classic desktop as I need my systems as optimised as possible for composing. But I know what my kids would think and they would be singularly unimpressed. And the idea that I have to install other functionality before they could even begin to use their familiar "apps" - well, not worth waiting for, they would say.
And there is no way on earth that they would want a "learning curve" and have to become familiar with another OS. They want it to work EXACTLY like their current OS. And they really don't want to have to think about it.
Just like 99.9% of car users do NOT want to know how their car works, so that now applies to computers. And why should people know? They want to pay for something that works. HOW it works is not their job. And that is quite right and proper.
(PS: I should explain the car thing. Several years ago I was struggling with my computer. A geeky friend of mine chastised me, criticising my lack of knowledge and said that if I was not prepared to learn this stuff, I should not own a computer. Later that week, his old car broke down and he phoned me to see if I would tow him and if I knew what was wrong. I told him that if he did not know how to fix a car himself he should stick to cabs, and put the phone down..... We did carry on being friends, by the way!)
Complain about this comment
Things to separate out. If you need to get a lot of stuff done, i.e. sort thousands of files, re-index data, process information in an automated fashion then linux (*nix) is your beast of choice. Windows just doesn't provide the flexibility for this and hence this internet runs largely on linux. As does the vast majority of server farms and they have 1,000's of systems processing data in a great many cases. So no linux is certainly not a small niche marke and this is an area Microsoft are rightly trying to get into. This is where the unix "geeks" say the command line is key. Why waste system resources on the pretty front end if the world only wishes to see the results (i.e. that web page you're looking at now super fast :) )
For the home user, first buy the OS, then buy the office suite, then buy the anti virus then buy etc etc etc. Ubuntu (or a.n.other) linux and it's free... yup. You get way more than you pay for. Do you NEED the command line for e-mail, web or word processing etc, nope ! and all the files created are in a common open format, so if the OS is updated you keep your files safe and anyone you want to read them can without having to upgrade to say... Office 20xx etc etc.
There are many who have made the switch, some don't wish to try the alternative as they've heard it may be hard. It isn't BUT it is not necessarily for everyone.
The article and interviews missed a considerable amount and it comes somewhat across as limited knowledge and or understanding on the authors part. Not a complaint, just another demonstration WHY many myths are perpetuated :). It pays to look at all the options and see what works for you. Many governments have saved enormous amounts having switched and they certainly don't seem to be migrating back anytime soon... maybe they've discovered something in this linux thing that isn't just for "geeks" after all :)
Complain about this comment
Much of your post is merely subjective, and as such, I won't comment on it other than to say that I don't agree with it.
However, what I do have a problem with is comparing the learning curve of ANY Operating System with knowing how a car works to the point where you could service it yourself. It is a really poor analogy. No, of course the vast majority of people don't want to learn those skills. Moreover, its impossible for everyone to be an expert in everything. It wouldn't work. That is not what is being asked of them. The Linux community is not asking everyone to become a developer. The learning curve is far more akin to getting used to a new car interior or the layout of a new TV remote, rather than learning how the car or the TV as an organic whole actually function so that you can fix them.
Complain about this comment
My post above was in response to #253, Gurubear, which I forgot to say obviously.
Complain about this comment
quote:
And there lies the problem.
There should not be a learning curve. This needs to be a tool that you just pick up and use.
reply:
There's a learning curve for any new OS (even Mac uses coming to Windows for the 1st time ever).
So your comments aren't really true
Complain about this comment
While it may be different, there must surely be less of a learning curve when you first use a GNU/Linux system for the first time than with windows.
If I had totally forgotten Wnidows (oh how I wish I could....), it wouldn't be that simple after Ubuntu/Mandriva.
1) Windows Add/Remove, is mostly just "Remove", with a tad of "reinstall".
2) Install a new browser. I have to search Google for it (or Bing), download the installer, and then install that.
3) Starting a program isn't entirely logical. Start -> Mozilla (Who's that? Would be a valid question for an uneducated user, certainly doesn't sound like "internet") -> Firefox. As opposed to the intermediate button being labelled "Internet".
4) Now on the internet, we find a .PDF. Now we have to go download Adobe reader, which IIRC, you need to restart having installed.
5) £100 for an Office Suite, atthe most basic available level. Not such a simplicity issue, but Windows should really come with something to do simple Word procesing/Spreadsheet tasks.
6) Paint, as opposed to GIMP. Simpler, but pretty much useless.
7) Learning that most things native to Windows costs money, usually quite a lot.
8) If it breaks, you probably need a reinstall, since it will probably not work in a recovery mode that well. Similarly, a lack of a useful shell means you can't do anything without working graphics.
So personally I wouldn't say it's simpler to use. Some of my points aren't so much simplicity, granted, more along the lines of cost and what you can do yourself.
Complain about this comment
I really didn't want to comment on this becuase to me its a stupid thread. But i caught this comment.
"Starting a program isn't entirely logical. Start -> Mozilla (Who's that? Would be a valid question for an uneducated user, certainly doesn't sound like "internet") -> Firefox. As opposed to the intermediate button being labelled "Internet"."
Mozilla's fault, not windows - they made the installer for the program, and decided on folder names, not Microsoft.
"Now on the internet, we find a .PDF. Now we have to go download Adobe reader, which IIRC, you need to restart having installed"
Microsoft were banned from budling Adobe Acrobat reader with Windows because of anti-competition laws, do your research.
"Paint, as opposed to GIMP. Simpler, but pretty much useless."
Very useful and is used a lot.
3 Points that are completely wrong - and easily dismissable. Like alot of comments on this thread so far...
Complain about this comment
I can see your point - The computing world is very centred on Microsoft's computing platforms and going outside that requires a certain degree of swimming upstream. This will be the case until the user base reaches critical mass.
Your findings were interesting - but I was a bit mystified by a few things. Installing Audacity should have been a doddle (the only thing I can think of is that you might have had to enable non canonical supported software in the software center).
Similarly I am at a bit of a loss as to how you would have gotten stuck on photo/music/video management. My understanding is that there are applications installed to handle photos and music and these should be placed in very logical places in the graphics and sound/video menus respectively. My understanding is that the menu items explain the applications function. Was it specific functionality with the program.
Ultimately I am not sure that 24 hours is really enough time to give a balanced review on something completely foreign. However this is what people will do anyway and I think that canonical would be wise no take notice
Complain about this comment
Any new operating system is confusing. I've been using Sony Ericsson's UI for so long that using HTC Sense on Android was very very weird at first. However, it now feels so intuitive and customisable that I wonder if I could go back to other phones. I downloaded Ubuntu 5 or 6 a few years back but I couldn't get on with it. However, I am considering giving it another crack. Windows XP will soon be old hat and my old computer can't handle anything better.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps you could have given Linux in general a fair share of online time after running an advert for Microsoft Windows most of the morning. I guess Microsoft have been taking you out to lunch or giving you gifts in kind?
A man with such a limited technological understanding and overview of operating systems is probably not best placed to be on air sharing his views.
Complain about this comment
" Mozilla's fault, not windows - they made the installer for the program, and decided on folder names, not Microsoft."
Fair enough, but it wouldn't exactly be bad if all Internet software was automatically sorted into it's own category, so the user doesn't have to sort by company name.
Adobe Reader isn't the only thing that can read PDFs, can't they use a different one?
As to Paint, you can hardly adjust exposure of an image, intelligently crop, use layers, apply shear to a layer, desaturate, etc. I do use paint in Windows, but the best use for it is for capturing screenshots, thats about it.
So, I can dispute at least two of your points. And, I was pointing out from a point of view of if you just had a base Win 7 install, having never used Windows before, in which case one wouldn't know about anti-competition laws about Adobe bundling, etc.
Complain about this comment
Oh, one other thing, I should point out that while I would like to see Linux have more market share, what I really want is consumers to actually have the choice to buy it.
So that the average person can actually have a choice of OS, not just differing editions of Windows 7.
Complain about this comment
Until Ubuntu and other forms of Linux move away from the heavy use of the command interface for driver installs and software installs it will never be mainstream. The average user does not want to have to type in lots of command interface codes to update graphics drivers and other things. Yes Unbuntu has brought linux a long way when it comes to ease of use for the average user but its still no where near as good as any version of windows going back to probally windows 98 even.
Sure you dont have as many virus issues in linux but thats only because not many peopel use the OS so peopel dont bother writing virus and spyware as they would be better off spending the time hitting the systems that are used the most. If Linux was to get as popular as windows they would have exactly the same issues.
I am also a big gamer so again linux is a no go there, but I must admit running stuff under wine has got a lot better.
At the end of the day great its free and if you can get around the pains of using the commadn line for quite a bit then tis not a bad OS at all but for ease of use it still does not come near windows and certainly not for application compatability again not really the fault of linux but the software companeis but thats besides the ponit.
As for all this vista bashing I have used Vista x64 since it was released and never had any major issues with it all my apps run, all my games run, picks up drivers for all my hardware off the net awesome,I fonud it a great step up from XP and I cant wait to get my hands on windows 7 all the good stuff from Vista made better :)
Mcirosoft have also done a godo thing with the price of their OS, if things keep getting cheaper from them then it can only be a god thing.
Complain about this comment
"Adobe Reader isn't the only thing that can read PDFs, can't they use a different one?"
No becuase the same argument would crop up again, showing favouritism...
"all Internet software was automatically sorted into it's own category"
Possibly, but not exactly a point of complication...
"adjust exposure of an image, intelligently crop, use layers, apply shear to a layer, desaturate"
Never done that in my life and probably never will...
These arguments are the same as every other argument that comes up anytime anyone mentions Windows, Linux or Mac. They are bottomles points founded on the posters (biased) view.
There are upwards of 250 post here and everytime they are retorted from each side - says it all really.
Complain about this comment
I admit, I'm biased.
One last thing though, considering just how ubiquitous Digital Cameras are now, is Paint enough? That isn't exactly a bottomless point, an image editor with tools to edit photos is rather useful these days.
Complain about this comment
@mks2005
Heavy use of the command line to install drivers and programs?
are you stuck in the last century?
I haven't had to resort to command line for drivers for years and in fact I can't remember the last time I had to install a driver they're all installed already. As for programs it is no longer necessary to use the command line most distros these days come with massive repositories of apps all free and all installable via synaptic/yast and other gui's no command line necessary
Complain about this comment
I'm getting sick and tired at hearing the same old lies spouted about Linux:
mks2005 wrote:
"Until Ubuntu and other forms of Linux move away from the heavy use of the command interface for driver installs and software installs it will never be mainstream."
Answer: Most mainstream Linux OSs* (including Ubuntu) have GUIs for all of that.
Sure there's command line tools as well, but then windows has the same - command line tools to compliment the GUIs.
So if you don't want to use command line tools, then use the GUIs instead. These GUIs have been in place for a good 5 or so years so their very tried and VERY tested!!
mks2005 wrote:
"Yes Ubuntu has brought Linux a long way when it comes to ease of use for the average user but its still no where near as good as any version of windows going back to probally windows 98 even."
Answer: well that depends entirely on what you are comparing. Ease of use in installing applications or drivers - Ubuntu has Windows beat hands down.
* Ubuntu automatically downloads, installs and configures the system - Windows expects the users to do this.
mks2005 wrote:
"Sure you dont have as many virus issues in linux but thats only because not many peopel use the OS so peopel dont bother writing virus and spyware as they would be better off spending the time hitting the systems that are used the most. If Linux was to get as popular as windows they would have exactly the same issues."
Answer: No it wouldn't. Linux is completely different under the hood to Windows.
* Ubuntu can't execute downloaded code without users specifically requesting said code to be executed. Windows will execute anything with predefined extentions regardless of users consent.
* Ubuntu forces users into non-administrative accounts meaning that rogue apps can't damage the system. Vista gives everyone access to admin accounts by default
* Ubuntu requires passwords to elevate processes to admin privileges. Windows has a passwordless UAC - and even in Win7 it offers no protection as it can be bypassed via a well published hack.
While I agree that Linux may not be for everyone and I don't care what OS people run - I really do wish people wouldn't spread rubbish about Linux based on sketchy** information.
* technically "distributions", but I don't really want to overcomplicated this post with jargon)
** "sketchy" being the polite term ;)
Complain about this comment
I have just installed the 9.04 version of Ubuntu in my laptop and this weekend will install the brand new 9.10 Coala Version. Satisfied? Hmm it takes time, there are things to solve, for example my laptops' touchpad became overspeedy and oversensitive and buttons are pressed almost automatically (that would not be a problem with a normal mouse). I already had to to go down to basic "command lines" to solve 2-3 things. But despite being a semi-ignorant, I could do it thanks to lots of info found on the net. Despite the differences in appearence and use I could get used to it, I think it is a very good architecture - afterall we are talking about something totally free... they give you a free donkey, you do not check it in the teeth!
Am I going to use it? Defenitely, but only in parallel to Windows WP and/or 7. I like to use different things. However, the fact that Ubuntu is a hassle-free environment once you set it up means that I will install it in my old laptop along with Skype so that my totally computer-ignorant parents can use it to call me without having to deal with firewalls, anitviruses, update-pop up windows and such...
Complain about this comment
I think most people who know linux know that there's always more than one way to skin a cat.
I can think of very few tasks that actually require you to drop to the command line, with no GUI method available - none of them tasks that a freshie would be performing.
However - to a freshie checking out a help forum it may look like you need to use the command line. I know when I help out on a forum I give the command line instructions unless specifically asked about using a particular GUI application. There are a couple of reasons for this:
1. I do not know how you may have modified your install - you may not have synaptic installed, you may have removed the software centre, you may even have uninstalled X - these are not uncommon modifications. I can however be almost certain you have a few command line tools (my examples will be to do with package management but the same story holds for many other areas), if you are using ubuntu or another debian derivative then you will have apt-get. In the very unlikely case you have removed apt then you will have dpkg, if you have removed that you have deliberately broken your install and you are about to either reinstall or begin a thorough education in package management and debian systems.
So I can be confident that a command line instruction will work on your system.
2. Even if I can reasonably assume that you have say synaptic (if you are a new ubuntu user looking to install your first apps for example) I have a choice:
a) I can take a lot of time and effort with screenshots and descriptions of what to click on in what order. This will be a lot of work for me but very easy for you to reproduce.
b) I can type out a single line of command-line magic. This is practically no work for me and so easy for you that all you have to do is copy and paste.
I'm usually going to pick b.
So *you* don't have to use the command line to do what *you want*. If however you don't know how to do a thing and ask for help you'll find out how to do it the way they tell you to do it.
It is possible to predict how often you will *need* (on your own initiative) to use the command line in linux based on your windows experience. If you have never had to run regedit and change a mysterious DWORD value from one incomprehensible value to another meaningless value in your windows registry, then you will probably never *need* to issue any involuted but readable instructions at the linux command line.
If you fire up regedit every day then expect to spend a lot of time looking at white text on a black background - and remember to install a command line web browser.
sudo apt-get install lynx
Complain about this comment
1. The command line is a fantastic tool. You don't have to use it but when you do, it opens up a huge amount of possibilities GUIs cannot offer. Why do you suppose Microsoft released their advanced CLI tool in 2006 and called it PowerShell? Linux supporters, stop apologising for the CLI and point out that it's a tool Microsoft have only managed to start to copy in the last few years. And before anyone mentions DOS, it was a pale imitation of the UNIX command line.
2. The percentage of computers connected to the internet (To include desktops and servers.) that run Linux is far higher than the 5% (For argument's sake) of desktop machines that run Linux. Therefore, if crackers and malware writers could exploit vulnerabilities in Linux I'm damn sure they would!
Complain about this comment
laumars wrote:
quoting me:
There should not be a learning curve. This needs to be a tool that you just pick up and use.
reply:
There's a learning curve for any new OS (even Mac uses coming to Windows for the 1st time ever).
So your comments aren't really true
###
Huh?
What a daft comment! :)
For the system to be really efficient, people should be able to move seemlessly from one system to another. Most people don't want to feel like that are starting all over again. If they do, they simply wont bother.
The comment I keep hearing about Linux (and only because MS is the leading system) is "one I got used to it," or "once I had passed the learning curve," or "once I found the alternatives to my apps and learned to use them..."
That is all true, but in the end I am in advertising, and I know if the thing I am selling works in a different enough way to the leading brand that people will find it difficult, then I have lost the marketing battle before I have even started it. Most people buy computers based on the applications they want to run. If when they turn on the machine the buttons they are used to are not where they want them, do not say exactly what they want them to say, and they cannot run the specific application they want, then they will complain.
Yes, there is a learning curve to every OS (I never said there wasn't), however, with more or less everyone using Windows, the steepest learning curve from their point of view will be associated with the Linux based system.
The team behind Ubunto want it to be a serious competitor to MS. But until they get round that HUGE marketing barrier, it will remain an object of interest at best for the majority of the home market.
Making something for free is not enough - it has to be free AND be flashier.
Complain about this comment
linuxrich wrote:
The percentage of computers connected to the internet (To include desktops and servers.) that run Linux is far higher than the 5% (For argument's sake) of desktop machines that run Linux. Therefore, if crackers and malware writers could exploit vulnerabilities in Linux I'm damn sure they would!
##
We are always getting people trying to hack our Linux web servers using the various vulnerabilities that appear from time to time. It is why we receive daily security bulletins about necessary updates.
The reason we don't have more trouble is because the sysadmin keeps the system updated and working, not because Linux is invulnerable.
Complain about this comment
Gurubear #273.
"That is all true, but in the end I am in advertising, and I know if the thing I am selling works in a different enough way to the leading brand that people will find it difficult, then I have lost the marketing battle before I have even started it. Most people buy computers based on the applications they want to run. If when they turn on the machine the buttons they are used to are not where they want them, do not say exactly what they want them to say, and they cannot run the specific application they want, then they will complain.
Yes, there is a learning curve to every OS (I never said there wasn't), however, with more or less everyone using Windows, the steepest learning curve from their point of view will be associated with the Linux based system.
Making something for free is not enough - it has to be free AND be flashier."
advertising, eh?
I think that your kind of thinking/argument has led us to this.
"What a daft comment!"
quite.
Complain about this comment
275 comments since my last analysis of posts, ...beaten only by one Question Time (Nick Griffin) and the Credit Crunch related blogs, WOW, this must be a result.
now, apologies for any counting errors
223 posts seem pro Linux
30 posts seem pro Windows
13 neutral
Rest indeterminate.
I will refrain from making any "tongue-in-cheek" analysis, as that upsets many people, including Rory. The main suggestion is that Gnu/Linux users feel they have to defend a product, purely because being free, it is perceived as having no value. Windows 7 is no doubt a great product, after a lot of investment has gone into it. Ultimately though, it is produced by company that needs to make a buck, and to do this it needs to make sure that its customers get tied in to their products.
But Open Source Software is not developed like that. Profit is not as important; the community is more important. This has led to a collection of operating systems and applications that are catching up with commercial products, and in-fact as many posts have already shown, already have overtaken them. The vast majority of "new features" in Windows 7, have been part of these OS long ago. It is no surprise to me that M$s search engine, Bing, is run on Linux. The BBC's web servers runs on Linux. Not only that, the BBC's technical folk are significant contributors to Free and Open Software. Indeed, the BBC, philosophically should be closer to FOSS, because after all we have already paid for it.
Complain about this comment
273. At 6:39pm on 28 Oct 2009, Gurubear wrote:
"Yes, there is a learning curve to every OS (I never said there wasn't), however, with more or less everyone using Windows, the steepest learning curve from their point of view will be associated with the Linux based system."
Well dur. I'm, sorry but if someone's used Windows for any length of time, they get used to it, how it works, where things are and so on.
People generally are breast-fed on Windows so when they come to use a linux distribution, there is a learning curve. As others have mentioned, change mobile phones and there's a learning curve to how that OS works, where things are and so on.
I have brought both of my children up with Linux (OpenSuse) and they have no problem in using either, my son, 4, can open up Firefox, find Club-Penguin and be off. Likewise, he can fire up Kaffeine and play his AVI files.
Imagine if you were using a Nokia phone and had used the same one for oh, about 5 or 6 years; suddenly, you change to a Samsung - OMG they're so different! Learning curve? YES!! With ANYTHING you try new for the first time, there is a l/curve!!
I've just watched the BBC video with Chris Kenyon on and he really didn't do it (Linux) any justice; the guy interviewing him said something about opening the command line and typing "code".
Sorry but if you have Windows and it goes wrong, you call your IT person who might ask you to fire up command prompt and enter some command(s).
It's no different - with the exception that the linux terminal is so much more powerful. For day-to-day use, you probably won't need it! My 4 year old son doesn't need it and he can do everything he wants to no problem.
Several other wonderful features were also bypassed in the "Ubuntu vs Windows" war that seems to be raging - in the Chris Kenyon interview, he was using Compiz; did anyone say "wait a minute, how are you flicking between apps like that?"
Several key features of a standard linux desktop are still missing from Windows 7; touch-screen might be nice but who honestly has a touch-screen monitor??
Come on Rory, I can't wait to hear the results of your week with Ubuntu; put how windows works out of your mind and let's hear an unbias real review and if you don't know how to do something, I'll be watching the Ubuntu forums for your posts!!
Oh and I feel like going on a bit so here is my Linux vs Windows rundown:-
Windows has its advantages, any software "just works" but there is usually a price (£££) to pay, or you download the illegal cracked version. In Linux, things might not work as expected, well of course not, they're written for Windows!
Here is a page which shows the Linux alternatives for most common windows software:-
http://www.linuxalt.com/
Of course, if you REALLY MUST HAVE PHOTOSHOP (for example), get it, run it through Wine! www.winehq.org
Installing programs;
Windows: Search web, download, run.
Linux: Search software management, install, run
The new organise desktop thing of Win7, what's wrong with right-click on taskbar > tile horizontally? That's been there for years. Not an impressive "addition".
Linux I admit, or OpenSuse11.0 which I am using now, I don't think it has such a feature, but as it has "VIRUAL DESKTOPS", who needs it? Send it to another desktop or manually re-size - not hard work for anyone really!
Always on top. Hmm, where is that in Windows - say you want to copy data from excel to word, each click focusses the other app on the top, bah, you need to compare one with the other without changing the size of the window? Good luck.
Opensuse/KDE has "always on top". Simple but effective.
I'm not going to go on much more as I am bored, if you like Windows and it suits you that MS every now and again will stop supporting your document formats and make it so you have to pay more £££ to keep working, then fine! If you like having a PERSONAL computer, then give Ubuntu a go, it's available in a "Live CD" format, so you don't even have to install it to your PC to try it! Try doing that with Win7.
;)
Oh and before I go, forums ... usually 1 forum per distribution so you can get help when you need it (free of course), try finding a Windows community forum that's not going to cost even more of your hard-earned £££
Peace out all, and remember, it's just an operating system!!
Complain about this comment
badger_fruit #277.
"Sorry but if you have Windows and it goes wrong, you call your IT person who might ask you to fire up command prompt and enter some command(s)."
and often they cannot even do that. a close friend of mine makes his living supporting (mostly) Windows users, these days he uses VNC (and like products) to "take control" of their desktops and fixes the problem himself.
Complain about this comment
Command Line, Command line, Command line.
It's the one and only pertinent reason for users to say Linux is to hard/stressful to use..
So here are some tips that could perhaps be included with any/all of your future HELP responses.
" From your browser, cut &paste the following and hit return"
Cut and past can be carried out in any of the following ways - your mileage may vary:-
ctrl+c (to cut) then ctrl+v (to paste)
or
menu cut, right mouse click paste
or my favourite
highlight text, move to terminal, press scroll wheel (middle mouse button)
or for non wheel mice (two buttons) - highlight text, move to terminal, press left & right mouse buttons together
or for touch pad (laptop) - highlight text, press left&right buttons together --- I personally press on the gap between the buttons ( this is narrow on my laptop).
Of course, you have to highlight each working window in turn with your mouse, it's a window system after all.
But, no more typing long control strings, and as someone posted earlier this is actually safer than following
Goto menu, --->click on, ---->click on, switch to -----> click on, ---->click on, ----> click on, switch to ---->
Even on windows this can prove to be a problem dependant on the same versions of software being on the user and posters machine, same SP packs etc.
Also, if a command has to be used again, press up-arrow whilst in terminal to get history of previous commands -- keep tapping up-arrow, down arrow to find.
Complain about this comment
dforshaw #280.
bad advice, and incorrect to boot ;-(
" From your browser, cut &paste the following and hit return"
use copy not cut because it is non-destructive (if in a document, for instance).
"ctrl+c (to cut) then ctrl+v (to paste)"
ctrl+c -- copy
ctrl+x -- cut
ctrl+v -- paste
Complain about this comment
oops, #280 references #279 of course, sorry.
Complain about this comment
My Bad,
your correct of course, it is incorrect it should have read copy rather than cut.
But for new users it's not "bad advice" it does stress them out to type out long commands, especially when they make a typo, and a little useful tip can go a long way.
Complain about this comment
jr4412
late night typing, those wee mistakes creep in... ;0}
Complain about this comment
@Gurubear
I'm sorry but you're still wrong.
EVERY OS has a learning curve, be it Windows, Ubuntu or OS X.
In fact, I know people moving over to Snow Leapod after using XP for years and have commented about taking them a while to get used to a Mac way of working.
So don't give me this rubbish that you should be able to move from one OS to another and somehow psychically understand how the whole computer functions.
Life simply does not work this way!
* If you buy a new car, you have to get used to which side of the steering wheel the indicators are on (etc), the bite of the clutch and so on.
* If you buy a new phone you have to get used to the layout of that OS.
* Even new TV and DVDs have a learning curve because people develop muscle memory for the positions of the buttons on their remote controls.
EVERYTHING in life that's new to a consumer requires said consumer to learn new skills.
So why should you expect that Ubuntu has no learning curve when every other new piece of technology does?
The only way Ubuntu could achieve a zero learning curve would be if it was trying to be a carbon copy of Windows - in which case why don't people just use Windows instead (or ReactOS, if you want to support open source software AND run a Windows-based OS)
You also made this comment:
"Making something for free is not enough - it has to be free AND be flashier."
I suggest you google for Compiz Fusion videos. Linux has been doing flashy (and hardware rendered) desktop effects long before Vista lurched onto the market.
Complain about this comment
dforshaw #283.
I do not disagree with your sentiment, however, how many "..new users.." can there be left after thirty years of 'personal' computing? I'm sure you're right when saying that "..it does stress them out to type out long commands.." but encouraging people to follow (any) procedure blindly (ie. without explanation) does not really help either, especially when you consider the decrease in (adult) literacy -- see link given in #275. no more "dumbing down", please.
Complain about this comment
One final comment before I let this topic lye:
I find it ironic that a BBC IT reporter has never used Linux Until this week when the company he reports for uses mostly Linux systems: http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?position=limited&host=bbc.co.uk
It goes to further highlight just how "respectable" an authority he is in technology.
As I said in an earlier post (which was kindly deleted despite it debunking numerous inaccuracies in Rory's blog) - it's a huge pity that the BBC's technology blogs read more like "PC's for dummies".
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #285.
Given that help is generally found over the internet, usually within a browser, and the "new user" is going to choose to follow that advice or not... is it really then necessary to deny them the ability to copy&paste ( given the slight inconsistencies between applications and terminals -- regarding the method of interaction) but instead force them to type character by character, with the introduction of typo's ( which we both have experienced tonight).
I appreciate your position, but for a new user who may/may not be unfamiliar with what they are putting in the command line by either method, isn't it rather moot?
Complain about this comment
dforshaw #287.
as I said before, we are (broadly) in agreement, BUT whether copy & paste, or using the command-line, the important thing is to get the user involved and learn.
Complain about this comment
laumars #286.
"I find it ironic that a BBC IT reporter has never used Linux Until this week when the company he reports for uses mostly Linux systems.."
the link you give shows us the interweb side of things only.
it would be very interesting to see breakdown figures of their intrawebs by OS.
how about it, Rory?
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #288
Of course, but read the 288 previous posts, and the nay sayers of the Linux system are choking at the command line... and they nearly all state "typing in archaic commands" as being the reason for not sticking it out...
But in a point and click world, it's the typing that frustrates many.
Unfortunately, it is my experience that when "new users", interact with the command line they are often un-aware that copy&paste is an option. Perhaps it's a hang over from DOS ( yes I am old enough to have used it) but many (and not just the older users) see the command terminal as a text only environment, and so type.
Maybe it's also that some applications have interacted nicely, with mouse, highlight, right click, paste, but some haven't. The alternative methods I gave are a work around that.
For users who have been there before and been foiled by that little glitch, mouse copy&paste seems to work pretty well these days, so why not give it another try? Don't get hung up on "having to type"... :o)
As jr4412 is right to point out, there are bad people out there, so watch out for commands like "rm *" and anything that looks like its stealing your bank pin code or root password. If in doubt ( no not RTFM) google the command first and check it out.
Complain about this comment
dforshaw #290.
"..read the 288 previous posts, and the nay sayers of the Linux system are choking at the command line.."
inablility to read? (please check out the link in #275) a good number of those posts point out the fact that on a modern Linux (Ubuntu, Fedora, whatever) everything is done via GUI, just like Windows.
"But in a point and click world, it's the typing that frustrates many."
is no reason though to simplify things further. look at cars for instance, since the introduction of safety measures and 'improvements' such as seat-belts, modern clutches, etc. drivers have become more dangerous to themselves and others, not safer. de-skilling is generally a bad idea.
#287.
"..the introduction of typo's ( which we both have experienced tonight)"
English is my second language, so apologies for "butchering" syntax and grammar.
Complain about this comment
"..the introduction of typo's ( which we both have experienced tonight)" #287
Your English and grammar, have been exceptional, it was simply a reference to your own apology, see below:-
281. At 10:28pm on 28 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:
oops, #280 references #279 of course, sorry.
But never intended to bring offense.
My cut&paste gaff, was far worse, and perhaps if I had more sense I would have headed to bed before now.
It has been a pleasure sharing insights with you jr4412, goodnight.
Complain about this comment
dforshaw #293.
"But never intended to bring offense."
and you didn't, sleep well.
Complain about this comment
Ubuntu 9.10 Linux creator calls Windows 7 'excellent release'
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
oops, the link in #294 didn't work.
excerpt:
"Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical Ltd., the maker of the most popular desktop Linux alternative to Microsoft Corp.'s Windows, not only claims to be "delighted" that Windows 7 is out, but calls the new operating system an "excellent release."
"It's a substantial improvement on the past. Even on netbooks, it's a credible release," Shuttleworth said today during a conference call launching the Ubuntu 9.10 operating system."
the article is published on the 'www.computerworld.com' site.
Complain about this comment
@ saiftynet said:
"But Open Source Software is not developed like that. Profit is not as important; the community is more important."
I would agree on this one and I even think it explains the culture difference between how a discussion about software is perceived. Since use of Linux is closely connected to interactions within a community, Linux users are usually more vocal about software, something that a Windows user who doesn't daily interact with such a community interpret as for example hostility solely against Windows and Microsoft. I can't deny there are individuals who's main focus at times seems directed at fighting corporate dirty tricks with hostility. Nevertheless I get the impression that many, and within the community I mainly interact with close to all, are quite indifferent to what Microsoft does; their choice is about software not brand.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see a real OS getting a mention, but let's just address a few of the points raised here shall we?
The Linux community is not fanatically anti-Microsoft - we are just fanatically pro many things Microsoft seem to have problems delivering such as system stability, efficient use of resources and bomb-proof security. As an administrator of hundreds of Windows boxes of various flavours I am happy to admit that there are elements of Windows that are well designed and work well... as they should given how well tested they were on Linux and Apple operating systems before being "adopted" by Microsoft.
Some distrobutions of Linux can indeed be complex when designed for very specific tasks or to be used by hardcore coders and the like, but distros like Ubuntu are not at all like this; when people say Ubuntu is "complicated" or "doesnt make any sense" or whatever what they actually mean is "it isn't like Windows" - they never stop to consider that it is actually Windows that is generally not very well designed or intuitive and that they are just used to it...
Yes there still situations and issues that Linux - even the user-friendly flavours - that occasionally require the user to [gasp] type stuff in, but I have yet to see any argument or reason as to why this should be considered a problem; maybe it isn't what the user is used to doing to resolve an issue, but there is a reason Linux is considered as much a Community as an Operating system - if someone needs help and are capable of using a Web Browser they will find it!
When considering which Operating System to use just remember that software is like sex - sure you can pay for it, but isn't it a lot better when it is free? OK you might have to experiment a bit, but that is part of the fun ;)
Complain about this comment
Judging by the response to this blog it is obvious that the passion involved in our PC use is such that the Microsoft v. (GNU/)Linux debate is set to run and run. Apologies to Apple fans, I simply don't have experience of that platform to be able to comment. It is equally obvious that a lot of people have a personal preference when it comes to OS and that there are equally as many success or sob stories for each OS. It is also equally possible, sometimes tweaking is required, to install an OS, applications and drivers to enable your PC to function satisfactorily on either Microsoft or Linux. Incidentally, the learning curve for either OS is similar when starting from scratch. As to command line usage, I have seen IT people use the command line on Windows and heard Linux fans accept that the general user prefers a GUI. Both OSs have GUIs and a command line, you use whichever you need to accomplish the task in hand.
So far, so good. You pay your money (or not) and take your choice. Some people choose both.
Now the trouble starts. Microsoft has to defend its market share, otherwise it's in financial trouble. Historically it has done this by its initial deal with IBM to supply an OS for its PCs, then aggressive and sometimes dubious marketing to quash the competition. All that Linux fans are asking for is a level playing field, not world domination, just a fair share of the market. When buying a new PC we don't want to go through the cost of paying for Windows that we are not going to use or the hassle of returning the software so that we can install Linux. This is where the BBC comes in. Because of its wide presence in the media it is perfectly positioned to inform the public of an alternative OS to the almost monopoly of Microsoft. In fact the BBC employs Linux to such a large extent, and successfully, it is almost duty bound to campaign for choice of OS at the point of sale. That is why this blog is so infuriating. Rory C-J, at best can't be bothered to review Linux properly and at worst is not technically capable of doing so. All we are asking for is an impartial review of Linux and how it compares favourably with other OSs and not nitpick about, for example, which has the best eye candy. Eye candy can be changed, I don't like the mucky brown Ubuntu desktop either, but its not important because Ubuntu works.
Now comes the sticking point.
The general user probably can't be bothered with security unless it directly affects them, which is irresponsible. You would not drive a car knowing it was not roadworthy. Similarly you should not run your PC knowing that it could be hijacked and used all over the internet for malicious purposes. This is where Linux comes in. Modelled on the Unix system, it is designed as a multi-user, network secure OS that utilises user privilege separation. Windows on the other hand was designed as a single-user, stand alone OS. Multi-user and network options were added later. Unfortunately, Microsoft left the default user with admin privileges, thereby defeating the object of security due to user privilege separation. To their credit they did try to improve security in Vista with User Access Control and guess what? The general user did not like it and wanted it turning off! It is therefore imperative that Linux is given a chance to show its security credentials and maybe with a larger adoption of this OS we have a chance to save our internet from the malware that is predominantly spawned by insecure Windows PCs. Again I believe the BBC as a major broadcaster is perfectly positioned through its tech team to highlight the huge security advantages of Linux. Sadly, I don't think Rory C-J is the agent that can correspond on this issue.
Complain about this comment
Good debates going on here. This made me want to install a Linux OS back on my PC. And instead of going for a Fedora again I'm going to try Ubuntu. :)
Complain about this comment
Gurubear #274
These Linux servers. OK, so you have to keep them up to date with security patches. But, do they have to run anti virus applications as well? No. Thought not.
The exception that proves the rule is Linux servers that an admin feels should have an A/V app on due to the fact that Windows machines use it as a file server. Therefore, you can catch infected files before they get passed on. I personally have ClamAV installed on my main Linux machine to occasionally scan Samba shares for infected files.
Complain about this comment
Some readers may be interested in the '40 years of Unix' article by Mark Ward which has just resurfaced on the BBC NEWS | Technology web page. So there you go, free, secure software running the internet 40 years ago as it is today. Now do you see why some people disapprove of the closed-source Microsoft PC monopoly?
Complain about this comment
296. At 09:52am on 29 Oct 2009, KimTjik wrote:
@ saiftynet said:
"But Open Source Software is not developed like that. Profit is not as important; the community is more important."
I would agree on this one and I even think it explains the culture difference between how a discussion about software is perceived. Since use of Linux is closely connected to interactions within a community, Linux users are usually more vocal about software, something that a Windows user who doesn't daily interact with such a community interpret as for example hostility solely against Windows and Microsoft. I can't deny there are individuals who's main focus at times seems directed at fighting corporate dirty tricks with hostility. Nevertheless I get the impression that many, and within the community I mainly interact with close to all, are quite indifferent to what Microsoft does; their choice is about software not brand.
-------------------------------------------------
I'd agree with this too, and add that improving one's general computer skillset can be highly rewarding in linux, as the opportunity through the community, and of course a bit of personal enthusiasm, can give one a heightened sense of achievement.
It might even be an advantage for those who have a lot of time on their hands, and are sick of not doing someth