Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[Frak]

Yeh... IF you can find the drivers and if you know how... This isn't supported by Microsoft and is sorta considered a hack by them.

No it isn't. Microsoft MADE this system of xml files to track drivers and progress to automate installations along with customizing them. It isn't a hack. Any Microsoft Certified technician-to-architect could tell you this.




No, I can answer, I just don't... Because I am lazy and don't want to do the search. Pay me and I will provide at least 100 devices. *thinks about father-in-law's pro-link scanner is first on list*


Your GRAPHICS card follows standard, your NIC card probably follows a standard (some don't, blame broadcom), your MOTHERBOARD follows a standard. Those are internal hardware that are necessary for proper running of a system. Your scanner most likely does not follow a standard. Most likely there is no standard for scanners or printers. Let alone any external hardware except those that pertain to storage, such as flash drives and digital cameras.

[rsambuca]

One point regarding slipstreaming via nLite. Even if users knew how, there are still a huge number of Windows desktop users for whom this is simply not an option, including myself. A large number of PC manufacturers do not ship the original XP installation disks with a preconfigured system (as per MS orders). I only received recovery/restore disks, from which you can not use nLite.

Actually, from what I have read, now that my system has been upgraded to SP3, the system restore disks no longer work, although I have no intention of testing this one out (hopefully).

In the end, guys, it is just computer software. There is no need to get so overly emotional over these issues, and it is about time you put an end to the petty insults and bickering in this thread.

[Frak]

One point regarding slipstreaming via nLite. Even if users knew how, there are still a huge number of Windows desktop users for whom this is simply not an option, including myself. A large number of PC manufacturers do not ship the original XP installation disks with a preconfigured system (as per MS orders). I only received recovery/restore disks, from which you can not use nLite.

Actually, from what I have read, now that my system has been upgraded to SP3, the system restore disks no longer work, although I have no intention of testing this one out (hopefully).

In the end, guys, it is just computer software. There is no need to get so overly emotional over these issues, and it is about time you put an end to the petty insults and bickering in this thread.
I remember where I have had to go buy (ugh) a Windows disc, since MSDN discs don't support the slipstream method. I have an HP Vectra (was my server at one time, now it's my desktop with a bunch of SCSIs, lol) that only has a restore partition that you burn to disc. It's pretty much useless to burn the disc.

As for the bickering, it's just what happens with a faithful fan gets their ideas of what is real and what is not real mixed.

[Canis familiaris]

in the end, guys, it is just computer software. There is no need to get so overly emotional over these issues, and it is about time you put an end to the petty insults and bickering in this thread.

+1

[ashmew2]

+1

+1

[Frak]

+1
+1

1+1+1 = 3

:)

[Canis familiaris]

+1

1+1+1 = 3

:)

Actually 4. You didn't count the post I +1ed ;)

[Frak]

Actually 4. You didn't count the post I +1ed ;)
Ok, 4

[rune0077]

Ok, 4

Make that 5.

[xpod]

One point regarding slipstreaming via nLite. Even if users knew how, there are still a huge number of Windows desktop users for whom this is simply not an option, including myself. A large number of PC manufacturers do not ship the original XP installation disks with a preconfigured system (as per MS orders). I only received recovery/restore disks, from which you can not use nLite.

Actually, from what I have read, now that my system has been upgraded to SP3, the system restore disks no longer work, although I have no intention of testing this one out (hopefully).

In the end, guys, it is just computer software. There is no need to get so overly emotional over these issues, and it is about time you put an end to the petty insults and bickering in this thread.

Depending on the machine you can often find a copy of the installation files on the drive somewhere,either on some recovery partition or in a directory(i386) on the C drive itself.Even if you dont though it`s not too hard to get a copy of them somewhere and as long as you have a legite product key then i dont see your doing much wrong making up your own bootable install disk with the likes of Nlite.Others might see it differently of course.

[worx101]

No it isn't. Microsoft MADE this system of xml files to track drivers and progress to automate installations along with customizing them. It isn't a hack. Any Microsoft Certified technician-to-architect could tell you this.

Of course it isn't a hack, did I call it a hack? There are tools to slipstream accompanying the disk. And any half-decent MS tech can and does know how to do it.

What I am saying is, MS doesn't support it or even guarantee it will work(last I checked.) Their support consider it a "hack."

As for the rest, I have to agree. But, I firmly believe that linux is more than ready for the desktop. It only needs support of hardware vendors to make it suitable to the "unwashed masses."

[mark0978]

The phrase, IT JUST WORKS comes to mind.

This means media players support mp3 and ogg right out of the box, without having to load new format supports. If you have an ideological war to raise, raise it from a point of power, not from a point of weakness. Most people don't know mp3 from wma from m4p. And if they do, they don't care about the fact that one format has patents on it (for which they aren't paying directly)

If you can't play mp3s, or rip songs in a format your player can use, the media player is useless......

[RiceMonster]

If you can't play mp3s, or rip songs in a format your player can use, the media player is useless......

If they don't know the difference between formats, I'm sure it doesn't matter what format they rip it in. If they rip it into .ogg or .flac (my favourite format), and the media player can use it, obviously they can use it.

[rune0077]

If they don't know the difference between formats, I'm sure it doesn't matter what format they rip it in. If they rip it into .ogg or .flac (my favourite format), and the media player can use it, obviously they can use it.

Well their iPods can't. Then, justifiably enough, they get upset. MP3 playback is mostly a prerequisite for Desktop Readiness I think.

[DARKGuy]

Well, I know people who rip music with WMP's WMA protection enabled and they don't know about it, then come whine to me that they can't play their music (read: music, not WMA or anything, they just don't care - or see it. Remember Windows hides file extensions by default) in another computer. Well duh!.

People just want stuff work. It doesn't work? then it's useless. I apply such rule even in Windows. When a software doesn't want to work, I might look for a hack, a solution, or something, and most of the time its a standard one (download a DLL, register an OCX, do some regedit) and it works without major injuries to Windows.

I remember I spent two hours last night trying to test my microphone and I haven't been able to yet. My card has like 30+ sliders (counting playback, capture and options) and some I don't even know WTF they are. Sometimes I'd wish things in Linux were easier... just slide the microphone slider up and it works, period.

[clanky]

Linux has everything it needs to be ready for the desktop, but it will never really be there until hardware support is sorted out.

The only way that Linux will ever become a mainstream desktop OS for the average home user is when the vast majority of people can simply download a copy, install it and have all there stuff work (at least the basic stuff like graphics, sound, wireless interweb etc.

I know there will probably be loads of people reading this and reaching for their keyboards to start typing some nonsense about people being too lazy or stupid to look for the answer on a forum, but the fact is that most people don't want to start blindly putting stuff they don't understand into a command line, that doesn't make them lazy or stupid it makes them normal computer users and until the Linux community gets that into there heads then Linux will continue to be a nerd OS.

The answer is that Linux either persuades PC manufacturers to sell more PC's with Linux pre-installed and pre-configured or for Linux to be capable of automatically detecting hardware settings and downloading working drivers (which means the drivers have to be there in the first place)

[lancest]

Old argument. I disagree. Ubuntu has been far easier to install & configure perfectly for me than Windows ever was. On more than 30 machines. No drivers needed because they are in the kernel. (Where XP has no driver Ubuntu often does) Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system. Most people don't install Windows so naturally they won't be installing Ubuntu either. BTW I have often had newbie type people install Ubuntu anyway- with little trouble.

"The only way that Linux will ever become a mainstream desktop OS for the average home user is when the vast majority of people can simply download a copy, install it and have all there stuff work (at least the basic stuff like graphics, sound, wireless interweb etc." Anybody with computer savy can do this right now with several distros.

[clanky]

Old argument. I disagree. Ubuntu has been far easier to install & configure perfectly for me than Windows ever was. On more than 30 machines. No drivers needed because they are in the kernel. (Where XP has no driver Ubuntu often does) Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system. Most people don't install Windows so naturally they won't be installing Ubuntu either. BTW I have often had newbie type people install Ubuntu anyway- with little trouble.

Anybody with computer savy can do this right now with several distros.

You only have to look at these very forums to prove that what you have just posted is utter nonsense, just look at the number of people whose wireless / graphics / sound / touchpad / [insert random piece of hardware here]. I consider my self to be reasonably "computer savvy" as you said and I found installing linux an absolute ball-ache. I stuck with it because it was something I needed to learn about linux for work, but if I had just been a computer user who had broken my windows and ws looking for a free alternative to buying a copy of vista hen I would have bee reaching for my credit card after about 30 minutes.

The more people who spread this nonsense about how linux is really easy to install and how all the drivers will just work straight out of the box and it will be better than windows the longer it will take the developers to address the issues which are holding linux back.

[billgoldberg]

The only way that Linux will ever become a mainstream desktop OS for the average home user is when the vast majority of people can simply download a copy, install it and have all there stuff work (at least the basic stuff like graphics, sound, wireless interweb etc.



Linux will only become mainstream when it comes preinstalled on computers.

And it is getting there, mostly because of the (in general very bad) netbook distro's and things like splashtop.

You don't need to have 20% of the market to be mainstream.

OSX is considered mainstream now and they have what, a 6% market share?

[rune0077]

The more people who spread this nonsense about how linux is really easy to install and how all the drivers will just work straight out of the box and it will be better than windows the longer it will take the developers to address the issues which are holding linux back.

+1. The truth is, the only way all your hardware could possibly work out of the box on Linux, is if you bought it specifically to be able to. Otherwise it's down to sheer luck, as opposed to Windows, where you can be pretty sure just about everything will work once you install the driver.

Luckily, there's pretty good documentation about what works on Linux and what doesn't, so it's entirely possible to buy a computer one component and a time, that you know will work 100%. But that requires research. If you just buy a computer from the local electronics store, it's like Russian Roulette, and most likely, something won't work.

[sistoviejo]

+1. The truth is, the only way all your hardware could possibly work out of the box on Linux, is if you bought it specifically to be able to. Otherwise it's down to sheer luck, as opposed to Windows, where you can be pretty sure just about everything will work once you install the driver.

Luckily, there's pretty good documentation about what works on Linux and what doesn't, so it's entirely possible to buy a computer one component and a time, that you know will work 100%. But that requires research. If you just buy a computer from the local electronics store, it's like Russian Roulette, and most likely, something won't work.

Not entirely true. A lot of hardware won't work with Vista because manufacturers don't make drivers.
And I'm talking about normal stuff like 100 mbps PCI ethernet cards, PCI video cards and stuff like that, not just obsolete stuff.
In that case it's a matter of luck because there is no documentation.

[rune0077]

Not entirely true. A lot of hardware won't work with Vista because manufacturers don't make drivers.
And I'm talking about normal stuff like 100 mbps PCI ethernet cards, PCI video cards and stuff like that, not just obsolete stuff.
In that case it's a matter of luck because there is no documentation.

When I said Windows, I should have said XP. Though Vista has been around long enough, that I do believe just about everything works for it. I haven't seen any hardware in stores for the past six months that didn't have a "certified for Vista" sticker on them.

[utnubuuser]

Ready = It works reliably and consistently.

[sistoviejo]

When I said Windows, I should have said XP. Though Vista has been around long enough, that I do believe just about everything works for it. I haven't seen any hardware in stores for the past six months that didn't have a "certified for Vista" sticker on them.

I'm not even talking about hardware that is on stores. I'm talking about hardware that I already have lying around.

[rune0077]

I'm not even talking about hardware that is on stores. I'm talking about hardware that I already have lying around.

Oh yeah, I agree with that. Vista was kinda designed for new computers. It won't run very well on anything older than a few years. And manufacturers are not really interested in providing new drivers for their old products, because they would much rather make a profit by having you buy new ones. That's dirty business, but it's how it is.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Linux is ready for the desktop, but the desktop isnt ready for linux :D

[Frak]

Linux is ready for the desktop, but the desktop isnt ready for linux :D
Trudat`

[m.musashi]

You only have to look at these very forums to prove that what you have just posted is utter nonsense, just look at the number of people whose wireless / graphics / sound / touchpad / [insert random piece of hardware here]. I consider my self to be reasonably "computer savvy" as you said and I found installing linux an absolute ball-ache. I stuck with it because it was something I needed to learn about linux for work, but if I had just been a computer user who had broken my windows and ws looking for a free alternative to buying a copy of vista hen I would have bee reaching for my credit card after about 30 minutes.

That's faulty logic. You have no idea how many users there are that are not asking for help so you can't say one is greater than the other. You also can't compare to the number of people seeking help with windows since most of them are calling tech support lines. The simple fact that every computer manufacturer has 24/7 help is evidence that a lot of people have trouble with windows too, and oddly enough none of them are installing windows nor do they have issues with drivers since their OS came pre-installed.

All you can gather from these forums is that a lot of people are trying out Ubuntu and most of them are new enough that they can't figure out things for themselves. If you spend any time here you will see most of the issues are really only center around a few key pieces of hardware (broadcom for example) that are not well supported and that is not Ubuntu's fault.


The more people who spread this nonsense about how linux is really easy to install and how all the drivers will just work straight out of the box and it will be better than windows the longer it will take the developers to address the issues which are holding linux back.

It isn't nonsense. If you were to install windows and Ubuntu on the same computer chances are much greater that more hardware will work out of the box with Ubuntu. Now, it's true that there is probably a windows driver CD that came with the hardware but that is not because windows supports the hardware but because the hardware maker went to the trouble to develop/include the drivers. If they went to the same trouble for Ubuntu it wouldn't be an issue. I can't tell you how many times I've installed windows only to find that graphics, networking, sound etc. did not work at all but the same hardware worked with Ubuntu.

It's really unfair to blame the devs for this. They do a lot and a great many things work just fine.

[OutOfReach]

linux is ready for the desktop, but the desktop isnt ready for linux :d

+1

[m.musashi]

+1. The truth is, the only way all your hardware could possibly work out of the box on Linux, is if you bought it specifically to be able to. Otherwise it's down to sheer luck, as opposed to Windows, where you can be pretty sure just about everything will work once you install the driver.

That is pure FUD. I've installed Ubuntu on several computers where everything worked out of the box. Dell Latitude laptops for example have excellent support for Linux. Conversely, if you have lost your driver CD good luck getting it to work with Windows. I know this first hand as I'm currently trying to get windows working on a D610 after a new install of windows (ironically overwriting Ubuntu as the teachers couldn't handle the change - users are the real barrier). Networking doesn't work so I can't download the drivers it needs. I called Dell and was told that they couldn't send me a driver CD and to download everything. Great help when networking doesn't work. They told me to use a different computer to download the drivers. What jerks. And the computer is still under warranty too.

So please cut the FUD.

[loseby]

Old argument. I disagree. Ubuntu has been far easier to install & configure perfectly for me than Windows ever was. On more than 30 machines. No drivers needed because they are in the kernel. (Where XP has no driver Ubuntu often does) Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system. Most people don't install Windows so naturally they won't be installing Ubuntu either. BTW I have often had newbie type people install Ubuntu anyway- with little trouble.

"The only way that Linux will ever become a mainstream desktop OS for the average home user is when the vast majority of people can simply download a copy, install it and have all there stuff work (at least the basic stuff like graphics, sound, wireless interweb etc." Anybody with computer savy can do this right now with several distros.


You are so wrong. Both my sound and graphics ( ATI 4870 and X-fi ) dont work on this computer but function perfectly with Windows. I have computer savy in the Windows world and build my own but have had terrible experiences trying to get the graphics going and as for sound, well gave up on that and now use the onboard which is not that great ( and getting basic bass and treble adjustments is a joke ).

But I am learning and there are lots of free programs available for linux and that may just be part of the problem. Wanted to rip my CDs to MP3's
and could only get the one program to work but it had only the one low bit rate. Ended up rebooting to XP and used Cdex ( a great freebie ) to rip the lot. Maybe instead of having 20 muisc programs etc they could just have a couple that did the job

[lancest]

Evidently you don't have the kind experience I have installing Linux (since 1997). Sometimes certain hardware combinations are problematic yes. But Just because YOUR SETUP didn't work out you can't claim the majority of installs are a problem. Ubuntu supports ALOT of hardware and many people will find it a breeze to get going- especially on desktops. Nobody will tell me otherwise because I know from personal experience.

[clanky]

It's really unfair to blame the devs for this. They do a lot and a great many things work just fine.

I don't blame the devs, I blame the people who turn every thread on here about how stuff doesn't work in Ubuntu to a thread about how there is some stuff which doesn't work in windows as well, or how that stuff works really well for them so the problem must be with the user because Ubuntu is perfect.

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, I even quite like Ubuntu, but I hate this idea which seems to be spreading amongst the community that anyone who is posting that they are not happy with some aspect of Ubuntu must be either stupid, lazy or a Microsoft empoloyee spreading FUD.

When people are not prepared to post how hard there experience with ubuntu has been for fear of being ridiculed (just look through the recurring discussions forum to see how often it happens) then the devs will not see just how big some of the problem are and they will be less of a priority than they need to be.

[lancest]

It's ok to post that your setup is not working. But it's another thing to generalize and claim that those having problems are the majority. You are responsible for buying Linux compatible hardware. If you don't have Linux in mind when you buy hardware don't blame Ubuntu. Better to just use Windows.

[clanky]

Most peoples' first experience of Linux is trying to install it on a computer which was pre-configured for Windows. That is unlikely to change in the near future and as such is something which needs to be addressed if Linux is ever going to be a mainstream desktop OS.

Linux starts at a disadvantage, it has less hardware support from manufacturers, and most people are trying to install it on a computer that it was not designed for. The community can either complain how unfair this is and blame everyone else, or press for this whole process to be made easier.

When people come on here complaining about how crappy their experience with Linux has been their points need to be listened to and addressed, even if do sound like whinging jerks. This thread contains many arguments from people who have pointed out some of the things which are wrong with linux, rather than those issues being held up as something which needs to be addressed most people seem more interested in proving that they are not really issues at all. And of course where does it end up?

[rune0077]

So please cut the FUD.

There's no FUD. It's just the god-to-honest truth. If you can't take it, well, that's tough luck for you. I'll keep telling everyone who ask me if they should give Ubuntu a try, only to do it if they've checked for hardware compatibility first, and otherwise they'd probably be better off with Windows. I don't consider that FUD, I consider it not deceiving people, and I don't intend to cut it.

[aysiu]

Most peoples' first experience of Linux is trying to install it on a computer which was pre-configured for Windows. That is unlikely to change in the near future and as such is something which needs to be addressed if Linux is ever going to be a mainstream desktop OS. Yes, and the way to address it is to ship Linux preconfigured (well, not the way Dell has just done with the Mini Inspiron) and properly advertised. The way not to do it is to try to make it immediately compatible with all hardware and hope people everywhere will download and burn as disk images various .isos floating around the net and then repartition their hard drives for a dual boot.

[clanky]

I think that has to be the way forward eventually, but at the moment I would guess that most people discover Linux by downloading the ISO. (I could be wrong, but that is certainly the impression I have got from here.

It is a bit chicken and egg, the PC manufacturers will not ship new PC's with Linux until the market share has got high enough for it to be well known enough for people to buy it, which leaves the only way for it to be popular enough by people downloading the ISO. I know that Linux cannot possibly ship with all the drivers pre-installed (especially the propriatry(sp?) ones, but the process of finding and installing the drivers needs to be easier.

Just look at all of the goodbye Ubuntu threads and most of them are because people can't get there stuff to work, this to me is the major issue which is holding Linux back from becoming popular as a desktop OS.

Like you said pre-installed is the answer, but until that becomes a reality there needs to be more done if Linux is to continue to become more popular.

[ciborium]

EVERY time I have done a clean install with Windows, I have had to have a working Windows PC with an internet connection beside the one I was doing the install. (Or know EXACTLY what PC I'll be working on ahead of time, and download the drivers I expect to need.)

Now, I mean a CLEAN install with a Windows XP SP3 disc, not the OEM recovery disc.

The first problem that I usually find is that there is no network card driver. Now, just exactly how am I supposed to go to all those websites and download the correct drivers, if I can't even get on the internet?

Then had to set up a network connection.

Then, I have to navigate my way to the correct website using a 640x480 256 color screen, in order to visit the right website that, wouldn't you know it, expects me to download either Flash or .NET before it will help me.

I have had these exact problems on HP, Dell, Gateway, and IBM machines. I generally use a Windows CD instead of the recovery one because, as long as I have the working PC or driver disc, it is easier to install the drivers than to uninstall or disable all the BS that comes in the recovery disc.

Now, my experience with Ubuntu:

Ran Live CD on similar Gateway, Dell, and IBM PC's.
Upon login, desktop was set to 1024x768 (except one old laptop where the native res was 800x600.)
Upon clicking Firefox icon, the Ubuntu/Google website appears.

Now ask me which CD I would give my mom so she can check her e-mail and buy junk from ebay.

[aysiu]

I think that has to be the way forward eventually, but at the moment I would guess that most people discover Linux by downloading the ISO. (I could be wrong, but that is certainly the impression I have got from here. Well, it's a simple matter of practicality. It is not practical for Linux in the current market to support fully all hardware (including those items with proprietary drivers that have no Linux ports).

It is, however, realistic and practical to say that those who download an .iso and burn it should check hardware compatibility lists or use a live CD to see how well their hardware is detected before they dive into a full install and then have to deal with compatibility issues later.

It's a matter of managing expectations. If you are the general public, you wait for a properly implemented preinstallation. If you're an early adopter, you have to educate yourself about what will give you the best experience.

[loseby]

Evidently you don't have the kind experience I have installing Linux (since 1997). Sometimes certain hardware combinations are problematic yes. But Just because YOUR SETUP didn't work out you can't claim the majority of installs are a problem. Ubuntu supports ALOT of hardware and many people will find it a breeze to get going- especially on desktops. Nobody will tell me otherwise because I know from personal experience.


I didnt claim my setup didnt work. I know that linux supports a lot of hardware BUT it is very slow with recent stuff eg ATI 4800 series

You may rubbish Windows but at least I have EVERYTHING working perfectly ie 100% and thats both in Vista and XP

For Linux to really take on Windows they need someone to work with the graphic cards / soundcard makers and have drivers for Linux on the Same installation disc as the drivers for Windows. And the setup just has to be a simple click "install"

[lancest]

For Linux to really take on Windows they need someone to work with the graphic cards / soundcard makers and have drivers for Linux on the Same installation disc as the drivers for Windows. And the setup just has to be a simple click "install"

Alot of us Ubuntu users already have this. IMHO it's most. It's pretty amazing that Linux supports so much considering that many drivers have had to be reverse engineered. (Same thing that has been said around here hundreds of times)
Linux is a "leading user" operating system catering to those who buy Linux hardware (or some can code). Nothing wrong with that at all! We aren't waiting around for a large company to tell us what OS to use. That's for proprietary software users.

[eternalnewbee]

I'd go with any person can install it on any computer and be able to use it, without major obstacles.

[Daveski]

It is, however, realistic and practical to say that those who download an .iso and burn it should check hardware compatibility lists or use a live CD to see how well their hardware is detected before they dive into a full install and then have to deal with compatibility issues later.

+1 to this. The beauty of the LiveCD is that you can try Ubuntu (or other distros) on your specific hardware - simple. I also would like to point out that there is a hardware compatibility list for Windows also. If your hardware is not on this list, then MS will basically provide no support for you.

[saulgoode]

For Linux to really take on Windows they need someone to work with the graphic cards / soundcard makers and have drivers for Linux on the Same installation disc as the drivers for Windows. And the setup just has to be a simple click "install"

Do a web search for "Linux driver project".

[inxygnuu]

How did you actually get it registered:confused:? i installed XP SP1 on my laptop, because Vista is so d#!@ stubborn. (cannot write on blank 150 GB](*,)](*,) space!) So i installed XP, and i thought: "hey, maybe XP will be better! i hear people say that Vista sucks compared to XP!" So I tried it. horrible mistake. I could not even connect to the internet through Ethernet, and my laptop had wireless, even Ubuntu had Ethernet! It was the worst OS i had ever used! I even tried their 'connect to internet' thing, and it sucked! It was MSN, Dial Up, and telephone. I was so disappointed that i immediately took the NFTS Partition, and Put Vista on it, because it sucked.:mad:

[ciborium]

You get thirty days to register XP. You have to that much time to go through all the BS in getting the ethernet card to work before the software craps out on you. Once you get it working just click the register icon that's been popping up bubbles, blocking half your 640x480 screen.

[Frak]

You get thirty days to register XP. You have to that much time to go through all the BS in getting the ethernet card to work before the software craps out on you. Once you get it working just click the register icon that's been popping up bubbles, blocking half your 640x480 screen.
Give me 10 minutes.

[d_skillz]

Has to be simple enough for the AVERAGE user to add/remove applications and hardware devices. Really has to subscribe to the "just works" philosophy, there is no getting arond that one no matter how many ppl are willing to tinker to get stuff to work, there is going to be a vast majority who just expect it should work already. Ubuntu is one of the few distros that trys to make that transition seamless.

[m.musashi]

+1. The truth is, the only way all your hardware could possibly work out of the box on Linux, is if you bought it specifically to be able to. Otherwise it's down to sheer luck, as opposed to Windows, where you can be pretty sure just about everything will work once you install the driver.


There's no FUD. It's just the god-to-honest truth. If you can't take it, well, that's tough luck for you. I'll keep telling everyone who ask me if they should give Ubuntu a try, only to do it if they've checked for hardware compatibility first, and otherwise they'd probably be better off with Windows. I don't consider that FUD, I consider it not deceiving people, and I don't intend to cut it.

That first quote is FUD. It is NOT true at all that the only way your hardware will work is if you bought it for Linux. There is plenty of hardware out there that works just fine. In my experience Dell Latitude laptops work perfectly and I've heard very good results with Lenovo and some HP. Many desktops from major manufacturers work fine too despite the fact they are "designed for XP" or whatever. To claim otherwise if FUD.

However, you are correct that people should test their hardware first. To assume your computer will be compatible is asking for trouble. That is the beauty of the live CD. Test your setup first so you know what to expect.

So maybe it's not pure FUD but certainly hyperbole. Being honest with people rather than exaggerating (either how perfect or how bad Ubuntu is) is the best approach.

The big frustration for many happy Linux users is people who expect Ubuntu or any Linux to run like OSX on anything they install it on. Those unreal expectations lead to frustration and then claims that Linux has poor support and windows is better and other such claims. What they ALWAYS fail to realize and admit is that they didn't install windows and have absolutely no idea the level of support windows has - or doesn't. That is why people who know better shoot back and point out the error of that thinking.

Truth is, Linux has great hardware support built in for A LOT of hardware but that there is a lot of hardware out there that doesn't try to support Linux and sometimes is downright impossible to work with. The Linux community can only do so much. Users also bear some responsibility for being informed users. Many don't try until it's too late. Others do try to learn and hear exaggerations and flat out un-truths which leaves them more confused.

All I'm asking for is dispassionate honesty.

[aysiu]

If only the first sentence were in rune0077's post, I'd say it was FUD, but tempered with the second sentence, it's very close to the truth:
The truth is, the only way all your hardware could possibly work out of the box on Linux, is if you bought it specifically to be able to.
Otherwise it's down to sheer luck, as opposed to Windows, where you can be pretty sure just about everything will work once you install the driver. Yes, if everything works out of the box on Linux, it's down to one of two things: good research or good luck. Of course, the good luck can happen quite often. I didn't buy my Dell Inspiron 500m with Ubuntu in mind, but as of Ubuntu 7.10, everything worked out of the box with it. I did, however, buy the Intel Pro Wireless 2200 card specifically for its Linux compatibility (we didn't buy the 500m five years ago with the wireless card included).

I would never hand someone a Linux live CD and say "Use this. It will work with your hardware without any tweaks. Only in extremely rare cases would you run into hardware incompatibility." However, neither would I say "Use this. It won't work with anything without severe tweaking. You might get lucky, though, and find the freakish combination that works out of the box."

The most accurate thing to say is a slight rephrasing of what rune0077 said:
Linux has pretty good hardware support, but it isn't perfect. If you want to be absolutely certain everything works "out of the box" with a fresh Linux installation, do your research. It is possible, however, that you may luck out and have a fully Linux-friendly hardware setup already. To test this, use a live CD.

[m.musashi]

Yes, if everything works out of the box on Linux, it's down to one of two things: good research or good luck. Of course, the good luck can happen quite often.

Well, I prefer to think that rather than just luck it's due to all the hard work of many many people. We are certainly lucky that so many people are willing to develop Ubuntu and Linux, but I think it's a bit unfair to say it's shear luck if the computer you bought works. It's intentional. But if you didn't think about using Ubuntu when you bought it and it does work then I guess you made a lucky purchase. Semantics maybe, but a lot of people certainly deserve credit when you are "lucky".

[aysiu]

Well, I prefer to think that rather than just luck it's due to all the hard work of many many people. We are certainly lucky that so many people are willing to develop Ubuntu and Linux, but I think it's a bit unfair to say it's shear luck if the computer you bought works. It's intentional. But if you didn't think about using Ubuntu when you bought it and it does work then I guess you made a lucky purchase. Semantics maybe, but a lot of people certainly deserve credit when you are "lucky".
Yes, I'm speaking of the luck of the consumer in accidentally picking Linux-friendly hardware without meaning to, not the luck of the developer in "accidentally" working hard to reverse engineer drivers and put them in the kernel. Obviously the developers work hard deliberately.

[fiddledd]

This thread has been going since 2004, I wonder if it will still attract posts, and be relevant, 4 years from now.

It would be interesting for someone to analyse this thread to see how many predictions were close to what actually transpired.

[Canis familiaris]

This thread has been going since 2004, I wonder if it will still attract posts, and be relevant, 4 years from now.

It would be interesting for someone to analyse this thread to see how many predictions were close to what actually transpired.

Well a lot of predictions have been true as far as I can see and a lot of them are yet to see the light.

[tsali]

I attempted a business building and supporting computers locally.

I shipped the first 55 units with Ubuntu 7.10 installed and configured.

Support was a nightmare...I received many calls from people with hosed video, DSL connection issues, wireless failure, new hardware problems, etc.

The USER must have confidence that hardware currently available on retail shelves will be supported. The fact that linux will support basement junk is essentially irrelevant to an OEM builder like myself.

Do this experiment: Print out the supported printer list, then go to the local big box and try to buy one of the printers in the list ;)

In 13 cases, the units were returned and the user requested that Windows be installed (even at $99)

After unit 55, I started shipping WinXP and Vista basic. I have had very few complaints or support call since.

Contrary to the windows install stories I've seen here, I simply plug in the network card, connect to a broadband modem and start the install. Windows finds and installs all of the drivers it needs. I have not had it fail to find one yet.

While Ubuntu was free, the warranty support that I offered was costing me a fortune. I could no longer AFFORD to support Ubuntu as an OEM system without telling my customers YOYO...and that's not my business model.

[lancest]

The USER must have confidence that hardware currently available on retail shelves will be supported. The fact that linux will support basement junk is essentially irrelevant to an OEM builder like myself.

Do this experiment: Print out the supported printer list, then go to the local big box and try to buy one of the printers in the list ;)
.

Sounds like your business model was flawed from the get go. Many companies don't allow users to buy hardware anyway. This would be handled by the IT staff.

What if some Apple users bought non supported- Windows only printers? Does that mean their Apple system is somehow deficient?

I can find many Linux supported printers at any store location. Epson, HP, Samsung, Brother and Canon.

You can just ask System 76 or Dell if their Linux buyers are happy with the quality of their OS.

[tsali]

I sold to consumers, not companies. In any event, I have no control over the hardware they choose afterwards.

The compatibility of off-the-shelf hardware has an impact on consumer users. In the case of Windows and usually Apple, a consumer user doesn't have to think twice about compatibility. They can be reasonably certain that the lexmark printer or 19" LCD display that Walmart has put on sale today will work with their machine.

And yes, if it was difficult to purchase compatible hardware for an Apple, that would diminish that user experience, however, being quite familiar with Apple, I find that they are compatible with almost all current hardware. The same cannot be said for Ubuntu or Linux in general.


I can find many Linux supported printers at any store location. Epson, HP, Samsung, Brother and Canon.

So you've done the experiment that I suggested? How many devices did you find? I actually did this not long ago. Out of everything in the Best Buy store inventory, there was ONE HP printer that showed up...and it was an older, discontinued unit. I'll grant that alot of printers on the shelves might work, but consumer users do NOT want to purchase a printer on the gamble that it will work when they take it home.


You can just ask System 76 or Dell if their Linux buyers are happy with the quality of their OS.

Why would I ask them? I was in the same business. I KNOW what my consumer customers expected from their machines, and the Ubuntu machines had difficulty meeting those expectations.

I am a victim of the same problem myself. I recently moved my desktop upstairs. I didn't want to run a new cable so I wanted to buy a wireless adapter. Looked for one that was Ubuntu compatible...couldn't find one without hitting ebay. So I bought a Linksys WUSB600N and took my chances. It has been a lot of work to get it to where it will connect even intermittently. MOST consumers won't tolerate having to do this kind of work...not when Windows will do it flawlessly.

I have NEVER been able to get my Canon Pixma IP1600 to work with Ubuntu.

I provided 90 day support for the Ubuntu machines I sold. In general, I was spending a good bit of time repairing hosed up display and printer configurations and solving PPPoE and wireless issues.

Simply stated, for whatever reasons, Ubuntu (and linux in general) is going to make its user work harder to get the same reliability and experience they would get with another system.

[lancest]

Your Canon Pixma IP1600 works in Linux.
See here:
http://ph.ubuntuforums.com/showthread.php?p=3670054
http://openprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=Canon-ip1600
I am working to get a Pixma MP198 working right now.
IMHO Canon is sometimes poor choice compared to HP or Epson for Linux.
There are many others.
I wouldn't Best Buy anyway. Who does? Fry's would be better if I still lived in USA. Where I live printers of all types can be found in many stores.
There is always room for improvement with an OS. In the old days Apple didn't support many devices either and Vista had many problems recently. Ubuntu is coming along well with device support.

[tsali]

Your Canon Pixma IP1600 works in Linux.
See here:
http://ph.ubuntuforums.com/showthread.php?p=3670054
http://openprinting.org/show_printer...m=Canon-ip1600


BTDT. You will find that those directions do not work in Hardy or Intrepid. Unreliable listings and directions have become a staple of my linux experience.

Anyway, I do not think that it is reasonable to expect consumer users to implement a hack to get common hardware functionality.

In Windows or Mac, I simply have to double click the Canon installer...that is the simple usage standard needed to facilitate broad adoption.


IMHO Canon is sometimes poor choice compared to HP or Epson for Linux.
There are many others.
I wouldn't Best Buy anyway. Who does?

Many of us have the hardware we have. We are not going to junk a perfectly good printer unless Ubuntu is going to offer something really, really special to offset that hardware cost.

There was only ONE HP available in our local Best Buy. It cost over $300US. Windows can be purchased retail for $200. The people who shop at Best Buy are those who have no other choice within 100 miles. Printers can also be bought at the local Walmart, but I have never seen a linux compatible device of any sort sold there.


There is always room for improvement with an OS.

Of course there is, but there is a great difference between servicable (as was Apple) and being totally frustrated. I would be happy if Ubuntu could be where Apple was 5 years ago.

Personally, I think it is the nature of the open-source model that keeps linux behind the curve. Developing for an open-source platform is a GPL minefield that many companies prefer to avoid given the limited ROI.

Don't misunderstand me. I like playing around with Ubuntu and linux alot. But I can also see why it would drive someone who has no interest in tinkering over the edge...

[aysiu]

In Windows or Mac, I simply have to double click the Canon installer...that is the simple usage standard needed to facilitate broad adoption.


Many of us have the hardware we have. We are not going to junk a perfectly good printer unless Ubuntu is going to offer something really, really special to offset that hardware cost. That's hilarious. My wife and I tried to switch my in-laws from Windows to Mac (with a Mac Mini), and one of the huge roadblocks was a Canon printer that didn't work with Mac OS X (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/macs-are-just-computers-not-magic/)

[rsambuca]

tsali, linux isn't for everyone, simply because it is different from what people are used to. You have to temper their expectations, and frankly, to simply ship out Ubuntu to everyone is just expecting trouble and a very poor thought out plan.

I also fear you do not have a strong enough understanding of the linux OS to be providing support in this fashion. If you did, you would most certainly know how to get the Canon ip2200 drivers installed to get your Pixma IP1600 printer working with Ubuntu.

I have built many computers for friends and family, and most have Windows on them. There have been a handful that I have installed linux, and all of them are happy with it. You have to know your customer and what they will be happy using. Linux isn't for everyone. Windows isn't for everyone. Apple isn't for everyone. You just have to know which one will be best.

[tsali]

tsali, linux isn't for everyone, simply because it is different from what people are used to. You have to temper their expectations, and frankly, to simply ship out Ubuntu to everyone is just expecting trouble and a very poor thought out plan.


Many of the systems I shipped went to seniors who had never used a computer before. They weren't "used" to anything. Therefore, if Ubuntu is superior to Windows and the user has no previous expectation of how a computer should work, it should be successful, no?

Given that I have been somewhat successful shipping Windows based machines, I'm curious to know what you think I was doing wrong.


I also fear you do not have a strong enough understanding of the linux OS to be providing support in this fashion. If you did, you would most certainly know how to get the Canon ip2200 drivers installed to get your Pixma IP1600 printer working with Ubuntu.


Not sure what you mean by "support", but my definition was that I would ship a fully functioning system and would do what was necessary to restore that functionality if it was broken within the first 90 days. I did exactly that. In many cases, I went a bit beyond and DID help them set up new hardware.

Unless you have actually gotten the iP2200 driver to work with an iP1600, then I would offer that you are speaking ill-informed. If you HAVE done this, thousands would be blessed if you would publish this procedure in these forums.

As it was, I was able to get limited functionality in 7.10 using the Japanese linux drivers for an iP1500. In 8.04 and 8.10, changes in some of the base supporting libraries (libpng and libtiff) disabled the Canon drivers.

In any event, it illustrates my point - Why should I have to do this anyway? People without interest in this kind of thing would (and did) simply do away with Ubuntu and install Windows.

Personally, I like to tinker...to a point. There are some days that I need to print a report and just don't have time to fix something.


I have built many computers for friends and family, and most have Windows on them. There have been a handful that I have installed linux, and all of them are happy with it. You have to know your customer and what they will be happy using. Linux isn't for everyone. Windows isn't for everyone. Apple isn't for everyone. You just have to know which one will be best.

I agree with this. However, I find it interesting that you concede that linux isn't for everyone. In my case, it appeared to work for at least 27 of my customers (I have not heard from them). Why do think it isn't for everyone? Why do think I have been successful with Windows where I was not with Ubuntu? Why do you think I have been so despite virtually NO knowledge of how Windows works?

[tsali]

That's hilarious. My wife and I tried to switch my in-laws from Windows to Mac (with a Mac Mini), and one of the huge roadblocks was a Canon printer that didn't work with Mac OS X


How old was the printer?

I find this interesting given that while I was looking for Ubuntu compatible printers on store shelves, every Canon printer had the Mac OSX logo on the box. Even my old iP1600 has Mac drivers.

However, none of this is to say that you have one that does not.

So, you were faced with resolving the problem in a least cost manner. What did you choose?

[rsambuca]

Many of the systems I shipped went to seniors who had never used a computer before. They weren't "used" to anything. Therefore, if Ubuntu is superior to Windows and the user has no previous expectation of how a computer should work, it should be successful, no?I never said Ubuntu is superior to Windows. It is better in some ways, worse in others. I agree that it is strange that brand new computer users are struggling with it though. My guess is that when they have questions, they are going to people with a Windows background, who end up telling them, "I have no idea about this linux stuff - sorry, but I can't help you". Thus they will get frustrated and feel helpless.


Given that I have been somewhat successful shipping Windows based machines, I'm curious to know what you think I was doing wrong.My guess is that you need to give them a better understanding of what to expect in terms of software and hardware compatibility.


Not sure what you mean by "support", but my definition was that I would ship a fully functioning system and would do what was necessary to restore that functionality if it was broken within the first 90 days. I did exactly that. In many cases, I went a bit beyond and DID help them set up new hardware.

Unless you have actually gotten the iP2200 driver to work with an iP1600, then I would offer that you are speaking ill-informed. If you HAVE done this, thousands would be blessed if you would publish this procedure in these forums.

As it was, I was able to get limited functionality in 7.10 using the Japanese linux drivers for an iP1500. In 8.04 and 8.10, changes in some of the base supporting libraries (libpng and libtiff) disabled the Canon drivers.I have a Canon Pixma ip1600, and it works very well with linux. I used the ip2200 drivers following the instructions in one of these threads. I also got it working in gentoo, and my current distro of choice, Arch. I have just installed Intrepid on another partition, but haven't had time to play with it yet. If I get around to the canon drivers, I'll pm you.

In any event, it illustrates my point - Why should I have to do this anyway? People without interest in this kind of thing would (and did) simply do away with Ubuntu and install Windows.You don't have to do this. You have a choice. There is nothing wrong with using Windows or any other OS. The computer is supposed to be a tool for you to use, not the other way around. If something isn't working that I need and I don't have the time or interest to get it working, then I wouldn't use the OS.


Personally, I like to tinker...to a point. There are some days that I need to print a report and just don't have time to fix something.Also keep in mind that you shouldn't have to 'tinker' all the time. Once it is working you leave it and it should work the next time you need to print!


I agree with this. However, I find it interesting that you concede that linux isn't for everyone. In my case, it appeared to work for at least 27 of my customers (I have not heard from them). Why do think it isn't for everyone? Why do think I have been successful with Windows where I was not with Ubuntu? Why do you think I have been so despite virtually NO knowledge of how Windows works?Why is it interesting that I say linux isn't for everyone? I don't think it is, because everyone has different needs for software, different hardware, different expectations, and different tolerances for change. Windows is easier in many repspects for some users because they can get physical assistance virtually anywhere. Everyone knows somebody that is 'good with computers' (ie Windows) from whom they can get help. Very few people know someone with an understanding of linux when they need assistance.

[tsali]

I have a Canon Pixma ip1600, and it works very well with linux. I used the ip2200 drivers following the instructions in one of these threads. I also got it working in gentoo, and my current distro of choice, Arch. I have just installed Intrepid on another partition, but haven't had time to play with it yet. If I get around to the canon drivers, I'll pm you.


I misspoke earlier. Looking back at my notes, it was, in fact, the iP2200 drivers that I was using. The iP1500 drivers did not work. I achieved 600dpi functionality in Gutsy. Following the same instructions did not work in Hardy and has not worked in Intrepid. If you know a 'secret' I would appreciate it. Thanks.


Once it is working you leave it and it should work the next time you need to print!


Unless of course, I "upgrade" to Hardy...

[lancest]

Just got a friend's new Canon Pixma MP198 working under Intrepid. Thanks Ubuntu! What a feeling. It was automatically detected and installed.

[tsali]

That's strange because the MP198 drivers do not show up in my available printer drivers list in Intrepid.

Which driver did you select to get it working?

Additionally, I attempted to install the nvidia 96 drivers for my GT7600 card in Intrepid and discovered that they don't seem to like the Intrepid kernel...spent two hours last night trying to fix without success. No desktop effects for me.

[lancest]

It auto-magically detects the MP190 series. But it says the driver is the MP180 Cups+Gutenprint v 5.2.0. I had trouble with Canon before so this is great.

[Another Monkey]

I replied "Other". For me "Ready for Desktop" would mean that a clear and well documented GUI would allow the install and configuration of whatever was required to make the machine work. Only in rare cases would it be reqired to drop down to the terminal or whatever.

There would be no need to hunt down obscure .conf files or wade through reams of confusing man-pages to try and figure out how something, which should be simple, can be achieved. An anathema to the hacker I know, but we are talking about consumer users IMHO; not the hobbyist. Different mindset. Options = choice, command line = terror!

It would also mean every package (where it made sense) installing a launcher and that launcher's location being clearly communicated to the user. AFAIK there are only two options Gnome or KDE, so I can't see this being difficult (desktop always means GUI to me). Other install strategies can be multi-platform, why not repository packages?

Now if you will excuse me, I am of to hunt down obscure settings and config files for what should be a simple job (and really should have a GUI). Namely, making a Wacom USB tablet work fully with Intrepid.

All in all, bar a few serious niggles,I do like Linux.

[DonQuichote]

I replied "Other". For me "Ready for Desktop" would mean that a clear and well documented GUI would allow the install and configuration of whatever was required to make the machine work. Only in rare cases would it be required to drop down to the terminal or whatever.

Hear, hear! Too bad I know absolutely no OS that implements this feature. Lots of documentation is fragmented on Linux (in HTML, man pages, info pages, text files, PDF, etc) and non-informing on Windows.


There would be no need to hunt down obscure .conf files or wade through reams of confusing man-pages to try and figure out how something, which should be simple, can be achieved. An anathema to the hacker I know, but we are talking about consumer users IMHO; not the hobbyist. Different mindset. Options = choice, command line = terror!

Not necessarily, as long as the config files are documented. This was the situation in Windows 3.1, before every setting was "locked away" in the registry. Anyway, if you take a look at the Samba config file, it is not that hard to add a share.

You probably came across it in your Wacom search: Intrepid has moved most X11 settings to HAL. Period.
????
No reference to where I find the HAL settings. Just everything that was configured in xorg.conf stopped working. No compose key, not even the slightest hint to where I could configure it. Only a comment that it has been commented out. Video is a nightmare now. Graphic card is not even detected, and goes black when I select the right one. But where do I configure it? A dpkg-regonfigure only configures a "generic" video card.
I actually read through about 32 pages of the xorg.conf man page, which is full of remarks "I don't know either". Great. What do I know now about configuring these options? Still absolutely nothing.

The trouble is that each version of Ubuntu supports less hardware. All my hardware ran (with some recompiling necessary) in 7.10. My Wacom Bamboo One tablet stopped working in 8.04 and could not be reactivated (GDM killed itself id I did). Tablet works again in Intrepid, but I don't think I am entitled to know why. Keyboard is hardly usable without a compose key, and graphics are just plain buggy and slow. After playing a full-screen game, I now shut down through a terminal, as the desktop won't work anymore.

EDIT:
I discovered where the compose key went. If you are interested:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=6220063#post6220063
(end edit)


It would also mean every package (where it made sense) installing a launcher and that launcher's location being clearly communicated to the user. AFAIK there are only two options Gnome or KDE, so I can't see this being difficult (desktop always means GUI to me). Other install strategies can be multi-platform, why not repository packages?

Thank heavens there is more than just KDE or Gnome. But anyhow, I read somewhere that you are invited to file a bug for any package that should have a launcher and hasn't. Intrepid has more launchers. Too bad that the "system" menu still cannot be edited in Xubuntu. And I also could not find any config file or directory to edit it.


Now if you will excuse me, I am of to hunt down obscure settings and config files for what should be a simple job (and really should have a GUI). Namely, making a Wacom USB tablet work fully with Intrepid.

Mine does now. After dragging around a rodent for half a year, I can finally use the right pointing device again. To all people who fixed this: Thanks!

[simonn]

There would be no need to hunt down obscure .conf files or wade through reams of confusing man-pages to try and figure out how something, which should be simple, can be achieved.

The reason for this is that Linux does/should not force a GUI onto you. My home server is headless and only accessed through ssh and webmin, so the "obscure .conf files" are actually very handy (and certainly a lot easier to backup before making changes and restore when you have messed up a change that a registry). Should I have to install a GUI on a server?

The whole idea behind unix like operating systems is that you can do everything that can be feasibly done from the command from the command line. If you want a GUI version the GUI version wraps the command. This has been steadily changing as more and more people move from windows to linux and bring their bad habits with them. This is, IMHO, a bad thing.

Same goes for registry type affairs like gconf etc. Bad bad bad. In any case in my experience, configuration files are better because most of the time the include comments which tell you what to do. Most GUIs (in my 10+ years of working in software support/post sales) do not. You actually get less information for the same configuration choices.

Ultimately, the problem is that people do not understand the concept of what they are actually trying to do. If they did, a conf file would simply not be an issue.

But "OMG hAz t0 edits txt filEz!!!"



Intrepid has moved most X11 settings to HAL. Period.

In an attempt to move away from configuration files! It is bad. Really, it is. Conf files work well.

[aysiu]

The whole idea behind unix like operating systems is that you can do everything that can be feasibly done from the command from the command line. If you want a GUI version the GUI version wraps the command. I'm a big fan of this approach, especially since I have a 4 GB hard drive on my Eee PC. I like having simple text configuration files that some GUI version can access and make changes to. So if I'm unfamiliar with how to work the config file, I can install that GUI version to make changes to it. But if I want to save hard drive space, I can do without the GUI version and just edit the text file as I deem appropriate.

It's about choice.

Everyone should have the choice to use the command-line or point-and-click. And everyone should have the choice to edit config files directly or through a GUI "wrap."

[VictorR]

Speaking about "Desktop Readiness" and Ubuntu I would say "not ready".
Ubuntu is a great desktop distro, well ahead Vista in many positions, and would be a great choice for average users (I don't mean Linux fans), if it were pre-installed and configured for presented hardware properly, as most PCs are sold. There is no problems in installing new applications via Synaptic, and doing stuff most users expect from a PC.
But if after half a year it offers you to upgrade the system (from Hardy to Intrepid :twisted:) and you accept this appealing offer, you may end up very frustrated. And this is why it is "not ready".
Ubuntu (and Linux in general) should either have much better hardware support with simpler configuration options, or extend Long Term Support to 6 - 10 years for pre-installed versions.

[cardinals_fan]

Ubuntu (and Linux in general) should either have much better hardware support with simpler configuration options, or extend Long Term Support to 6 - 10 years for pre-installed versions.
...or get a decent preinstallation contract. How should they get that better hardware support? Ask the hardware fairy?

[Bölvaður]

But if after half a year it offers you to upgrade the system (from Hardy to Intrepid :twisted:) and you accept this appealing offer, you may end up very frustrated. And this is why it is "not ready".

other distros have rolling release which would fix that problem.

But in reality. there is still problem with sound. not only pulse but also the volume control application.
It actually will be better when audio cards and integrated audio will have better support from manufacturers but to make it close to perfect there sill need to be some minor jobs here and there.

[VictorR]

How should they get that better hardware support? Ask the hardware fairy?
The fairy is called market. More computers are sold with Linux pre-installed, more manufacturers are convinced that they have to provide Linux drivers for their hardware.

There are good signs with so-called "eco-computers" and sub-notebook, like Asus EEE PC, which even Windows XP is too heavy for. The speed of Linux development is amazing, so I hope it will get its desktop share soon.

[modmadmike]

Windows is certainly not ready for the desktop.

After installing windows XP SP2 on my computer:
- intel pentium 4 2.4 Ghz.
- Integrated soundcard "SoundMax"
- 768 MB RAM
- 128 MB nvidia graphics card (geforce *something* "something")
- HP deskjet 3420 printer
- HP scanjet 2400 scanner
- LG CD and DVD burners

I made a review:

Installation:
- The CD initially boots into some text mode installation, very hard to deal with, then in the middle of the process it is required to format partitions from text mode and then it copies itself to continue the process. This install process is average in regards of simplicity.

Dual Boot:
- The installer totally ignored my other partitions, I had to implement Grub manually in order to recover my other operating systems.

Hardware compatibility:
- Windows said that it was installed, so I booted into it, the first thing you notice is some kind of welcome to windows animation, it was silent, I could eventually figure out that sound wasn't working.
- When the animation ended and I got outside the tutorial, I could notice that the resolution was very small! this monitor+graphic card combo allows a max of 1280x1024, but windows wouldn't allow me to choose more than 400x300!

- tried checking if it detected my printer, I went to control panel, etc. But it simply couldn't detect my printer.
- The same happen happened to my scanner.

I don't know what should I do, is MS requesting me to get an OEM system instead of the computer I built? I don't really have that money, I am not sure why windows XP has failed to detect most of my hardware, when people advertise that it has great hardware support. I guess they lied to me! Sorry but I don't think windows XP is usable for me in this stage.

Software:
This is one of the points in which windows is terribly lacking, let's see:
- Notepad: VERY limited, you can't even enable auto indentation, and it only supports MSDOS text file format...
- WordPad: Not too much options, I couldn't find basic things like spell check, openoffice writer or even abiword are like 45 times more complete than this.
- MSPaint : Has anyone tried doing serious art work on this? No point of comparisson to the Gimp.
- Calc : It is kind of good although I miss expression evaluation, it is a little faster than an actual simulation of a real calculator.
- Games : VERY few games, although minesweeper is good.
- Internet explorer 6: I don't think it actually had theme support? And no tabs? wtf?

I couldn't find any spreadsheet software or presentation software.

Multimedia:
- I tried windows media player but it can't play my DVDs, it keeps poping out something like "incompatible format" I decided to give up. When it plays it is kind of good, although it takes almost all of my screen and is slow.
- Burning CDs/DVDs is either very unfriendly or missing, I couldn't find any way to burn stuff...

Customizability:
- Windows XP hardly comes with 3 themes, blue, silver and green, I think I was able to change the font size. I can also change up to 4 icons: My Computer, My documents , Recycle bin and Recycle bin (full). I am not sure if there is more customization options, I certainly couldn't find much from the menu maze, ooh I think I can also change the wallpaper..

:lolflag:
You wont believe the headaches I had went through to get windows to work lol
You forgot to add-
1. no support for reading OPEN-SOURCED! file-systems even as of VISTA and probably windows 7.
2. Why does Windows Areo not work on a 2004 GPU but Compiz does and looks better?
3. No support for multiple desktops.
4. No support for user created themes w/o uxtheme patches or window-blinds (slow and not free).
5. $200 vs $0 you decide/
6. I get BSODs more than linux ever gets kernel panics and general errors.
7. No way to fix a BSOD w/o rebooting.
8. You get 5 product Keys and only 5.
9. "You are entitled to one computer per licence" -Microsoft
10. No way to restart the GUI w/o Rebooting or Taskman.
11. No way to compile from source for your pc.
12. How do I install stuff w/o digging through the web?
13. No REAL x64 support - not many developers building x64 windows programs.
14. Support costs money WTH?

[terrordrone]

Hi,

I do not know if this is there in one of the posts before.. as there are thousands..

It is important to find out what the average user would want to do. Ubuntu is way better than windows out of the box in the features it provides.

I think ubuntu and linux in general will reach greater heights if computer retailers are forced to sell only hardware and no software. Then one has to pay extra to get the OS. Only then will the user feel the pinch of buying other OSs. Also it makes the new user not be influenced by the views of the seller.

It will be ready as soons as, as said in one of the first few posts, hardware manufacturers provide drivers. I think the problem with driver installers is that.. not everyone knows and wants to compile and install etc.. So to make it clickable all the linux distros should agree on a common format to manage packages.. i do not much about the internal complexities of the packages.. but this is what i feel

[cardinals_fan]

It is important to find out what the average user would want to do. Ubuntu is way better than windows out of the box in the features it provides.

Who is the "average user"? Can I set up a meeting?

[slammed87d21]

I voted other for one reason. If someone that has the intelligence to open their CD tray, put the disc in, and start the install means it's ready for the desktop. The only thing I would suggest to help is have a generic instruction sheet with the disc with generic directions on how to set up the Bios and how to install. I've got a friend that would love to use Ubuntu, but since she doesn't know how to change her Bios to boot the disc, she hasn't installed it.

[Znupi]

I voted other for one reason. If someone that has the intelligence to open their CD tray, put the disc in, and start the install means it's ready for the desktop. The only thing I would suggest to help is have a generic instruction sheet with the disc with generic directions on how to set up the Bios and how to install. I've got a friend that would love to use Ubuntu, but since she doesn't know how to change her Bios to boot the disc, she hasn't installed it.
An instruction sheet would be very complicated to make. That's because BIOSes are made by different companies and are generally pretty different. You can't make one set of instructions that would work for anyone. You would have to make a lot of sets of instructions, but then the user won't know which one is right for him/her.
If she really wants to install Ubuntu, she'll figure it out how to make the BIOS boot the disk (c'mon, it's not that hard) or, worst case scenario, she'll ask a friend (you?) do it for her.

[Frak]

An instruction sheet would be very complicated to make. That's because BIOSes are made by different companies and are generally pretty different. You can't make one set of instructions that would work for anyone. You would have to make a lot of sets of instructions, but then the user won't know which one is right for him/her.
If she really wants to install Ubuntu, she'll figure it out how to make the BIOS boot the disk (c'mon, it's not that hard) or, worst case scenario, she'll ask a friend (you?) do it for her.
Pheonix and AMI are the only two BIOS's I know of.

[jrusso2]

In the last year Mac OS X market share has grown to 9.1 percent while Linux remains at less then 1% of the desktop market. The last two years have presented Linux with its best opportunity to gain market share on the desktop ever yet it has not gained.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/12/24/52FE-windows-mac-linux-shootout_1.html

[HotShotDJ]

In the last year Mac OS X market share has grown to 9.1 percent while Linux remains at less then 1% of the desktop market. The last two years have presented Linux with its best opportunity to gain market share on the desktop ever yet it has not gained.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/12/24/52FE-windows-mac-linux-shootout_1.html
I would argue that "Market Share" numbers for Linux are artificially low... mainly because most Linux installs are done after purchase AND are distributed free-of-charge. And nobody knows how many installs occur per downloaded ISO. I can tell you that I typically install/upgrade 3 to 4 computers myself AND give away even more Ubuntu install CD's every time I download a new version. Further, numbers based on browser information will be inaccurate, since many users set their browsers to report the wrong information regarding the OS to avoid problems with web sites that test for compatibility and then lock out users who are using a "non-compatible" browser/OS combination (although I suspect that this issue is not as much of a problem as it once was).

The flip side of this is that Windows numbers are artificially inflated. Every P.C. that is sold with Windows pre-installed is counted as a sale for Windows, even if the user immediately deletes all pre-installed software in installs Linux. My laptop, for example, came shipped with Windows Vista. But I actually USE Ubuntu. Thus, my computer would show in the statistics as market share for Windows and nothing for Ubuntu.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Linux numbers are comparable to Windows numbers... but it would not surprise me if they were closer to the OSX numbers.

[sportscrazed2]

i am going to say not quite ready yet. while i am willing to put up with some of its flaws and work around them many people aren't. for example i must have spent at least 3 hours just troubleshooting flash in firefox so far.

[Changturkey]

Linux, the kernel, I think is quite good. It's the applications that matter most (IMO); I just tried Office 2007 and it is great.

[loseby]

well they have now fixed the graphics for the latest ATI cards and now if I could just get my X-fi soundcard to work and yes the drivers are available but getting them to install is a pain

[jyaan]

The phrase 'ready for the desktop' is just a big load. Every OS has some sort of problems.

If anything, a stable release means 'ready'.

[MikeTheC]

:lolflag:
You wont believe the headaches I had went through to get windows to work lol
You forgot to add-
1. no support for reading OPEN-SOURCED! file-systems even as of VISTA and probably windows 7.
2. Why does Windows Areo not work on a 2004 GPU but Compiz does and looks better?
3. No support for multiple desktops.
4. No support for user created themes w/o uxtheme patches or window-blinds (slow and not free).
5. $200 vs $0 you decide/
6. I get BSODs more than linux ever gets kernel panics and general errors.
7. No way to fix a BSOD w/o rebooting.
8. You get 5 product Keys and only 5.
9. "You are entitled to one computer per licence" -Microsoft
10. No way to restart the GUI w/o Rebooting or Taskman.
11. No way to compile from source for your pc.
12. How do I install stuff w/o digging through the web?
13. No REAL x64 support - not many developers building x64 windows programs.
14. Support costs money WTH?

+1

However, you also forgot to add that font rendering in Linux is so much better than it is in either XP or Vista that it's to the point of rivaling Mac OS X.

Just imagine if Linux had been around in the 1980s instead of MS-DOS...

[Rokurosv]

For me ready means:

It's preconfigured with all the apps you might need
Tight integration between the DE and the apps, think OS X
Easy to use, no terminal at all except for the user who feels like twinkering
Compatibility with other OS and it's apps, mostly Office.
Support, someone has to give the support.
Quality apps, mature, full of features and stable.

I think Linux is missing a few right now :P.

[JAID]

Your list appeals Rokurosv.

I would drop the preconfigured item and just have selection and loading easy.

The selection material could clearly explain the material provide links to detailed appraisal and use documentation and rate it according to a variety of user types. A rating system which is simple to contribute to in that way would be a bonus.

OS support should be of limited value in a 'ready' setup. Forum's like this are ideal and where there are hardware or particular issues with other software their manufacturer's/developers should be of assistance.

Ian

[Eisenwinter]

who is the "average user"? Can i set up a meeting?
+1, there is no average user.

Find me ONE person who complies to every single "average user" trait.

And if you do (which will take you digging through lets say eh... 6 billion people?), go and find another one.

Average user does not exist, it's a myth.

[joshmuffin]

I think the one thing Ubuntu needs is more GUI configuration tools, so many times I've been
told become root user or
list the directory

Beginners would get sick of googling - Ubuntu become root user
Easier ways to edit fstab and sources.list that actuelly made sense rather then
UUID=7b8e2dd4-6015-4585-ae22-eacfd0f57dcc none swap sw 0 0 - as if there going to know what any of that means or why there swap doesn't work.

I think the novice user's need to be able to fix (the millions) of bugs.
Another way to solve this would be start a team:
they would have a forum and you search symptoms then it takes you to a page about that particular bug (when, why, how) and has a tutorial on fixing it.
This would also (possible) help reduce the millions of double posts and already answered questions.

Basically I think bugs are a problem but rather then saying "fix all the bugs" trying to think of a /practical/ solution.

Other then that, to me, Ubuntu is ready. I pass it around at school and because we have school laptops if it works on my computer (which it does) it'll work on theres. - Most of the time they hit the same bugs as well.

[kapok]

ubuntu is desktop ready now. anyone with the competence to be able to copy and paste some commands into the terminal can get anything working. with such a fantastic online community, and now with visual interfaces for almost everything(including wireless adapter drivers; thank you ndiswrapper) we just need to let people know that it in fact IS desktop ready.

i can image people who want dearly for ubuntu to be more wide spread have tight budgets, but if some company could donate an advertisement, that would help out a lot. eighty percent of the people i talk to about ubuntu have never even heard of linux at all. i would bet at least half of those people would switch when their windows or mac computer expires.

[petermck]

I moved on to Ubuntu with the Dapper edition. I'm now on Hardy LTS. In that time the following things that were a pain to get going now just seem to work

CD/DVD recording
Flash card/USB stck mount rw etc
Wifi now seems to just work
Webcam support
Printer support has improved out of sight
3D Graphics
All kinds of online video content now seems to work well
Various software like Skype and Google Earth now installs and works without problems

In general the desktop environment is much easier to use and navigate with the introduction of things like the control center.
It still needs some improvement in terms of adding/removing software that is not deb packaged, but 'checkinstall' is a great solution for this and I hope to see it supported and standard in the next release.
Some minor improvements like the ability to right click on a removable drive/SD card/USB key and format it would be good.
I'd like to see a print option in the right click menu and an option to send to -> open Nautilus and navigate to the folder you want to move/copy that file to.
There are still some problems with things like support for docx files in OpenOffice and MSN Messanger compatibility, but these are Microsoft engineered incompatibilities. Ubuntu cannot be faulted for this. Lets just hope WinFS doesn't make things worse.
All in all Ubuntu has made amazing progress in the last 2 years. It's ready for advanced users now as well as for very basic users who just want email and the web. In between these two extremes there are several groups who will struggle with Ubuntu, most notably gamers, but increasing availability on linux titles will improve this.

[loseby]

ok, my verdict on Vista v ubuntu 8.10

Firstly the major advantage is the cost of Ubuntu and all the applications. Free is definitely nice. One thing I notice is that a lot of applications and games just lack that "professional polish".

Now games is the big draw back for Ubuntu, Wine just doesnt cut it for me but maybe I need to do some more work with it . Windows wins here hands down.

Hardware is the one major hangup with Ubuntu. I have a X-fi soundcard and finally have it working but the time spent on doing this would have paid for Vista 3 times over. Also ATI drivers for my card now work with Ubuntu 8.10 but still there are problems as if I try to watch video it flickers badly . On my other less powerful system which has an older Nvidia card no problems at all with video.

No doubt Ubuntu is getting closer to Windows in terms of user friendly but at the moment I favour Windows but if someone is on a tight budget Ubuntu is way in front.

Anyway, having both machines dual booting I can enjoy the best of both worlds :-)

[jrusso2]

+1, there is no average user.

Find me ONE person who complies to every single "average user" trait.

And if you do (which will take you digging through lets say eh... 6 billion people?), go and find another one.

Average user does not exist, it's a myth.

You don't understand how averages work then. Just like the average family is 2.3 children its a statistic.

[cardinals_fan]

You don't understand how averages work then. Just like the average family is 2.3 children its a statistic.
It doesn't work that way with individual needs. You could certainly say that, on average, people do *list of things* with their computers. However, while statistical models work well for predicting large-scale groups, they work very badly on the individual level. Grab a dozen people, and none of them will fit all of the categories on your average. That's why it's nonsense to talk about the average user. You never know when someone will depend on certain Windows-only software or troublesome hardware.

Also, collecting data on every need for a computer from a large group of people would be obscenely expensive.

[tsali]

That's why it's nonsense to talk about the average user. You never know when someone will depend on certain Windows-only software or troublesome hardware.


If the average user is a myth, then why should developers give a crap about improving usability or interface?

After all, its a lost cause if they can't guess at what will work best for the most number of users, isn't it?

As with most statistics, We CAN create a profile that will have a greater probability of fitting a particular person chosen at random from the population.

However, I can also see what you are saying. If I have ten people and only two are female, the fact that the "average" user in this group will likely have no need for feminine hygiene products does not negate the importance of ensuring those products are readily available.

[cardinals_fan]

If the average user is a myth, then why should developers give a crap about improving usability or interface?

After all, its a lost cause if they can't guess at what will work best for the most number of users, isn't it?

As with most statistics, We CAN create a profile that will have a greater probability of fitting a particular person chosen at random from the population.

However, I can also see what you are saying. If I have ten people and only two are female, the fact that the "average" user in this group will likely have no need for feminine hygiene products does not negate the importance of ensuring those products are readily available.
I meant something a bit different. There's nothing wrong with assuming that the majority of people will want feature x, provided that there is some evidence to back that assumption up. However, it is wrong to say that an "average user" should be able to use something. What's the difference between the majority and the average? The majority recognizes that effort is being put towards a group with a shared need. Simply saying that the "average user" should be able to use an OS is ridiculous, because a system that fulfills the average of needs probably won't work well for any individual.

[LeeHB]

It means that upgrading a working system to keep current won't BREAK my computer...:(

Got Feisty (running under WUBI) about a year ago; EVERYTHING on it worked basically right out of the box. I guess I was spoiled!

Since Feisty is no longer being supported, I upgraded to Hardy LTS to get current (a 'REAL' install...)

Hardy can't see & mount my USB Sony Walkman MP3...still can't...(XP on the same box has no problem...)

Hardy couldn't find my network printer...took a while to fix...
Hardy couldn't find my WinXT network shared files...also took a while...

I was going to recommend UBUNTU to my friend for his new PC until I did this update for myself...I don't dare try to give him anything but XP at this point. I don't really think it's ready for 'prime-time' yet.

LeeHB

PS: Hardy also has been totally unable to give me audio, and can't see my webcam at all...so Skype is useless. IT ALL WORKED IN FEISTY!!! Who broke my Ubuntu?????

[Znupi]

Indeed hardware regression occured to many people. For me, it's the ATI drivers that are just the worse. In Feisty, they worked simply GREAT. I could get desktop effects running without absolutely any problems.. Now they are somewhat slower. Also, I can't get video acceleration on my Radeon X550 card so basically any movie I watch is decoded by the CPU (instead of the GPU) and the CPU remains constant at 100% while watching movies. Also, on Feisty I used gtk-RecordMyDesktop to make a cool movie of my desktop effects and upload it on YouTube. Now, if I try gtk-RecordMyDesktop it records something like a frame every 5 seconds, which totally sucks (it's not a problem of gtk-RecordMyDesktop, it's a problem with the ATI drivers, again).
Also, my bluetooth dongle doesn't work anymore in Intrepid.
Also, my PC's embedded card reader doesn't work anymore (in Hardy/Intrepid).

I don't know why this is happening, but it really really sucks.

On the other hand, there has been some hardware progression. My Philips SA60XX MP3 Player is finally recognized by Rhythmbox and I can transfer music to it!

[petermck]

I went thru the upgrade process from Dapper to Intrepid with each new version as it was released. I was also installing and uninstalling software I wanted to try out along the way.
Eventually things got unstable and I decided to do a clean build with Hardy.
I'd say continuous upgrades are probably causing problems for a lot of people, but the fact is it shouldn't. An upgrade, or successive upgrades should not cause new problems. It should work as well as a bare metal install.

[oygle]

It isn't 'ready' when network manager can't handle concurrent connections.

It isn't ready when a minor update (ACPI) stopped my internet connection.

It isn't ready when scanning on XP is much better quallity, smaller size, and OCR text that is readable.

It's not ready when Windows apps running under WINE crash.

It isn't ready when driver support for Linux is poor.

No, ....... it sure isn't ready, not by a long shot.

But, maybe one day. :)

[loseby]

Indeed hardware regression occured to many people. For me, it's the ATI drivers that are just the worse. In Feisty, they worked simply GREAT. I could get desktop effects running without absolutely any problems.. Now they are somewhat slower. Also, I can't get video acceleration on my Radeon X550 card so basically any movie I watch is decoded by the CPU (instead of the GPU) and the CPU remains constant at 100% while watching movies. Also, on Feisty I used gtk-RecordMyDesktop to make a cool movie of my desktop effects and upload it on YouTube. Now, if I try gtk-RecordMyDesktop it records something like a frame every 5 seconds, which totally sucks (it's not a problem of gtk-RecordMyDesktop, it's a problem with the ATI drivers, again).
.

!
The ATI drivers for the newer cards basically suck. Videos are unwatchable but on the older machine ( nvidia )they work fine.

One thing I have learnt is that befor building a new system find out what runs on Ubuntu without problems. Actually that would be a good new thread

[jrusso2]

It doesn't work that way with individual needs. You could certainly say that, on average, people do *list of things* with their computers. However, while statistical models work well for predicting large-scale groups, they work very badly on the individual level. Grab a dozen people, and none of them will fit all of the categories on your average. That's why it's nonsense to talk about the average user. You never know when someone will depend on certain Windows-only software or troublesome hardware.

Also, collecting data on every need for a computer from a large group of people would be obscenely expensive.

People talk about average American's, average people all the time, it can be counted like any other statistic. Which I passed in college.

What you would do is hand out a survey to each user of a computer asking them their age, income and going into what they use it for, what applications they use and so forth until you have many thousands of them and if its done right you can draw the statistics of what makes an average computer user from that.

This is actually also done for market research when a company wants to know what the average user for their product wants from the product.

[MikeTheC]

I really have to wonder sometimes...

See, one of the reasons I like Linux is the ambiance of the user community. However, there still is that tendency towards "RTFM, n00b!!!" and there is a point where it is no longer cool or appropriate.

There has to be some kind of middle ground between a user being expected to re-wire and revalve their engine just to drive the car, and a user being expected to know how to click on icons and what the differece between a hard drive icon and the trash icon.

But where that middle ground is, sometimes... I just don't know.

My ideal of a computer user -- or, frankly, a member of any other grouping -- is that they are independent, self-sufficient, and take pride in themselves sufficient to behave like a responsible person. That is also my definition of a "reasonable person". Clearly, this is not the same as the more realistically-findable "baseline average person", but -- particularly when it comes to technology -- I don't think we should cater to anyone but my definition of a "reasonable person". Anything less than that is catering unwarrantedly to the lowest-common-denominator, and much higher than that starts inflicting unreasonable expectations.

Can I get a second to that?

[jrusso2]

I really have to wonder sometimes...

See, one of the reasons I like Linux is the ambiance of the user community. However, there still is that tendency towards "RTFM, n00b!!!" and there is a point where it is no longer cool or appropriate.

There has to be some kind of middle ground between a user being expected to re-wire and revalve their engine just to drive the car, and a user being expected to know how to click on icons and what the differece between a hard drive icon and the trash icon.

But where that middle ground is, sometimes... I just don't know.

My ideal of a computer user -- or, frankly, a member of any other grouping -- is that they are independent, self-sufficient, and take pride in themselves sufficient to behave like a responsible person. That is also my definition of a "reasonable person". Clearly, this is not the same as the more realistically-findable "baseline average person", but -- particularly when it comes to technology -- I don't think we should cater to anyone but my definition of a "reasonable person". Anything less than that is catering unwarrantedly to the lowest-common-denominator, and much higher than that starts inflicting unreasonable expectations.

Can I get a second to that?

Thats true but its an ideal. Computer users often just want to get their work and their play done and don't want to work on it or read about it.

Just like using a car, while I enjoy working on cars and know every part, most people don't and could care less. They just want to get where they are going.

[halovivek]

I asked most of the persons who i know they given only one reply most this is the one
"Any person can install it on any computer without any problems"

[aysiu]

I asked most of the persons who i know they given only one reply most this is the one
"Any person can install it on any computer without any problems"
Then no operating system is ready for the desktop.

[petermck]

Then no operating system is ready for the desktop.
That could be true:-)
To ask whether a particular OS is ready for the desktop you first have to define what that means.
I think you could define it via some must have qualities and some nice to have qualities.

Must have

Easy stable connectivity to USB devices, graphis cards etc (needs ongoing work)
Easy stable network connectivity both wired and wireless (almost there)
Simple maintenance. Backups/Restore, disk formating, adding removing hardware etc (still awkward in some ways, e.g formating a USB memory stick)
Security (done)
Easy email and web browsing (done)
Good office functionality (seems done to me, but I note one other comment about scanning not being up to scratch)
Easy installation/removal of additional software (mostly done for the supported stuff, but I see a lot of unsupported software in the repositories that fall short when it comes to things like a menu entry.)


Nice to have

Windows compatibility layer aka Wine that works as well as the real thing (Its improved greatly, but this is a big ask. However, solve this one and you remove the major migration objection for most gamers and users of other windows only software, which happens to also be most computer users.)
Easy migration for windows users (Ubuntu is easy to install etc, but it is still a major pain to transfer your data from windows. I'm talking about bookmarks, email, calendar, contacts, etc)


Analyse these lists and you can break them into 4 areas of focus.

Driver development - This relates especially to USB devices, graphics cards etc and is to some degree out of the control of the development team because of the attitude of many hardware suppliers. This attitude has improved enormously from a few years ago, and many manufacturers should be applauded for their efforts, but the fact remains, the situation will only improve significantly with an increase in market share to around 10%.
Desktop development - This encompasses things like backup/restore, formatting, maintenance and integration of services like printing. It is entirely within the control of the development team.
Maintenance - Security, network compatibility etc.
Software Compatibility - WINE.


Out of this the lowest hanging fruit is making the desktop easier to use. The most important in my opinion is driver development followed closely by software compatibility.

If you recall when Windows 95 was released, there where many complaints about the desktop ease of use. There still are complaints about Windows today lacking certain important functionality, but this did not stop Windows 95 being adopted on mass.
What they got right with 95 was that for the most part, drivers were available, easy to install and worked.

Getting back to the core question, is Ubuntu ready for the desktop? Accept that you can't please all the people all the time in regard to how the desktop in laid out and what features it must have. Also accept that drivers for the majority of hardware (95% ?) must be available and easy to install.
Drivers are often available, but often fall down with regard to ease of install and use. Therefore Ubuntu will not be ready for the desktop until the majority of hardware has drivers and they are easy to install and use.
I believe that for the most part the drivers are there but their ease of installation and use still needs work.
Conclusion: It's not ready yet.

[cardinals_fan]

It's not ready when Windows apps running under WINE crash.

After all, who wouldn't expect one OS to run apps designed for another that is completely different?

People talk about average American's, average people all the time, it can be counted like any other statistic. Which I passed in college.

What you would do is hand out a survey to each user of a computer asking them their age, income and going into what they use it for, what applications they use and so forth until you have many thousands of them and if its done right you can draw the statistics of what makes an average computer user from that.

This is actually also done for market research when a company wants to know what the average user for their product wants from the product.
It is always possible to find the average of needs for software. However, I think the term "average user" is terribly misused. Far too many people on this forum will say that Ubuntu should work for the average user. When asked to say who that average user is, they usually hold up some neighbor or family member who doesn't know about computers. This is where averages don't work. Even if Ubuntu functioned fulfilled the average needs flawlessly, it would still probably fail for the one person in question.

Also, collecting the data to calculate average needs for computers would be horrendously difficult. I'm sure that many companies such as Microsoft, Apple, and Red Hat collect information from their customers about specific components of the system, ie "Do you need x from your spreadsheet software?". However, there is no way to accurately understand the distinct hardware and software needs of the population at large, especially when such needs are constantly in flux.

[pante]

I think that Ubuntu and many distros are mostly ready for any user. The ones who lack readiness is when go to the community looking for help and the answers are always to do something in console (even when there is a graphical way) AND/OR not explaining/teaching (at least with a link) the solution.

[rasmus91]

I think its of great importance that it is easy, and fast to install...

With easy i mean like you put in a cd, and do a live install (or have the possibility of doing it)

You also have to be able to chose to install in your own language.

Fast: Fast install means that it will take less than 40 minutes to install on an average computer... and hopefully less than half an hour.

Also, every thing must work out of the box. (or almost everything)

And It should be logical to work around in... It also has to have some standard office programs, and a more or less sophisticated image editor.

Ohh yeah, I often hear people complaining about drivers in linux. But i just have one suggestion for them. Try to buy a computer with Vista and install XP... good luck finding ALL the drivers you'll need for that. My little brother did that, but asked me to ind the drivers.... Man tthat was a couple of hours work...

[haddog]

If you can turn it on, get on the net and check email, most users will be happy. They don't even care what the OS is.

[Znupi]

If you can turn it on, get on the net and check email, most users will be happy. They don't even care what the OS is.
Indeed. Applications are moving more and more the the web, or "in the cloud" :D.

[synapse13]

I don't feel that there are enough coders in the Open Source community that acknowledge that their are certain aspects worth adding.

/agree

[tsali]

Ohh yeah, I often hear people complaining about drivers in linux. But i just have one suggestion for them. Try to buy a computer with Vista and install XP... good luck finding ALL the drivers you'll need for that. My little brother did that, but asked me to ind the drivers.... Man tthat was a couple of hours work...

I know what you mean...I have similar problems when I try to install MacOS 9 on my x86 laptop...I mean, who would be so stupid as to build an OS that couldn't be installed on future hardware it wasn't designed for...

Think we could drum up a class action lawsuit?

[tsali]

Ran into a problem yesterday that sort of illustrates a "readiness" issue -

I took a photo to attach to a craigslist ad.

In Vista, when I connect the camera, it opens Windows Photo Gallery by default. From there, it's pretty easy to do VERY basic editing (cropping, red-eye, etc). All very quick.

However, in Intrepid, it opened F-Spot. The import dialogs were comparatively confusing and I couldn't figure out how to crop the pic to save my life...does the "Edit" button do anything? I had to start gimp and wade through all of those controls just to crop the pic. Doable but confusing and frustrating.

[jARLAXL]

It is not ready when there are not some programs (not games) or equivalent alternatives of them (equivalent means that you dont need to spend more than a month to learn/adapt to it) which are essential for a lot of people to do their job.

One example from many people i know (but i suppose its not the only one): autocad. Well this is not ubuntu to blame but still for many people (even for people who for example are bored to learn anything else than photoshop as compared to lets say GIMP) this is not a "ready desktop" to use.

[bashveank]

I used to think that Linux was desktop ready. I have since administered my old youth group's Ubuntu box, used for music lyrics, videos, music, etc... and my mother's Ubuntu box and have come to the conclusion that it is far from being "ready."

On the church box there was always something that broke down or some feature that wasn't available. The drivers for the video card would sporadically fail and we'd loose multiple-monitor support, the system volume wasn't adjustable for some odd reason, Open Office didn't support a presenter view.

On my mom's box she would randomly loose sound all together, Firefox would crash, X11 would bug out and graphically glitch, for some reason downloads and uploads were terrifyingly slow and failure prone, and, most importantly, there's no photo management app at the caliber of Adobe Lightroom available for Linux.

On both computers Ubuntu seemed fine at first, everything worked flawlessly, but after time things started breaking, they both even got slower - far slower than Windows gets after time. Both computers have had Windows on them for 2 years now and are still running much better then they ever did on Ubuntu.

[aysiu]

It is not ready when there are not some programs (not games) or equivalent alternatives of them (equivalent means that you dont need to spend more than a month to learn/adapt to it) which are essential for a lot of people to do their job.

One example from many people i know (but i suppose its not the only one): autocad. Well this is not ubuntu to blame but still for many people (even for people who for example are bored to learn anything else than photoshop as compared to lets say GIMP) this is not a "ready desktop" to use.
I hope, with that criterion, that you also post on the Mac forums that Mac OS X isn't ready for the desktop either.

I have a friend who had to switch from Mac to Windows because she began studying interior design and needed AutoCAD for school.

[jARLAXL]

I hope, with that criterion, that you also post on the Mac forums that Mac OS X isn't ready for the desktop either.


Why should i?
I ve never used mac neither do i care if apple gets a feedback or its stockmarket value falls.:lolflag:

As i will not write to windows forums or microsoft that their system s...

I am an ubuntu user and thats why i wrote what i believe is one of the biggest issues for the adoption of ubuntu by many computer users i know (usually they say something like: i like ubuntu very much but that autocad...)
I guess this thread is about similar issues right?

[aysiu]

i wrote what i believe is one of the biggest issues for the adoption of ubuntu by many computer users i know (usually they say something like: i like ubuntu very much but that autocad...) Well, I'm going to have disagree with you there. I know only one person who uses AutoCAD.

I do know hundreds of iPod owners, though, and at least thirty iPhone owners. And thanks to Apple's vendor lock-in, if people get the latest gen of iPods or the latest firmware updates for the iPhone, they either can't use it with Ubuntu or have to employ some serious hacks (that may not even work with the next firmware upgrade).

[jARLAXL]

Well, I'm going to have disagree with you there. I know only one person who uses AutoCAD.

I do know hundreds of iPod owners, though, and at least thirty iPhone owners. And thanks to Apple's vendor lock-in, if people get the latest gen of iPods or the latest firmware updates for the iPhone, they either can't use it with Ubuntu or have to employ some serious hacks (that may not even work with the next firmware upgrade).

For some reason your last paragraph did not appear in viewed text before i quote you so i quote the whole text.

First of all i said about the users i know. That said i also said autocad is an example meaning that are a lot (really a lot) of people/proffessions who depend on some vendor lock in. Engineers(and that includes many proffesions from which only architects and civil engineers use autocad), doctors, scientists, economists etc.

Those people would think something like: hey ubuntu is free so great. But if these people would have to spend an amount of time and still cant do their job appropriately then they will not adopt linux. So its a matter of cost effectiveness for those people and of course vendor lock in.

Take for example the ubuntuforums. Proprietary software is used, and the why is in the FAQ.

Btw i dont believe ipod/iphone is really a big threat because the cost of an ipod is inferior to the cost of learning a software for years and using it for living. Though it admitedly hinders people (specially young) to adopt linux.

[Shippou]

Other: It should make you do what you want to do with it.

In short, you should have full control over everything.

[KIAaze]

An OS is ready for the desktop when it changes color on special occasions.
ex: The Blue Screen of Death, the random color screen of April 1st

[Frak]

Well, I'm going to have disagree with you there. I know only one person who uses AutoCAD.

Now you know two?

[Mr Henderson]

There's no question about the terminal...a desktop-ready OS would be one where 99% of users would never need the terminal. To put it another way, if Windows needed a terminal the way Ubuntu does, the world would be using Macs.

[Mehall]

When the vast majority of people can do the vast majority of things they need to (as a casual user, not for work) 99.99999% of the time.

People arguing about CAD and about InDesign, and various other programs, that's not desktop usage, that's workstation. That's things you use to do your work, and your company should (but probably don't) use the best OS for the purpose (whereas 90% of companies will just use Windows because it's windows)

[loseby]

Well have found one instance and it stands out. I needed a program to keep stats on my internet usuage on both my computers. Posted a message in the forums here and on newsgroups. Within 30 mins I had a great "free" program running on my WinXP machine but have wasted numerous hours in Ubuntu. Ended up with Ntop & Darkstat installed but more wasted hours trying to find where they are and how to get them running etc etc.

To sum it uo ...Windows was easy, Ubuntu sucked badly



btw: have now found out Ntop runs from a command line .......Windows score 100 Ubuntu 0

[Znupi]

There's no question about the terminal...a desktop-ready OS would be one where 99% of users would never need the terminal. To put it another way, if Windows needed a terminal the way Ubuntu does, the world would be using Macs.
I've helped a few friends of mine install Ubuntu on their PCs. They're what you would call "regular users", not power users, such as me. The installation went smooth without any need of the terminal and even after the installation they didn't need it. Actually, the only times I use the terminal are when I'm programming, and I have to run my programs from the command line because they don't have a graphical interface. Although I am one for the terminal, as you can do a lot of things really fast with it, I can obviously see that it can be frightening for a normal user. But, seriously, you don't need the terminal in Ubuntu to: browse the web, check your mail, listen to music, chat on IM, download torrents, watch movies etc., which is mostly what a regular user would do.

@losbey: Windows score 0 Ubuntu 100. The command line is a GOOD thing, especially for programs that are supposed to run a long time (all the time?). Why would you need a graphical interface for that? Don't you prefer to have it run in the background, logging everything and without you ever knowing about it? If you had a graphical interface for every application that runs in the background you would never see your wallpaper, which is what tends to happen on Windows (seriously, last time I installed Windows I had like 10 icons in the systray after just a couple of days of usage.. In Ubuntu I only have 3, and it's been installed for 3-4 months).

[loseby]

@losbey: Windows score 0 Ubuntu 100. The command line is a GOOD thing, especially for programs that are supposed to run a long time (all the time?). Why would you need a graphical interface for that? Don't you prefer to have it run in the background, logging everything and without you ever knowing about it? If you had a graphical interface for every application that runs in the background you would never see your wallpaper, which is what tends to happen on Windows (seriously, last time I installed Windows I had like 10 icons in the systray after just a couple of days of usage.. In Ubuntu I only have 3, and it's been installed for 3-4 months).

Well I prefer a GUI anytime or something simple I can pin to the bottom panel. Have one in XP and I just click on it and I can get all the details I want. Its easy. And most icons in my system tray I use :-)

[Frak]

I've helped a few friends of mine install Ubuntu on their PCs. They're what you would call "regular users", not power users, such as me. The installation went smooth without any need of the terminal and even after the installation they didn't need it. Actually, the only times I use the terminal are when I'm programming, and I have to run my programs from the command line because they don't have a graphical interface. Although I am one for the terminal, as you can do a lot of things really fast with it, I can obviously see that it can be frightening for a normal user. But, seriously, you don't need the terminal in Ubuntu to: browse the web, check your mail, listen to music, chat on IM, download torrents, watch movies etc., which is mostly what a regular user would do.

@losbey: Windows score 0 Ubuntu 100. The command line is a GOOD thing, especially for programs that are supposed to run a long time (all the time?). Why would you need a graphical interface for that? Don't you prefer to have it run in the background, logging everything and without you ever knowing about it? If you had a graphical interface for every application that runs in the background you would never see your wallpaper, which is what tends to happen on Windows (seriously, last time I installed Windows I had like 10 icons in the systray after just a couple of days of usage.. In Ubuntu I only have 3, and it's been installed for 3-4 months).
1. Quit installing so many apps that run in the tray. Windows has a default few, and one more installable through upate (Windows Desktop Search).

2. A good argument would be "Well, if Windows doesn't need a Terminal, then why did they create and distribute Windows Powershell over updates?"

[chessnerd]

Well, I've been using Xubuntu for two weeks now and I have to say that I don't think it's for the "average user." It took me over a day to get a printer to work, I don't think the "average user" would have the patience for that. In addition, the "average user" sees a DOS interface or command terminal come up and heads for the hills or the nearest computer nerd. Linux is fine for an intermediate to expert user, but any "average user" doesn't really qualify as intermediate (especially when you have to explain to them that, yes, there are browsers other than IE).

Ubuntu isn't impossible for "average users" to figure out, but someone else should probably be there to hold their hand and let them know that they aren't in Redmond anymore. With any luck, it will reach a point where any user, beginner to expert, can get it to do what they want, but at the moment, most "average users" don't want to make the switch, and might not even be able to.

[abyssius]

Well, I've been using Xubuntu for two weeks now and I have to say that I don't think it's for the "average user." It took me over a day to get a printer to work, I don't think the "average user" would have the patience for that. In addition, the "average user" sees a DOS interface or command terminal come up and heads for the hills or the nearest computer nerd. Linux is fine for an intermediate to expert user, but any "average user" doesn't really qualify as intermediate (especially when you have to explain to them that, yes, there are browsers other than IE).

Ubuntu isn't impossible for "average users" to figure out, but someone else should probably be there to hold their hand and let them know that they aren't in Redmond anymore. With any luck, it will reach a point where any user, beginner to expert, can get it to do what they want, but at the moment, most "average users" don't want to make the switch, and might not even be able to.

I think if you separate installing and setting-up Ubuntu from using Ubuntu, it is perfectly suitable for the so-called "average user". I've just recently converted my 'average user' wife - who consistently refused to stray from Windows and Internet Explorer (probably out of fear of the unknown). She could never have installed Ubuntu. However, she could never of installed Windows either. Unlike Windows, I didn't have to do anything to add the HP printer (perhaps you have a special printer). She uses a computer the same way 95% of "average" users do - and has no problems booting up and using Ubuntu. She has the option to dual-boot, but has never loaded Windows since the conversion. I hand-held her through some setups like importing her robo-form data and email addresses from outlook to thunderbird, I even made her computer look very close to the Windows desktop and enabled automatic logon. She hasn't had a problem doing everything she does with a computer. I personally believe Ubuntu is ready for the masses, as long as it is correctly pre-configured. This applies to Windows also.

[Znupi]

1. Quit installing so many apps that run in the tray. Windows has a default few, and one more installable through upate (Windows Desktop Search).
Well, I can't. You see, the printer driver automatically installs a program that sits in the tray. The video driver, too. Even the sound driver installs one. And so on...

Well, I've been using Xubuntu for two weeks now and I have to say that I don't think it's for the "average user." It took me over a day to get a printer to work, I don't think the "average user" would have the patience for that.
Ubuntu detected my HP printer instantly, without installing any driver (like on Windows). I just opened an OpenOffice document and printed it. Absolutely zero configuration. Hell, I was even able to print through the network on my mom's HP printer (which is on a Windows PC) in less than a minute. And I didn't have to use the terminal for anything. Just goes to show that if product manufacturers were to make drivers for Linux, or make them for Windows but make them open source so we could port them, the Linux experience would be 100% better than Windows.

[Bios Element]

There's no question about the terminal...a desktop-ready OS would be one where 99% of users would never need the terminal. To put it another way, if Windows needed a terminal the way Ubuntu does, the world would be using Macs.

Windows DOES need a terminal. I'd rather that then a complex as hell "control panel" where it takes me 30 minutes just to change a single setting. And that's assuming it can even be changed. I'm not a windows newbie. I used it for years. Now If I have a hard time finding crap, How would my mother or grandmother do? Exactly.

[tsali]

Well, I can't. You see, the printer driver automatically installs a program that sits in the tray.

Uh...no

You can find the printer driver on the CD without using the vendor install program. I have an HP printer. Also, it's quite likely that the driver is in Windows update and Windows will offer to install it for you.

[cariboo]

If a Linux desktop is pre-installed just like 99% of the windows installations, anyone can use it. Installing most printers is just a matter of going to System-->Administration-->Printing and following the prompts. Most devices are now plug n' play, so it is just a matter of plugging it in and it is ready to run.

I think that the people that are installing and configuring Unbuntu themselves, forget how much time it took them to learn how to use Windows, let alone installing and configuring it.

Jim

[tsali]

If a Linux desktop is pre-installed just like 99% of the windows installations, anyone can use it. Installing most printers is just a matter of going to System-->Administration-->Printing and following the prompts. Most devices are now plug n' play, so it is just a matter of plugging it in and it is ready to run.

I think that the people that are installing and configuring Unbuntu themselves, forget how much time it took them to learn how to use Windows, let alone installing and configuring it.

Jim

I am not sure that I agree entirely. If linux is pre-installed, more people will be able to use it, but it's still not to the anyone can use it level.

I used to offer Ubuntu as an OEM option on my systems. One of the biggest stumbling blocks was that users wanted to buy hardware from the local Walmart and be able to use it immediately. Obviously, the instructions that come with that hardware don't tell them how to install it on their Ubuntu systems. I would often get a support call. In some cases, the hardware was simply not compatible with Ubuntu, which frustrated the users into having me install Windows for them. I eventually had to stop offering Ubuntu because the support requirements were excessive.

As far as hardware support, I'd like to see the breakdown of hardware supported when compared to current product offerings from manufacturers ONLY as compared to that and legacy hardware together. I do not believe that Ubuntu (or linux in general) would fare so well due to the natural delay associated with community developed hardware support.

[TBerk]

It's become my everyday OS, but I'm a gearhead, mech/tech orientated type person.

Would I setup one of my local clients with it? Maybe. Likely, but I'd like to pick a guinea pig to see how 'support' is going to be on my part.


TBerk

[wsonar]

Shouldn't the thread be Ubuntu Desktop Readiness? j/k

I'd say these days most average users use a
(home)computer for internet!!,and media music and vids email usually on the internet which ubuntu usually has no problem with once flash is installed
(Business) is a different story that would require a lot of integrating proprietary MS written apps tho now a days more web apps are being written there still being targeted for IE platform in the business world. it will be a tough one to concure

Home not so tough except people like to use what they use at home and work because familiarity mac users the exception

In my opinion the one thing I think the average (home)user would struggle with Is DVD authoring and the lack of software available for linux in general

tho I'm not at the level to participate in the development of any of these projects yet(I'd like to get there one day)

K3b seems to be the most user satisfing burner out there and brasero has potential but you cannot author dvds in any of these I've used some of the dvd authoring programs offered and I found some lacking the ability to choose the correct ratio so my movie ends up being two big( but still these are probably more complicated than the average user)

Nero I tried on linux and they don't offer the dvd authoring with that version not to mention the windows version of nero seems to have gone down hill and got way to bloated

not a big deal for me my dvd player thats connected to my home tv reads any media formate except mp4 but sometimes you need to make a real dvd

but really thats about it. everything else is pretty straight forward a few minor tweaks here and there

[wsonar]

Well I prefer a GUI anytime or something simple I can pin to the bottom panel. Have one in XP and I just click on it and I can get all the details I want. Its easy. And most icons in my system tray I use :-)

most items in the systray bog down your system

I mean most procceses on XP bog down your system

[wsonar]

one other thing to consider unless a user builds a pc they usually have no need to remove the preinstalled MS-OS unless there a programmer or like to try diffrent things

for my new Laptop I'm defintly going to go with a company like system76
or one that includes no OS
just to not include the MS license tho on a OEM pc it's virtually no cost it's more of a point to me.

[timmy12]

I think readiness means that any user should be able to install the OS easily. On top of that, all the most used plugins should be preinstalled, OR atleast the installation progress should be guided. You shouldn't have to google it :).

Readiness also means that you don't have to manually edit text-files in order to get something to work. For example with ubuntu "emulate3buttons"-feature for mouse; It's amazing that there still isn't a checkbox in the mouse-settings for that.

I have been using Ubuntu for 4 years, and i think that for the last two versions, it's development has gone in the wrong way. Instead of fixing simple and irritating things that you have to do manually, new version only offer unnecessary pop-up's, few GUI changes, and a new wallpaper.

Yeah ok, maybe all the new features are hidden "under the hood", but i don't care if starting the OS takes 5 secs less. Ubuntu is stable. Important thing for me is that i still can't upgrade the system without breaking anything.

[aysiu]

I think readiness means that any user should be able to install the OS easily. Then no OS is ready.

[Frak]

Then no OS is ready.
Aye, the easiest to install is the one that never has to be installed.

[gjoellee]

I mean that Arch is ready for the desktop. It does not ave any GUI by default and therefore it is ready for the desktop. :P

[dE_logics]

Ubuntu has done a lot to Linux, everything that Ubuntu made, is just too easy.

Problem starts with 'Linux'...though everything about Ubuntu is easy, everything about linux is extremely sophisticated (though once people understand...not doubt THEY JUST LOVE IT, specially that mount part).

So what needs to be eliminated are -

1)The 'mount' system...its hard to explain, I mean, I've installed linux to many people and yeah, it is hard to explain. This thing needs to to be eliminated completely (I mean, giving an apprehension). KDE did a good job 'list all partitions' on the file browser moreover it's much more simpler than gnome, gnome is meant for a bit of powerful users, that's why I prefer it. So Ubuntu should be originally made to ship with KDE, I know we have Kubuntu, but since Ubuntu's aim is to make Linux friendly, KDE should be taken.

2) The repos are not update...we don't have OOo 3.1 yet, and OOo 3.1 is a boom over OOo 2.4. This is just one example.

3)That root stuff (file permissions) make things extremely difficult and frustrating (though I have no problems with it). Changing the root should be made to be done from the GUI (chown and chmod) by default so even if anyone doesn't have an idea about it, he can do it. Finally we do encounter files having root as the owner...like data copied form a CD.

4)Gparted should be preinstalled and be integrated in the context menu for easy formating of pen drivers...also all sorts of fsck should be preinstalled (like jfs.fsck is not installed initially). Via gparted or though terminal a check disk options should be there by default.

That's about it.

[garba]

Ubuntu has done a lot to Linux, everything that Ubuntu made, is just too easy.

Problem starts with 'Linux'...though everything about Ubuntu is easy, everything about linux is extremely sophisticated (though once people understand...not doubt THEY JUST LOVE IT, specially that mount part).

So what needs to be eliminated are -

1)The 'mount' system...its hard to explain, I mean, I've installed linux to many people and yeah, it is hard to explain. This thing needs to to be eliminated completely (I mean, giving an apprehension). KDE did a good job 'list all partitions' on the file browser moreover it's much more simpler than gnome, gnome is meant for a bit of powerful users, that's why I prefer it. So Ubuntu should be originally made to ship with KDE, I know we have Kubuntu, but since Ubuntu's aim is to make Linux friendly, KDE should be taken.

2) The repos are not update...we don't have OOo 3.1 yet, and OOo 3.1 is a boom over OOo 2.4. This is just one example.

3)That root stuff (file permissions) make things extremely difficult and frustrating (though I have no problems with it). Changing the root should be made to be done from the GUI (chown and chmod) by default so even if anyone doesn't have an idea about it, he can do it. Finally we do encounter files having root as the owner...like data copied form a CD.

4)Gparted should be preinstalled and be integrated in the context menu for easy formating of pen drivers...also all sorts of fsck should be preinstalled (like jfs.fsck is not installed initially). Via gparted or though terminal a check disk options should be there by default.

That's about it.

with due respect, the concerns you raised in point 1 are simply ridicolous

[JordyD]

...

1)The 'mount' system...its hard to explain, I mean, I've installed linux to many people and yeah, it is hard to explain. This thing needs to to be eliminated completely (I mean, giving an apprehension). KDE did a good job 'list all partitions' on the file browser moreover it's much more simpler than gnome, gnome is meant for a bit of powerful users, that's why I prefer it. So Ubuntu should be originally made to ship with KDE, I know we have Kubuntu, but since Ubuntu's aim is to make Linux friendly, KDE should be taken.

...

GNOME is actually simpler than KDE. The only thing that KDE has that might make it seem more familiar is the layout of the panels, which is similar to Windows.

Other than that I don't understand what you mean by this. Why would you have to explain mounting things? Isn't it all done for you? I've never mounted anything myself.

[viclim]

Ubuntu has done a lot to Linux, everything that Ubuntu made, is just too easy.

Problem starts with 'Linux'...though everything about Ubuntu is easy, everything about linux is extremely sophisticated (though once people understand...not doubt THEY JUST LOVE IT, specially that mount part).

So what needs to be eliminated are -

1)The 'mount' system...its hard to explain, I mean, I've installed linux to many people and yeah, it is hard to explain. This thing needs to to be eliminated completely (I mean, giving an apprehension). KDE did a good job 'list all partitions' on the file browser moreover it's much more simpler than gnome, gnome is meant for a bit of powerful users, that's why I prefer it. So Ubuntu should be originally made to ship with KDE, I know we have Kubuntu, but since Ubuntu's aim is to make Linux friendly, KDE should be taken.

...

What's so hard about it? From a user perspective, a mount point is simply a folder that contains data from a harddisk partition, thumbdrive, CD/DVD, image file and etc...

Well, I do believe KDE make it easier for windows users to convert to linux, since it has a much more similar interface to windows's.

-----
I use GNOME btw, and does that make me powerful? I think not.

[JordyD]

[snip]
Well, I do believe KDE make it easier for windows users to convert to linux, since it has a much more similar interface to windows's
[snip]

I'd have to disagree. I think that the overall simplicity of the DE helps users more than a familiar panel layout.

But of course, that's all opinion, and probably varies from person to person.

[aysiu]

I notice that people who say KDE is similar to Windows usually have very few examples to give to back up the claim, apart from default panel layout and default theme colors.

[JordyD]

I notice that people who say KDE is similar to Windows usually have very few examples to give to back up the claim, apart from default panel layout and default theme colors.

In fact, OpenSUSE and Linux Mint do a good job of making the panel layout similar to Windows in GNOME.

[rolleander]

**** COMMODORE 64 BASIC V2 ****
64K RAM SYSTEM 38911 BASIC BYTES FREE

READY.

This was ready, why not Linux?

[Frak]

**** COMMODORE 64 BASIC V2 ****
64K RAM SYSTEM 38911 BASIC BYTES FREE

READY.

This was ready, why not Linux?
GUI's weren't that common. Plus, it doubled as a gaming system, something Linux doesn't readily come across as.

[rolleander]

Well, anyway, I think Linux is desktop-ready - I mean, Ubuntu, Xandros, and OpenSuse all seem to work out-of-the-box for the most part - Windows works out of the box - for the most part. Mac - same deal - they all have their strengths and weaknesses, but for the most part each OS is to the point where they can all do the same thing for the average user - out of the box, keeping in mind that the average user isn't necessarily a gamer or a multimedia enthusiast - the average - non-computer literate person mostly just wants to use e-mail, browse the web, create documents, maybe play some web apps, etc. This can all be done on Linux. Heck, my friend got his mom using Fedora. There are even netbooks, laptops, and desktop computers that are starting to be bundled with some flavor of linux pre-installed. What would make it more desktop friendly is more manufacturers doing that. It wouldn't take much to mass-produce computers with linux-preinstalled and set up properly from the factor (heh, and like that really ever happens with windows...)

And to a certain extent, I think Ubuntu in particular is easier to learn to deal with than Windows - even with the gnome desktop - I mean, everything is right there for you on the top menu bar and repositories are real easy to install programs from - you don't even need to go the the website of a particular app that you want to install - ever. The printing thing - it'll fall into place eventually...

But - do we really want it to happen? Part of the reason Windows is so virus-prone is that everyone uses it. After all, (almost) nobody writes viruses for Mac or Unix anymore than someone would write a virus for OS/2 and I'd like to see it stay that way.

[d-man97]

Half those poll answers look like my motherboard manual - translated from Korean by someone with English as a 5th language.

It won't be "ready for the desktop" until every application gets out of 0.X. Too many crappy programs installed, that have too many bugs, that just "don't work as expected", that don't get any support from Ubuntu, that have too many regressions that don't get fixed, and that barely work for the 6 months a release is "new".

In the past month I have submitted over 20 bug reports. Half of them get completely ignored, 25% get rejected immediately without sufficient explanation, and the other 25% either get a won't fix or they don't care enough to fix it in the current release and just wait for upstream to fix it - even if it takes 3-4 subsequent Ubuntu versions. They consider annoyances, sluggishness, and generally bad programming as not bugs - which is completely ridiculous. At the first chance they get, they close the bug; then, the users have to fight them to re-open it and get them to actually use their brain to understand what's going on.

Hell, they can't even get themes to work throughout all programs, even with the "Ubuntu Firefox Modification" type add-ons and patches they apply to packages. How can we expect a fully functioning desktop environment if we can't read half the text on our screen because they don't know that if you change the background color you have to change the text color, and if you change the text color you have to change the background color. Reminds me too much of amateur website developers. This happens in evolution, thunderbird, firefox, tracker search tool, etc. And no one cares to fix it!

Maybe it's just Gnome...

The only way to have a functioning Linux is to do rolling releases, but since it doesn't fit into Canonical's business model, they make their users deal with a heavily gimped desktop environment...And, then make them start all over when a new release comes out.

Then, we have applications being written in programming languages that aren't even complete yet - vala. WTF! How does that help anyone?

[DARKGuy]

Half those poll answers look like my motherboard manual - translated from Korean by someone with English as a 5th language.

It won't be "ready for the desktop" until every application gets out of 0.X. Too many crappy programs installed, that have too many bugs, that just "don't work as expected", that don't get any support from Ubuntu, that have too many regressions that don't get fixed, and that barely work for the 6 months a release is "new".

In the past month I have submitted over 20 bug reports. Half of them get completely ignored, 25% get rejected immediately without sufficient explanation, and the other 25% either get a won't fix or they don't care enough to fix it in the current release and just wait for upstream to fix it - even if it takes 3-4 subsequent Ubuntu versions. They consider annoyances, sluggishness, and generally bad programming as not bugs - which is completely ridiculous. At the first chance they get, they close the bug; then, the users have to fight them to re-open it and get them to actually use their brain to understand what's going on.

Hell, they can't even get themes to work throughout all programs, even with the "Ubuntu Firefox Modification" type add-ons and patches they apply to packages. How can we expect a fully functioning desktop environment if we can't read half the text on our screen because they don't know that if you change the background color you have to change the text color, and if you change the text color you have to change the background color. Reminds me too much of amateur website developers. This happens in evolution, thunderbird, firefox, tracker search tool, etc. And no one cares to fix it!

Maybe it's just Gnome...

The only way to have a functioning Linux is to do rolling releases, but since it doesn't fit into Canonical's business model, they make their users deal with a heavily gimped desktop environment...And, then make them start all over when a new release comes out.

Then, we have applications being written in programming languages that aren't even complete yet - vala. WTF! How does that help anyone?

Well done, =D>=D>=D> I couldn't have said it better man.

However, rolling releases aren't for common users. At least not if they're very cutting-edge without being throroughly tested first.

The whole problem is in the linux community, not in Ubuntu or Gnome. Programmers have to stop making their own versions of programs and improve the existing ones.

That can't be done, of course, if the code is in a language some devs don't understand, it's not reliable, fast, or doesn't meet any of the ethics of each programmer. We all have our different ethics (minimalist, simplist, etc), but if we keep going our own way in a world where everybody can collaborate, we'll never get anything done.

Why has Windows surpassed Linux in the desktop environment? it's been developed since the 80's (or before, but I was born in '88 so I dunno :D). Yes, there have been lots of versions since 1.0, but it has always been the same code, the same core apps, the same functionality, worked over and improved by each version. Yeah, their interface might suck (though I love W7's) and you might not be able to see its source code, but what user cares about browsing around 160.000 lines of code?

A common user wants to use its computer, do work/study stuff or play a bit, chat with friends, use webcam (lololololol @ linux & its drivers) and have a good experience. You can enjoy all that at its 25%.

We're a lot of programmers in the linux world, even twice more than in Windows, so, why don't we just set some goals and complete them, to make an EASIER, BETTER, MORE RELIABLE operating system instead of just making it harder? I thought computers were made to make our life easier... lulz?

[CptPicard]

Why has Windows surpassed Linux in the desktop environment? it's been developed since the 80's (or before, but I was born in '88 so I dunno :D). Yes, there have been lots of versions since 1.0, but it has always been the same code, the same core apps, the same functionality, worked over and improved by each version.


You may want to check out the difference between the "GUI shell on top of DOS" Windows prior to the NT kernel, and the NT and XP series, for example...

[DARKGuy]

You may want to check out the difference between the "GUI shell on top of DOS" Windows prior to the NT kernel, and the NT and XP series, for example...

Yes, so, what's the point? it was like that until Win95. 98 had DOS as a "secondary OS" so to say, and 2K and XP started to remove it completely to what we know today as the CLI of Vista/7, which isn't a real DOS anymore.

Linux would be powerful if it followed the same steps (but of course, without being too stupid).

I have a recent experience where I work, where the sysadmins bought some Linux distro along with a server to install some stuff on it. They didn't had a clue and were baffled when the OS was installed and all they saw was a console and nothing more. They expected something graphical, something they could use and administrate the server with something that could give them an overview of everything, then tweak the server to their liking.

Results? I'm the one helping them to set the damn server up. Not to mention the OS is crap, filepaths aren't standard (imho), there's a lot of lack of documentation and a non-working package manager. One of the guys was so annoyed he said "Man, I've never seen Linux and I'm already hating it. No way we're gonna get back to DOS times where we type commands and have to learn everything all over again!".

So true.

[monsterstack]

Yes, so, what's the point? it was like that until Win95. 98 had DOS as a "secondary OS" so to say, and 2K and XP started to remove it completely to what we know today as the CLI of Vista/7, which isn't a real DOS anymore.

Linux would be powerful if it followed the same steps (but of course, without being too stupid).

You think phasing the command line out of Linux is going to make it better somehow? Look, you can't compare the relationship with DOS and the Win32 GUI with Linux. Windows used to run on top of DOS, and then it ran all on its own. Linux runs on top of Linux. It always has. The difference is that the graphical stuff is separate from the kernel, so you can install any desktop interface you please. What do you propose, that we integrate the desktop environment into the kernel so we have no failsafe option when the graphics bork? This idea doesn't even make sense. If you simply mean relying less on the CLI, then Ubuntu already does that. There are no common tasks that everyday users have to use a terminal for in Ubuntu. Not one. I seriously can't stress that enough.


I have a recent experience where I work, where the sysadmins bought some Linux distro along with a server to install some stuff on it. They didn't had a clue and were baffled when the OS was installed and all they saw was a console and nothing more. They expected something graphical, something they could use and administrate the server with something that could give them an overview of everything, then tweak the server to their liking.

Results? I'm the one helping them to set the damn server up. Not to mention the OS is crap, filepaths aren't standard (imho), there's a lot of lack of documentation and a non-working package manager. One of the guys was so annoyed he said "Man, I've never seen Linux and I'm already hating it. No way we're gonna get back to DOS times where we type commands and have to learn everything all over again!".

So true.

Servers do not need a graphical interface to work properly. This is an advantage. No really, it is. You save a tonne of disk-space, and more RAM is freed up to do actual work rather than present you with fancy bells and whistles. I keep my server under my stairs. It doesn't have a keyboard, mouse or monitor, or a GUI for that matter. I just SSH into it when I want to fiddle. This is a good thing. If you feel you really must have a graphical environment to hold your hand whilst running a server of all things, then just INSTALL ONE. It's not that hard. Look:


apt-get install ubuntu-desktop

And that's it. Linux servers are professional systems designed to get real work done. Clearly, half of the internet agrees with me, or otherwise it wouldn't run that many Linux servers. I'm not even a network guy and even I can manage it. If I can run a server with a serious command-line operating system, then so can any system administrator. Anybody who requires a GUI Toy to make their servers work properly should not be calling himself a professional.

[DARKGuy]

You think phasing the command line out of Linux is going to make it better somehow? Look, you can't compare the relationship with DOS and the Win32 GUI with Linux. Windows used to run on top of DOS, and then it ran all on its own. Linux runs on top of Linux. It always has. The difference is that the graphical stuff is separate from the kernel, so you can install any desktop interface you please. What do you propose, that we integrate the desktop environment into the kernel so we have no failsafe option when the graphics bork? This idea doesn't even make sense. If you simply mean relying less on the CLI, then Ubuntu already does that. There are no common tasks that everyday users have to use a terminal for in Ubuntu. Not one. I seriously can't stress that enough.

Well Ubuntu might have changed since I last used it (Edgy). There were few times where I had to use the terminal, but I did.


Servers do not need a graphical interface to work properly. This is an advantage. No really, it is. You save a tonne of disk-space, and more RAM is freed up to do actual work rather than present you with fancy bells and whistles. I keep my server under my stairs. It doesn't have a keyboard, mouse or monitor, or a GUI for that matter. I just SSH into it when I want to fiddle. This is a good thing. If you feel you really must have a graphical environment to hold your hand whilst running a server of all things, then just INSTALL ONE. It's not that hard. Look:


apt-get install ubuntu-desktop

And that's it. Linux servers are professional systems designed to get real work done.

Yeah, once you spend around a week to learn how to use the OS and configure it to your liking. Specially if you're not skilled in Linux and are migrating all of your Windows servers to Linux, which is why most companies try to do, since it's a big budget cut, and well worth the effort.

apt-get? LOL, tell that to redhat. I spent 2 hours trying to find the damn yum RPMs over the web for x64, for then having yum work without any repositories and then spending another hour trying to configure it (documentation sucks!) and make it use some repositores. Up2date hangs while downloading so it's unusable... broken linux, anyone?


I'm not even a network guy and even I can manage it. If I can run a server with a serious command-line operating system, then so can any system administrator. Anybody who requires a GUI Toy to make their servers work properly should not be calling himself a professional.

Uh, sysadmins don't have to be programmers. Typing commands is programmer's work. Using GUI administration tools is their work. I don't know crap about setting a server up and linking it with Active Directory or stuff like that, but I know how to make an IRC C++ bot in a day. It can be the same computer field, but roles are different, and so are the tools you use to do what you're better at.

Also, at least where I live, Ubuntu server isn't an option in large corporations. It's just too "indie" for their taste. Then again, yay broken linux distros claiming to be the best ones in the server field, LOL.

[Viva]

Well Ubuntu might have changed since I last used it (Edgy). There were few times where I had to use the terminal, but I did.



Yeah, once you spend around a week to learn how to use the OS and configure it to your liking. Specially if you're not skilled in Linux and are migrating all of your Windows servers to Linux, which is why most companies try to do, since it's a big budget cut, and well worth the effort.

apt-get? LOL, tell that to redhat. I spent 2 hours trying to find the damn yum RPMs over the web for x64, for then having yum work without any repositories and then spending another hour trying to configure it (documentation sucks!) and make it use some repositores. Up2date hangs while downloading so it's unusable... broken linux, anyone?



Uh, sysadmins don't have to be programmers. Typing commands is programmer's work. Using GUI administration tools is their work. I don't know crap about setting a server up and linking it with Active Directory or stuff like that, but I know how to make an IRC C++ bot in a day. It can be the same computer field, but roles are different, and so are the tools you use to do what you're better at.

Also, at least where I live, Ubuntu server isn't an option in large corporations. It's just too "indie" for their taste. Then again, yay broken linux distros claiming to be the best ones in the server field, LOL.

You're talking out of your **** here. Most web servers in the world are CLI. Most servers don't run a GUI. You might want to do some research before talking crap. And tell that company to fire their admins if they can't work without a gui on a server.

[mantisdolphin]

I've recently been getting back into Linux, which has matured a lot in the last ten years since I was installing Debian and Redhat on 386 and 486 machines. Ubuntu (and the Ubuntu variants, most notably Crunchbang), OpenSUSE, Puppy, Mandrake, and Go-OS are all more or less ready for the average user who wants to access the Internet, "cloud," and web 2.0 apps.

An emphasis on ease of accessing the net or automating networking activities still needs to be high priority. If Grandma can't easily get online to share flickr photos, Youtube vids, email, IM, and webcam with the grandkids, she's not going to use her Linux box for much else. Expecting her to scour the Ubuntu support boards and piece together diffuse clues about her lack of internet access (chicken and egg, I know) is expecting too much.

If you only want computer hobbyists, professional tech support people, and CS majors to mess around with their Conky configs, their Compiz themes, their triple boot, multi-partitioned boxes, and their frackin' GNU/Linux sound systems, that's one thing, and the Linux community already provides a great haven for various and sundry geeks, but the average user has other more immediate needs and interests.

These basic needs and interests include word processing, internet browsing and communication, multimedia support, and software upgrade and installation. The Open Office software is quite adequate for everyday user needs. The Ubuntu Applications > Accessories, > Games, and > Graphics offerings should do for most users. Media access, however, is still problematic: music players linking with digital portable players is rough, and watching DVD's, doing video editing, and just using Adobe web apps (Flash) can still be a challenge in Linux. Installing anything non-Synaptic packaged in Ubuntu (and mutatis mutandis for the other distros) is a chore and a crapshoot.

The Debian and Ubuntu software repositories are filled with all sorts of good but also many specialized applications. These should be categorized not just by function but also by expertise or specialized interest: games are popular little apps and should be top level, readily visible, but why clutter an average user's experience with stuff like aylet.gtk or basilisk2? If Joe Sixpack is trying to find a good game for his cheap Ubuntu box (that his geek neighbor set up for him), Synaptic handles that pretty well (although more high quality, good looking games and amusements are important to the average user experience). But Joe should not have to wade through selections for bastille or zssh or other technically specific programs. If he actually develops an interest for a Mac emulator, he can ask his geek buddy for help or start Googling for information, though that's not a likely scenario in any case.

Probably the biggest disappointment for Linux enthusiasts in the last year has been the widely reported 4X greater customer returns of Linux netbooks over WinXP netbooks. To me that is still a puzzle. Users want something familiar, and yet average users are constantly confronting new OS schemes on cell phones and other digital devices. Why balk at a sweet looking, up-to-date, modern looking, Linux netbook for not being some teletubby colored, nine-year old piece of software that's still visible design roots go back even further to 1995 (Win95)?

Linux fights in the consumer desktop arena with one hand tied behind its back: Linux's great strengths (multi-user support, networking, radical configurability, and scalability) are lost on the average desktop user. (Of course, some commentators don't even think Linux should try to compete on the desktop.) What's left is its stability, inherent security, design potential (interface and theme designers have to work harder to capture users' imaginations--brown may not cut it), its large, free software repositories, and the inexpensiveness of the OS itself.

[monsterstack]

An emphasis on ease of accessing the net or automating networking activities still needs to be high priority. If Grandma can't easily get online to share flickr photos, Youtube vids, email, IM, and webcam with the grandkids, she's not going to use her Linux box for much else. Expecting her to scour the Ubuntu support boards and piece together diffuse clues about her lack of internet access (chicken and egg, I know) is expecting too much.

Internet access for me is pretty good. The problems with getting on the web have historically been hardware problems. Specifically, wifi support was poor, and people had to use tools such as madwifi or ndiswrapper to get things working. That isn't so much of a problem, these days, and I think for most people, the internet works out of the box. I have a wired/wireless combo router in my house, and the computers I use connect to the internet automatically when I plug them in. If I'm connecting wirelessly, then I simply provide the WPA password first. It isn't any different from connecting on Windows.



If you only want computer hobbyists, professional tech support people, and CS majors to mess around with their Conky configs, their Compiz themes, their triple boot, multi-partitioned boxes, and their frackin' GNU/Linux sound systems, that's one thing, and the Linux community already provides a great haven for various and sundry geeks, but the average user has other more immediate needs and interests.

These basic needs and interests include word processing, internet browsing and communication, multimedia support, and software upgrade and installation. The Open Office software is quite adequate for everyday user needs. The Ubuntu Applications > Accessories, > Games, and > Graphics offerings should do for most users. Media access, however, is still problematic: music players linking with digital portable players is rough, and watching DVD's, doing video editing, and just using Adobe web apps (Flash) can still be a challenge in Linux. Installing anything non-Synaptic packaged in Ubuntu (and mutatis mutandis for the other distros) is a chore and a crapshoot.
Getting software from outside sources can be a pain. The Ubuntu developers have indicated that they have the ability to make adding extra repositories from PPA and other sources a one-click operation. The thing that is holding them back is the damage people could cause to their systems by installing anything and everything. It could be made easier, but I'd wager that for most people, installing software from outside the repositories is not necessary.

Any how, I agree there are some problems to be had with DVD playback and flash content. Although I've never encountered a DVD that VLC hasn't been able to play yet, apparently others have. It's a shame, but not something we can blame Linux for. As more users come to the platform, these problems will slowly begin to disappear. I don't have any problems with either of these things, nor do many others. A lot of the problems people face could be easily solved with pre-installs. People have this idea that Windows "just works", when nothing could be further from the truth. The PC manufacturers and retailers spend an awful amount of time and money making sure it works before you even buy it. Because 99% of Linux users install it manually, we have to forgo that luxury. As pre-installed Linux machines become more commonplace, we might see some of those problems similarly disappearing.


The Debian and Ubuntu software repositories are filled with all sorts of good but also many specialized applications. These should be categorized not just by function but also by expertise or specialized interest: games are popular little apps and should be top level, readily visible, but why clutter an average user's experience with stuff like aylet.gtk or basilisk2? If Joe Sixpack is trying to find a good game for his cheap Ubuntu box (that his geek neighbor set up for him), Synaptic handles that pretty well (although more high quality, good looking games and amusements are important to the average user experience). But Joe should not have to wade through selections for bastille or zssh or other technically specific programs. If he actually develops an interest for a Mac emulator, he can ask his geek buddy for help or start Googling for information, though that's not a likely scenario in any case.

Try the "Add/Remove..." option in the Gnome Menu. It hides all of the libraries and small utilities that Synaptic doesn't. Additionally, it rates software there based on how many people have had it installed. It's a useful indicator sometimes, of how good an application is. I think it's important to teach new users that most of their needs are served by Add/Remove, but that if they need something a little more obscure, then Synaptic is the place to look.



Probably the biggest disappointment for Linux enthusiasts in the last year has been the widely reported 4X greater customer returns of Linux netbooks over WinXP netbooks. To me that is still a puzzle. Users want something familiar, and yet average users are constantly confronting new OS schemes on cell phones and other digital devices. Why balk at a sweet looking, up-to-date, modern looking, Linux netbook for not being some teletubby colored, nine-year old piece of software that's still visible design roots go back even further to 1995 (Win95)?
The higher number of returns should be obvious. The first generations of netbooks were supplied with ugly, horrible distributions such as Linpuss, which were often configured badly, had no real way of updating thanks to non-existent repositories, were often supplied with Windows driver discs for hardware, often came with webcams that didn't at all work, and a whole host of other problems. Added to that, the machines didn't run Windows; I suspect many bought them in the mistaken belief that Windows applications would work on them. Still, the average return rate for Windows netbooks as reported by Asus was somewhere around the 1% figure. If the Linux-based netbooks had a figure four times as high, it still means that 96% of the people who bought one were presumably satisfied with their choice. Considering how awful those Linux netbooks often were, I find such a high figure staggering.

[Trapper]

To be ready it absolutely has to have very good to excellent printer support. Absolutely. Linux, unfortunately, is not even close to ready in that respect. Until that problem is resolved, Linux as a desktop rides in the back seat. It's probably time for the linux guru's to stop blaming printer manufactures for not providing code and to actually do something beneficial to get them to.

Linux also needs to redesign and reconstruct it's overall printing system. The current one is never going to work right.

[Viva]

To be ready it absolutely has to have very good to excellent printer support. Absolutely. Linux, unfortunately, is not even close to ready in that respect. Until that problem is resolved, Linux as a desktop rides in the back seat. It's probably time for the linux guru's to stop blaming printer manufactures for not providing code and to actually do something beneficial to get them to.

Linux also needs to redesign and reconstruct it's overall printing system. The current one is never going to work right.

Since you're complaining that Linux Gurus should do something to get better printer support, why don't you offer a solution? What are they supposed to do? Spend millions to get printer manufacturers release drivers while you sit at your home sipping coffee and not contributing a dollar to the cause and ranting on the forums? FWIW, linux supports more hardware out of the box than Windows. The hardware manufacturers who are not willing to release drivers or work with the linux gurus should take most of the blame.

[Tibuda]

To be ready it absolutely has to have very good to excellent printer support. Absolutely. Linux, unfortunately, is not even close to ready in that respect. Until that problem is resolved, Linux as a desktop rides in the back seat. It's probably time for the linux guru's to stop blaming printer manufactures for not providing code and to actually do something beneficial to get them to.

Linux also needs to redesign and reconstruct it's overall printing system. The current one is never going to work right.

Do you know Apple Inc is the main developper of the Common Unix Printing System (CUPS) (http://www.cups.org/) used by us Linux users? So Mac OS X is also not ready for the desktop, because it's current printing system is never going to work right.

[w4ett]

Do you know Apple Inc is the main developper of the Common Unix Printing System (CUPS) (http://www.cups.org/) used by us Linux users? So Mac OS X is also not ready for the desktop, because it's current printing system is never going to work right.

Nice Informative post danielrmn.....Personally, the vast majority of printers I have tried in Ubuntu since 7.04 have worked great! :P

[king2007]

can i also throw in a little experience with Ubuntu ?
Being on a webpage with firefox and in need of a hard copy
at first one thinks : what to do ? after a very short while Ubuntu offers to install the drivers for my printer being a HP PSC 1500.... i was flabbergasted, because one is used to micro$oft and NOT accustomed to an operating system offering you the drivers for the hardware you have....in my thirty-odd years with windows one always had to hunt for drivers yourself :confused:

[Markstar]

I think if you separate installing and setting-up Ubuntu from using Ubuntu, it is perfectly suitable for the so-called "average user". Yes, I often hear that from people promoting Ubuntu. But that is not how it is in reality, is it? Because people DO buy new printers, scanners, cameras, etc. and want to use them without having to call a tech support guy (even if that is a friend/relative). Or, they have a program that they want to install that is not Firefox and Office.

Sure, 95% of the time, Office, Firefox and a Media Player will be enough, but it's the other 5% that frustrates people, including me (and I am trying REALLY hard to get used to Ubuntu).

[dannymichel]

Yes, I often hear that from people promoting Ubuntu. But that is not how it is in reality, is it? Because people DO buy new printers, scanners, cameras, etc. and want to use them without having to call a tech support guy (even if that is a friend/relative). Or, they have a program that they want to install that is not Firefox and Office.

Sure, 95% of the time, Office, Firefox and a Media Player will be enough, but it's the other 5% that frustrates people, including me (and I am trying REALLY hard to get used to Ubuntu).
Agreed

[lancest]

The Linux kernel supports a truly amazing variety of hardware. If people aren't buying their hardware for Linux (or trying to get used to the Linux way of installing software) they shouldn't be using it. Linux is a system for people who truly care about freedom, security and performance. Those who don't care deserve Windows (a rented system).

[Markstar]

The Linux kernel supports a truly amazing variety of hardware. If people aren't buying their hardware for Linux (or trying to get used to the Linux way of installing software) they shouldn't be using it. Linux is a system for people who truly care about freedom, security and performance. Those who don't care deserve Windows (a rented system).Yeah, but this is what this thread is all about, right? It's not about whether or not you think Linux is the best for you or about the many advantages it has, it is about whether or not it's Desktop Ready and what that actually means. Desktop ready for most people (according to the poll) means that a decent percentage of the population can use it once it is installed or that they can install it themselves. But that is not the case with Ubuntu, period. Most people will not be able to use Ubuntu, let alone install it, unless they have somebody who is ready to help them when things go a little wrong. If you have a girlfriend or parents who don't need ever need your help after you set them up with Ubuntu, great! But my experience is that while people *might* be able to insert a CD and click setup.exe (and even that is too much for most), there is not chance that they would be able to install programs on Ubuntu, especially not programs that go beyond the usual stuff.

Freedom? What kind of freedom is it to be limited to certain hardware and software (again, speaking for the general population, not people who go here or even know people who do)? Also, of course, it is difficult enough for experienced people to find out what hardware is compatible. But for somebody who is not?

Is Ubuntu a nice start? Sure.
Do I hope that it will grab more and more market share? Yes.
Should Linux be taken more seriously by hardware manufacturers? Absolutely.
Is it Desktop ready? No, I don't think so, but I sure hope it will be some day.

[tsali]

Just a small example that I think illustrates where Ubuntu desktop is compared to its commercial counterparts quite well:

Consider Avant Window Navigator

AWN is a Great piece of software and I really like what it does. I use it daily.

However, I remember that the Mac OS X dock would let you start a program then right click its active dock icon and select "keep in dock". AWN has no such option, requiring convoluted creation of application launchers.

Also, the Mac dock allowed apps, shortcuts and about anything to be "dropped" on the dock to create a launcher or short cut.

Similar functionality exists on the Vista task bar "quick launch"

These kinds of conveniences are what most people expect and, ironically, they make the system more "customizable" for many.

This only an example but I think it illustrates a comparison of desktop OS. However, once configured, Ubuntu is certainly desktop ready for most users.

[Viva]

Just a small example that I think illustrates where Ubuntu desktop is compared to its commercial counterparts quite well:

Consider Avant Window Navigator

AWN is a Great piece of software and I really like what it does. I use it daily.

However, I remember that the Mac OS X dock would let you start a program then right click its active dock icon and select "keep in dock". AWN has no such option, requiring convoluted creation of application launchers.

Also, the Mac dock allowed apps, shortcuts and about anything to be "dropped" on the dock to create a launcher or short cut.

Similar functionality exists on the Vista task bar "quick launch"

These kinds of conveniences are what most people expect and, ironically, they make the system more "customizable" for many.

This only an example but I think it illustrates a comparison of desktop OS. However, once configured, Ubuntu is certainly desktop ready for most users.

Firstly, AWN is not part of ubuntu desktop.
It allows you to remove a launcher by right clicking on it, if that is what you meant.
Launchers CAN be dropped directly onto awn.
If you want more mac-like behaviour, try Cairo Dock.

[lancest]

Yeah, but this is what this thread is all about, right? It's not about whether or not you think Linux is the best for you or about the many advantages it has, it is about whether or not it's Desktop Ready and what that actually means. Desktop ready for most people (according to the poll) means that a decent percentage of the population can use it once it is installed or that they can install it themselves. But that is not the case with Ubuntu, period. Most people will not be able to use Ubuntu, let alone install it, unless they have somebody who is ready to help them when things go a little wrong. If you have a girlfriend or parents who don't need ever need your help after you set them up with Ubuntu, great! But my experience is that while people *might* be able to insert a CD and click setup.exe (and even that is too much for most), there is not chance that they would be able to install programs on Ubuntu, especially not programs that go beyond the usual stuff.

Freedom? What kind of freedom is it to be limited to certain hardware and software (again, speaking for the general population, not people who go here or even know people who do)? Also, of course, it is difficult enough for experienced people to find out what hardware is compatible. But for somebody who is not?

Is Ubuntu a nice start? Sure.
Do I hope that it will grab more and more market share? Yes.
Should Linux be taken more seriously by hardware manufacturers? Absolutely.
Is it Desktop ready? No, I don't think so, but I sure hope it will be some day.

Alot of your argument is generalization and the same could be said for Windows. Linux supports more architectures & devices than any other operating system. If you want to talk about a limited operating system then you are talking about Apple. I can take a Linux drive and move it to any machine I like without a reinstall and without a license. Just one example of complete freedom. Don't get me started.

[poliltimmy]

Without being able to mount CD/DVDs it will never be ready. Since upgrading from Gutsy I have yet to find a fix for it. Doesn't 8.04 mean April of 2008? That is 27 months ago. Still no update that the end user can apply to their machine to fix the problem. The question of whether or not it's ready is a moot point. It's not and everyone knows it's not.
I know a lot of you who read this will bash me badly. That I am ungrateful and I should not B@@#^ about something I got for free. Gift horse and all. However Linux has ambitions of being the best. I believe *nix OS's are superior in security. Thats why I use it. To be safer on line. Security is not what most of us have computers for. I am a security freak. Left Windows as my primary OS at 6.06. There was a lot of bumps then. 7.10 worked great. I showed everyone my Ubuntu machine and turned a few people on to at least help them dual boot. So I am a big fan. I'm not a programmer. I am a 47 year old that did not even have a computer or know how to use one until 1999. I saw while learning the hard way that there had to be something better. I was turned on to Ubuntu by a friend of my oldest child. I fell in love with it. Learned how to fix a few things and make it work. I converted all my music to ogg so it would play. I have been loyal and patient. 27 months and counting is a long time to wait to be able to access a CD/DVD without having to reboot the machine. Two versions have hit the street since then. One of them a LTS at that. What does that means again?
Bug reports in Lauchpad have it rated as low or medium. That is ridiculous. What most people want and most people use on a computer is not a top priority? Then becoming bigger than it is now is not a top priority. It can not possibly be.

Timmy

[JDShu]

Without being able to mount CD/DVDs it will never be ready. Since upgrading from Gutsy I have yet to find a fix for it. Doesn't 8.04 mean April of 2008? That is 27 months ago. Still no update that the end user can apply to their machine to fix the problem. The question of whether or not it's ready is a moot point. It's not and everyone knows it's not.
I know a lot of you who read this will bash me badly. That I am ungrateful and I should not B@@#^ about something I got for free. Gift horse and all. However Linux has ambitions of being the best. I believe *nix OS's are superior in security. Thats why I use it. To be safer on line. Security is not what most of us have computers for. I am a security freak. Left Windows as my primary OS at 6.06. There was a lot of bumps then. 7.10 worked great. I showed everyone my Ubuntu machine and turned a few people on to at least help them dual boot. So I am a big fan. I'm not a programmer. I am a 47 year old that did not even have a computer or know how to use one until 1999. I saw while learning the hard way that there had to be something better. I was turned on to Ubuntu by a friend of my oldest child. I fell in love with it. Learned how to fix a few things and make it work. I converted all my music to ogg so it would play. I have been loyal and patient. 27 months and counting is a long time to wait to be able to access a CD/DVD without having to reboot the machine. Two versions have hit the street since then. One of them a LTS at that. What does that means again?
Bug reports in Lauchpad have it rated as low or medium. That is ridiculous. What most people want and most people use on a computer is not a top priority? Then becoming bigger than it is now is not a top priority. It can not possibly be.

Timmy

Sorry, I am a little bit confused. I just watched a dvd movie yesterday with no problems. Perhaps you might want to ask on the support forums?

[Viva]

Without being able to mount CD/DVDs it will never be ready. Since upgrading from Gutsy I have yet to find a fix for it. Doesn't 8.04 mean April of 2008? That is 27 months ago. Still no update that the end user can apply to their machine to fix the problem. The question of whether or not it's ready is a moot point. It's not and everyone knows it's not.
I know a lot of you who read this will bash me badly. That I am ungrateful and I should not B@@#^ about something I got for free. Gift horse and all. However Linux has ambitions of being the best. I believe *nix OS's are superior in security. Thats why I use it. To be safer on line. Security is not what most of us have computers for. I am a security freak. Left Windows as my primary OS at 6.06. There was a lot of bumps then. 7.10 worked great. I showed everyone my Ubuntu machine and turned a few people on to at least help them dual boot. So I am a big fan. I'm not a programmer. I am a 47 year old that did not even have a computer or know how to use one until 1999. I saw while learning the hard way that there had to be something better. I was turned on to Ubuntu by a friend of my oldest child. I fell in love with it. Learned how to fix a few things and make it work. I converted all my music to ogg so it would play. I have been loyal and patient. 27 months and counting is a long time to wait to be able to access a CD/DVD without having to reboot the machine. Two versions have hit the street since then. One of them a LTS at that. What does that means again?
Bug reports in Lauchpad have it rated as low or medium. That is ridiculous. What most people want and most people use on a computer is not a top priority? Then becoming bigger than it is now is not a top priority. It can not possibly be.

Timmy

I've never had any of the problems you've mentioned and I've never encountered any related support requests on this forum. Your problem seems to be unique.

[windows-killer]

I think ubuntu is not ready for the desktop because:

* you have to use the command line to accomplish simple tasks "especially if you want to repaid something"

* ubuntu has poor marketing skills, canonical does not count its users accurately

* having to many choices to chose from its confusing for the average user (gnome, kde, software clones/forks, and other useless distros/software)

* Linux needs to be more open to third party software (dont beg devs to open source their software because you are acting immaturely)

* ubuntu is not idiot proof, you may think it is because you are an advanced user but in reality its very difficult to use.

* to many bugs that affect usability and they dont even fix them. If they do then they break something else.

:Dlol gotta love the power of open source lol :D


edit: I made people to try ubuntu and they found it very difficult to use and trust me familiarity is not a problem! I also let them try OS X and they found it easier than windows.

edit2: ubuntu is getting a little bit easier but in a SLOW pace

[windows-killer]

Alot of your argument is generalization and the same could be said for Windows. Linux supports more architectures & devices than any other operating system. If you want to talk about a limited operating system then you are talking about Apple. I can take a Linux drive and move it to any machine I like without a reinstall and without a license. Just one example of complete freedom. Don't get me started.

If you think OSX is the most closed source OS, you're right!
however, Linux is the most closed source OS too! why? Because you are locked in an OS that uses only open source software that barely even work. I think open source fans are dictators! they always want us (the regular users) to use open source software and they always discourage third party devs to develop software for us. Now tell me is this freedom?

ps: if you disagree and try to convince me that open source software gives you freedom because it gives you the right to develop/ distribute software, then you wont convince me. Because am not a developer, am just a computer user just like other billions of people.

[tsali]

Firstly, AWN is not part of ubuntu desktop.
It allows you to remove a launcher by right clicking on it, if that is what you meant.
Launchers CAN be dropped directly onto awn.
If you want more mac-like behaviour, try Cairo Dock.

I'm aware that AWN isn't part of Ubuntu, but the example is still made since the Gnome panel is no better.

Thanks, I'll try Cairo dock.

the devil is in the little things...

[tsali]

Linux supports more architectures & devices than any other operating system.

Cut out the obsolete and discontinued hardware that is currently on the market and see if this is still true. If it were, I wouldn't have to be worrying about whether the printer I'm about to buy is Ubuntu compatible - something that I don't worry about with Windows.

[Tibuda]

If you think OSX is the most closed source OS, you're right!
however, Linux is the most closed source OS too! why? Because you are locked in an OS that uses only open source software that barely even work. I think open source fans are dictators! they always want us (the regular users) to use open source software and they always discourage third party devs to develop software for us. Now tell me is this freedom?

ps: if you disagree and try to convince me that open source software gives you freedom because it gives you the right to develop/ distribute software, then you wont convince me. Because am not a developer, am just a computer user just like other billions of people.

Closed source software works on Linux... See Nvidia drivers, Pixel image editor, Opera, Skype, Nero CD Burner, VMWare, Stata, SPSS, Lotus Symphony... You are free to use what you want, if it is available. Don't blame Linux if the closed source software you use is not available for Linux.

[windows-killer]

Closed source software works on Linux... See Nvidia drivers, Pixel image editor, Opera, Skype, Nero CD Burner, VMWare, Stata, SPSS, Lotus Symphony... You are free to use what you want, if it is available. Don't blame Linux if the closed source software you use is not available for Linux.

I know third party software works on Linux, but its not welcomed by dictators such as open source fans!
I absolutely dont blame Linux/Ubuntu at all!!!
I blame the users, because they are all open source fans, or even better I should say they are all dictators they make bad choices for all of us without even giving us choices!!!
They only give choices to chose open source software and nothing else!

here is what I mean by dictatorship:

* Linux users rely only on open source software because it gives the DEVELOPER the freedom to modify the software. I am not a dev am just a pc user and I am expecting to have a open platform that accepts all kinds of licenses to be installed on on it (to be fair not by default installation). They also dislike/flame/judge the software that is provided by third party devs (closed sourced) they hate the software even if its free with some copyright restrictions. You know these guys have families that they need to feed.

* They force the closed source software developer to open source his code. the software dev stops developing software for Linux because he is afraid of its users.

* Being a dictator, your are not moving forward. Look at some countries governed by dictators, are they moving forward? No!, there is always war and poverty. This is a perfect example of Linux users being dictators, making bad choices for regular users and not helping ubuntu/Linux to become mainstream.

* I think Ubuntu is moving forward, but very slowly:D

[Tibuda]

I know third party software works on Linux, but its not welcomed by dictators such as open source fans!
I absolutely dont blame Linux/Ubuntu at all!!!
I blame the users, because they are all open source fans, or even better I should say they are all dictators they make bad choices for all of us without even giving us choices!!!
They only give choices to chose open source software and nothing else!
You are making a generalization. Not all users are FOSS extremists. And how the "bad" choices made by an extremist user is restricting your choices? Users are different and make different choices. You don't have to choose the same thing as another user. Ubuntu repository got some closed source software, like Adobe Flash Player.


here is what I mean by dictatorship:

* Linux users rely only on open source software because it gives the DEVELOPER the freedom to modify the software.
I don't rely, and I do think most Linux users don't rely too. How many Linux users are using Gnash instead of Adobe Flash Player? Or the open source drivers instead of the Nvidia drivers? I don't really care if it's open source, I only care if it is native and if it suits my needs.


I am not a dev am just a pc user and I am expecting to have a open platform that accepts all kinds of licenses to be installed on on it (to be fair not by default installation).
Linux is a platform that accepts all kind of licenses.


They also dislike/flame/judge the software that is provided by third party devs (closed sourced) they hate the software even if its free with some copyright restrictions. You know these guys have families that they need to feed.
There are FOSS extremists, but they are not the majority.


* They force the closed source software developer to open source his code. the software dev stops developing software for Linux because he is afraid of its users.
Developers can just ignore these extremists. They don't develop for Linux not because of "fear", but because it would not be worth. There are costs in porting software to different platforms, and Linux is a very little market right now (there's a lock-in here).


* Being a dictator, your are not moving forward. Look at some countries governed by dictators, are they moving forward? No!, there is always war and poverty. This is a perfect example of Linux users being dictators, making bad choices for regular users and not helping ubuntu/Linux to become mainstream.
This is off-topic, and not allowed to be discussed here, but my country had the higher economic development during dictatorships... Forget it. Ubuntu and Linux are not a dictatorship.

[poliltimmy]

I've never had any of the problems you've mentioned and I've never encountered any related support requests on this forum. Your problem seems to be unique.

Gee! I'm special! ....NOT! I did not ride the short bus to school.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cds+will+not+mount+in+ubuntu&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a


Therein lies the biggest problem. Ignorance. The problem is not unique. The whole it works on my machine, you must be doing something wrong, is not an overly effective way to gain users to spread Ubuntu. Fact is it is a problem. Been a problem. It's still a problem. Seems it will always be a problem. So the not just for Geeks picture that Ubuntu is trying to paint, is in fact, laughable.

[lancest]

If the hardware device does not say "Linux compatible" then don't buy it. It's a fact there are devices that work better in Windows because they are made and tested for it. If something does work well in Linux-I just replace it. (I currently have an ASUS DVD RW that did not work perfectly so -I replaced with a Pioneer that works like a dream). Linux is not free in that you have to pay attention to hardware choices. So what?! This is a system that you actually own (Linux) versus Windows that you are just renting. For those who can't handle the responsibility concept - just go back to Windows - you are better off with Bill G as your master.

[poliltimmy]

If the hardware device does not say "Linux compatible" then don't buy it. It's a fact there are devices that work better in Windows because they are made and tested for it. If something does work well in Linux-I just replace it. (I currently have an ASUS DVD RW that did not work perfectly so -I replaced with a Pioneer that works like a dream). Linux is not free in that you have to pay attention to hardware choices. So what?! This is a system that you actually own (Linux) versus Windows that you are just renting. For those who can't handle the responsibility concept - just go back to Windows - you are better off with Bill G as your master.

You have just proved my point.

On the other hand, you also point out, what I purposely left out. Arrogance.
Is this an Ubuntu forum?
Did I see Steve Jobs picture at the top of this page?
What good is being able to stream your multimedia 'Pulseaudio' if you can not get your music from CDs into the computer?
Shouldn't the basics be there and be stable?
Am I to buy new every six months or just for LTS?
My computer is less than 3 years old. Having to buy special hardware for an OS is just 'soooo Apple like'. Not to mention MS like also. Mac or Vista anyone? But at least MS had a compatibility check for Vista, even if was a S@@##Y OS.

This is why Ubuntu remains stagnant.

[JDShu]

You have just proved my point.

On the other hand, you also point out, what I purposely left out. Arrogance.
Is this an Ubuntu forum?
Did I see Steve Jobs picture at the top of this page?
What good is being able to stream your multimedia 'Pulseaudio' if you can not get your music from CDs into the computer?
Shouldn't the basics be there and be stable?
Am I to buy new every six months or just for LTS?
My computer is less than 3 years old. Having to buy special hardware for an OS is just 'soooo Apple like'. Not to mention MS like also. Mac or Vista anyone? But at least MS had a compatibility check for Vista, even if was a S@@##Y OS.

This is why Ubuntu remains stagnant.

I think everybody has seen this comment over and over again. Hence recurring discussions :D

And the usual retort to being called "arrogant" is: We can't do anything about it until hardware manufacturers either open source their drivers or make good drivers for us. We are at the mercy of the market. The only thing we can do is try to get nough users of linux so that hardware manufacturers have an incentive to release Linux drivers. Until then, if you really have to use a certain piece of unsupported hardware, well, use Windows, its what "everybody" uses.

[Yes]

You have just proved my point.

On the other hand, you also point out, what I purposely left out. Arrogance.
Is this an Ubuntu forum?
Did I see Steve Jobs picture at the top of this page?
What good is being able to stream your multimedia 'Pulseaudio' if you can not get your music from CDs into the computer?
Shouldn't the basics be there and be stable?
Am I to buy new every six months or just for LTS?
My computer is less than 3 years old. Having to buy special hardware for an OS is just 'soooo Apple like'. Not to mention MS like also. Mac or Vista anyone? But at least MS had a compatibility check for Vista, even if was a S@@##Y OS.

This is why Ubuntu remains stagnant.

Eh? As far as I know nearly everyone can rip audio CDs without problems. And I've had 3 different versions of Ubuntu work on 3 different computers, so hardware issues are definitely going away. Still, we are mostly at the mercy of the hardware manufacturers to provide drivers - you can't expect a free project to be able to supply support for all the hardware out there.

[ahndoruuu]

You have just proved my point.

On the other hand, you also point out, what I purposely left out. Arrogance.
Is this an Ubuntu forum?
Did I see Steve Jobs picture at the top of this page?
What good is being able to stream your multimedia 'Pulseaudio' if you can not get your music from CDs into the computer?
Shouldn't the basics be there and be stable?
Am I to buy new every six months or just for LTS?
My computer is less than 3 years old. Having to buy special hardware for an OS is just 'soooo Apple like'. Not to mention MS like also. Mac or Vista anyone? But at least MS had a compatibility check for Vista, even if was a S@@##Y OS.

This is why Ubuntu remains stagnant.

You're taking a personal problem and trying to apply the issues behind it to the general Ubuntu community; it doesn't work like that, buddy. The majority of users will have their CD's recognized just fine. If your system won't do it, take some time to educate yourself on why that might be. Odds are, there is a very viable fix. By NO means does anybody have to buy specialized hardware; one of the philosophies behind the general Linux community is extending support to as many hardware platforms as possible, especially with distributions such as Debian. Linux works flawlessly in many instances with exceedingly dated hardware that a modern Windows or Mac OS X would never begin to run on; I've run Linux on a computer with just 128 MB RAM. I assure you that the basics are all present in most modern Linux distributions, and, especially with Ubuntu, are rock-stable unless you as a user open a hole in that stability through unscrupulous actions. Furthermore, saying that Ubuntu is "stagnant" is a less-than-educated statement; in regards to market share, Linux isn't about gaining market share. Quite frankly I think Linux would suffer rather than benefit from increased market share.

[sideaway]

You're taking a personal problem and trying to apply the issues behind it to the general Ubuntu community; it doesn't work like that, buddy. The majority of users will have their CD's recognized just fine. If your system won't do it, take some time to educate yourself on why that might be. Odds are, there is a very viable fix. By NO means does anybody have to buy specialized hardware; one of the philosophies behind the general Linux community is extending support to as many hardware platforms as possible, especially with distributions such as Debian. Linux works flawlessly in many instances with exceedingly dated hardware that a modern Windows or Mac OS X would never begin to run on; I've run Linux on a computer with just 128 MB RAM. I assure you that the basics are all present in most modern Linux distributions, and, especially with Ubuntu, are rock-stable unless you as a user open a hole in that stability through unscrupulous actions. Furthermore, saying that Ubuntu is "stagnant" is a less-than-educated statement; in regards to market share, Linux isn't about gaining market share. Quite frankly I think Linux would suffer rather than benefit from increased market share.

About whether gaining market share being good or bad is very open for debate, although all debate around the topic is near pointless, nearly all distributions will try and stretch their wings.

I believe a increase in consumers using linux would be a plus. Games anyone? Although I totally agree with every thing else you've said, specially your comments about saying Ubuntu is stagnant, it's a very ignorant statement.

[loseby]

once again something pops up

Radeon 4890 the garbage to get this running......well I gave up and removed Linux and am now running Win7RC1

[Markstar]

When the vast majority of people can do the vast majority of things they need to (as a casual user, not for work) 99.99999% of the time.

People arguing about CAD and about InDesign, and various other programs, that's not desktop usage, that's workstation.That's just nitpicking, since it's not about program A or B in particular. It's about the fact that there are too many programs/devices out there that a normal user can't get to work by himself.

Edit:Just consider Firefox 3.5. Many people want to upgrade to it. In Windows, you download the file, execute it and you are ready to go. Not so in Ubuntu, where there are many choices in the Repository that are quite confusing and even after you install one, it still doesn't work without some tweaks. And that's your basic Internet browser, not even an uncommon program.

Whether or not we hope this will change when Linux becomes more important is actually irrelevant.

[Viva]

That's just nitpicking, since it's not about program A or B in particular. It's about the fact that there are too many programs/devices out there that a normal user can't get to work by himself.

Edit:Just consider Firefox 3.5. Many people want to upgrade to it. In Windows, you download the file, execute it and you are ready to go. Not so in Ubuntu, where there are many choices in the Repository that are quite confusing and even after you install one, it still doesn't work without some tweaks. And that's your basic Internet browser, not even an uncommon program.

Whether or not we hope this will change when Linux becomes more important is actually irrelevant.

You're specifically talking about Ubuntu here. You can try a rolling release distro if you want.

[mdsmedia]

You're specifically talking about Ubuntu here. You can try a rolling release distro if you want.
More to the point, he's ignoring WHY you can't just upgrade to Firefox 3.5 in Ubuntu.

Sure, in distros like Arch, and many others, 3.5 is standard, but Ubuntu freezes app. versions when it releases. It then provides security patches as required.

You CAN install Firefox 3.5 in Ubuntu through the repos, but Ubuntu doesn't provide it by default for reasons of stability. People complained when Firefox 3.0 was included as the default when 9.04 was released, because it was still in Beta.

In Windows they don't care if the latest version of an app is buggy, as long as it's the latest. They give the user the option to upgrade if he wants to. The user can then take it upon himself to upgrade to 3.5 with all its bugs. That's not necessarily an advantage in Windows.

In Ubuntu, everything which is installed by the system is updated by the system when updates become available in the repos. If being able to upgrade Firefox from 3.0 to 3.5 is such an advantage in Windows, I'd say being able to update your whole system through one app is a big advantage in Ubuntu, wouldn't you?

[poliltimmy]

Eh? As far as I know nearly everyone can rip audio CDs without problems. And I've had 3 different versions of Ubuntu work on 3 different computers, so hardware issues are definitely going away. Still, we are mostly at the mercy of the hardware manufacturers to provide drivers - you can't expect a free project to be able to supply support for all the hardware out there.

But I should be able to use hardware that was working in 7.10. And not properly working since upgrading the next LTS. It is in fact a nut buster. I as an end user is supposed to know where the problem is. All I want is for my disks to be recognized when put in. It recognized all disks in the Last LTS, but not in the new LTS. OK big wigs, where is the problem, HAL, Dbus, /etc/, maybe fstab edit? That is the problem not even launchpad can tell me. If you saying few only a few people have this problem, your head is in the sand. Look around the web, many have this problem. The work a rounds work for some but not others. Many fixes work for other distros but not for the OS they are based on. As someone that has been looking for a fix for over a year now, I feel that backwards compatibility is essential. Especially in the most often used hardware, other than motherboard and HD. I was told to upgrade. I did same problem. Then after another 6 month upgrade again was the answer, same problem. Oh a simple mistake in 9.04 in fsab, change it to this, comment out that, I did , same problem. I have not checked but i am almost willing to bet that line has not been corrected in a new download. I could be wrong. I hope I am. That problem was there a full month before I made my 9.04 disk, yet it was still there in the later day download. With a work a rounds applied and tried to no avail. All treads that I have looked at get no more postings. You have lost 3 Ubuntu users that I convinced to convert the music to ogg so it would work in 7.10. They have the same problems and I am now not as popular with them as they feel they will be forced back to Redmond. All because of the lack of backwards compatibility for what worked in the last LTS. The fact remains, others as well as myself are having problems. Even rolling back to 7.10 is a pain. Even Redmond allows you to undo their updates. I had to go back to dual boot with XP sole because of this problem. So by not having it 'just work' I will be forced to buy from Redmond, something us Ubuntu lovers cringe at, when XP is no longer supported. Which will be very soon. If this happens, I will not be any longer advocating for Ubuntu. As a matter of fact, I will be force to be the honest person I am an will have to advocate against it. I'm not a power user nor tech. I am an average user, as most are. 'Few' people are having this problem is because a lot of non techie people and those afraid of the command line, have already left. I also believe those that say 'just go back to Windows' are hurting your project. Yet no one tells them that is an inappropriate answer to a frustrated person. As hostility almost always draws hostility in return. I have had a thread closed because of this. Hostility instead of help. I have an old eMacines running for the kids that has no problems, upgraded from 7.10 perfect. But my less than 3y/o computer that ran 7.10 flawlessly is broken with the latest LTS. Go figure that the cheapest manufacturer on earth is supported fully but the middle of the road computer isn't. Blaming hardware that worked in 7.10 that does not in the latest LTS is a simple cop-out for those that broke it in the system itself. Ubuntu can not figure it out so the community blames my hardware, neglecting the fact it worked in the last LTS. How can an honest man advocate for arrogance and disrespect to those less knowledgeable? Until the geek attitude of superiority is shed Ubuntu will not gain the the share it needs to force the same manufactures blamed, to do anything.

[Yes]

Ugh block of text.

Again, your problem specific mostly to you. I'm sure if I bothered to search I'd find a few other people with your problem, but the vast majority of people do not have that problem.

[Markstar]

More to the point, he's ignoring WHY you can't just upgrade to Firefox 3.5 in Ubuntu.Thank you. This is EXACTLY the kind of attitude that frustrates people who have not bought into the Ubuntu/Linux idea. What you are essentially saying is: "We know better what you want and what you need than yourself, so why make it easy for you to install something that you shouldn't really need."

But that's not how it works. People at work/school/whatever hear a guy telling them that FF3.5 is out and it is much faster and has some cool features (whatever the reason is not the point - in general: program ABC is cool because reason XYZ).

So the windows guy goes to www.mozilla.com, downloads the file, executes it and is done 2 minutes later, with his bookmarks, etc. intact. Not so in Ubuntu. That guy either has to use Google or, using package manager, know/guess which of the many choices is appropriate for him (which is even more difficult for people who do not speak English and can't make sense of all the package names). And even then it's not like he can use it right away since no icon is installed and there is not message "Start FF3.5 by ...". No, he has to know which command to use at the terminal. Of course he can create a shortcut, but that is even more complicated (mind you, I'm talking about the every day user out there, not people who frequent a tech forum) and requires more usage of Google and a good amount of computer skills (a neighbour told me that a few days ago that when he had his parents over, his mom, mid 50s, saw his browser and said: "Ahh, so that is this Google." ... and these are normal people!).

Whether or not you think a user needs that program is irrelevant, because that is what freedom is all about. You simply can't run around proclaiming how free and easy Ubuntu is and then turn around and tell people that they should only use programs that some other guys thinks is appropriate. :^o And you especially can't do that to computer-illiterate who contemplates which OS he is going to have.

It took me longer to figure out how to properly install Firefox than to figure out how to install a LAMP server on Ubuntu (and do it). And I still don't know (because I have not had the time or felt like it) how to open .html files with Firefox (since File->Properties->Open With->Firefox doesn't work), instead of getting ridiculous suggestions like Thunderbird.

So no, I will continue not recommending Ubuntu to friends and family as a desktop OS, simply because there are still tons of issues like the one above. But I will try to spend more and more time with Ubuntu because it does have its strengths and I would really like to like it.

[lancest]

Firefox 3.5 is available in Ubuntu repositories now. Why would I want to use a Windows kernel in Vista or 7 that is already 3 years old? Linux OS and it's software are way newer.

[poliltimmy]

Ugh block of text.

Again, your problem specific mostly to you. I'm sure if I bothered to search I'd find a few other people with your problem, but the vast majority of people do not have that problem.

A small vocal minority or individual can do a lot. It can either help a cause or hurt it, depending on the viewpoint. Usually the dissatisfied or frustrated are the loudest. This is normal 'human' ( Ubuntu term ) behavior. Oxymorons like "specific to mostly you" do not in any way, help alleviate it. It exasperates it. The viewpoint of 'go back to windows you moron' is what prompted my posts in this thread.
I have never complained/dissed outside of Ubuntu Forums. However many have on Tech sites. I see the problem from both sides. On one side I love Ubuntu and hope it succeeds beyond it's wildest dreams. If I did not, I would not still be here. On the other hand, I am a very frustrated user.
The problem was created and is fostered by Ubuntu itself, with hyperbole catch phrases like 'just works', 'ready for the desktop', 'for human beings' etc. The community attitude is: it 'just works' on mine so you must be stupid, just go back to windows. It was ready for my desktop, so you must be stupid, just go back to windows. As for 'for human beings' it's, the only people considered human are those that it works for. The rest are not 'human beings' and therefore, too stupid to use Ubuntu, just go back windows. I believe that someone saying that in the forums should be a BIG no-no. No moderator or Linux guru ever admonishes these people. But they are quick to close the thread. Which only punishes those searching for help.
Mark Shuttleworth himself has mentioned arrogance as a major problem. I believe it is more than just a problem. It's a bug in the system, that manifests itself, akin to a virus, preventing use. And like a virus, it needs to be eradicated. As the leader of this project, I would not tolerate, 'your too stupid for Ubuntu, just go back to windows' as a 'solution' to someones problem in a forum dedicated to my project. The moderators should not tolerate it either. Then again, apathy is the easiest way to not take on responsibility they chose themselves, to actually moderate.

[JDShu]

So the windows guy goes to www.mozilla.com (http://www.mozilla.com/), downloads the file, executes it and is done 2 minutes later, with his bookmarks, etc. intact. Not so in Ubuntu. That guy either has to use Google or, using package manager, know/guess which of the many choices is appropriate for him (which is even more difficult for people who do not speak English and can't make sense of all the package names). And even then it's not like he can use it right away since no icon is installed and there is not message "Start FF3.5 by ...". No, he has to know which command to use at the terminal. Of course he can create a shortcut, but that is even more complicated (mind you, I'm talking about the every day user out there, not people who frequent a tech forum) and requires more usage of Google and a good amount of computer skills (a neighbour told me that a few days ago that when he had his parents over, his mom, mid 50s, saw his browser and said: "Ahh, so that is this Google." ... and these are normal people!).

No. On any Linux system, you CAN go to http://www.mozilla.com (http://www.mozilla.com/), download the file and run the binary (by double clicking on it). No problems - you don't even need to install! Its just that if you want the advantages of a repository then you have to do some fiddling or wait.

[Markstar]

No. On any Linux system, you CAN go to http://www.mozilla.com (http://www.mozilla.com/), download the file and run the binary (by double clicking on it). No problems - you don't even need to install! Its just that if you want the advantages of a repository then you have to do some fiddling or wait.That is not true! All you get is a tar.bz2 file which contains a readme that directs me back to the Mozilla download page. :P

[aysiu]

If you have Firefox 3.0 already installed and you stand around the water cooler at work talking about Firefox 3.5 the day it comes out, you are a power user. Please do not pretend you are an average user.

Average users don't care about the latest version of Firefox the day it comes out. They just want to get their work done and check their Facebook page or the latest online news every now and then (not tech news).

If you are a power user who needs the latest software the minute it comes out (instead of six months later), I would advise using a rolling-release distro like PCLinuxOS, Arch Linux, or Debian Unstable/Experimental.

If you are an average user, you probably won't even care about new software a year after it's been released, let alone six months later, so Ubuntu will be fine for you. Also, if you are an average user, what are you doing chatting about Linux in the Cafe section of the Ubuntu Forums? You wouldn't be here.

[Yes]

Yet another large block of text

Nobody's calling you stupid or a moron, and if someone called you that here I'm sorry and they definitely were not right in saying that. All I'm saying is that the problem is specific to you, and most people don't have the problem. I'm afraid that in your case, Windows might be the better option for you.

That doesn't mean that it's not "for human beings" or whatever the slogan is, because it often times is. But there will occasionally be hardware that doesn't work, and I'm not sure what you want us to do about it.

@Markstar - I think you're mistaken, because I know for a fact I have downloaded the .tar.bz2 from the website, extracted it, and had an executable file that all I had to do was double click to open Firefox.

And the issue of programs not being in the repos as soon as they're released is specific to Ubuntu, not Linux in general. Just thought I should point that out.

[poliltimmy]

Okay. I get it. No spaces between my paragraphs must be a problem here. Or maybe long winded. And most are not jerks on here, so I should not stereotype the whole community. Sorry.

The question was what does ready mean to you. I was just mentioning the 2 things that make it not ready to me. Which is asking for an opinion.

Backwards compatibility, since I have a problem with that, is a valid opinion. I also said Vista was not ready either for the same reason.

The other was people being mean. Again a valid opinion for what does ready mean to me. The only toes I should have stepped on was those people.

[Soarer]

I don't think 'go back to Windows' is an insult, it is a suggestion.

The fact is, no OS is perfect. If you have some hardware which works in Windows but not Ubuntu, and you don't want to change that hardware, then Windows is your only choice.

In the same way, there are often people on here who want Windows, but free. Linux is not that - it does required some re-orientation from the user (such as understanding the usefulness and importance of repositories, the strong suggestion to NOT run always with admin permissions, etc). Again, if people don't want any kind of learning curve, that's OK with me, but they are better off (they, not us) with Windows.

I also agree with aysiu (as usual) - many Windows users are running IE 6, not even IE 7 let alone Firefox 3.5. IE 6 is A browser 7-8 years old (IIRC). If you want the latest & greatest, you have to be a power user, no matter what your preferred OS.

[djchandler]

But I should be able to use hardware that was working in 7.10.

<BIG SNIP>

Until the geek attitude of superiority is shed Ubuntu will not gain the the share it needs to force the same manufactures blamed, to do anything.

Okay Poliltimmy, I may have a solution for you.

When I upgraded from 7.04 to 7.10, I had A LOT of problems, including the one you're having.

Apparently the install/upgrade procedure really exercises our hardware now. After blaming motherboards, hard disks and Gutsy Gibbon, I was chagrined to learn the real source of my problems. It was a flaky power supply.:confused:

I have run into a bad streak of power supplies lately. I was trying to get by on cheap power supplies, but have actually succeeded in spending even more money than if I'd paid more attention to PS specs and reviews in the first place and sprung for quality.:(

Another thing we tend to forget is that we place more and more strain on our power supplies as we gradually add to our systems. Even if you have not opened your computer and replaced/added components, maybe you have acquired external USB devices since you bought the computer. Even if the external USB device has its own PS, it still requires power from the computer to communicate with it. If the device is totally dependent on internal power, like a thumb drive, of course it draws even more power.

Before giving up, you may want to get your computer's power supply checked. Better yet, see if the PS in your children's computer is higher rated (more watts) than yours and switch them just to test. Something else you may try is plugging your drives that are not being recognized into a different line running from your PS. Try to isolate the PS problem.
:popcorn:

Sorry, but I think this kind of stuff is fun.

Try a new power supply. Yours could be going bad, or may be operating intermittently on one or more connections. BTW, usually trying to repair a PS isn't worth the trouble.

One other thing--not all of the technically proficient appreciates being called geeks and/or nerds. I have no idea how that got started, but it's past time for us to stand up and say so.
:)

[sandwormblues]

It's desperately important that commercial software and hardware runs on it. Oftentimes, commercial software is cutting edge. I love my linux laptop but i can't make Flash cartoons, I can't run my cheap mexican 0V511 webcam. (there are exceptions, particularly in open-source audio). Not that big a deal.

That's me. I'm an artist and an anarchist. Then there's the business world. They comply to standards. Right now those standards are comprised of Adobe. Adobe adobe adobe adobe. Hewlett Packard and Adobe, but mostly Adobe. Adobe makes the most popular graphics software, period, and business is all about graphics.

Any architect can use QCAD, any pirate can use bittorrent. but you will never get the business world until you can run Indesign native.

[aysiu]

Any architect can use QCAD, any pirate can use bittorrent. but you will never get the business world until you can run Indesign native. And we will never get InDesign native until we get the business world. Kind of a catch-22 there.

Running InDesign native isn't up to the platform (Windows, Mac, Linux); it's up to the InDesign creator (Adobe). Adobe makes a version of Creative Suite for Windows. Microsoft does not make the Creative Suite. Adobe makes a version of Creative Suite for OS X. Apple does not make the Creative Suite. Likewise, it would be up to Adobe to make a version of Creative Suite for Linux. Ubuntu doesn't make Adobe products... nor does Red Hat or Mandriva.

Really, though, what percentage of the general computing (not graphic design) population really uses Adobe InDesign?

[skovy]

are you doing chatting about Linux in the Cafe section of the Ubuntu Forums? You wouldn't be here.

doing a search would lead you here, like myself, "average" user who happened to stumble in here looking for info that i prolly wont find, and if i do, maybe ill learn something, but will prolly look like giberish that i wasnt ready for when i stumbled into linux but im too hard headed to give up now...

[lisati]

doing a search would lead you here, like myself, "average" user who happened to stumble in here looking for info that i prolly wont find, and if i do, maybe ill learn something, but will prolly look like giberish that i wasnt ready for when i stumbled into linux but im too hard headed to give up now...

My curiosity was aroused when Linux was mentioned by an acquaintance. After a brief look at a Red Hat book & accompanying CD I temporarily put Linux in the "not right now" basket until a brief search some months later led me to www.ubuntu.com - definitely easier to get my head round installing Ubuntu than the book I originally looked at.

[ububaba]

Above all it is not like pre-cooked meal where two minutes in the microoven
does the whole trick....

[deankovell]

Is ubuntu ready for the average user?

Has anybody tried getting a wireless adapter from walmart, which is the very definition of average? I've seriously spent like 30 hours this week trying to get wireless in 64bit ubuntu studio. I'm posting this from vista :( . I like ubuntu and I'm still going to lose windows altogether, but most people, I think, would have given up a long time ago. I think the average user is not willing to go to walmart, buy something, find it isn't compatible, go back and get a different one , find out it is supported natively, but crashes your system, go get a third one which is also supported, but only works at a third of it's capacity but not on your computer for some reason. so you say thank god you didn't wipe out vista just yet, and end up spending hours and hours rebooting into different operating systems getting downloads, advice, instructions, more instructions, and more instructions. If the internet doesn't work, a computer is almost useless for the average user. especially with ubuntu, where the software is not at the store, it's online.

Wireless has got to be a lot smoother for the average user to stick with ubuntu.

I know it's not ubuntu's fault, but that doesn't change the frustration level for the average user.
sorry for complaining

Edit: I hope I didn't just kill a five year old thread. On the bright side, the built in wireless adapter in my computer started working well for no apparent reason the other day. That is, it started working well in ubuntu, but in vista, it has never even gotten a bad connection with my router.

[Duncan J Murray]

I'd say Ubuntu is nearly there.

The acid test - I installed it for my sister to use, and I didn't hear anything.

For a while... it wasn't until she started collaborating on a microsoft word file that I started getting calls about how the formatting was getting messed up. Unfortunately, that means she's back to using Windows XP.

I wonder if some work now needs to start in pressurising microsoft to open up there standards for file formats. I'm sure the European courts (after their recent success) would be keen to hear it...

Duncan.

[aysiu]

I wonder if some work now needs to start in pressurising microsoft to open up there standards for file formats. I'm sure the European courts (after their recent success) would be keen to hear it... With what leverage could we pressure Microsoft?

I think it'd make more sense to try to convince Windows users to use OpenOffice.

[bunorama]

1. SMART monitor should be default showing in the system tray. If linux is just eye candy, never mind this, but if it is a worthy operating system that is better than Winblows, don't ignore important hardware monitoring tools that everyone using a computer needs. I tried installing some things from Synaptic, smartmontools is one, which appears to be a command line only, there is no menu item for it.

2. Read the ubuntu forums, where you see 'google before posting, noob' you see a problem, few of these issues should be issues in the first place.

If it isn't intuitive, it isn't ready for desktop use.

3. When the system boots to grub 13 or some nonsense, there must be an option right there to straighten things out, it should say "System misconfiguration, trying to boot from xxx but cant, looks like we could boot from yyy or zzz though, wanna try?"

Grub is not strong enough for a casual user.

4. Name things what they are. If it is a file manager, then you can name it "Nautlus -file manager" but not just "file manager" because that is dumb. "Text Editor" "Disk Manager" "package manager" all great to show what they are but put the name of the program where people can see it.

5. Don't include tools like KATE - it has POPUPS. The profiles are junk, (EDIT: the bookmarks dont work (and if they did, it doesnt show the file name, it shows part of the content of the file?! nifty but silly ideas that should be optional). BECAUSE: nothing wrong with the bookmarks, I thought they were bookmarks to a file, but they are document bookmarks. My bad, but still, the recent opened list is buried under file/recent, which is inconvenient for me, but typical for an editor. Popups = my currently offline samba share is the default path, and every time I open KATE is complains with a POPUP that it can't find the share. THIS is the default editor in the KDE environment? Has KDE not been around long enough to have a super polished TEXT EDITOR?

6. Nautilus has no way to edit the toolbar. ha. ha. ha. Ridiculous that such a heavily developed - and really good tool IMO - probably the best file browser Linux has to offer - has no toolbar editor, I can't drag-select files, if there is no blank space after the files, there is no way to right click to create folder or whatever, it wont show both places and tree at the same time, the scripts are hidden in a sub-context menu with no way to put them right on the context menu nor on the toolbar(!). And it doesn't ALWAYS show drive space available!!!!!!!!! (Dolphin is much better at this). For all their greatness, they all fail for incompleteness in the most obvious missing functionality: Nautilus, Dolphin, Konqueror, Thunar. This isnt the place for more details on them all, but NONE are the power house file manager Explorer in XP was (with classic mode).... but they COULD be, so easily...

7. The default gnome start menu is utterly lame. There's no favourites, no search, GET THIS CLUE: windows people dont know where things are, search helps so much that it is unacceptable to have a start menu with no search + favorites. KDE has a much better one but IMO lancelot is best ... if not for the bugginess.

8. The eye candy is great but then again, I've found threads going back for YEARS about unsuably narrow window boarders. So I tried out some other things like Emerald, which is much heavier on the cpu, and it looks great until you get a prompt that has white text on a white background, which is inevitable, since everyone does their own thing in linux. There seems to be more than enough eye candy development, not enough basic gui dev.

9. I want a simple SFV gui that checks and renames the bad ones to .bad. This is VERY easy to find in windows, but linux? I guess the devs don't use sfv much. This isn't exactly a linux problem, but the fact is linux is missing a huge part of what I've come to expect on a PC. Am I to believe that not ONE developer type wanted a nice SFV gui and thought 'wow other people might like this!' and distributed it?

10. Synaptic shows a huge variety of softwares available but often these tools don't show up on the application menu, there's no shortcut, no nothing: worthless to a casual desktop user.

11. The system tray is resizeable so I can have 2 rows of running apps showing, and 2 rows in the system tray BUT this also resizes the quicklaunch icons to stupid-size. I don't want gigantic icons, I want 2 rows.

12. There is nothing like 'Free Ram XP Pro' for linux. The best you can do is have a graph with System Monitor (which by default has the colors setup so close you can't tell the difference between the up/dl and such on the graphs) There is no option to just show the friggin #s. Junk.

13. Basic 2ch sound is pretty easy to get (for me so far) but setting up a 5.1? No way. This is because the industry has introduced so many differernt sound cards that it is almost impossible to keep up. Creative labs is a leader in the industry, look at how many different sound cards they have - ridiculous they can't have a common driver, but that's them, not linux... It doesnt matter who is at 'fault' - the fact is you can't just grab any PC and expect Linux to run like XP would.

If you are an engineer that wants to add Linux OS to your list of skills, you've got it good.

If you are a casusal user, expect to add 'research' and 'oh you can't do that' to your expectations from linux.

[KIAaze]

5. Don't include tools like KATE - it has POPUPS. The profiles are junk, the bookmarks dont work (and if they did, it doesnt show the file name, it shows part of the content of the file?! nifty but silly ideas that should be optional). Popups = my currently offline samba share is the default path, and every time I open KATE is complains with a POPUP that it can't find the share. THIS is the default editor in the KDE environment? Has KDE not been around long enough to have a super polished TEXT EDITOR?


I have nothing against changing the default text editor, but personally kate is my favorite GUI text editor (especially because of regex search and replace (and autocomplete + built-in console)).
I actually like the popups telling me a file has been modified and asking me if I want to reload it.
As for the unavailable share popups, I never had them, but that's because I usually only edit local files or files on USB sticks.
Have you checked if they can be deactivated somewhere?
Otherwise, you can probably set kate to always use a new session, in which case I don't see why it would try to get files from the share.

Anyway, complaining here is useless. File bug reports to the appropriate applications instead.


6. Nautilus has no way to edit the toolbar. ha. ha. ha. Ridiculous that such a heavily developed - and really good tool IMO - probably the best file browser Linux has to offer - has no toolbar editor, I can't drag-select files, if there is no blank space after the files, there is no way to right click to create folder or whatever, it wont show both places and tree at the same time, the scripts are hidden in a sub-context menu with no way to put them right on the context menu nor on the toolbar(!). And it doesn't ALWAYS show drive space available!!!!!!!!! (Dolphin is much better at this). For all their greatness, they all fail for incompleteness in the most obvious missing functionality: Nautilus, Dolphin, Konqueror, Thunar. This isnt the place for more details on them all, but NONE are the power house file manager Explorer in XP was (with classic mode).... but they COULD be, so easily...

Does Windows Explorer have filesize view?
Konqueror does. (with a plugin, but it is possible: konqueror-plugin-fsview package)
And I never had problems with drag-select or create new folder in nautilus.
Konqueror:
toolbar editing: check
drag-select: check
right-click create new folder: check
show places+tree at the same time: check
add actions in context main menu: check
add actions to the toolbar: ?
always show available disk space: ? (but dolphin does)


they all fail for incompleteness in the most obvious missing functionality
And what would that be?
They all allow basic file management.

[bunorama]

KIAaze

5.
Kate is very nice but has some flaws which I mentioned.
1. Notifications: Gedit notifies the user when a file changes without a popup. Forced interaction popups are universally accepted as annoying, yet the Kate dev team chose this notification method, they made the wrong choice. (a system tray 'popup' that requires no uesr response is OK).
2. Anyway, complaining here is useless. File bug reports to the appropriate applications instead. Nope, I'm here to list the reasons I believe Linux is NOT a proper destkop OS, note the title of the thread. Kate is not so much the problem, but that Kate was selected as the default editor, like I said. My personal preferences are not the issue, but the fact that Kate is outright broken!
Kate bookmarks don't work. When a bookmark is added to 'somefile.txt' it shows the CONTENT of the file in the bookmark dropdown, and then the bookmarks go away after a while. Try it. Add a bookmark to a text file with NO first line - the bookmark will show '1 - ""' hahahaha and then edit the file so there is a first line, it will then show that first line where it should show the name of the file.
PLEASE this is nonsense. KDE has been around a long long time, there MUST be a better editor to distribute as the default!

6.
Does Windows Explorer have filesize view?
Explorer has a file size column... the status bar folder / drive size only shows when it feels like it. And the popup when selecting an empty cd drive are quite annoying, the biggest drawbacks to XP explorer. And the increased # of tab stops over 2k explorer make it unfriendly for the keyboard user.

Each Linux file manager is missing important features. Like I said, there are some robust and stable ones, in fact...

I'm going to digress on this one - the drawbacks are annoying but probably not enough to say they are not ready for desktop use. Overall the funcionality of the defaults for both KDE and Gnome are good enough.

Dolphin does have an awesome file space display.

I don't get why the dev teams would go so far in making a great program, then leave such out obvious features.

But I'm only going to change my mind on one of the 13, that leaves 12 good reasons Linux is not ready for Desktop use.

Definitly not ready for the average home user.

[KIAaze]

Kate bookmarks don't work. When a bookmark is added to 'somefile.txt' it shows the CONTENT of the file in the bookmark dropdown, and then the bookmarks go away after a while. Try it. Add a bookmark to a text file with NO first line - the bookmark will show '1 - ""' hahahaha and then edit the file so there is a first line, it will then show that first line where it should show the name of the file.


I think the bookmarks are meant to be bookmarks inside a file.
That's how I use them and it works very well for me.
In that case, writing the filename next to the bookmark is not necessary.
What could be nice of course, would be to list the bookmarks for all files, so that you can for example quickly jump from line A in file 1 to line B in file 2.
In that case adding the filename (or creating bookmark submenus) makes sense.

I don't know what you use kate for, but I find the Kate bookmark system very useful to quickly jump between functions in long source code files.
I don't even use the menu toolbar, just alt+pgup/pgdown.


Explorer has a file size column... the status bar folder / drive size only shows when it feels like it.
Filesize view looks like this: http://www.ninja-assassins.com/linux/screenshots/konqueror-filesize-view.png

[Exodist]

wow never seen this thread and I been here long as it has.. LOL

[bunorama]

I think the bookmarks are meant to be bookmarks inside a file.
That's how I use them and it works very well for me.
In that case, writing the filename next to the bookmark is not necessary.
What could be nice of course, would be to list the bookmarks for all files, so that you can for example quickly jump from line A in file 1 to line B in file 2.
In that case adding the filename (or creating bookmark submenus) makes sense.

I don't know what you use kate for, but I find the Kate bookmark system very useful to quickly jump between functions in long source code files.
I don't even use the menu toolbar, just alt+pgup/pgdown.


Filesize view looks like this: http://www.ninja-assassins.com/linux/screenshots/konqueror-filesize-view.png

That's interesting about the bookmarks, would be more intuitive to say "line 1 - intro" and "line 12 - Chapter 1" but in any case that does change things.

In explorer, I find the big files is to simply search the system for all files, then sort by size. If that's too much, break it down into folders.

Another thing I have not mentioned about Nautilus and Dolphin (I think all of them), the size column shows files in b, KiB, MiB. I prefer one size, KB is good. There are some lesser file managers that have better file displays, but they lack other features found in Dolphin and Nautilus. For example, Krusader does not navigate between panes properly (changing one pane doesn't update the other), PCMan wont show files and bookmars at the same time in the sidepane. Konqueror would be better to work with without all the web browsing stuff.

[Vignesh S]

Is is the longest thread ever or what? I've never seen this one before

While I'm still here, I'll put it this way in terms of linux "readiness"

When I mean ready, I mean all of the hardware working right "out of the box" without hunting for drivers. Too many times have I had to go hunting for drivers for things that just didn't work. Especially the time where I spent 8 hours getting wifi to work on my sister's netbook

This is momentous task, but is linux ready? For the computer enthusiast? Yes. But for the average person that just wants to get the task done? No, and linux has a long way to go before it is

[bwallum]

@1peter318

I felt your frustration too with regard to compatibility with Windows when first moving to Ubuntu. I wanted to keep Windows, something I knew, whilst trying Ubuntu. That was two years ago and I wouldn't go back to Windows now if you paid me. In product development terms Windows is coming to the end of it's 'cash cow' phase. I now view compatibility with Windows as a legacy issue, that is, interface with it when necessary (and all the tools are there, just ask) but the future is linux.

If you are an avid gamer locked into network shoot 'em ups then Windows will have much greater meaning for you. For anybody else using computers for a job of work, browser based entertainment, secure audio-visual communications and running home media systems then linux is much better now and I am sure the games side is not far behind.

[jwbrase]

The problem with evaluating how "Desktop ready" Linux is is that many of the factors in the "Desktop readiness" of an OS are really outside of the OS's control. I think that in terms of things it can control, ie, user interface and performance, Linux is definitely Desktop ready. But in terms of things that it can't (or can't completely) control, such as hardware compatibility (1st party drivers tend to be better than 3rd party drivers, and some manufacturers don't make 1st party drivers for their hardware) and website compatibility (I'm looking at those pernicious web designers who haven't caught up with the fact that even a good chunk of the still-loyal Windows user base is fleeing in droves from IE. And it seems to be the rarely-needed-but-important-when-needed websites that are the worst culprits.), Linux is still a long ways away from being desktop ready, and can't really do alot to change that at the moment.

Perhaps the question is not whether Linux is ready for the Desktop, but whether the Desktop is ready for Linux...

[Vostrocity]

Cool, the two choices I voted for were the two most-voted-for choices. :)

[Rogue dog]

Thread is 5 years old, my goodness it's been so long.

[loseby]

5 years old and ready for another smackdown

yes, Win7 wipes Ubuntu 9.04 badly ie. nice way of saying it :-)

example....downloaded the Ubuntu 9.04 iso using win7 and then just clicked on it in firefox downloads and the option to burn was there . A couple of minutes later all finished.

Once again two things really drag Ubuntu down, ATI graphics cards and sound cards like x-fi

Both are running now but not very well at all. I want two things from Linux..........the ability to get the latest drivers and install them with just a mouse click

edit: just one thing about MS, they continue to screw customers in Australia with their pricing and whilst Win7 is good Ubuntu is better value for money :-)

[hoppipolla]

I think it's down to user-friendliness, and presenting a desktop which compares to commercial alternatives in terms of aesthetics and functionality. It also should run on at least most mainstream hardware.

To be frank, I think we're not too far off if we make the right decisions. I think that if we were to combine the backend and user-friendly tools of Ubuntu in around a year with KDE 4.x at perhaps it's .5 incarnation with the 1-Click install system of openSUSE... I think we're there :)


Thread is 5 years old, my goodness it's been so long.

and yeah that's amazing! Strange this is actually the first time I've seen it, but then I haven't been on here this long this time round :)

[mclavey]

ready for the desktop .... to me means that it can run the 5 or 6 application that everyone can't get along without. like :

~software that comunitates with a special hardeware ie: gps , a scale , hearing aid programing hardeware, automotive interface hardeware,

~out of the box games.

All of the above are "windows" apps.

RUN WINDOWS APPS. AND EVERONE WILL COME TO USE IT. "WINE" IS THE ANSWER.


MAKE WINE WORK !!!!!

[bunorama]

Shortcuts? fail
Nautilus has a link maker, but NO send to desktop.
Dolphin can make links, but NOT to the selected file or folder.

I guess it is just too hard.
And why bother? Noone is interested in these things.

[bunorama]

I have a shortcut on the quicklaunch for a wine app.
The type icon shows DOS.

Right click > icon settings has no way to change the icon.

Linux is stupid.

[hoppipolla]

Shortcuts? fail
Nautilus has a link maker, but NO send to desktop.
Dolphin can make links, but NOT to the selected file or folder.

I guess it is just too hard.
And why bother? Noone is interested in these things.

Dolphin is still changing a lot though and being developed, I'm sure it's not that they don't want or intend to put in this stuff, just that they are very busy with lots of elements of KDE.

[bunorama]

The KDE System monitor memory column is too small for a 6 digit number.

So EVERY TIME I OPEN system monitor, I have to adjust the column.

Fail.

I suppose I should post this on a feature request form. I dunno where these devs come from but I suspect they are not actually using the tools they create.

Tip: Press control-escape for system monitor.

[hoppipolla]

ready for the desktop .... to me means that it can run the 5 or 6 application that everyone can't get along without. like :

~software that comunitates with a special hardeware ie: gps , a scale , hearing aid programing hardeware, automotive interface hardeware,

~out of the box games.

All of the above are "windows" apps.

RUN WINDOWS APPS. AND EVERONE WILL COME TO USE IT. "WINE" IS THE ANSWER.


MAKE WINE WORK !!!!!

not too bad a theory there :)


The KDE System monitor memory column is too small for a 6 digit number.

So EVERY TIME I OPEN system monitor, I have to adjust the column.

Fail.

I suppose I should post this on a feature request form. I dunno where these devs come from but I suspect they are not actually using the tools they create.

Tip: Press control-escape for system monitor.

you are currently redefining the word trivial. lol

[phillw]

I've had an interest in UNIX from 20 years ago, the last time I tried *nix, would be 10 years ago, with knoppix ... here I am with ubuntu 9.04 ....
In that time, MS have had some screaming blunders in their O/S's..
My brother uses an MS (Dell) computer - His main complaints are


AntiVirus / Mal ware scans have to be done weekly
Some sites that he has to use only support IE

One of the sites he has to use in his work is nearly ready to support FF, the help desk for that company are looking forward to it.

AV & Malware .... Well, it happens - If they get a working virus for *nix ... well, that'll be the web shut down, as some silly %ge of routing systems run on *nix. The argument of that 'there isn't enough personal computers running *nix to make it worth while" Simply does not hold water ...

Try "******* users are dumb, un-intelligent slaves, who make excellent bots"

Regardless of the OS, it is the blind trust that people put in the 'little' box that allows problems ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/03/click_botnet_experiment.html

Our public service provider made the news just by doing that .....

The same can be said of some sites that will not function if you have "No Script" installed into your FF browser. Hmmm... refused because of hidden form ? ..... Yup, the system is doing its job corectly. You ought to have heard my sister onto their customer services, then tech area, after she had a 'go' at me over her not being able to pay a couple of bills on-line.

Oddly enough, with the threat of being exposed, said companies now have working sites.

Do not put up with stuff, in the ubuntu environment your voices actually do matter - It is driven by people who use it. If you wish to ask for a new feature - ask !! If you (think) you have a 'bug' report it.

Well, that's my tuppence worth.

Phill.

[bunorama]

Then it should not be the default browser.

The link option is just too easy, a simple shell to ln.

Dolphin has no scripts. Even a 'call with the curent path+file as $1' seems simple enough. Borrow the nautilus code?

The 'open with' is a submenu, it should list at least the default open with right there on the context menu.

These things are just too helpful to overlook. I don't get it. I thought linux was done by people who do things better, more sensible and convenient.

And like I've mentioned before, the file list moves around left and right as if it were trying to be helpful but I find it annoying. It needs a disable checkbox.

[KIAaze]

I have a shortcut on the quicklaunch for a wine app.
The type icon shows DOS.

Right click > icon settings has no way to change the icon.

Linux is stupid.
In KDE?
Once in icon settings, just click on the icon to open an icon selection dialog.
Works for me on Kubuntu 9.04 and KDE v4.2.2.

But considering that the "icon settings" dialog allows to change all launcher properties, it should be renamed to "launcher settings" indeed. Note that Kubuntu 9.04 does not use the latest KDE release, so it's possible that some bugs have already been fixed. (I was unable to report a bug against KDE v4.2.2 on kde.org because of that)

edit:

Dolphin has no scripts. Even a 'call with the curent path+file as $1' seems simple enough. Borrow the nautilus code?
Dolphin DOES HAVE scripts!
And they work in Konqueror too.

Here's how:
http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/Creating_Konqueror_Service_Menus
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/tutorials/dot/servicemenus.html

[bunorama]

In KDE?
Once in icon settings, just click on the icon to open an icon selection dialog.
Works for me on Kubuntu 9.04 and KDE v4.2.2.

But considering that the "icon settings" dialog allows to change all launcher properties, it should be renamed to "launcher settings" indeed. Note that Kubuntu 9.04 does not use the latest KDE release, so it's possible that some bugs have already been fixed. (I was unable to report a bug against KDE v4.2.2 on kde.org because of that)

edit:

Dolphin DOES HAVE scripts!
And they work in Konqueror too.

Here's how:
http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Tutorials/Creating_Konqueror_Service_Menus
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/tutorials/dot/servicemenus.html

Thanks for the link.
And actually... scripts are not really part of desktop readiness issues, but the icon thing is.

The Icon issue ... for Wine and Bash I cannot click the icon. For all my other shortcuts, I can.

[loseby]

well finally Ubuntu installs correct sound drivers etc for x-fi on installation of 9.10 ( still slight bug with it auto muting at startup)

video performance still sub par but looking good

[bunorama]

well finally Ubuntu installs correct sound drivers etc for x-fi on installation of 9.10 ( still slight bug with it auto muting at startup)

video performance still sub par but looking good

You're lucky. From the dozens of threads I read about that card, it is hit and miss. Good luck if you have to reload :P

The problem is more with Creative, they've flooded the market with excessive #s of chipsets. It would be easier for everyone, espeically Creative, to have used a common API.

[bunorama]

I had some networking issues which I resolved.
Everything works fine now.

When the problem started, the KDE network manage widget crashed.
The network is fixed, but the Network Manager is not visible.
It is there, I can see it make room when I add/remove it.
Right click works, can bring up the window.

But the window doesn't show information, it's worthless.
No IP, no ETH0 no ... nothing.

Why does KDE like this 'network manager' crapware so much to include it?

Desktop Readiness = no crapware.

[ekilfoil]

The only program I don't have an open sourcce alternative to is Counter-Strike and Ventrilo, both of which run excellently under wine ;)

But alas, you can use Mangler to replace Ventrilo. It's native Linux and open source. Check out http://www.mangler.org/

[aaronchall]

I'm going to weigh in here, by gosh.

Look, "Ready for the desktop" literally means nothing other than:
A. Have a desktop?
B. Will X go on it?
If A and B are satisfied, X is "Ready for the desktop."

It doesn't mean that a 2 year old can sit down and run Matlab on it.

It doesn't even mean that the "average computer user" can even surf the net on it.

Regardless, still people complain that it's "not ready for the desktop" simply because they can't flip a switch and everything works perfectly. What they perhaps mean is "they aren't ready for Linux/Ubuntu/command-lines/following-instructions/etc..." But as Ubuntu continues to evolve and become more user friendly and support more hardware off the .iso, fewer people will find themselves in that category, and more people will get frustrated with XP/Vista/6.9 and decide, after checking it out, that Linux may be right for them. I've decided it's right for me, but I have so many dissatifiers with Windows that I'd rather blow a couple extra thousand bucks on a Mac than go back, but I'll never do that, because I hate how Apple feels it must control absolutely everything. Linux is the ultimate in giving control to the user. Microsoft pretends to give control, but you lose it with every new app installed, every update.

But soon, I'm going to be putting 10.4 on my family's computers. They will have secure and stable computers without all the issues Windows has, along with all the free software they can use. Why 10.4? It'll be a long term support release, and I won't have them updating with every new release, just getting the patches automatically installed. Once configured, they won't be bothering me about stuff not working.

Linux is gaining ground, and taking users from Windows.