rozojc
October 25th, 2005, 12:08 AM
Well, I just read most of the thread titled "Was Breezy Rushed?" and I was surprised at many different comments. So, here's my 2 cents, I don't put on that thread as it is a different topic (although related).
The following are my impressions and thoughts about Ubuntu. Now, I am not a Linux guru, probably never will be, I have known Linux for a long time, but I didn't make a complete change to Linux until recently for several reasons. In other words, I'd like to give my opinion as a former Windows user who does not (totally) hate Microsoft, and who has seen Linux evolve trying to be a desktop system for a while (not that long, but I have seen its evolution for over 6 years).
Why didn't I change completely to Linux before this? Basically because whether we like it or not there are many things that Windows can offer that Linux can't. Let me explain this further before you flame me:
I first tried Mandrake linux when it was in version 7 or so. At that point I used my computer primarily for surfing the net, and writing documents. I was impressed by the screenshots of Mandrake and thought I might give it a try. I only used it for a month before I went back to Windows. Why? I don't think Windows is great, it's definitely far from that; but Linux advocates many times don't give it the credit it deserves.
Now, here I'd like to talk about an "argument" I read in another thread. Somebody said that if you don't like to tweak things and get your hands dirty you shouln't use Linux. I think that is definitely wrong, and it's precisely a thought that has slowed the arrival of Linux to the desktop. In order for Linux to arrive to the desktop it should try to make things A LOT easier for the common user. A common user (and by common I mean someone that just wants to use a computer without thinking on how it works, and that is a big percentage of users) is not interested in the command line. A common user wants things to be plug and play. A common user wants to be able to install things easily, and to have everything working fine.
Ubuntu has impressed me in that sense. The new update manager (although hiding the power of synaptic) is great in that sense. A lot of my colleges who didn't even know linux existed before I showed them my laptop saw it and thought it was easier than Windows Update. That's a very good thing!
Besides that, I installed it on my laptop and (almost) everything was working out of the box. Sound was recognized, as well as video, ethernet, etc.. Hot USB is great as it basically works as in Windows, so people used to plug their memory sticks will be glad about this.
Now the bad... I had to read a lot in order to get WIFI working by using ndiswrapper. I agree, it's not that difficult, but let's face it: my mom wouldn't be able to do it, he would have to call me to get the darn thing working. In window$ XP it worked out of the box and it automatically detects networks and asks you if you want to connect. Now, for the ones who are thinking "You can do that by installing the Wireless Connection Manager and adding it to the panel" well... that's my point, you have to first search the net to see that it exists, install it and add it to the panel. Whether we like it or not these are the kind of things that scare away many users, as people would really prefer it came pre-installed. Again, I'm not saying it's hard or anything, just that for Linux to really start gaining more "common users" it needs to work on these kind of things.
Regarding software: I'm very happy with the selection of software Ubuntu includes. For an average user it's very complete. Now, I understand that because of copyright stuff and proprietary licenses etc. it's not possible to include the w32 codecs, but that really takes points off as again it's one more thing people have to find out that they exist and how to install them. Again, it's not hard, but I know MANY people that would just switch back to Window$ at that thought.
Now, Windows does not work perfectly, I give you that, but we got to give it some credit. I mean, they have existed for a while, so yes, they haven't made a great system, but many things are easy for people. Linux does not have a standard way of installing applications... Debian uses apt, Red Hat (Fedora) and others use rpms, slackware uses what was it name? well, whatever, some applications you have to build them from source to work, that surely scares many users away. That, whether we like it or not, works in Windows simpler, double click on the installer and keep clicking "Next" until it's done...
Then there's the compatibility issue... I have a dual boot with windows, why? Because the school at which I work use an ACESS "program" for report cards. They give us a pre generated ACESS file with a simple GUI to fill in grades and they won't change it. I don't trust Wine for that (as if I can't afford it crashing, not even once), and there's no other way I could run it. Lately I tried installing a Windows ME over Qemu (I know, ME sucks but it's just lighter than installing the XP over Qemu) and it seems to work OK. But again, many colleges of mine would say "no way, Id rather use Windows and not have compatibility issues with the grading software". Of course, there's no transparent way of running those ACCESS files perfectly on Linux, but in practical terms, its just one example of how people sometimes depend on certain software that just can't be run over Linux.
Regarding support: the best there is. You ask something and somebody helps you! I hadn't seen that in MANY places.
Regarding speed: I don't know why people complain about this. Maybe by some reason in my laptop it's okay, but it takes about the same time to load as my XP... And I have the same services running in both: mySQL, Apache, etc...
Overall:
I think Ubuntu is a great distro. It's easy to use, and many common users can find things that will make them think they're at home. Again, I don't use the update manager but it's definitely a good thing for common users. I feel there's room for improvement in making things easier, and yes, in hiding things from users. My personal opinion: if you're into Linux to get your hands dirty and do things yourself, I don't know, use Slackware or something, but if Ubuntu is trying to reach desktop users, then yes, you have to hide how things work and just make a damn good looking system that works on as much hardware as possible. Ubuntu is good looking, but again, there's room for improvement... I don't know if I'm wrong here, but if for example desklets were included by default, better splashscreens and wall paper, more nice-looking boot up process (again, if this distro is desktop oriented, does a common user really need see how all services start up?), etc., probably it would get more users.
Anyway, just wanted to share some of my opinions and I would definitely like to hear what people have to say about them :)
The following are my impressions and thoughts about Ubuntu. Now, I am not a Linux guru, probably never will be, I have known Linux for a long time, but I didn't make a complete change to Linux until recently for several reasons. In other words, I'd like to give my opinion as a former Windows user who does not (totally) hate Microsoft, and who has seen Linux evolve trying to be a desktop system for a while (not that long, but I have seen its evolution for over 6 years).
Why didn't I change completely to Linux before this? Basically because whether we like it or not there are many things that Windows can offer that Linux can't. Let me explain this further before you flame me:
I first tried Mandrake linux when it was in version 7 or so. At that point I used my computer primarily for surfing the net, and writing documents. I was impressed by the screenshots of Mandrake and thought I might give it a try. I only used it for a month before I went back to Windows. Why? I don't think Windows is great, it's definitely far from that; but Linux advocates many times don't give it the credit it deserves.
Now, here I'd like to talk about an "argument" I read in another thread. Somebody said that if you don't like to tweak things and get your hands dirty you shouln't use Linux. I think that is definitely wrong, and it's precisely a thought that has slowed the arrival of Linux to the desktop. In order for Linux to arrive to the desktop it should try to make things A LOT easier for the common user. A common user (and by common I mean someone that just wants to use a computer without thinking on how it works, and that is a big percentage of users) is not interested in the command line. A common user wants things to be plug and play. A common user wants to be able to install things easily, and to have everything working fine.
Ubuntu has impressed me in that sense. The new update manager (although hiding the power of synaptic) is great in that sense. A lot of my colleges who didn't even know linux existed before I showed them my laptop saw it and thought it was easier than Windows Update. That's a very good thing!
Besides that, I installed it on my laptop and (almost) everything was working out of the box. Sound was recognized, as well as video, ethernet, etc.. Hot USB is great as it basically works as in Windows, so people used to plug their memory sticks will be glad about this.
Now the bad... I had to read a lot in order to get WIFI working by using ndiswrapper. I agree, it's not that difficult, but let's face it: my mom wouldn't be able to do it, he would have to call me to get the darn thing working. In window$ XP it worked out of the box and it automatically detects networks and asks you if you want to connect. Now, for the ones who are thinking "You can do that by installing the Wireless Connection Manager and adding it to the panel" well... that's my point, you have to first search the net to see that it exists, install it and add it to the panel. Whether we like it or not these are the kind of things that scare away many users, as people would really prefer it came pre-installed. Again, I'm not saying it's hard or anything, just that for Linux to really start gaining more "common users" it needs to work on these kind of things.
Regarding software: I'm very happy with the selection of software Ubuntu includes. For an average user it's very complete. Now, I understand that because of copyright stuff and proprietary licenses etc. it's not possible to include the w32 codecs, but that really takes points off as again it's one more thing people have to find out that they exist and how to install them. Again, it's not hard, but I know MANY people that would just switch back to Window$ at that thought.
Now, Windows does not work perfectly, I give you that, but we got to give it some credit. I mean, they have existed for a while, so yes, they haven't made a great system, but many things are easy for people. Linux does not have a standard way of installing applications... Debian uses apt, Red Hat (Fedora) and others use rpms, slackware uses what was it name? well, whatever, some applications you have to build them from source to work, that surely scares many users away. That, whether we like it or not, works in Windows simpler, double click on the installer and keep clicking "Next" until it's done...
Then there's the compatibility issue... I have a dual boot with windows, why? Because the school at which I work use an ACESS "program" for report cards. They give us a pre generated ACESS file with a simple GUI to fill in grades and they won't change it. I don't trust Wine for that (as if I can't afford it crashing, not even once), and there's no other way I could run it. Lately I tried installing a Windows ME over Qemu (I know, ME sucks but it's just lighter than installing the XP over Qemu) and it seems to work OK. But again, many colleges of mine would say "no way, Id rather use Windows and not have compatibility issues with the grading software". Of course, there's no transparent way of running those ACCESS files perfectly on Linux, but in practical terms, its just one example of how people sometimes depend on certain software that just can't be run over Linux.
Regarding support: the best there is. You ask something and somebody helps you! I hadn't seen that in MANY places.
Regarding speed: I don't know why people complain about this. Maybe by some reason in my laptop it's okay, but it takes about the same time to load as my XP... And I have the same services running in both: mySQL, Apache, etc...
Overall:
I think Ubuntu is a great distro. It's easy to use, and many common users can find things that will make them think they're at home. Again, I don't use the update manager but it's definitely a good thing for common users. I feel there's room for improvement in making things easier, and yes, in hiding things from users. My personal opinion: if you're into Linux to get your hands dirty and do things yourself, I don't know, use Slackware or something, but if Ubuntu is trying to reach desktop users, then yes, you have to hide how things work and just make a damn good looking system that works on as much hardware as possible. Ubuntu is good looking, but again, there's room for improvement... I don't know if I'm wrong here, but if for example desklets were included by default, better splashscreens and wall paper, more nice-looking boot up process (again, if this distro is desktop oriented, does a common user really need see how all services start up?), etc., probably it would get more users.
Anyway, just wanted to share some of my opinions and I would definitely like to hear what people have to say about them :)