Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[matthinckley]

Well this is just a big collage of Linux isn't ready threads isn't it.

[dreadlord_chris]

for those who may not know, or who have forgotten:
All Operating Systems Suck!

All operating systems suck. They suck, blow, bite, chomp, chew, spit, dribble, drool, blubber, blabber, and puke. Every last one of 'em sucks in some way or other. They are designed for maximal sysadmin discomfort by festering syphillitic marketroids. Not one does not suck.

Have a nice day

[aysiu]

Well this is just a big collage of Linux isn't ready threads isn't it.

Yes. And if you read them, you'll see that:
1. They all think they're original
2. They're all about the same
3. None of them actually results in the improvement of Ubuntu
4. Very few have practically implementable suggestions

[keith11]

Hardware requires drivers and drivers are OS specific. If your wireless card isn't supported by the driver or you are using a driver that wasn't designed to work with your kernel it won't work. These are things that can't always be resolved by the distro maintainers.

If you don't want to upgrade don't no one is making you. Get an LTS release, they carry 3 years of support. The current LTS is Dapper next LTS will be in about a year according to Mark maybe 18 month (either Gutsy+1 or +2). You can also go use Debian if you want something that is 100% stable and won't be upgraded anytime soon. They have like 4 years between releases or something. If you want rolling updates there are other distros to try, Gentoo is one of them. I think Arch and Zenwalk are on the same schedule but I'm not sure. In short if it doesn't work well for you don't use it. No reason to make yourself work harder than you have to. I understand you like Ubuntu but there are many distros out there and you may prefer one of them. My friend recently switched from Gentoo to SuSE but obsolutely hated Ubuntu.

I've used Ubuntu since Warty (first ever release) and it has always worked perfectly for me on all my systems. Then Edgy decided to suck horribly on my tablet (still worked fine on my laptop till the mobo died). The desktop was taken offline so I was stuck on Windows until Feisty Herd 2 came out and I decided to give it a whirl. I have been on Feisty since and everything but the special keys worked great. The special keys required no more than an install of a 3rd party driver (in DEB format at that so a simple double click) and configuring them to do work with certain commands. All 100% GUI based.

You talk about not wanting to compare to the competition but at the same time you talk about what is necessary for desktop success. However you mention technical issues, this makes it possible and in fact fair to compare Ubuntu to competition. When we do we find that the competition also suffers from problems and while they may be different they level the playing field. Since the playing field is level when it comes to technical quality we should look at other issues.

Issue #1 - Hardware
Windows and OS X are installed by an OEM, all the drivers are loaded and tested. The hardware configuration is tested and made sure to work reasonably well. Thus the system works seemingly out of the box. This is not because the system is great this is because it was already set up.

Linux needs to be installed in 99% of the cases by the user. The hardware is w/e was lying around at the moment, not all drivers may be shipped with the kernel of your distro so they will require hunting them down. Some hardware may not even have a driver available or the driver is broken (happens in both Windows and OS X world frequently as well). Thus the system seems to not be working out of the box.

Issue #2 - Marketing forces
Windows (and before it DOS) has been on computer for years. Reasons for it are numerous but mostly because it was first designed to run on IBM PC's and sold with them. When the architecture became open it naturally worked on any IBM compatible PC as it was designed for that platform. This made it very cheap for the OEM's to produce PC's as they didn't have to pour money into OS development they only had to provide a system that was compatible with IBM specification. They would also have to write drivers for their hardware or just use the hardware available on the market with such drivers. By the time Windows came out just about every PC in the world ran DOS (remember Torvalds didn't start writing Linux till 91 and it was pretty much useless outside of his computer when he put it up online). This meant that MS already had developed relationships with OEM's and ISV's. Additionally MS made a very brilliant move of providing development tools for programmers at either ludicrously small prices or free. So even though Apple had a GUI interface by then it was more expensive to buy and more expensive to develop for. By the time MS had a GUI there was an army of developers and a huge number of contracts in place. It was the cheaper choice and people went for it. This created vendor lock-in and people became dependent on MS software.

Issue #3 - intuitiveness.
Linux isn't harder to use than either Windows or OS X, however it is very difficult to learn for someone who is used to either environment. Reason for it being is that they look similar and behave in a similar fashion but they are very different. So when you try to do the same thing you would on one platform in another you get frustrated and it seems harder than it has to be. As a case in point, my father upgraded his home desktop to Office 2007 and both me and my mother are completely lost in it because the interface was redesigned. While my mother is pretty computer illiterate I just happen to be an IT professional and have used Windows for about 10 years and Ubuntu for like 3 so obviously learning how to do something is not a big issue. If a changed interface in Word frustrates and confuses me, you can't expect a "regular" user to be comfortable with a whole new OS. Of course when it comes to Office and Windows in general people will just put up with it. They take it as a part of the game that they need to learn how to do it the new way because they see no way out. When it comes to Linux of course people hold it to a higher standard and when something doesn't work just go back to the familiar environment, since there really is nothing forcing them to use it.

Basically all your arguments and "insights" have been rehashed for years and years and apply equally to the big 3. This is why people pretty much tell you to go on your merry way, we are all aware of the problems, the developers are aware of the problems, those problems are being worked on and alot of them aren't even problems with the OS/software itself.

Thanks for an informative response rather than a shrugging-it-off one. I like the information you provided about the beginning days of windows and linux. I upgraded because I had issues with Edgy, of course otherwise I wouldn't have upgraded. And I could have installed Dapper Drake but I assumed that just as it would be expected that the issues in Edgy would be fixed in Feisty, the issues in Dapper Drake were fixed in Edgy and certainly anyone would like to use a version with less bugs. Let me ask you this: If I use Dapper, wouldn't I be using older versions of drivers for my hardware? I am fine with that as long as it works nicely. I tried reading about Dapper Drake but I couldn't well figure out what the technicalities are which make it more stable and in what aspects.

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

It's your choice to give up but this have solution, indeed it is an annoying problem that some may have (most won't) but it has a simple solution.

Editing the xorg.conf is NOT a "simple solution". It is NOt a solution at all. It seeks to overcome the inherent problem but fails. A proper solution is needed.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...xorg/+bug/3731

Note:

STATUS = CONFIRMED
IMPORTANCE = CRITICAL

The proper solution, the "simple solution", is for Ubuntu to correctly auto detect screen resolutions, bit color depth and refresh rates.

[freebird54]

That seems a bit much - there is no system that can do that. Certainly not anything released for a desktop level machine. While I agree that editing xorg.conf is not a PRETTY solution, at least it is always 'to hand' - unlike my experiences in XP where the 'settings' tab would not even come up so one could edit them at all. Beyond that though - best that could be hoped for is detection of 'maximum possibility', not the correct (for the user) value.

[julian67]

That seems a bit much - there is no system that can do that. Certainly not anything released for a desktop level machine. While I agree that editing xorg.conf is not a PRETTY solution, at least it is always 'to hand' - unlike my experiences in XP where the 'settings' tab would not even come up so one could edit them at all. Beyond that though - best that could be hoped for is detection of 'maximum possibility', not the correct (for the user) value.

It's more accurate to say that there is possibly no Debian derived system which can do that. This is something that is accomplished by other distros with different set up tools. When I install openSUSE it does correctly configure screen resolution, physical dimensions, depth and refresh rates and allows test and adjustment as necessary as part of the install/set up. Unfortunately the Debian X Configuration tool seems to completely ignore important parameters like physical size and modes. Realistically the Debian set up tool is just intended to get you started with something useable and the user should then configure X properly. This is fine for Debian's intended users but probably not adequate for Ubuntu's purposes.

btw my Intel 945GM integrated graphics is fine in openSuse, was also fine in Dapper, was OK in Edgy after editing xorg.conf, but in Feisty X is horrible....unstable...crashes, freezes. I'll have to reconfigure it and see if it can be made to work.

[freebird54]

I don't doubt that more might be done than Ubuntu does - but I still say that no OS can do what you requested. The 'correct' settings for such things as colour depth and resolution cannot be determined by hard or software because the correct setting may change hourly or even more often, depending on the needs/wants of the user. today I want 1600x1200 @ 24 depth, later I may 800x600 @ 16 depth for maximum visibility of something. Thus my position that maximum can be detected, but correct can not.

[Brunellus]

SaX is an excellent tool, and probably the single best thing SuSE has going for it. It was also proprietary for a long time. I don't know whether or not there's any move to port it to Debian or any of the Debian daughters.

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

I don't doubt that more might be done than Ubuntu does - but I still say that no OS can do what you requested..

All I request is to use my monitor and GPU as they are meant to be used. To adjust the screen resolution, color depth and refresh rate.

If you say that no OS can do this then I suggest you look beyond Ubuntu and broaden your experience of what other OS can actually do.

This discussion is basically meaningless in the context that this problem is known and will shortly be worked on. Hopefully to be resolved by Gutsy Gibbon in October.