Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[prizrak]

Yes I understand where you are coming from as far as switching is concerned. The way I look at a distro is how big and responsive community it has, what kind of documentation it has, what latest features they have, how stable the company which owns it is and how hard the developers work to incorporate the features which are very important for the end user. Based on all those I chose Kubuntu over OpenSuse. I have no plans to switch to any other OS except Kubuntu as most of my hardware works and more important I have a better feeling with Kubuntu that whatever problems I have they will be solved soon. Someone here suggested I use Gentoo (Porbably he was making fun of me......), like I could use Gentoo, yeah right.)

Keith.

Keith.

Gentoo needs lots of babysitting the friend who is using OpenSuSE now switched to it from Gentoo because he didn't have the time to keep it running anymore. I'm sure we'll see you on the forums for a bit if you are sticking with Kubuntu

[rsambuca]

If that's the case then OOo should have no problem whatsoever. Office 2007 sux horribly and has removed much of the functionality.

??? That opinion is by far the minority. Search around for reviews - Office 2007 is decent software although the UI is a little different than people are used to.

[prizrak]

Under "Desktop Ready" I would add that an application is intuitive, easy to understand how to control and use, and the graphical interface looks sharp and/or pretty.

First and foremost define intuitive. If you have used Windows before then right clicking on something to get to a menu is "intuitive" if you are used to OS X then you are used for Apple+Click for the same. If you use Linux you are used to middle click paste, wouldn't work in any other OS. Also I would argue that a default Gnome install is "intuitive" it has icons that seem descriptive to me and you click on them for things to happen. Sure the GIMP may not be all that intuitive but then again neither is Photoshop. So are we talking OS itself or just the software than runs on top of it?

Secondly GUI looking sharp and/or pretty is 100% subjective. Some people love the OS X look I for one can't stand it. This is true for just about anything, my mother loves sedans and no other kind of cars, I like mostly liftback coupe's. This is strictly looks based not performance or anything else. If you want to use looks as a measure of desktop readiness then I would suggest easy themeability/skinability (yeah I made those words up) rather than default good look.

[prizrak]

??? That opinion is by far the minority. Search around for reviews - Office 2007 is decent software although the UI is a little different than people are used to.

I used both 2003 (extensively) and 2007 (not as extensively since it's recent) and 2007 is actually missing some functionality that has been around since 97. As an example, there is no more insert picture from scanner you have to use a different program (included in Office Ultimate not sure about others) to scan the file and edit it before putting it into the document. As a result what used to take me about 5 minutes took a half hour.

The thing is not necessarily that Office 2007 sux by itself but that it's not as good as the previous version. Add on top of that a new interface (it's not a little different, it's quite a bit different) and OOo becomes on about the same level for like 70% of people out there.

[rsambuca]

The thing is not necessarily that Office 2007 sux by itself but that it's not as good as the previous version. Add on top of that a new interface (it's not a little different, it's quite a bit different) and OOo becomes on about the same level for like 70% of people out there.

OK, I can accept that. It is a little different from your previous statement that "2007 sux horribly"!! Just keepin' it real, dawg.

[Frak]

I used both 2003 (extensively) and 2007 (not as extensively since it's recent) and 2007 is actually missing some functionality that has been around since 97. As an example, there is no more insert picture from scanner you have to use a different program (included in Office Ultimate not sure about others) to scan the file and edit it before putting it into the document. As a result what used to take me about 5 minutes took a half hour.

The thing is not necessarily that Office 2007 sux by itself but that it's not as good as the previous version. Add on top of that a new interface (it's not a little different, it's quite a bit different) and OOo becomes on about the same level for like 70% of people out there.

That is where intuitiveness and usability argues against functionality and features.
I LOVE Office '07, and find it more enjoyable to use than OO.o because of its ease of use, and everything it put in human readable form, in menu's that make sense. Nothing is put where a person that would use logic that is not known by you or I, but where the general population could easily be more productive.
My two cents.

[prizrak]

That is where intuitiveness and usability argues against functionality and features.
I LOVE Office '07, and find it more enjoyable to use than OO.o because of its ease of use, and everything it put in human readable form, in menu's that make sense. Nothing is put where a person that would use logic that is not known by you or I, but where the general population could easily be more productive.
My two cents.

I find it completely illogical. That random button that hides most of the menu makes very little sense. Oversized menu buttons take up way too much screen.

Aside from all of that, MS's main weapon is familiarity. Look at the complaints on the forum there is a huge number that basically boils down to "this is not what I'm used to in Windows". When they redesign the GUI to the point where someone who's worked with their product for years needs to relearn again what's going on they loose that edge. I actually seen comments from people on Vista that it's too different from XP and that they have to learn how to use the computer again. This basically supports that the whole "intuitive interface" is nothing more than a myth. To a fresh person it makes no difference in terms of "intuitiveness" whether it's Aqua, KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Aero, Aero Glass, or Explorer that runs the interface. However I have seen people who are used to Windows get confused on the Mac (and that's supposed to be the most intuitive interface). Hell when I started using Win95 I couldn't figure out where Norton Commander was and why I can't just type my commands anymore. All that clicking wasn't "intuitive" it seemed unnecessary.

[bro]

After Feisty's install and Windows reinstall at the same time I come rethink the issue. Maybe there are no Desktop-ready OS's today.
Feisty's live cd didn't startup due to Ati X1400. Edgy did it. I won't rant on how stupid this is. Appart from these kind of childish bugs that should obviously not appear in an professional OS Ubuntu is ready.

Windows on the other side... I have an official XP cd but can't install from that because it doesn't have sata drivers and I don't have a floppy-disk. Asking for a floppy disk with the drivers for a sata disk is an insult. No professional OS should insult it 's users. Not being able to startup and install at least the minimum without additional help is again 'a childish bug that should not appear...'

Ubuntu doesn't come with all drivers and codecs as they could or should or as we all dream about. Yes I use Automatix.

Windows does worse by far. My graphic drivers are not installed after I use the recovery cd that came with my laptop (has sata drivers though). Neither installed is my network card or wireless card. Mind you, this is the official windows recovery / install cd. My XP doesn't play a long list of file types. The help file 'helps' me to the site of a certain Redmond based company where I can buy the codecs. Even though I live in country where I can legally download and install them for free from another place. A OS that makes you pay can be professional, an OS that makes you pay for something that's obviously free....

I'm surprised how little many people who work with computers daily know about them. And how it becomes harder every day to comprehend for me that they just don't know, don't care and will never know.. For these people any computer with big icons on the desktop that spell 'Internet' 'Email' 'Office' is 'ready'. They accept whatever anomaly appears as something 'that computers do'. My girlfriend switched to ubuntu without any pain whatsoever. And still she is a smart person who cares a little. I'm sure my mother and most of my collegeas would do the same. They would frown slightly at the different look, find the firefox icon, notice that office looks 'more or less' the same (they only used bold, italic, an occasional table and page preview as features beyond a text-editor anyway).. and continue to work with it.

The less it bothers them with questions the better they consider it. By far Ubuntu has less pop-up questions then windows. Ubuntu is therefore more desktop ready.

gee long post.

[freesky2]

I don't like Ubuntu! It's NOT easy to work with, very SUPER HARD infact. I can't get my belkin wireless card to install, nor can I get my on-board sound to install.

What good is this OS "Ubuntu" if you can't go online to the internet OR get sound? I tried for many hours and hours and hours. I gave up. I will stay with VISTA!

At least I can go to the internet with NO problem and listen to music.

[Gmbrdilos]

relax man, if you have a question ask it instead of releasing anger.