PDA

View Full Version : DO you think Ubuntu or Linux has somecatching up to do?



mahela007
March 17th, 2009, 07:03 AM
Do you think there are ANY areas in which ubuntu/linux has to catch up to commercial software? (this is not a criticism of Ubuntu or linux. I just want to know everyone's opinion.....)

Muffinabus
March 17th, 2009, 07:05 AM
Gaming and video drivers?

konqueror7
March 17th, 2009, 07:11 AM
drivers. i'm not saying that the linux community should be doing this, but those hardware vendors should do the catching up...

i also would like to see in the future that all linux has a standard (desktop) environment and package management...i'm not saying that the current linux setup is bad, but wouldn't it be easier for linux users and new linux users alike to have that capability to just install applications no matter what the package?

kikoman
March 17th, 2009, 07:13 AM
A lot of developer focus on distros of their own hoping they would be the next Bill gates.

But if you look into it, an example is, there is no good WYSIWYG web page editor software. The only good one is Kompozer which crashes often, there is this school that teaches front page for webpage design, I would have suggested Kompozer but the way it acts, no its not recommended.

Its the 3rd party software that needs catching up.

lisati
March 17th, 2009, 07:20 AM
Video editing? I want something more than basic similarity to "Windows MovieMaker" (although the copy that came with Vista on my current laptop is a little bit better than the one which comes with XP. Amongst other things it supports more video formats)

elmago79
March 17th, 2009, 08:07 AM
Desktop Publishing.

Sashin
March 17th, 2009, 08:40 AM
It needs to be able to do most of the things that the other OS's ca do but it also needs more distinct features to set it apart from the rest.

SunnyRabbiera
March 17th, 2009, 08:44 AM
drivers. i'm not saying that the linux community should be doing this, but those hardware vendors should do the catching up...

i also would like to see in the future that all linux has a standard (desktop) environment and package management...i'm not saying that the current linux setup is bad, but wouldn't it be easier for linux users and new linux users alike to have that capability to just install applications no matter what the package?

Yeh sure force everyone to use the same boring interface and force them all to use .exe or some crap like that.
Linux is about diversity, having choice in the DE and package management makes Linux in general more diverse.
Want one interface and one installer?
Use windows.

konqueror7
March 17th, 2009, 09:06 AM
Yeh sure force everyone to use the same boring interface and force them all to use .exe or some crap like that.
Linux is about diversity, having choice in the DE and package management makes Linux in general more diverse.
Want one interface and one installer?
Use windows.

i'm not saying that all those not being included as a standard should just be forgotten, what i meant is that, in a way, linux should give the users a common setup or environment. by giving something like a standard, developers and users alike would benefit in a way that they can have a common set of software to work with. like having the default shell in windows but having the option to install other shell replacement.

i know the diversity of linux, and its great, but considering that almost every linux distro makers today tend to compete to be the next Bill Gates (as kikoman said)...

beniwtv
March 17th, 2009, 09:32 AM
After all, it depends on your requirements and time to learn.

For _me_, Ubuntu is already WAY ahead of anything else. But this is for _me_. Other people may have other requirements, where Ubuntu still could lag behind.

Also a common problem seems to be that many people are used to do things a certain way, which doesn't work the same in Ubuntu. I found myself in that group until I learned to work with the tools Ubuntu gave me, and now, I couldn't be happier.

Cheers,

k2t0f12d
March 17th, 2009, 09:32 AM
drivers. i'm not saying that the linux community should be doing this, but those hardware vendors should do the catching up...

The kernel team loves doing this very thing. Every kernel patch done is almost completely comprised of additions and changes to drivers. Its just being allowed the specifications to do more of it. Hardware vendors could actually have an easy ride with driver development...simply release specs and let the users do the rest. That's much preferable to following yet another buggy proprietary driver release schedule.


i also would like to see in the future that all linux has a standard (desktop) environment and package management...i'm not saying that the current linux setup is bad, but wouldn't it be easier for linux users and new linux users alike to have that capability to just install applications no matter what the package?

I would really be cautious in following this line of thinking. What you are looking at are two different mistakes rolled into one. What you are proposing has been done many times before. It didn't work for Apple, nor BeOS, nor Amiga, nor any other contender since Micro$oft reached monopoly. All of those other OS's have nice technical features, including standardized interfaces that distinguished them from any others, but it didn't save them from obscurity. The one thing that GNU+Linux has aside from the four freedoms is its ability to adapt and support many distinguishable environments. Promiscuity, adaptability, and university are the key things that drive this platform forward.

Eisenwinter
March 17th, 2009, 09:52 AM
Gaming and video drivers?
That's exactly what I was thinking, and in a way, it's not even Linux's fault.

Most manufacturers don't provide drivers for Linux, and developers have to reverse engineer them, so this take a lot more time to develop.

In all areas except that, and the fact we don't have Cubase, I think Linux is far ahead of commercial software, because developers listen to their users.

binbash
March 17th, 2009, 10:19 AM
Linux/Ubuntu needs a lot of things to be done.It is not quite ready for masses.For example if you want to use a webcam on msn you have to use amsn which looks like SHI.T with tcl tk.

konqueror7
March 17th, 2009, 10:47 AM
@k2t0f12d
but then, wouldn't the linux community some competition, after all, the target is primarily those mac and windows users...one thing i would like to see really is the package management unification, i'd like to see where you can download any linux compatible install file and just install it in any system...but then, its just my opinion though:D...

also, i don't know how the kernel development goes but, i tend to see that there are sometime specific version of kernels for a specific hardware to work...yes, its good that linux kernels are being developed and updated frequently as compared to windows which is only every release...

Naiki Muliaina
March 17th, 2009, 10:57 AM
Im going to vote 'NO. LInux/Ubuntu is WAY ahead of other commercial software'.

Im also going to say despite moving to Ubuntu fully only a year ago, ive used linux for 4 years now i think. I ran it alongside XP for 3 years. Aside from the very early Ubuntu's (hedgehog which we all knew wasnt going to be so hot), i have never had the problems so many people have moaned about.

I check all hardware before i buy. I have never had one of them 'ohs noes an update broke my PC' moments. Aside from DJ software (shoutcast's main program works fine) i have never been at a real loss for software. I havent picked up and PC killing viruses like i did when i was with XP. I also enjoy changing scenery (distro) every so often for a refreshing change of pace. I only really play online games and that thirst is sated easily.

For me and my personal experiences, Linux rawks over Windows. Its light years ahead for my needs.

Mac i could never get used to and didnt use it enough so i cant realy comment on that one.

SunnyRabbiera
March 17th, 2009, 11:07 AM
i'm not saying that all those not being included as a standard should just be forgotten, what i meant is that, in a way, linux should give the users a common setup or environment. by giving something like a standard, developers and users alike would benefit in a way that they can have a common set of software to work with. like having the default shell in windows but having the option to install other shell replacement.

i know the diversity of linux, and its great, but considering that almost every linux distro makers today tend to compete to be the next Bill Gates (as kikoman said)...

But forcing people to use the same desktop interface, the same apps, the same setup is what makes OSX and windows suck for customization.
If Linux ever closed down to just one interface it will loose its appeal for me.

konqueror7
March 17th, 2009, 12:05 PM
But forcing people to use the same desktop interface, the same apps, the same setup is what makes OSX and windows suck for customization.
If Linux ever closed down to just one interface it will loose its appeal for me.

it would definitely loose its appeal, especially because you can do anything with your linux box. but i'm thinking like, having like a major desktop environment...like for example in fedora, the default is GNOME, and KDE and Xfce is optional, and other DEs. as compared to ubuntu, which has many editions (in which i in the forums the newbies ask what the difference?), also issue that some apps in KDE does not function properly in GNOME and vice versa...but again, its just my opinion...;)

and windows, based on my experience, does not really suck in customization, it does only limit the user to edit certain things...

k2t0f12d
March 17th, 2009, 12:26 PM
i'd like to see where you can download any linux compatible install file and just install it in any system

Well, we have that already, just not the way I think you wish it to be. The GNU build system, with its ./configure, make, and make install, is the installer for GNU+Linux. Package management is just a luxury I personally afford myself afterward for sanity. Ultimately, the amount of work it would take to create a program that could reliably install any distribution's packaging would be more work then simply building from source code, anyway.


also, i don't know how the kernel development goes but, i tend to see that there are sometime specific version of kernels for a specific hardware to work...yes, its good that linux kernels are being developed and updated frequently as compared to windows which is only every release...

Lots of distributions conserve stability by holding their kernel version for long periods of time. This is okay, however, when very desirable features become available you may find that your distribution doesn't have them until much later when they advanced their official kernel. When I used Debian based distros, I built my own kernel from the lastest stable version on kernel.org so I could have all the features.

Some distributions also have their own special configuration of the kernel, too. Once again, "working" on drivers is not the answer as much as ensuring you can get and boot from a version of the kernel that will supply the features you want.

Ultimately, you can sorta get what you want to have just by choosing the distribution that uses packaging you like and upgrades software versions on a schedule that you like. The one thing you can't have, and shouldn't worry about, is whether everyone else is doing it the same way as you. It really doesn't matter, because, if you use a lot of different distributions, you'll see that every program that matters has a package for any different package manager anyway.

Damsonjam
March 17th, 2009, 12:27 PM
Yeh sure force everyone to use the same boring interface and force them all to use .exe or some crap like that.
Linux is about diversity, having choice in the DE and package management makes Linux in general more diverse.
Want one interface and one installer?
Use windows.

This is where I think Ubuntu/Linux still has some catching up to do: giving something 'vanilla' that 'just works' so that 'normal people' will be able to embrace it. make it work first time.
Then open their eyes and they will be able to explore that diversity that is welcome in the product and so lacking in Windows.

And first impressions count: the boot loader for example. Ubuntu does such a brilliant job of dual booting, compared to Windows. Then it spoils it by 1) making the black/white boot screen look technical and scary (why not just say 'Ubuntu' and 'Windows' instead of all the kernel info?) and 2) adding every single kernel update to an ever lengthening list on the boot menu that freaks innocent users out?

Now I know that you can customise this (like everything else in Ubuntu) but my point is: why don't you switch it around? make the default easy to understand and leave it to others to customise if they want to add a list of old kernels to their bootlist. Keep it simple for the masses?

At present, Ubunti is still just too painful for many people. Its no good giving endless pseudo solutions (pun intended :D 'sudo ...') - more needs to work straight out of the box. Until Ubuntu gets to that point, Redmond will continue laughing all the way to the bank.

For all its (many) faults Window does a pretty good job of just working, and that needs to be the entry point for Ubuntu.

(speaking as an IT professional that is desperately trying to advocate alternatives to Windows for the masses, not just people that want to spend hours customising their PC and fixing problems ;))

konqueror7
March 17th, 2009, 12:41 PM
@k2t0f12d
i'm aware of the GNU build system, but its not just doing an configure/install task, rather what it does is compile and configure/install, which i see it, makes every linux user a kind of a developer. also the one thing it lack is you still have to handle yourself the dependencies...

there are some applications which only offers one kind of package management and a source. the latter is for the general user, complicated depending on the complexity of application. i've seen quiet a few linux developers out there who are trying to develop a 'tarball installer manager' which is a great idea, and which comes close to what i expect of a 'common package management', though i don't know of the status...

also by having distros that tend to keep specific versions of a kernel, what made them different from windows?

SunnyRabbiera
March 17th, 2009, 01:01 PM
it would definitely loose its appeal, especially because you can do anything with your linux box. but i'm thinking like, having like a major desktop environment...like for example in fedora, the default is GNOME, and KDE and Xfce is optional, and other DEs. as compared to ubuntu, which has many editions (in which i in the forums the newbies ask what the difference?), also issue that some apps in KDE does not function properly in GNOME and vice versa...but again, its just my opinion...;)

and windows, based on my experience, does not really suck in customization, it does only limit the user to edit certain things...

Correction, it severely limits customization.
In most linux distros if you dont like Firefox, you can simply remove it (though Ubuntu does need to stop linking firefox to its core packages, it can easily keep firefox seperate)
In Windows dont like IE?
Tough, its linked to the kernel and the OS, only becoming separate again in win7.
In XP its very hard to add more themes, you have to patch this that and the other, or use some untrustworthy third party theme installer (cough stardock crap), you are stuck with playschool blue theme, silver theme, media center theme and olive theme and some other crappy theme you can get from microsofts website.
Changing icons? Good luck
I know some of this was improved in Vista, but aero itself is very limited.
You really cant choose too many of the effects you want.
OSX is no different.


This is where I think Ubuntu/Linux still has some catching up to do: giving something 'vanilla' that 'just works' so that 'normal people' will be able to embrace it. make it work first time.
Then open their eyes and they will be able to explore that diversity that is welcome in the product and so lacking in Windows.

And first impressions count: the boot loader for example. Ubuntu does such a brilliant job of dual booting, compared to Windows. Then it spoils it by 1) making the black/white boot screen look technical and scary (why not just say 'Ubuntu' and 'Windows' instead of all the kernel info?) and 2) adding every single kernel update to an ever lengthening list on the boot menu that freaks innocent users out?

Now I know that you can customise this (like everything else in Ubuntu) but my point is: why don't you switch it around? make the default easy to understand and leave it to others to customise if they want to add a list of old kernels to their bootlist. Keep it simple for the masses?

At present, Ubunti is still just too painful for many people. Its no good giving endless pseudo solutions (pun intended :D 'sudo ...') - more needs to work straight out of the box. Until Ubuntu gets to that point, Redmond will continue laughing all the way to the bank.

For all its (many) faults Window does a pretty good job of just working, and that needs to be the entry point for Ubuntu.

(speaking as an IT professional that is desperately trying to advocate alternatives to Windows for the masses, not just people that want to spend hours customising their PC and fixing problems ;))

Well for a lot of hardware its impossible for linux to work out of the box, when big companies make their software and hardware for windows only its very difficult to work with those said hardware/software when you dont have the backing.
As for sudo, its better then the UAC in vista or being fed to the wolves like in XP.

k2t0f12d
March 17th, 2009, 01:17 PM
also the one thing it lack is you still have to handle yourself the dependencies...

That's true. But dependency checking is a problem for the package management system rather then an installer. Windows has installers, too, but no package manager with dependency checking. So GNU+Linux doesn't need to catch up where it is already ahead. Just usea distro with packages you want to have. (;


there are some applications which only offers one kind of package management and a source. the latter is for the general user, complicated depending on the complexity of application. i've seen quiet a few linux developers out there who are trying to develop a 'tarball installer manager' which is a great idea, and which comes close to what i expect of a 'common package management', though i don't know of the status...

A very good example of this is the HP Printer Drivers. Its install script is very smart. But most distributions either have it installed by default, or have a binary package already available.


also by having distros that tend to keep specific versions of a kernel, what made them different from windows?

Windows locks in a specific ABI for each version (and tries to keep compatible with previous ABI, too). This commits Microsoft to a particular system design for long periods of time that cannot be changed easily (or risk breaking drivers from third parties who rely blindly on the ABI since they have no source code to study or build against).

Distributions that hold their kernel version do not typically do so for longer then Microsoft, and the ones that do still leave the user free to advance their own kernel version at whatever rate they want to, like I do, or switch to another distribution that supplies the version they like.

kikoman
March 17th, 2009, 01:27 PM
Its easy to identify which is superior.

A fresh install of Windows or a fresh install of Ubuntu. You can already see the difference. But the tide changes when 3rd party hardware support(drivers) and 3rd party software comes into picture.

See thats the problem, easy to spot.

Damsonjam
March 17th, 2009, 01:36 PM
Correction, it severely limits customization.
In most linux distros if you dont like Firefox, you can simply remove it (though Ubuntu does need to stop linking firefox to its core packages, it can easily keep firefox seperate)
In Windows dont like IE?
Tough, its linked to the kernel and the OS, only becoming separate again in win7.
In XP its very hard to add more themes, you have to patch this that and the other, or use some untrustworthy third party theme installer (cough stardock crap), you are stuck with playschool blue theme, silver theme, media center theme and olive theme and some other crappy theme you can get from microsofts website.
Changing icons? Good luck
I know some of this was improved in Vista, but aero itself is very limited.
You really cant choose too many of the effects you want.
OSX is no different.



Well for a lot of hardware its impossible for linux to work out of the box, when big companies make their software and hardware for windows only its very difficult to work with those said hardware/software when you dont have the backing.
As for sudo, its better then the UAC in vista or being fed to the wolves like in XP.


Well, you're right (and I'm not here to knock Ubuntu!) but in my (simple) experience a lot of things have worked out of the box for me, which is a good thing. :D
And the more that do so, the more momentum we will get: those companies will chaneg when they realise they can make money out of selling kit that works on an enlarging platform!

I've breathed new life into old PCs that (bloated) Windows couldn't cope with. The only drawback is the initial impression for non technical people (hence my commnent above about making it a bit easier) and the need to make 'simple' changes without needing to know 'sudo' commands.

Mehall
March 17th, 2009, 01:36 PM
This is where I think Ubuntu/Linux still has some catching up to do: giving something 'vanilla' that 'just works' so that 'normal people' will be able to embrace it. make it work first time.
Then open their eyes and they will be able to explore that diversity that is welcome in the product and so lacking in Windows.

And first impressions count: the boot loader for example. Ubuntu does such a brilliant job of dual booting, compared to Windows. Then it spoils it by 1) making the black/white boot screen look technical and scary (why not just say 'Ubuntu' and 'Windows' instead of all the kernel info?) and 2) adding every single kernel update to an ever lengthening list on the boot menu that freaks innocent users out?

Now I know that you can customise this (like everything else in Ubuntu) but my point is: why don't you switch it around? make the default easy to understand and leave it to others to customise if they want to add a list of old kernels to their bootlist. Keep it simple for the masses?

At present, Ubunti is still just too painful for many people. Its no good giving endless pseudo solutions (pun intended :D 'sudo ...') - more needs to work straight out of the box. Until Ubuntu gets to that point, Redmond will continue laughing all the way to the bank.

For all its (many) faults Window does a pretty good job of just working, and that needs to be the entry point for Ubuntu.

(speaking as an IT professional that is desperately trying to advocate alternatives to Windows for the masses, not just people that want to spend hours customising their PC and fixing problems ;))

Thing is, the only reason any random person can use Windows is because it comes pre-installed and with drivers pre-loaded.

Whenever I have used a generic Windows disc, I've had MUCH more problems than when I use a generic Linux disc.

If Windows wasn't pre-installed on every computer, then nobody could use it.

Damsonjam
March 17th, 2009, 02:33 PM
Thing is, the only reason any random person can use Windows is because it comes pre-installed and with drivers pre-loaded.

Whenever I have used a generic Windows disc, I've had MUCH more problems than when I use a generic Linux disc.

If Windows wasn't pre-installed on every computer, then nobody could use it.

You're probably right, but (1984 aside) we can't change history - until more kit comes with Ubuntu pre-installed and drivers pre-loaded we're playing in a 'loaded' game. That's why I think its important to change some of the things that otherwise put people off:

See my posting about a wireless network problem caused by routine Hardy updates (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1098535). That's the sort of thing that puts people off, and its a shame because they loved their 'new' (i.e old PC but with Ubuntu on it) PC :D

Sorry to go on about this but I get quite passionate about Ubuntu.. if only it were more accessible to the masses! ;)

Pogeymanz
March 17th, 2009, 03:09 PM
For Linux to be perfect for me would mean improved drivers and better third party applications (even Firefox is slower natively than in wine); neither of which is Linux's fault.

For Linux to catch up for the normal user, it would need to be able to run Windows software flawlessly. That's the only way people will consider switching.

EXAMPLE: My fiancee was finally getting fed up with XP getting slower and slower and sometimes getting viruses (not often, actually). So I told her that Ubuntu would stay the same speed no matter how many programs she installed, and that it would never get viruses. But one of her classes requires Microsoft Office, so of course I thought wine would suffice. Close but no cigar. The Apps will run under wine, but you can't drag-n-drop between Excel and Word and nautilus can't be trained to open .doc in Word without problems. So, she's still on XP.


EDIT: When I say Windows software, I don't necessarily mean that Wine needs to improve. If Microsoft made a Linux version of Office, that would be the ideal.

Mehall
March 17th, 2009, 03:17 PM
For Linux to be perfect for me would mean improved drivers and better third party applications (even Firefox is slower natively than in wine); neither of which is Linux's fault.

For Linux to catch up for the normal user, it would need to be able to run Windows software flawlessly. That's the only way people will consider switching.

EXAMPLE: My fiancee was finally getting fed up with XP getting slower and slower and sometimes getting viruses (not often, actually). So I told her that Ubuntu would stay the same speed no matter how many programs she installed, and that it would never get viruses. But one of her classes requires Microsoft Office, so of course I thought wine would suffice. Close but no cigar. The Apps will run under wine, but you can't drag-n-drop between Excel and Word and nautilus can't be trained to open .doc in Word without problems. So, she's still on XP.


EDIT: When I say Windows software, I don't necessarily mean that Wine needs to improve. If Microsoft made a Linux version of Office, that would be the ideal.

MS don't, but Sun do: openoffice.org

It's fully compatible with the 03 format of .odc, and anyone using .docx needs shot.

konqueror7
March 17th, 2009, 04:13 PM
@SunnyRabbiera
yes, its true that your limited to customizing windows, but windows/macOS are different from linux, they are not open-source, which makes linux a great OS for customizing, but i think its not right to compare them because they are both OSs, but because of their software model...also, about IE not being able to be removed, there are already ways to do it...

@k2t0f12d
you can't force somebody to change distros for every application they need...

that's a good example, HP Printer Drivers, but unfortunately, there are also those applications that are not like this...

there again, you just can't change always to a specific distro just to make things work...also, having window being not able to change their kernel for a long time, in my opinion, makes their OSs to be more stable. why, developers follow something that isn't always changing. i'm not saying that linux kernels are made bad, but in every kernel a new complication will arise, and just this kind of problem keep the forums busy answering questions.

linux has its advantages and disadvantages, and so does windows. both have their followers, but microsoft had a better view on the market, the linux community were late; and now that ubuntu is ever opening more doors to non-linux users, i think the users will decide what fits their needs.

issih
March 17th, 2009, 04:15 PM
Theres no option for better in some areas worse in others...thats what my answer would be.

Pogeymanz
March 17th, 2009, 04:44 PM
MS don't, but Sun do: openoffice.org

It's fully compatible with the 03 format of .odc, and anyone using .docx needs shot.

Not meaning to hijack the thread or anything, but she actually needed Microsoft Office and not Open Office. When your instructions are "Click this menu, put this value in this box, etc." you kind of need to be using what they want you to.

Like I said, Linux works for me. In fact, I use Linux for my job and school and if I were using Windows I would have to do tweaking to get it to do what I do with Linux out of the box. But some people need MS Office and some people need Adobe Photoshop. And some people just want to be able to watch online content or sync their iPods. Some people bought a printer that just doesn't work in Linux.

I had to explain to my fiancee and her friend why she could print, but not scan from her Lexmark printer and how it wasn't Linux's fault. But do you think that mattered to them? No. The looks on their faces told me, clear as day, "If Linux can't even do simple things like make my printer work, then it's clearly inferior to Windows."

Basically, Linux was an utter failure at a time when I was trying to impress and convert a non-techy Windows user who was actually excited about getting away from Windows!

First: Hours after I installed it, X crashed for her for no reason at all. I had to add "noapic" to the kernel line in the grub menu. This isn't a big deal for me, but this was her first impression.

Second: MS Office didn't work right in wine.

Third: printer can't scan.

Fourth: No Aim. Pidgin seemed tolerable to her.

Fifth: Gnome's desktop icons are big and silly looking and don't even line themselves up nicely like in XP.

So, pretty much the only thing that worked in her mind was Firefox. And don't tell her, because she doesn't know, but if she had tried to watch House or Desperate Housewives on abc.com, she wouldn't have been able to...

Damsonjam
March 17th, 2009, 05:11 PM
Pogeymanz - that's pretty much how I see it.

But I'm not saying it in the sense of 'why I think Ubuntu is bad' but more 'these are the things that are preventing normal users embrace Ubuntu'. If we can do a better job of these things we can turn the corner..

aaaantoine
March 17th, 2009, 05:20 PM
So, pretty much the only thing that worked in her mind was Firefox. And don't tell her, because she doesn't know, but if she had tried to watch House or Desperate Housewives on abc.com, she wouldn't have been able to...

Hell, even Windows users can't watch House on abc.com.

On the other hand, Linux users can watch House on Hulu just fine (http://www.hulu.com/watch/62806/house-the-social-contract).

Pogeymanz
March 17th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Hell, even Windows users can't watch House on abc.com.

Oh, my bad. House is on Fox.com, isn't it? I don't know- I don't watch it.

D3ath
March 17th, 2009, 05:40 PM
After all, it depends on your requirements and time to learn.

For _me_, Ubuntu is already WAY ahead of anything else. But this is for _me_. Other people may have other requirements, where Ubuntu still could lag behind.

Also a common problem seems to be that many people are used to do things a certain way, which doesn't work the same in Ubuntu. I found myself in that group until I learned to work with the tools Ubuntu gave me, and now, I couldn't be happier.

Cheers,

I couldn't have said it better myself man. :P

SunnyRabbiera
March 17th, 2009, 05:47 PM
Well, you're right (and I'm not here to knock Ubuntu!) but in my (simple) experience a lot of things have worked out of the box for me, which is a good thing. :D
And the more that do so, the more momentum we will get: those companies will chaneg when they realise they can make money out of selling kit that works on an enlarging platform!

I've breathed new life into old PCs that (bloated) Windows couldn't cope with. The only drawback is the initial impression for non technical people (hence my commnent above about making it a bit easier) and the need to make 'simple' changes without needing to know 'sudo' commands.

Well more gui's are developed for certain admin things, really one can remove the terminal from the equation if one knows what to do.
In Ubuntu maybe it will be a good idea to install nautilus with admin privileges preinstalled though I doubt that will happen because of the Ubuntu security model.
But really a fresh install of XP can be worse then a fresh install of Ubuntu, if you have a non OEM copy of XP it can be much worse at detecting things then Ubuntu sometimes!
XP doesnt come with a lot of drivers by default, nor does it have media playback or anything like that by default.
Thats why OEM's have to make so many modifications to it.