PDA

View Full Version : What made Ubuntu so popular?



psam3
March 24th, 2009, 06:11 PM
Why not any other distribution? Does it really work that much better than the others?

xpod
March 24th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Re: What made Ubuntu so popular?

This place and You Tube video`s of Beryl/Compiz probably helped a bit;)

Edgar09
March 24th, 2009, 06:26 PM
Maybe Because ITīS FREE & ITīS FREE SOFTWARE,FREE OF VIRUS.!!! which = YOU CAN DO WANT EVER YOU WISH IN LINUX.!!
& Because Windows is super$$$$$$ and it has a mouthful of errors..

BGFG
March 24th, 2009, 06:33 PM
No idea really. when i was looking around for a distro the 'Linux for human beings' thing attracted me and the brown and orange seemed different and friendly compared to the stark, black/silver and whatever colours of other distros.

the install was very easy to me, and I took to Gnome like duck to water. all in all it was a great introduction to GNU/Linux desktop computing. And thus I've stayed.

gn2
March 24th, 2009, 06:33 PM
Does it really work that much better than the others?

Yes. Not only that but it has the best default colour scheme by miles.

Seriously though, what made it so popular in the early days was a commitment to getting it to "just work" simply and easily, coupled with free postage of free installation media anywhere on the globe.

Ubuntu is the only distribution I've tried that has worked with all my hardware, every other distro tried has had one or more show-stopping problems for me.

Simian Man
March 24th, 2009, 06:41 PM
They packaged Linux with the idea of being "For Humans" whatever that means. The website with its multicultural people and message of love and free shipit CDs goes along with this.

Another aspect was that Ubuntu came on the scene during a time of great progress for Gnome, KDE and other projects. Basically Linux got really easy to use around the time Ubuntu came out which made people think Ubuntu had something to do with it.

Frankly Ubuntu doesn't have much anything on other distros, it just got lucky.

MikeTheC
March 24th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Um, because Mark Shuttleworth got behind it and helped to generate some publicity behind it?

Keyper7
March 24th, 2009, 06:44 PM
In technical terms, Ubuntu is no better or worse than other distros. It's true that there's a lot of effort in ensuring that everything just works, but for certain hardware configurations this effort backfires, causing unexpected regressions. At the end of the day, it all depends on each user's personal preferences and personal experiences.

In marketing terms, Canonical was the first company to push a distro very aggressively into the mainstream market, not really caring if they would spend a lot of time without profiting. They did a lot of effort to show that Linux is not a geek-only system and such effort was rewarded: Ubuntu is still seen as a newbie-friendly distro in the mainstrem market even though there are even easier options nowadays like Mint.

So in short: good marketing was the key factor. Nevertheless, this does not mean Ubuntu is an inferior distro: I use it, it works for me and I love it.

cespinal
March 24th, 2009, 06:47 PM
publicity and marketing.. and also because of Vista's failure

armageddon08
March 24th, 2009, 06:53 PM
publicity and marketing.. and also because of Vista's failure

+1 and youtube ;)

Maheriano
March 24th, 2009, 07:22 PM
Um, because Mark Shuttleworth got behind it and helped to generate some publicity behind it?

This. I researched the guy and liked the idea of someone whom sold a company for 400 million pounds and decided to invest it into an open source software project with minimal margin for return just to take 1% of the market share away from the devil of Microsoft. The idea just appealed to me and I like to support it.

Technoviking
March 24th, 2009, 07:22 PM
1. Focus on desktop (at first): Ubuntu really focused on making a great desktop experience for users. With additions like easy codecs install and other desktop improvement, it may it easy for users to convert to from Windows to Ubuntu.

2. Free CDs: Getting a professional looking CD from Canonical is mush more appealing that telling new users to download an iso and burn a CD.

3. Code of Conduct: No RTFM need apply. The Ubuntu Code of Conduct helped create a civil community for it users, instead of one that had very little use for new users.

mamamia88
March 24th, 2009, 07:33 PM
because it's so simple to use. i have no need for complexity in my life i would rather do other things than fixing an os all the time. maybe someday ill get bored of ubuntu and experiment with other linux distros but for now im content with ubuntu

joey-elijah
March 24th, 2009, 07:58 PM
As others have said it's mainly because it tweaked and fixed those areas where other distro's hadn't - the desktop experience, simple installation and hardware compatiabilty.

not only that but this place your currently in helped it a great deal than is realised at present - a forum where you can ask for help and get it! Instantly! from other people who use it, not some aloof developer or nerd with a condescending ego complex.

Ubuntu is much more than just an OS - it's a community, an ethos, a way of doing things - i think that really resonated people who just wanted their computer to do what it needed to do but have a support network for those times things do go awry or they want to try something out. A free forum full of friendly people who are just like you is preferable to a distant call centre somewhere where you first have to prove you paid for your OS before they'll help.

Not just that but Ubuntu is very well respected (for all the naysayers) because of the great work it does to benefit the wider OpenSource community as a whole - be that through exposure, marketing, code or ideas.

SunnyRabbiera
March 24th, 2009, 08:03 PM
Ubuntu mainly took off for a few good reasons:
1: When Ubuntu first came out most other desktop oriented distros such as Suse and Mandriva came with a cost, at one time you had to pay for support with Mandriva (at that time Mandrake) and Suse was pretty much nonfree too.
2: Ubuntu offered a look at its release cycle, while most others chose a rolling release where a new release came at the whim of the developers sometimes taking years Ubuntu offered a predictable release cycle.
3: Tools came out for ubuntu that made it appealing for new users, first there was stuff like easyubuntu and now you have medibuntu and ubuntu restricted extras.
4: Community, nuff said

73ckn797
March 24th, 2009, 08:08 PM
There is another chance for more people to become interested if the latest "Conflicker Worm" does anything. It may not but the scare factor has been announced.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/24/conficker.computer.worm/index.html

JackieChan
March 24th, 2009, 08:08 PM
It's really user friendly. People are probably attracted to the red and orange colors too, a lot like they are with FireFox.... The youtube videos of the compiz effects also probably helped spark the attention of a lot of people.

ZarathustraDK
March 24th, 2009, 08:33 PM
The ethics of Open Source is what got me onboard. Ubuntu made/makes a big deal out of underlining at what side of the fence it was/is on.

That said, I'm off to greener pastures if they manage to botch it up somehow (let greed take precedence over the community for instance). I think that's pretty unlikely though, their ethics are manifested in the name itself, which has become a brand.

Then again there is Microsoft and their corrupting touch, I hope Ubuntu got enough composure to stay clear of this.

Changturkey
March 25th, 2009, 12:34 AM
The community? Though it's definitely changed..

KCG102282
March 25th, 2009, 12:35 AM
The community? Though it's definitely changed..

How so?

Cracauer
March 25th, 2009, 12:46 AM
From my view:

Debian had the only really working packaging, update and upgrade system. It was utterly superior to the junk the others were putting out, major upgrades in particular were actually working, and many more packages were available than for other distributions. Redhat/Fedora is also just plain non-working pretty often, hardly surprising since it is an aggressive beta testbed with 120+ kernel patches alone.

The problem with Debian is/was ease of installation and generally graphical frontends for administration. Releases were too infrequent in Debian and the others didn't have any long-term releases.

Enter Ubuntu, fix these issues, you got a popular distribution.

23meg
March 25th, 2009, 12:47 AM
ShipIt (http://shipit.ubuntu.com)
Mark Shuttleworth's existing fame, and expertise of leadership
Canonical's well executed community creation and management strategy at Ubuntu's inception
Adherence to simplicity and sensible defaults
The clear, decisive mission statement (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1)
The time based release model (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/TimeBasedReleases)
Word of mouth + Network effect on a moderate scale
The Code of Conduct (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct)


There other factors that have contributed to Ubuntu's popularity to a lesser extent through its technical success, but these are the ones that have had the most direct effect.

KCG102282
March 25th, 2009, 12:55 AM
From my view:

. Releases were too infrequent in Debian and the others didn't have any long-term releases.

Enter Ubuntu, fix these issues, you got a popular distribution.

Every Debian release is supported for the cycle of that release and the next one and being that a Debian release usually lasts on average at least 2 years I would say that's LTS.

Changturkey
March 25th, 2009, 12:58 AM
How so?

Used to be more intelligent, open. Now it's constant arguments over who's copying who, flaming this OS or that, ect. Reminds me of /b/.

Cracauer
March 25th, 2009, 01:03 AM
Every Debian release is supported for the cycle of that release and the next one and being that a Debian release usually lasts on average at least 2 years I would say that's LTS.

That's what I said. Debian only had LTSes, so to speak and the others none at all.

People want frequent releases, but the opportunity to hang on to a LTS when circumstances dictate is very welcome.

For a long time Debian releases were in practice not usable except as a base for installation and then upgrading to stable.

Ubuntu's Achilles heel will be dumping down hardware management until people who don't use GNOME/KDE can't use it anymore. But even with that Ubuntu still makes for a good entry and then you upgrade to Debian when you feel the need and learned things on Debian.

pbpersson
March 25th, 2009, 01:26 AM
Since I have started using Ubuntu I have tried a couple of other distros and they don't get it.

You need to have an environment where people can just work

When they fire up the machine after the install, they want to balance their checkbook, pay their bills, surf the web, listen to music, whatever....

Recently I installed one distro and attempted to install some software and it gave me a screen of about twenty package dependencies the computer wanted me to solve. Heck.....I said, "If you know what the problems are, SOLVE THEM! Don't show me a screen of the problems!!" :o

The other distro I installed was Mandriva 2009 - no file manager - none in sight. No home directory, nothing in the menu under accessories - it was NOT THERE! John Q. Public would have been totally lost. Unbelievable :confused:

Sealbhach
March 25th, 2009, 01:27 AM
"just works".


.

era86
March 25th, 2009, 02:16 AM
"just works".


.

To be honest, this was the real reason. A lot of people here should remember the old days when it was a pain to install this distro. No graphical install, etc.

It just happened to work.

swoll1980
March 25th, 2009, 02:48 AM
Love!

Skripka
March 25th, 2009, 02:50 AM
Love!

Love love me do?

Ericyzfr1
March 25th, 2009, 03:05 AM
I remember that in spring 06 when I was looking for a Linux distribution, all the searches returned Ubuntu, so I naturally ended up on their website that mentioned a free OS. I would think it was 6.04 and installed correctly on my laptop.

t0p
March 25th, 2009, 03:34 AM
This site has certainly helped get Ubuntu popular. There's no snobbery or newbie-bashing here. No flames either. All down to the, uh, effective mods. So complete novices to this Linux thing can post their woes here in the sure and certain hope that someone will answer their question... if someone knows the answer.

Tamlynmac
March 25th, 2009, 04:00 AM
Google and this community.

I recall the day when a family member requested I investigate an alternative to Windows. Approximately two years ago, I Googled for a alternative OS's and Ubuntu was definitely the primary alternative OS of choice. If I remember correctly, Ubuntu hits significantly out numbered all other options.

mamamia88
March 25th, 2009, 04:01 AM
yeah it's so great knowing that if i have a problem with my computer chances are i can fix it myself by coming on here rather than calling someone who i might not even be able to understand

linux_nc
March 25th, 2009, 04:16 AM
This place and You Tube video`s of Beryl/Compiz probably helped a bit;)
second that

CraigPaleo
March 25th, 2009, 06:02 PM
For me, Ubuntu was the only one that would even boot from the live CD on my hardware. If it supports more hardware, it'll be on more machines.

MuShoe
March 25th, 2009, 06:39 PM
For me it's simple. It's not Windows and it's definitely not Vista!

I used XP for many years. I run a pretty tight system, only ever contracted a few viruses and spyware that were promptly removed, and still saw the boot speed, usability of windows decreasing over time. I don't know if it's how it handles files or what, but it just keeps getting slower and slower. My wife's old computer had all but come to a crawl. I installed Ubuntu on here machine and she was again able to surf the web, check email, and use OOo to do her work, all with significantly less waiting. Now it's still an old machine, so it's not lightning fast, but Ubuntu (likely any distro for that matter) afforded us a huge improvement and made her happier (improving the quality of my life also...).

There are a few things that I still need to boot into Windows for... namely TurboTax, Oblivion, and the occasional updating of music on my MS Zune MP3 player. Other than that, I am exclusively on linux and loving it (after the initial learning curve asking questions like how do I install a new hard drive or what the heck is /etc?). I find that after using Windows since version 3.0, i was a self proclaimed power user. I could get things done quickly and easily. Now, after using Ubuntu for ~6 months or so, I have a handle on the basics, but still use this forum and several others for refreshers or reminders on how to do stuff... it will get better with time. :)

</soapbox>

Copernicus1234
March 25th, 2009, 06:50 PM
Because it worked out of the box. All the other distributions at that time had problems working out of the box, at least for me. With Ubuntu, things worked the way you expected.

Its just such a shame this Mark Shuttleworth guy doesnt realize how much appearance matters. If only they would ship Ubuntu with the best icons and theme they could put together, it would bring in almost every young person out there who wants his operating system to look as nice as his other gadgets. And they would get a technically superior and safer operating system included in the package. Its those guys that later will bring in Linux into the corporations.

People go for style even when they dont care how the technology works. They buy worse mp3 players than what is available because they like a certain look.

Apple knows.

KCG102282
March 25th, 2009, 07:02 PM
Its just such a shame this Mark Shuttleworth guy doesnt realize how much appearance matters.



Is that why one of the reasons Ubuntu developed the new notification system is to improve the look?

Tamlynmac
March 26th, 2009, 03:17 AM
KCG102282
Is that why one of the reasons Ubuntu developed the new notification system is to improve the look?

+1

What's really sad is that fact that anyone would place appearance over functionality.

Especially, considering Ubuntu appearance is so easily modified. Almost everyone I've either installed for or assisted with, have modified the appearance to personalize the OS. No two are alike. Which questions concerns over appearance. It's possible that my experiences are unique and that the majority of users keep the original appearance. I can only evaluate that which I'm aware of.

Besides marketing, does the appearance really matter when altering it is extremely simply? Would it not make sense to point out the personalization factor, as part of marketing? Or have we become some fixated on original appearance that altering it is beyond our comprehension? If initial appearance is the fundamental motive for adopting Ubuntu as one's OS, perhaps one should reconsider.

Skripka
March 26th, 2009, 03:50 AM
+1

What's really sad is that fact that anyone would place appearance over functionality.

Especially, considering Ubuntu appearance is so easily modified. Almost everyone I've either installed for or assisted with, have modified the appearance to personalize the OS. No two are alike. Which questions concerns over appearance. It's possible that my experiences are unique and that the majority of users keep the original appearance. I can only evaluate that which I'm aware of.

Besides marketing, does the appearance really matter when altering it is extremely simply? Would it not make sense to point out the personalization factor, as part of marketing? Or have we become some fixated on original appearance that altering it is beyond our comprehension? If initial appearance is the fundamental motive for adopting Ubuntu as one's OS, perhaps one should reconsider.

When you're trying to convert people, YES.


Most people treat computers as an appliance that they buy, and don't tinker with because they're skeered of it. They want no learning curve, and want it to work, and not be hard on the eyes. When Ubuntu, or at least Shuttleworth, is out to grab Windows marketshare, and or Mac marketshare-vanity matters.

Tamlynmac
March 26th, 2009, 04:57 PM
Skripka
Most people treat computers as an appliance that they buy, and don't tinker with because they're skeered of it. They want no learning curve, and want it to work, and not be hard on the eyes. When Ubuntu, or at least Shuttleworth, is out to grab Windows marketshare, and or Mac marketshare-vanity matters.


When you're trying to convert people, YES.
What??? What's the difference? When marketing, isn't that one of the primary motives? Attracting people away from one product and convincing them to use a different product.

Think about what you just wrote. Especially, no learning curve. Last I checked most all appliances come with an instruction manual and require a learning curve. Even a new coffee pot requires some time spent learning the new device.

Somehow, you believe Ubuntu should be a Windows/Mac clone that functions exactly like Windows/Mac (requiring no learning curve). Should a new user believe this, they are in for a rude awakening. As Ubuntu isn't a Windows/Mac clone and does require one to learn a new system.

As for capturing a portion of market share, logic suggests that potential new users be made aware of the differences between the OS's. Including the capability of modifying it's appearance. I for one have no desire for Ubuntu to capture a share of the market by falsely misrepresenting the OS.

You may wish to reconsider your argument.

Zimmer
March 26th, 2009, 06:08 PM
Documentation. ! and Synaptic Package manager.

I tried Fedora Core 3 as my first Linux distro and although I got it to work, finding help files and How to's was quite hard and the results often baffling.

For a novice, installing new software was no joke , either. I did find redcarpet, a package manager, that eased a bit of the pain but I was still unsure how it all fitted together.
I stumbled across Ubuntu and liked the sound of the philosophy and liked the look of the documentation even better. Once I found the Synaptic package manager so easy to use there was no turning back.

The Official and Community documentation for Ubuntu at that time was far superior to anything else I could find (and probably still is.)
The forums are a wealth of (friendly) info. Searching these forums and docs sorts the majority of everyday problems, in fact, I cannot remember starting a thread to ask for help which is a good sign that the answers are out there somewhere... ;)

73ckn797
March 26th, 2009, 09:10 PM
Documentation. ! and Synaptic Package manager.

I tried Fedora Core 3 as my first Linux distro and although I got it to work, finding help files and How to's was quite hard and the results often baffling.

For a novice, installing new software was no joke , either. I did find redcarpet, a package manager, that eased a bit of the pain but I was still unsure how it all fitted together.
I stumbled across Ubuntu and liked the sound of the philosophy and liked the look of the documentation even better. Once I found the Synaptic package manager so easy to use there was no turning back.

The Official and Community documentation for Ubuntu at that time was far superior to anything else I could find (and probably still is.)
The forums are a wealth of (friendly) info. Searching these forums and docs sorts the majority of everyday problems, in fact, I cannot remember starting a thread to ask for help which is a good sign that the answers are out there somewhere... ;)

I have probably given more links for community documentation to newbies than any other advice. I use it and have figured out so many things that I see many people posting threads about. Much info is at their finger tips.

Sealbhach
March 26th, 2009, 11:15 PM
Think about what you just wrote. Especially, no learning curve. Last I checked most all appliances come with an instruction manual and require a learning curve. Even a new coffee pot requires some time spent learning the new device.


Yes, and most people hate that bit. it's how people are. They just want stuff to work and they've been raised on Windows so they'll want it to work like Windows, only better. It's how people are.


.

Screwdriver0815
March 26th, 2009, 11:46 PM
as many people said before: it just works.

I have tried Ubuntu some years ago (Dapper Drake, Feisty Fawn) and I did not manage to get them running like I wanted it. Especially the printers... graphiccards etc... But Feisty was way better than Dapper.

So last year I tried it again with Hardy Heron. It was like coming home, hearttouching, great.

This installing thing for the graphics drivers is really great. The drivers for the printer are in the repo's... no downloading from hidden manufacturers pages... no searching for information, everything is in one place.
Intrepid is better again - you feel the progress in Ubuntu!

I also tried other distro's but it was the same pain as some years ago. After such tryouts I always went back to Ubuntu because I can be sure: it runs!

Another important thing is: the documentation. I don't know any distro which has such a clear documentation in the forums and wikis.

As I tried Fedora for some days, I managed to get the sound working only because there is a good Ubuntu-Wiki where you can take some hints...

And Ubuntu has a good mixture between stability and innovation. Thats also a reason for its popularity I think

Skripka
March 26th, 2009, 11:49 PM
What??? What's the difference? When marketing, isn't that one of the primary motives? Attracting people away from one product and convincing them to use a different product.

Think about what you just wrote. Especially, no learning curve. Last I checked most all appliances come with an instruction manual and require a learning curve. Even a new coffee pot requires some time spent learning the new device.

Somehow, you believe Ubuntu should be a Windows/Mac clone that functions exactly like Windows/Mac (requiring no learning curve). Should a new user believe this, they are in for a rude awakening. As Ubuntu isn't a Windows/Mac clone and does require one to learn a new system.

As for capturing a portion of market share, logic suggests that potential new users be made aware of the differences between the OS's. Including the capability of modifying it's appearance. I for one have no desire for Ubuntu to capture a share of the market by falsely misrepresenting the OS.

You may wish to reconsider your argument.

You'll note I never staked an opinion in the matter, or impied a value judgement one way or another--if you go back and read. I equally have never stated a desire to make Ubuntu a mac or Windows clone ever-apart from in ludicrous satire.

People hate reading manuals or learning new tricks, for the most part. People just want to use their damn microwave. Or use their VCR without needing to learn how to set the clock, to use a famous common example.

darrenn
March 27th, 2009, 03:51 AM
Having the first release announcement posted to the front page of slashdot. I was waiting and waiting for a windows replacement. Well in October of 2004 it happend. This announcement was like nothing I had ever seen before for a linux distro. It got me and thousands of /. excited. Also it correctly identified most of my hardware which is something no linux distro at the time could do.

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/20/179233


Mark Shuttleworth writes "Ubuntu 4.10, 'The Warty Warthog Release,' hit the wire today, with Gnome 2.8, Kernel 2.6 and the very best of Debian in a slick, quick, single-CD install." Read on below for the full announcement, including a link to order shrinkwrapped versions (for X86, AMD64 or PowerPC) free of charge. I'm still waiting on mine to try this out. (Note that Ubuntu is also one of the distros with a screen-by-screen walkthrough available through OSdir's screenshot-tour site.)

"=== Announcing Ubuntu 4.10 'The Warty Warthog Release' ===

The warm-hearted Warthogs of the Warty Team are proud to present the very first release of Ubuntu!

Ubuntu is a new Linux distribution that brings together the extraordinary breadth of Debian with a fast and easy install, regular releases (every six months), a tight selection of excellent packages installed by default and a commitment to security updates with 18 months of security and technical support for every release.

You get a distribution that is:

* absolutely committed to free software, every end-user application on the CD is free software
* 100% free of charge, and the Ubuntu team is committed to keeping Ubuntu free of charge
* security updates for the distribution at no charge for 18 months for any release
* updated to the latest desktop and kernel and infrastructure every six months with a new release
* supports x86, amd64 and ppc processors, with additional ports under way

If you've heard all about Ubuntu and just want to get the install CD or test the Release Candidate Live CD, you can download it here immediately: www.ubuntulinux.org/download/

If you want a shrinkwrapped CD we will gladly ship it to you at no cost. To receive a complimentary copy of the Warty Warthog CD -- or a handful to give to your friends, your school or LUG, register online at: shipit.ubuntulinux.org.

For more information, you can turn to any of the following resources:

Ubuntu Website: www.ubuntulinux.org -- The website contains some basic background on Ubuntu, an overview of the project, information on how to get it, and some documentation for the software.

Ubuntu Wiki: http://wiki.ubuntulinux.org -- The wiki is a shared web space used by the Ubuntu community to develop new ideas for Ubuntu. Anybody is welcome to edit and add to the wiki.

Ubuntu IRC Channel: #ubuntu and on irc.freenode.net. The Ubuntu IRC channel is your best place to start for help and discussion about Ubuntu and the Warty Warthog release. We aim to keep the signal-to-noise ratio as high as possible on that channel, and on all community forums.

Ubuntu Mailing Lists: Ubuntu mailing lists are the heart of our community. In addition to the announcement list, and lists for users and developers of Ubuntu, there are now Ubuntu mailing lists in German, French, Spanish as well as lists devoted to Ubuntu security, news, translators, and the inevitable lighthearted chitchat list ('the Sounder'). To get more information or subscribe, visit lists.ubuntu.com.

Warty Warthog Features:

* Simple and fast Installation. Ubuntu comes on one single CD, with thousands of extra packages available online. The install is optimised for speed and simplicity. Ubuntu has excellent support for laptops (both x86 based and Powerbook / iBook PPC based), and can also be setup in a minimalist server configuration.
* GNOME 2.8: Ubuntu was the first distribution to ship Gnome 2.8, on the day of the 2.8 release. Ubuntu is a great way to try out Gnome 2.8 if you have not already experienced its speed and simplicity.
* Firefox 0.9 (with security patches)
* First-class productivity software Evolution 2.0 and OpenOffice.org 1.1.2
* XFree86 4.3 with improved hardware support

We also worked hard to detect as much hardware as possible, simplifying the X install considerably.

Warty can be installed in a minimalist mode for servers, or in full desktop mode. It works well on laptops and desktops. Warty is secure by design - a key goal was to ensure that Warty was as safe from attack over the internet as possible after a default install.

Thanks to the team of professional and volunteer maintainers who have worked so hard to bring the Warthog to life, and also to our rapidly growing community, who have provided excellent testing and ideas for the future of Ubuntu!

'Ubuntu' is an ancient African word for 'humanity towards others,' and we think it's a perfect name for an open source community project. In that spirit we invite you to join, to contribute and to share Ubuntu with your own community. Our next release, the Hoary Hedgehog, is due in six months' time. You can help to shape it by joining the team and contributing your own expertise. See you at #ubuntu on irc.freenode.net."

Dekkon
March 27th, 2009, 03:57 AM
Maybe Because ITīS FREE & ITīS FREE SOFTWARE,FREE OF VIRUS.!!! which = YOU CAN DO WANT EVER YOU WISH IN LINUX.!!
& Because Windows is super$$$$$$ and it has a mouthful of errors..

I hate your FUD.

Please continue on.

Tamlynmac
March 27th, 2009, 04:48 AM
Skripka
People hate reading manuals or learning new tricks, for the most part. People just want to use their damn microwave. Or use their VCR without needing to learn how to set the clock, to use a famous common example.



Sealbhach
Yes, and most people hate that bit. it's how people are. They just want stuff to work and they've been raised on Windows so they'll want it to work like Windows, only better. It's how people are.

Since I cannot speak for "ALL PEOPLE" and refuse to lump them into a single category. I must default to your combined opinion of them. Apparently, I know an entirely different group of people. Few I know, would expect to learn without either manuals or some other form of documented information. Nor would they expect to install an unfamiliar OS without anticipating a learning curve.

When profiling people, it's not a good idea to assume all people share the same beliefs. If your generalizing then how can we define which people your referring to? As in it's "just the way people are". Quite a few people on this forum came from the Windows environment and have successfully migrated. Obviously, they don't fit into the same mold as the people your referring to. I came from a Windows background and apparently I don't fit that mold either.

I would suggest to anyone who asked me for feedback regarding the installation of Ubuntu, that reading & learning is mandatory - as it was with Windows (or any other piece of software). To portray all people as being of a single mind is foolish and I doubt that the community needs people who don't wish to read and learn, but simply expect Ubuntu to work just like Windows. If people hate reading manuals/documentation or learning then I'd suggest they not install Ubuntu or any other OS, for they will quickly become dissatisfied users. At some point in time all Windows users learned to use Windows. How was this accomplished, did they not require documented instructions or was it performed through osmosis? Many may only know the applications they use regularly, but even those applications required some time invested in reading and/or being taught.

If your going to represent "PEOPLE" I would request that you identify which people your defining and possibly some statistics to support your statements. A blanket statement that refers to all or the majority of people, lacks merit if unsubstantiated. For example: How many Ubuntu users that have successfully migrated from Windows believed "no learning curve or reading of documentation" was going to be required. How many "people" that have yet to migrate - but are considering it, believe "no learning curve or reading of documentation" will be required?

IMHO, the concept that any new piece of equipment or software will not require a commitment (time invested in learning) is irrational. The belief that Ubuntu clones Windows, in itself identifies the need for documentation and for people to read it.

Just my $0.02

Skripka
March 27th, 2009, 05:03 AM
Since I cannot speak for "ALL PEOPLE" and refuse to lump them into a single category.

Simple test: Did you enjoy having to read a manual to learn how to program your VCR clock?

I know all manner of people-and NONE ever enjoyed having to read a manual to figure out how to program their VCR clock....although I knew and know MANY persons (including myself), who figured out ways of setting the VCR clock without having to RTFM. RTFM=research.

I have better things to do with my life, than battle a digital clock on a VCR. That is the attitude most folks have with computers.



That is what it boils down to. That is why 70% or so of computer users still use Internet Explorer. They don't know or care about security or speed or what have you. It came with the machine. It works (in their eyes). It is "good enough". That is the attitude people have. It is the appliance attitude.

Most people are not hobbyists at computers who want to know more. Most just want something that works, with minimal hassle, and effort required on their part. And by "minimal effort", that includes expansion of knowledge on their part. They don't WANT to have to learn an entire new way of using a computer. They might-if they can be shown a good reason.

Tamlynmac
March 27th, 2009, 06:25 AM
Skripka
I have better things to do with my life, than battle a digital clock on a VCR. That is the attitude most folks have with computers.

Should this be true than I will truly suggest they never endeavor to change their operating system. To any other operating system.


Simple test: Did you enjoy having to read a manual to learn how to program your VCR clock?

It didn't bother me, actually the only time I did it (due to power failure) was to tape a show from the TV. So apparently, I'm not part of the refuse to read the manual group. I chose to do so and enjoy that which I paid for. Even my wife can set the clock on our VCR and one might consider her technically challenged. :)


It works (in their eyes). It is "good enough".
Most people are not hobbyists at computers who want to know more. Most just want something that works, with minimal hassle, and effort required on their part. And by "minimal effort", that includes expansion of knowledge on their part. They don't WANT to have to learn an entire new way of using a computer. They might-if they can be shown a good reason.

If this is the group you referring to, I would reiterate that it's not in their best interest to change their OS (ever). How can they be shown a good reason, if they don't care and it's good enough?

If the group your defining is complacent and has no desire to learn, then this argument is pointless. IMHO not only should they remain in their existing environment, any attempt to modify it would result in their frustration. I doubt any OS can be installed, setup and used without some fundamental learning and/or reading of documentation. The group your referring to (assuming it exists and is substantial in volume) learned Windows, yet according to you, they have no desire or motivation to learn anything else. Changing the appearance or any other aspect of an OS will not overcome complacency. If it's good enough then why bother?

Arkenzor
March 27th, 2009, 08:06 AM
It's possible that my experiences are unique and that the majority of users keep the original appearance. I can only evaluate that which I'm aware of.

All the Ubuntu installs I've ever seen around me except my little brother's (and mine back when I used Ubuntu) use the default theme, at most with a different wallpaper.

I think most people really don't care that much about what their OS looks like as long as it's not downright ugly.