Ubuntu may rival windows some day, but Windows has its place.

[user sam]

OK. here's my little spiel. Ubuntu linux is my favorite operating system. However, Windows has its place in business. Far more programs are available for Windows than any other system. Well, unless you count all the obscure little linux programs that hardly anyone uses. Businesses may not get more bang for their buck with Windows, But the fact remains that Linux in general does not support stuff like .pub documents, ipods, in some cases .wmv files, and the occasional .ppt. Windows can handle anything Linux can spit out, maybe not well, but it can be done. I'm not saying that Windows is better than Linux or anything, I'm just saying it has its place and there are legitimate reasons for using it.

Ubuntu, in my opinion, needs to both embrace its Linux "heritage" and distance itself from it. in a manner similar to Macintosh OS X, Ubuntu's programs should not be classified as "Linux" but as Ubuntu open source OS .deb programs. there should be a graphical tarball installer as well as an automatic .deb installer similar to Macintosh's .mpkg "Installer" program. More people will tend to lean toward Ubuntu if they see it as an operating system with Linux components rather than Linux itself.

Well, just my humble opinion. I was gonna go nuts if I let it fester in my head for any longer. I'm no businessperson or economist. feel free to tell me how very wrong and incorrect my ideas are. Seriously.

[Bachstelze]

You're not the first one to suggest that Ubuntu should abandon the name "Linux", and I think it's stupid. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution. It is not a "heritage", it is part of what Ubuntu is now, and will probably always be.

[mick222]

I take it you haven't grasped the concept of free software. Ubuntu rely s on Debian for the core and all the software is free ,most used in other operating systems such as Debian suse fedora mandriva and at least a hundred more . Windows on the other hand rely s on proprietary software paid for by the customer both have there place but neither is better than the other.

[Groucho Marxist]

...Windows on the other hand rely s on proprietary software paid for by the customer...

Exactly; the codecs and other proprietary features are the top earners of revenue for Microsoft, Mac, etc... No one OS is inherently greater than any other. In the realm of media production, I use Mac for non-linear professional video editing, Windows for professional non-linear recording/editing and Linux for pre-production and other work, not to mention personal use.

[HappyFeet]

Ubuntu may rival windows some day, but Windows has its place
Yes it does. Windows place in my house is using my vista cd as a coaster. (I'm serious) Works great btw.

[user sam]

I never said Ubuntu should not be free, for one. I also never said that it's better or worse than Windows (though i'll admit to my embarrassment that it was implied. shoulda written it better). maybe you assumed those things. or maybe I assumed that you assumed. Anyway, saying that Ubuntu should distance itself from Linux here was a mistake. I apologize. I'll try to rephrase it. Ubuntu is not Linux, or maybe what I mean is that Linux is not Ubuntu. I see Linux as a concept rather than a tangible operating system. Ubuntu uses the Linux kernel: the definition of Linux is the kernel. It does not necessarily apply to the whole system. Mac OS X uses a freebsd based kernel, but it is not "freebsd". I'm saying that Ubuntu programs should be classified as Ubuntu programs, and not necessarily fall under the umbrella term of "Linux programs". I'm not going to pretend that the Mac-Ubuntu analogy is perfect, because it isn't. Apple sells mac while Canonical hands Ubuntu out for very little, if not for free. Mac doesn't even use xorg as its primary graphical interface like most bsds. I'm no expert, like i said, and I certainly don't claim to be inarguably right.

[HappyFeet]

Ubuntu, in my opinion, needs to both embrace its Linux "heritage" and distance itself from it. in a manner similar to Macintosh OS X, Ubuntu's programs should not be classified as "Linux" but as Ubuntu open source OS .deb programs. there should be a graphical tarball installer as well as an automatic .deb installer similar to Macintosh's .mpkg "Installer" program. More people will tend to lean toward Ubuntu if they see it as an operating system with Linux components rather than Linux itself.

Wow. You have a right to your own opinion, but that's some of the worst garbage I've ever read. Thank god you don't run Canonical.

[NoaHall]

feel free to tell me how very wrong and incorrect my ideas are. Seriously.

I'm no expert, like i said, and I certainly don't claim to be inarguably right.
You're clearly no expert ;)
But Ubuntu IS different from other distros. As is every other distro. None are the same.

[Shpongle]

Yes it does. Windows place in my house is using my vista cd as a coaster. (I'm serious) Works great btw.

haha , sure windows has its place but linux isnt going anywhere. look what you get outta the box in linux and the look what you get with windows. i installed w7 a while back along with karmic a6 and to do simple college stuff that i had to use windows for i had to get powerpoint winzip win rar adobe this and that! , it annoys me how useless the win os's are out of the box!!! , where as i didnt have to install anything in linux! you get lots of functionality out of the box and useful progs not bloatware!!!!, and the os does its job and doesnt bother you!!! karmic is just great!! especially with the new kernel and intel drivers


also if we were to take the LINUX out we are not giving due credit to all the people who work/ed so hard to bring us the choice we have today. I can see where you(OP) are coming from but if a person GETS linux , they wanna help and promote what it stands for its still a young os and look how far its come, it wont be too long now before we gain some share! especially with the likes of karmic (a nicer ui would be nice for the first impressions but thats for another day)

[Bachstelze]

I'm saying that Ubuntu programs should be classified as Ubuntu programs, and not necessarily fall under the umbrella term of "Linux programs".

That's where you fail. By definition, an Ubuntu program is a Linux program.

[Frak]

Wow. You have a right to your own opinion, but that's some of the worst garbage I've ever read. Thank god you don't run Canonical.
Well, I think he's mostly right. Ubuntu should lean more as not part of the web of distributions. It should lend itself as an OS that was heavily modified from normal GNU/Linux operating systems (in this case, GNU/Linux seems appropriate) and uses that as a pro.

"Built on the stability and safety of Linux"

Whether that's true or not, it's marketing. Ubuntu needs to play in a way that makes it radically different than other distributions. Ubuntu needs take what people think what's good about Linux, and push that. Then, they need to take the cons, such as "hard to use, geeky" and either morph that into a pro, or put a feature ahead of that, that can "fix" the problem.

"Linux is normally a very complex system for users. We took the power of that complexity and dressed it with an interface that normal people can understand. You don't need to remember difficult commands. We have worked with the best software engineers in the world to make the interface as simple as possible."

Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. There have been at least a couple software engineers that worked on Gnome.

It's not lying, it's massaging the truth.

Next, boast the power of your applications.

"We have worked on the leading Open Source internet viewer, Mozilla Firefox, to ensure the best internet possible."

Notice I didn't say browser. People don't know what a "browser" is. All they know is, "I went to the internet, then I went to Google, then I went to facebook." This is taking lingo from the geeky, teenage group, and morphing it into lingo that a common person off the street could understand.

But most of all, disassociate Ubuntu from Linux. Don't make it Linux, make it a Better Linux (TM). Much of what Mac OS X has done. If you're worried what RMS will say, or what Icaza will say, don't. Only worry what CNet has to say. Only worry what the Washington Post has to say. Worry what the local newspaper has to say. Don't worry what these developers have to say. They may have a large influence on the Linux community as a whole, but they have zero influence on the popular media. You get MTV to endorse you, you have won.

I hate to say it, but if Ubuntu wants to get anywhere, they need to get dirty, they need to bend the truth a bit. It's not evil to do that, it's BusinessAsUsual(TM).

[SomeGuyDude]

You're not the first one to suggest that Ubuntu should abandon the name "Linux", and I think it's stupid. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution. It is not a "heritage", it is part of what Ubuntu is now, and will probably always be.

I dunno. I kind of agree. For mainstream adoption, just "Ubuntu" is fine. Mac users aren't scared off by "Unix", so why saddle Ubuntu down with the baggage of the Linux name?

Yeah it's under there, but why bring it to the forefront? It's Ubuntu.

[lobner]

I hate to say it, but if Ubuntu wants to get anywhere, they need to get dirty, they need to bend the truth a bit. It's not evil to do that, it's BusinessAsUsual.

I aggree totally - excellent post!

[user sam]

Hi. By all means debate what I've said, but make sure you have a counterpoint and an explanation. No ad hominem or personal attacks, please. at LEAST not without evidence. Ad hominem is a common fallacy.
many thanks to Frak for understanding what I said.
hmmm. maybe i posted this thread under the wrong category.

[Warpnow]

Windows has its place in business.

I disagree very strongly. Business is where Linux should be winning out, and microsoft really can't compete. Sure, there is poor compatability with .docx files and excel spreadsheet files, but if the company is only using linux, it wouldn't matter. Put Ubuntu and OpenOffice on a PC and it does everything an office worker should need to, and it will do it at $100 less (or more) per pc. Businesses are all about cutting costs.



Far more programs are available for Windows than any other system. Well, unless you count all the obscure little linux programs that hardly anyone uses.


Yet, count the windows ones? If you look at used programs, I think its very close. Most people use only a handful of applications. Web Browser, IM Client, Office Suite, ect. In every prominent area Linux has a windows alternative. In the amount of "usable applications" it is rather close.



Businesses may not get more bang for their buck with Windows, But the fact remains that Linux in general does not support stuff like .pub documents, ipods, in some cases .wmv files, and the occasional .ppt. Windows can handle anything Linux can spit out, maybe not well, but it can be done. I'm not saying that Windows is better than Linux or anything, I'm just saying it has its place and there are legitimate reasons for using it.


.pub, .wmv, .ppt, all windows proprietary file types...but for a business, you wouldn't need them if you didn't have windows. What office worker needs to play a wmv file if no one in the company can make one. In all likelyhood, using one is simply an act of wasting company resources. The same can be said for the others. If the company is using free programs, they won't need proprietary file types simply because they don't use them. Similarily, I fail to see a human resource manager encourage managing an iPod on a company computer.



there should be a graphical tarball installer as well as an automatic .deb installer similar to Macintosh's .mpkg "Installer" program.


A "tarball installer" would be difficult as tar files have no default structure. If you add one, basically what you have is a .deb file. A .deb file is just an archive with a defined structure. You can extract it. We have an automated .deb installer in ubuntu, called gdebi.

We also have the repositories. Having used Windows and Mac rather extensively, it is abserd to say either one even begin to approach Ubuntu in package management. Package management is Ubuntu's strongest quality, both as an OS, and as a Linux distribution.

[zaksworld]

You're right when you say that Windows can handle (nearly) every Ubuntu program, no matter if it does a good job or not, but Ubuntu can also handle almost every windows program too. The only difference is Windows is usually very slow (even within a few days out of the box!) and Ubuntu is usually very fast even if it has no memory left to spare!

To tell you the truth, the only reason I use Windows is for iTunes, but even that is even being able to run on Ubuntu. My ubuntu can run it (the problem is it can't find my iPod).

[Frak]

I disagree very strongly. Business is where Linux should be winning out, and microsoft really can't compete. Sure, there is poor compatability with .docx files and excel spreadsheet files, but if the company is only using linux, it wouldn't matter. Put Ubuntu and OpenOffice on a PC and it does everything an office worker should need to, and it will do it at $100 less (or more) per pc. Businesses are all about cutting costs.

We have a nearly personal relationship with Microsoft. We get discounts, free softwares, access to some great cost savings, and most importantly, it's easier to find techs trained in Windows administration than in Linux administration.


Yet, count the windows ones? If you look at used programs, I think its very close. Most people use only a handful of applications. Web Browser, IM Client, Office Suite, ect. In every prominent area Linux has a windows alternative. In the amount of "usable applications" it is rather close.

Amount of applications vs. Quality of Applications. The quality of applications produced by Microsoft, in the eyes of who I work for, are better and integrate more seamlessly than any other offering.


.pub, .wmv, .ppt, all windows proprietary file types...but for a business, you wouldn't need them if you didn't have windows. What office worker needs to play a wmv file if no one in the company can make one. In all likelyhood, using one is simply an act of wasting company resources. The same can be said for the others. If the company is using free programs, they won't need proprietary file types simply because they don't use them. Similarily, I fail to see a human resource manager encourage managing an iPod on a company computer.

There's a multitude of things that figure into this:
1. Our workers are trained to use Microsoft Office and Microsoft tools.
2. What if we needed those formats one day. Microsoft is the dominant company, there's a larger chance that they will support it over everybody else.
3. Our company actually does allow iPods, because we have found that our employees perform better if they are allowed to relax themselves over various means that do not distract other employees. If they want to use and charge their iPod, go ahead. If they want to transfer files from that onto their computer, go ahead. Their account is controlled remotely through a GPO anyhow, if they leave, a single click will renew their entire computer.


A "tarball installer" would be difficult as tar files have no default structure. If you add one, basically what you have is a .deb file. A .deb file is just an archive with a defined structure. You can extract it. We have an automated .deb installer in ubuntu, called gdebi.

GiftWrap (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1172466)


We also have the repositories. Having used Windows and Mac rather extensively, it is abserd to say either one even begin to approach Ubuntu in package management. Package management is Ubuntu's strongest quality, both as an OS, and as a Linux distribution.


In a desktop system, one of the largest gripes that Canonical would get is the inclusion of a central package management repository. If there was one rogue packager or developer, it wouldn't take long for a non-canonical maintained (code-wise) application to be infected. They have absolute control over a system works through the update stream.

Get used to it now, because when and if Ubuntu becomes popular, it will be a glimmer of when Ubuntu was this peaceful little community where they provided everybody with what they needed through a private server. Canonical is working on a way now to let the sys admins control the package installation, but it's still going to be too big a risk to many companies.

[dragos240]

Hi. By all means debate what I've said, but make sure you have a counterpoint and an explanation. No ad hominem or personal attacks, please. at LEAST not without evidence. Ad hominem is a common fallacy.
many thanks to Frak for understanding what I said.
hmmm. maybe i posted this thread under the wrong category.


Hello. What we're saying is that ubuntu uses linux as it's kernel, and is a linux distribution. Without linux, ubuntu is just a bunch of unusable code & binary files. Ubuntu cannot distance itself from the Linux kernel because of this. Plus, the Linux kernel is awesome. Furthermore, if ubuntu needed it's own programs in it's own format, 90% of the programs we use today couldn't be used, and also, even if they could, they'd need to be edited to be compatible and would need to be compiled. Honestly, taking the Linux out of ubuntu would be like ripping a building's foundation out. "Eh, who needs the foundation when you got all these features, it's also lighter!" This is what you're saying.

[Frak]

Hello. What we're saying is that ubuntu uses linux as it's kernel, and is a linux distribution. Without linux, ubuntu is just a bunch of unusable code & binary files. Ubuntu cannot distance itself from the Linux kernel because of this. Plus, the Linux kernel is awesome. Furthermore, if ubuntu needed it's own programs in it's own format, 90% of the programs we use today couldn't be used, and also, even if they could, they'd need to be edited to be compatible and would need to be compiled. Honestly, taking the Linux out of ubuntu would be like ripping a building's foundation out. "Eh, who needs the foundation when you got all these features, it's also lighter!" This is what you're saying.
Ubuntu could be recompiled to use the FreeBSD kernel fairly easily. It would be a bit difficult, but it should work fine anyway. In fact, Nexenta is the Ubuntu of UNIXs.

[dragos240]

Yes that's true. You could use the BSD kernel. Even though BSDs are operating systems, not kernels.

[phrostbyte]

Yes it does. Windows place in my house is using my vista cd as a coaster. (I'm serious) Works great btw.

I'm glad Windows is useful for you. :)

[Frak]

Yes that's true. You could use the BSD kernel. Even though BSDs are operating systems, not kernels.
FreeBSD is a kernel. They don't run on Linux. Linux and BSD both use GNU tools.

[Bachstelze]

FreeBSD is a kernel. They don't run on Linux. Linux and BSD both use GNU tools.

Wrong. FreeBSD is a complete OS, it doesn't use the GNU tools. There are project that take just the kernel from FreeBSD and combine it with the GNU tools, but the FreeBSD OS you can download on www.freebsd.org doesn't use them.

[Frak]

Wrong. FreeBSD is a complete OS, it doesn't use the GNU tools. There are project that take just the kernel from FreeBSD and combine it with the GNU tools, but the FreeBSD OS you can download on www.freebsd.org doesn't use them.
I'm referring to most complete distributions of it. You'll find many GNU programs running atop of it.

EDIT
What is the point of this, I stated Ubuntu could be compiled atop of the FreeBSD kernel, and I was right. Leave it.

[schauerlich]

Ubuntu could be recompiled to use the FreeBSD kernel fairly easily. It would be a bit difficult, but it should work fine anyway. In fact, Nexenta is the Ubuntu of UNIXs.

And with the linux compatibility layer, you don't even really need to compile it. You'd have to repackage it for FreeBSD, though.

[schauerlich]

I'm referring to most complete distributions of it. You'll find many GNU programs running atop of it.

Most of the standard Unix tools have a BSD version that were written before their GNU counterparts. GCC is one of the major GNU utilities without a production ready replacement, but with llvm/clang, even that won't be true soon.

[Frak]

Most of the standard Unix tools have a BSD version that were written before their GNU counterparts. GCC is one of the major GNU utilities without a production ready replacement, but with llvm/clang, even that won't be true soon.
I hope that gets done soon. It'll be cool to say I have a *nix OS that runs aside Linux without all the GNU put into it.

[3rdalbum]

But the fact remains that Linux in general does not support stuff like .pub documents

Microsoft Publisher is a consumer-level program, not a business program. The only businesses that use Publisher are typesetters/printers; they use Publisher only for opening documents that people have created in Publisher and then converting them to PDF.

We all know that proprietary formats exist. The trick is to stop people from using proprietary formats and to start using open formats. That's something you can help with through advocacy.

, ipods,


Wrong! :-) There are almost as many iPod management programs for Linux as music players :-)

[QUOTE]in some cases .wmv files

The only case is DRM-encrypted Windows Media Video files, which nothing except Windows Media Player can open. As far as I know, Macintoshes can't play DRM-encrypted WMVs either.

Once again, the best solution is to stop people from using DRM-encumbered formats. They cause more problems than just the interoperability issues.


Ubuntu, in my opinion, needs to both embrace its Linux "heritage" and distance itself from it. in a manner similar to Macintosh OS X, Ubuntu's programs should not be classified as "Linux" but as Ubuntu open source OS .deb programs.

I can't think of what purpose this would have, but I can think of problems; for instance, people seeing a program running on Fedora and believing that it's not available for Ubuntu because "Ubuntu uses its own programs".


there should be a graphical tarball installer as well as an automatic .deb installer similar to Macintosh's .mpkg "Installer" program.

The latter is called GDebi and it comes preinstalled on Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu. Tarballs are compressed archives, not installer packages, i.e. some of them contain source code, some contain runnable binaries, some contain themes, some just contain pictures of my Auntie Sandra, etc. Do you mean an automatic source compiler? If so, then agreed, but it's not as easy a task as you might think.

The problem is virtually solved on Ubuntu anyway, as there seem to be PPAs for every new piece of software under the sun :-)


More people will tend to lean toward Ubuntu if they see it as an operating system with Linux components rather than Linux itself.

I don't understand why.

I realise that you're already an Ubuntu user and I appreciate that you're giving your opinion... but some of your comments were mystifying with little justification (yes I read your subsequent posts too). I'm afraid I didn't get any extra insight into anything from your post.

Ubuntu does already rival Windows. People who would otherwise use Windows, are now using Ubuntu. Pick up a PC magazine and you'll always see a couple of pages dedicated to Ubuntu, whereas a couple of years ago Linux never got a mention.

[3rdalbum]

What is the point of this, I stated Ubuntu could be compiled atop of the FreeBSD kernel, and I was right. Leave it.

Slight technicality: Ubuntu could be modified to run atop FreeBSDk, but it wouldn't be as simple as a recompile.

[Khakilang]

Its the software that separate Window from Linux. Maybe Ubuntu should woo more software vendors than the competition with Window is getting hotter.

[jayanramesh]

Dear User sam
Don't be rationalised,we all never forget our parents for it is our origin and where we came from-SO IS THE UBUNTU.Ubuntu itself is not different entity and its my humble request not to split the fused ones.The difference is" Windows never failed but LINUX Ubuntu ever ever succeed".

[juancarlospaco]

Windows... mmm... i hear about that program,
its kinda plug-in for Ubuntu to run certain programs, a VM just like Java.
...And comes with a program to download Firefox named Internet Explorer.
:)

[longtom]

Windows... mmm... i hear about that program,
its kinda plug-in for Ubuntu to run certain programs, a VM just like Java.
...And comes with a program to download Firefox named Internet Explorer.
:)

:)