Mark Shuttleworth vs Apple.

[Madspyman]

According to this article, In 2008 Shuttleworth thought that in 2 years Linux could surpass OS X.

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/07/23/ubuntu-founder-mark-shuttleworth-we-can-surpass-apple-in-two-ye/


Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth has big dreams for Linux. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been following the progress of Ubuntu, which releases a major update every six months and keeps getting more and more user friendly. But user friendly is just the beginning. Shuttleworth wants Linux to be prettier too. In fact, he's calling on open source developers to make desktop Linux more attractive than OS X within 2 years.

So it's 2010 and we've been introduced to Ubuntu OS X.04. This feels like "Face Off" without the part where the hero gets his identity back.

Do you think Lucid Lynx looks better than OS X?

[handy]

I don't think it matters.

One person likes 3D desktop effects, another prefers a black screen with no icons & an overall dark theme.

Some love icons & images, some don't.

The great benefit that Linux has over OS X, is that you can change just about everything in Linux (some distro's are easier than others) & you can really change comparatively very little in OS X.

As an example; you can't even change the size of all of the OS X, fonts, & when you can, you are limited to 16 points maximum, which is miserably small on a 24" screen.

So to my mind, eye & pragmatic self, Linux wins due to its configurability, whereas OS X, wins due to its overall ease of use.

[Madspyman]

I don't think it matters.

I'm trying to find out whether Ubuntu users think the creator (Debian forker) of Ubuntu has achieved his goal of surpassing the look of OS X. I do think it matters. All good points though.

[the8thstar]

Given the higher customability and efforts made by the community, I think Shuttleworth's dream has come true.

Now what we need is big software companies to develop Linux/Ubuntu versions of their products (Adobe, Microsoft, etc.) to gain the popularity OS X has.

[Nerd King]

My machine looks much better than OSX but the default does not (neither the new one or the old ones).

[Post Monkeh]

if i wanted my machine to look like osx i could do it in half an hour, but i prefer my desktop so yeah, it does look better than a mac.

the pc itself doesn't though, it's an ugly black tower, and my laptop's a dull grey thing, but meh.

[NCLI]

My machine looks much better than OSX but the default does not (neither the new one or the old ones).

This is both true and false. It's all about individual taste, but I, personally, do think the new theme is very close to competing with OSX, though I think it'll take GTK3.0 and Ubuntu 10.10 to finally get there.

[Shpongle]

i feel were going in the right direction , but it may take a few more releases to polish it!

[NightwishFan]

In my opinion my machine looks fantastic. I like the way Gnome works, I hope Gnome 3 is a success as well.

[Queue29]

Ubuntu by default looks more like Windows 98 or XP than it does to OSX or Windows 7/Vista. In terms of ability to customize, of course it wins, but it shouldn't take time and effort to get something like a default install from over a decade ago.

[NightwishFan]

Those interfaces were much better IMO. My Gnome is set up similar to Mac OS 9.

[itreius]

Do you think Lucid Lynx looks better than OS X?
No, I do not.

[AllRadioisDead]

I think GTK and metacity both feel really dated.

[Riffer]

There are 3 reason I would never own a Mac. The first 2 (which has nothing to do with this thread) is the way Apple does business and the high cost of owning Mac products.

The last reason (which is germane to this thread) is that I never "got" Mac and the different Mac OSes. I find Mac's for me to be counter intuitive and frustrating to use. I have found it difficult to navigate around the OS, things are either hidden away or non-existent. And I have found much the same with Mac programs and apps, tools and features that I consider important are buried away. I also find that the overall look and feel of the main desktop to be overly busy and confusing to look at, and truth be told quite ugly.

I know the above statements are my opinion, and I do know there are more then a few people who feel the same as me. But here's the thing, we all do things differently and have different computing needs. While I like a pretty simple desktop, others want and need the bells and whistles, yet others go for a very minimalistic desktop just a step above a CLI.

I would agree that Ubuntu has the superior desktop just because of its configurability. Rather then trying to make Ubuntu "pretty" out of the box, I would like to see more and better tools for customizing the desktop.

[RiceMonster]

I think GTK and metacity both feel really dated.

I agree. While you can make them look good, it feels like it's stuck in the XP era.

[NightwishFan]

I do not really see what you mean. Mac widgets are smooth and have gradients and vista is just.. blocks. Even the default Clearlooks is a gradient like OSX.

[Jay Car]

It won't matter how Ubuntu's default desktop looks, it will never please everyone. I'm glad they are updating it, and I think it's a worthy goal to make the default as polished as possible...but no matter how polished it becomes, there will always be those that will complain, or make fun of it, or whatever.

The thing is, as others have pointed out here, the real value is that it's all easily changeable. Only people who have had to live with computer systems they CAN'T change seem to worry about what the default desktop looks like.

I don't want my desktop to look like anyone else's system...I just want it to look like mine, and it does. I think it's beautiful. :D

[Madspyman]

Rather then trying to make Ubuntu "pretty" out of the box, I would like to see more and better tools for customizing the desktop.

So far I don't think either have been achieved, and while gconf-editor is an amazing tool new users won't even know it's there until they Google how to fix the buttons.

Many, less tech savvy, existing users (some who've never visited the Forums) will probably think the new position of the buttons was an error with their update.

Point is you shouldn't need tech support to put your buttons back to where they were before you upgraded, it's unprofessional.

[Post Monkeh]

Rather then trying to make Ubuntu "pretty" out of the box, I would like to see more and better tools for customizing the desktop.

the problem here is if it wants to move on and start eating away at the lead of the other systems, it still has to look great by default.

what they need to do is make things more polished, and easier to use, while still retaining the power features that give it its customization potential. no easy task.

[Madspyman]

what they need to do is make things more polished, and easier to use, while still retaining the power features that give it its customization potential. no easy task.

Not to mention a branding that say's it's own thing, w/o drawing major attention to a rival OS, obviously harder than expected.

[ashwinrao]

Ubuntu is much more than any other OS and that's why I'm using it. Well, you can see the huge increment in number of Ubuntu users in coming days! Ubuntu is the king of all OS's and above all of them. I personally feel I'm using an OS which is above Win7 or OSx. I'm not boasting, this is the fact.

[Dj Melik]

I hope GNOME never ever adopts glossy/shiny interfaces.

They look like crap.

[NightwishFan]

I like my panel perfectly opaque.

[Madspyman]

Ubuntu is much more than any other OS and that's why I'm using it. Well, you can see the huge increment in number of Ubuntu users in coming days! Ubuntu is the king of all OS's and above all of them. I personally feel I'm using an OS which is above Win7 or OSx. I'm not boasting, this is the fact.

Found another interesting article from 2008.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2890

[fugazi32]

I don't think it matters.
So to my mind, eye & pragmatic self, Linux wins due to its configurability, whereas OS X, wins due to its overall ease of use.

I don't see how OS X is considered easy to use - I'm a very literate computer user, I used Windows in the past (XP was the last version I used) and have been using Linux-based distros ever since. I had a go on my Dad's Mac the other week and found OS X about as painful and unfriendly as they come - it was a hassle, so cluttered and I felt like I had no control over anything.

[HappinessNow]

The look of OS X I don't care much for it looks horridly like glamor kitty 80's Butt Rock but when I use it I am not much interested in how it looks.

I prefer a minimalistic desktop with no icons or docks or any such things like that, it simply looks silly but that is also my opinion, I think an individually customized desktop in Ubuntu or any Linux variation is much better then then cookie cutter default look of OS X, so with that said Mark Shuttleworth has won by default. :p

[Riffer]

I don't see how OS X is considered easy to use - I'm a very literate computer user, I used Windows in the past (XP was the last version I used) and have been using Linux-based distros ever since. I had a go on my Dad's Mac the other week and found OS X about as painful and unfriendly as they come - it was a hassle, so cluttered and I felt like I had no control over anything.

My point exactly. There seems to be this myth that Macs are easy to use, where and when that came about I have no clue.

My point about better tools wasn't about editing gconf, rather taking the present "appearance Preference" tool (which I think in its present form to be a pretty good app) and add more features to it. Features like Gnome Color Chooser which allows the user to change font or window colours easily. And while there has been positive improvements to accessing wallpapers and themes, I would like to see easier methods of installing.

[handy]

...
Now what we need is big software companies to develop Linux/Ubuntu versions of their products (Adobe, Microsoft, etc.) to gain the popularity OS X has.

I can't see MS, Adobe & the like making their software available for Linux, until they can at least find a way to lock it up so that the generally more tech' savy & community minded Linux users can't just copy it & use it for free.

There is a reason for the existence of that god awful registry.

I wonder how many Linux users would stand for being told by MS or Adobe, when they have to make a phone call to unlock the software, that you have already done this twice before, so we are now not going to give you another key to unlock the software who's license you bought, a third time? (That's it for distro-hoppers!)

Adobe did this to me with Macromedia Studio MX, which had been installed once on windows & once on OS X, then 4 years later I wanted to reinstall it on OS X, & I was knocked back, & told I had to buy another license.

I told the poor little man with the U.S. accent that I would never buy another Adobe product again, & that I would now go & solve the problem via the internet using torrents, which I did. I was NOT happy.

[perce]

My point exactly. There seems to be this myth that Macs are easy to use, where and when that came about I have no clue.



From a time when Linus was in kindergarden and PC were stuck with DOS command line, I guess

[perce]

Ubuntu by default looks more like Windows 98 or XP

What to you mean? In fonts are anti-aliased by default and for every application in Ubuntu, but in XP they aren't.

[samjh]

The real test will be this:
Take a random sample of 100 people. Not geeks or any special group, just ordinary people off the street.
Show them two identical computers, one loaded with Mac OS X with the default desktop, and the other with any Linux distribution with its default theme.
Ask each of them to play around with the two for a minute, and choose which one looks more attractive.

I think most will say Mac OSX looks more attractive.

[Madspyman]

The real test will be this:
Take a random sample of 100 people. Not geeks or any special group, just ordinary people off the street.
Show them two identical computers, one loaded with Mac OS X with the default desktop, and the other with any Linux distribution with its default theme.
Ask each of them to play around with the two for a minute, and choose which one looks more attractive.

I think most will say Mac OSX looks more attractive.

Kinda like when ZDNet convinced everyone KDE was Windows 7.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/soa/Is-it-Windows-7-or-KDE-4-/0,139023769,339294810,00.htm

[handy]

I don't see how OS X is considered easy to use - I'm a very literate computer user, I used Windows in the past (XP was the last version I used) and have been using Linux-based distros ever since. I had a go on my Dad's Mac the other week and found OS X about as painful and unfriendly as they come - it was a hassle, so cluttered and I felt like I had no control over anything.

You may well be a very literate computer user (in some areas).

When most people move from XP to Linux, it takes them 2 or 3 months to feel at home. Having a few goes on a Mac, does not make one a Mac literate user, you have to become familiar with its ways, which are different than both XP/windows, the distro's & the BSDs.

You really have no foundation for your statement until you have worked with a Mac consistently for some time.


My point exactly. There seems to be this myth that Macs are easy to use, where and when that came about I have no clue.

See above? It came from people who have extensive experience with windows, distro's, BSDs & OS X. Who else has the right or more importantly, the credibility to be able to make such a statement?

A school kid with a pet hate?

Once you have spent some time with OS X, you will find that it is generally a simple system to work with.

My wife who has been running her business & uses quite a variety of forms of software for the process; used to be a windows user, then she went to Mac; where I once had to administer her windows systems, I have found that I no longer have to since she moved to OS X.

She has quite easily taught herself across the fields of the installation & changing of peripherals, installation, removal & upgrading of software, backup to external drive, you name it & I don't have to do it, unless it is a system rebuild, which unlike windows, doesn't seem to need to happen until there is a hardware failure with OS X, (at least in my experience since 10.3).

I'm the first to agree with anyone that says Apple has some policies that I don't agree with. Though when it comes down to it, there aren't many companies out there that don't have at least some policies that I oppose completely!

Also, OS X has a range of issues, like the antiquated Finder system & the inherent limitations re. font sizing.

But when it comes to ease of use & maintenance, it has no equal amongst the MS, Linux, BSD or Amiga products that I have experience in.

If someone just wants to get a job done that requires software (that is available for the Mac) the Mac is the tool for the job that won't impede your productivity, as OS X, just sits back there & does what it was built to do with the absolute minimum of user intervention.

For a distro to be able to present the same scenario, it just about needs to be sold pre-installed on hardware that was specifically chosen for it, & the customer needs to be made aware that there are peripherals that won't work, won't work properly, & that will work perfectly & will install very easily.

There would need to be a constantly updated list of these peripherals & software for that matter, relating to the different versions of the distro & that particular computer hardware that was sold with it installed, on the web.

Which turns out to be a somewhat Apple way of doing things, so we know that, that works.

[phrostbyte]

I see a lot of beautiful desktops in the screen shot section. Windows and Mac OS X look boring and inferior in comparison.

[Riffer]

handy. You kinda make my point for me. While many like the Mac UI, as far as we know there has been no serious polling or study done around the so called best UI. My point (which it seems I've made badly) is that there is no better UI, we all have different needs when interacting with our computer.

No I'm not a school kid (I'm 53) and yes I have used Macs for an extended period. My experience is always one of frustration when using Macs. When I first tried Ubuntu though (7.04) I was struck on the logic and sense of its UI, and yes I have had my fair share of frustration with Ubuntu/Linux, but its again the way Ubuntu does things that keeps me here.

Now I'm not trying to put down Mac's, for some people its a great OS, but for many others its not. My point is rather then emulate Mac, rather its to work to Ubuntu/Linux's strength of configuration.

[Madspyman]

Now I'm not trying to put down Mac's, for some people its a great OS, but for many others its not. My point is rather then emulate Mac, rather its to work to Ubuntu/Linux's strength of configuration.

It's my feeling that Ubuntu has become the poster distro for Linux, there's a certain amount of polish to it's development that makes it accessible to many different users, out of the box.

That being said visually, with minor exceptions, I've never felt it was all that original, especially now that it's emulating OS X (it can't be argued with).

Being as Ubuntu often acts as an ambassador for many to Linux I feel it needs to bring a thematic originality to Linux that, other distro's or perhaps other OS's feel they may want to emulate.

As far as I can see Ubuntu is already faster (especially in Lucid) and more stable than OS X. I think once it starts setting the trend visually it'll be a real game changer.

[NightwishFan]

It does resemble mac, but the theme is being played with as we speak I am sure. I really like the login screen.

[Frak]

From an absolute standpoint, he failed that argument haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard.

From a hypothetical standpoint, arguments can be made on both sides.

[Madspyman]

From an absolute standpoint, he failed that argument haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard.

From a hypothetical standpoint, arguments can be made on both sides.

Who are you referring to?

[Frak]

Who are you referring to?
"In 2008 Shuttleworth thought that in 2 years Linux could surpass OS X['s interface]"

Realistically, Ubuntu's interface is still in limbo. It's going toward a mac-like look and function, but is still retaining some old traits from previous versions.

Though, arguably, you could claim Ubuntu surpassed OS X on some aspects. I can think of customizability, but that's all.

[Madspyman]

[I]arguably, you could claim Ubuntu surpassed OS X on some aspects. I can think of customizability, but that's all.

I look at it like this, lets say hypothetically all of the software developed for OS X was magically ported to Ubuntu. There's no doubt in my mind that the software would run quite well, perhaps even better in Ubuntu than OS X. Visually however, when referring to Lucid Lynx, OS X would be the winner.

The point I'm trying to make is I believe Ubuntu is to the place where anything you could throw at OS X, it could handle as well, perhaps better. It justs needs to decide who it is visually.

[Frak]

I look at it like this, lets say hypothetically all of the software developed for OS X was magically ported to Ubuntu. There's no doubt in my mind that the software would run quite well, perhaps even better in Ubuntu than OS X.

I wouldn't say that. It could run it well, but not as well as OS X.

[Madspyman]

I wouldn't say that. It could run it well, but not as well as OS X.

Again it's a hypothetical, other than porting all the software there's no way to be certain one way or another. The vary changes that need to be made to any given Mac app to port it to Linux, may be the determining factor that causes it to run faster in Ubuntu than OS X, or slower.

[handy]

handy. You kinda make my point for me. While many like the Mac UI,

I personally don't, I'm one of those black screen, no icons small panel people, who also like a dark theme. I run Openbox on Arch. ;) On my 24" iMac. :)

This IS personal taste we are talking about (superficial looks) as opposed to practical functionality & simplicity of use.



as far as we know there has been no serious polling or study done around the so called best UI. My point (which it seems I've made badly) is that there is no better UI, we all have different needs when interacting with our computer.

I take it that you mean specific UIs are more suitable for certain things?

I agree, & to recapitulate, say that OS X, is most suitable for people that want the simplest UI, that also happens to be the lowest maintenance general purpose OS to use.



No I'm not a school kid (I'm 53) and yes I have used Macs for an extended period. My experience is always one of frustration when using Macs. When I first tried Ubuntu though (7.04) I was struck on the logic and sense of its UI, and yes I have had my fair share of frustration with Ubuntu/Linux, but its again the way Ubuntu does things that keeps me here.

I can appreciate that.



Now I'm not trying to put down Mac's, for some people its a great OS, but for many others its not. My point is rather then emulate Mac, rather its to work to Ubuntu/Linux's strength of configuration.

I agree.

[kaldor]

Not aimed to anyone in particular, but I don't get why people hate OS X's UI. I find the dock+global menu approach to be pretty simple and intuitive. No problems at all with my MacBook. I still prefer GNOME/KDE though.

If only Apple wasn't so restrictive. Their OS is great, but their business practices are turning me away.

[neu5eeCh]

The last Apple I owned was a Mac from the mid 90's (can't remember the make). The day I bought it, Apple released a new MAC. The old MAC was still in transit and when I tried to cancel the order they told me that I would have to pry my credit payment out of their cold, dead fingers.

I never bought another Apple.

How does this relate to the current thread? Because, several months later, I then bought a new chipset for my MAC (to increase its speed). But no sooner had I bought the new chip set than Apple completely rebuilt its OS. Now my old Apple was an obscenely overpriced paperweight.

The moral? That may be a lovely OS, but Jobs hates your Apple computer. Why? Because you're the only sucker who was willing to buy an overpriced Apple; and once you buy a computer from him, he's got one less customer. Solution? Build a new OS that obsolesces your pretty little Apple. Prediction: It's just a matter of time before Jobs finds a rationale to turn your current sleek little Apple into a sad little orphan. But, lucky you(!), Jobs has a brand, spanky new computer he's just itching to sell you. And that shiny OS X? Don't get too used to it. Mark my words.

Apple has the most expensive OS maintenance policy in the world.

Linux? Ubuntu? Hell, I could run it on just about anything. Short term? High maintenance. Long term? A whole hell of a lot less maintenance and it costs *nothing*.

(Can you tell I have a bone to pick with Apple?)

[Madspyman]

Not aimed to anyone in particular, but I don't get why people hate OS X's UI. I find the dock+global menu approach to be pretty simple and intuitive. No problems at all with my MacBook.

I don't hate OS X, I just hate the idea of Ubuntu becoming an OS X clone, and losing it's originality.

[tcoffeep]

Linux has never surpassed the Mac, and I doubt they ever will. Those who use Linux will probably feel that Linux has surpassed Apple, but, they're in denial. Mac is made for high-end users, though, and not low-end, whereas Linux can be used in any range, be it high-mid-low. They're not really even comparable.

IMHO!

[lykwydchykyn]

People's tastes are obviously subjective an nobody's going to agree; but in terms of the capabilities available for creating a desktop, metacity seems to be behind the curve a bit.

I don't know what Mark had in mind when he threw out the "2 years" thing, but has GNOME really changed much in that time? The real change is coming with GNOME 3, and that's really the point to assess whether or not the competition has been surpassed.

Full disclosure: KDE user speaking.

[lykwydchykyn]

Linux has never surpassed the Mac, and I doubt they ever will. Those who use Linux will probably feel that Linux has surpassed Apple, but, they're in denial.


It's an unfortunate foible of human nature that we feel the need to ascribe some kind of deficiency to those who think differently than we do. Is it possible those Linux users AREN'T in denial, but actually have a more satisfying experience on Linux?

[tcoffeep]

A singular experience that was positive for them doesn't necessarily make for the populous. What I meant was that Linux may surpass Mac for the individual, but not the majority.

edit: disclaimer added to sig.

[Madspyman]

A singular experience that was positive for them doesn't necessarily make for the populous. What I meant was that Linux may surpass Mac for the individual, but not the majority.

The majority of computer owners are Windows users. Yet you don't hear Mac users defending windows because it has a larger user base. Your argument needs work.

[tcoffeep]

It wasn't an argument. Windows surpasses Mac which surpasses Linux.

[phrostbyte]

It wasn't an argument. Windows surpasses Mac which surpasses Linux.

You know there are other forums around for your 'superior' OSes. Here is one: http://www.msfn.org/

I'm not sure what compels you to post in a site called "Ubuntu Forums" when you obviously don't use or like Linux at all.

[tcoffeep]

I never said I disliked Linux. I haven't used it since September, but I don't dislike it. I assume you're using that as a reply because of my Linsux affiliation, when I enjoy linux, and only have fond memories of it. Please, keep personal dislike out of the conversation. I never claimed they were superior.

The conversation is about Shuttleworth and surpassing OSX. Someone said Windows had the majority, I agreed. This isn't about Windows, though. This is about Mac and Linux. Keep me out of it.

[anoop999]

The keyboard shortcuts and behaviour of the Ubuntu desktop is similar to Windows, but is quite different from a Mac. This is probably why Mac users find it difficult to learn how to use a PC, and vice versa. I don't think either design is necessarily better than the other.

However, I find GNOME and Xfce easier and more pleasant to use than Windows.

I didn't like the default theme of Ubuntu 9.10. I found it difficult to differentiate between icons which were all various shades of brown. So I installed the CrystalSVG theme which is bright and clear and I am very happy with it.

[Madspyman]

It wasn't an argument. Windows surpasses Mac which surpasses Linux.

You mean in populous, sorry I thought we were talking about functionality, the amount of computers running Windows is greater than that of computers running Mac and Linux.

That also means more computers have Virus's on them, as opposed to those sporting Linux or OS X.

[NightwishFan]

I love the opinions here, all pointless to post. I care nothing if, in your opinion, mac is better than windows or whatever else. In my opinion the color green and tossed salad are better than guitar picks. What does that mean? You are comparing things that are made for different purposes and audiences. Why not try just respecting other peoples projects.

[lykwydchykyn]

A singular experience that was positive for them doesn't necessarily make for the populous. What I meant was that Linux may surpass Mac for the individual, but not the majority.

edit: disclaimer added to sig.

I think I know what you mean now. It's still less than charitable to characterize people as "in denial" when it comes to a comparison of opinions.

Personally I don't claim to have a feel for what the "average user" finds friendly/usable/attractive in a desktop. I know what I like, I assume others have their own opinions.

[phrostbyte]

I think I know what you mean now. It's still less than charitable to characterize people as "in denial" when it comes to a comparison of opinions.

Personally I don't claim to have a feel for what the "average user" finds friendly/usable/attractive in a desktop. I know what I like, I assume others have their own opinions.

++

That's one thing I really about Linux in general is the customization factors. I mean look at the screenshot thread. There is a great deal of variety on how people make their OS look. This is normal behavior. People decorate their houses, their cars, the way they want to. People are individuals, they can have individual tastes. Apparently Apple and Microsoft seem to disagree. :)

[lykwydchykyn]

++

That's one thing I really about Linux in general is the customization factors. I mean look at the screenshot thread. There is a great deal of variety on how people make their OS look. This is normal behavior. People decorate their houses, their cars, the way they want to. People are individuals, they can have individual tastes. Apparently Apple and Microsoft seem to disagree. :)

I value customization as much as the next Linux user, but we should be fair to Microsoft and Apple here; they've saved themselves a lot of trouble by removing a certain amount of customization capability. One of the most frustrating aspects of software development is writing for unknown scenarios -- taking care of edge cases. The more you can develop for a known environment, the more likely your code is going to work flawlessly.

Don't get me wrong, I like having the freedom, but I can appreciate why a commercial entity -- who has to stand behind the software and support it -- would want to curtail my tinkering a bit.

[NightwishFan]

I agree, I hope Gnome figures out how to make the new interface customizable without letting the user have a good chance of breaking it if they are new. When the gnome2 panel breaks or accidentally is removed some users are clueless what to do.

[Post Monkeh]

It wasn't an argument. Windows surpasses Mac which surpasses Linux.

in which department(s) and for what reason(s)?

[phrostbyte]

I value customization as much as the next Linux user, but we should be fair to Microsoft and Apple here; they've saved themselves a lot of trouble by removing a certain amount of customization capability. One of the most frustrating aspects of software development is writing for unknown scenarios -- taking care of edge cases. The more you can develop for a known environment, the more likely your code is going to work flawlessly.

Don't get me wrong, I like having the freedom, but I can appreciate why a commercial entity -- who has to stand behind the software and support it -- would want to curtail my tinkering a bit.

It's really a cop out though. I don't know much about OS X, but Windows was designed without customization in mind. The most commonly used widget system is raster based, and layout is primarily pixel based. Meaning that the way a UI will look is quite hardware dependent. GTK+ uses a [mostly] uses container based layout system, and the actual widget locations are calculated at runtime. That's why you can run GTK+ apps on phones and PDAs for instance without nothing more then a recompile.

[handy]

It's an unfortunate foible of human nature that we feel the need to ascribe some kind of deficiency to those who think differently than we do.

Unfortunate indeed.



Is it possible those Linux users AREN'T in denial, but actually have a more satisfying experience on Linux?

Too true.

As previously stated, I by far enjoy using Arch/Openbox/Xfce4-panel on my 24" iMac more than OS X.

As far as the overpriced routine is concerned: Anyone who wants to go down that track again should just do a search & read the multiple threads & same old boring arguments over again & again...

Choose what you will, & allow others the same privilege?

[Danimoth]

If Ubuntu is trying to overcome OS X, it is aiming too low...

[JDShu]

hmm I've been using Macs consistently for a couple of months. It gets things done, but I don't find it an especially comfortable experience. One thing I wonder is why give windows a maximize function? It looks quite bad and the dock gets in the way. In addition I have to Google every couple of weeks on how to take screenshots. Finally, in my opinion the default Lucid theme looks better than the Mac theme. On the other hand I do love the function keys that spread out the windows... I'm glad I could reproduce it in Compiz.

[zekopeko]

One thing I wonder is why give windows a maximize function? It looks quite bad and the dock gets in the way. In addition I have to Google every couple of weeks on how to take screenshots.

AFAIK Mac's don't have a maximize button. It's more akin to zoom. It simply expands the window to fit the content.

[ssj6akshat]

Last Time I saw OSX's UI I vomited.I like the Dock and Metallic colour scheme though.The rest sucks

[madjr]

anyone that follows Omgubuntu (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk) can see that they're improving the looks every day, new icons and stuff added everyday

[toupeiro]

Interesting way to title this discussion. Makes it sound like a court case...

This whole idea is purely subjective unless you talk about units of growth over the last 2 years...

However, if based purely on conjecture, yes. I look at it this way:

1) In the last 2 years, how much innovation and functionality has Apple introduced into OS-X?

2) In the last 2 years, how much innovation and functionality has Canonical and the community introduced into Ubuntu?

If you really consider everything from 8.04 to 10.04 in ubuntu, its staggering how ubuntu continues to introduce very functional changes and drive linux awareness and growth. I won't admit to liking or agreeing to all of them, but overall, there are more good decisions than bad. Apple knows it's niche, and knows they don't have to do much at all for the majority of those who buy apple products. They will buy them because they are apple products. People in the last two years who have started using ubuntu have done so, way less likely because its a Linux OS, but because it truly offers them an OS that delivers function and productivity.

All conjecture, of course. :P

-T.

[sudoer541]

IMO I think Mark Shuttleworth failed. Cuz to surpass Mac OS X ubuntu needs to be idiot proof (no command line and such) more third party paid apps through ubuntu software centre.
and more polished + innovative + easy to navigate OS.

[toupeiro]

IMO I think Mark Shuttleworth failed. Cuz to surpass Mac OS X ubuntu needs to be idiot proof (no command line and such) more third party paid apps through ubuntu software centre.
and more polished + innovative + easy to navigate OS.

But thats broken logic, to me. To say a Linux OS shouldn't have a command line is like saying a car shouldn't have a hood to open because you need to keep idiots out of the engine compartment... The average user can do everything they need in ubuntu through the GUI, but a big part of what makes linux so functional is you can do everything through the GUI, but you can still pop the hood and do anything you want. Try doing that on OS-X and have apple support you...

[sudoer541]

But thats broken logic, to me. To say a Linux OS shouldn't have a command line is like saying a car shouldn't have a hood to open because you need to keep idiots out of the engine compartment... The average user can do everything they need in ubuntu through the GUI, but a big part of what makes linux so functional is you can do everything through the GUI, but you can still pop the hood and do anything you want. Try doing that on OS-X and have apple support you...

What I am trying to say is the CLI should be there, but only accessible for advanced users.
GUI should be improved so that those who dont want to use the CLI should not have to.
ubuntu needs paid software + a cute theme like the purple wallpaper.:D

[toupeiro]

What I am trying to say is the CLI should be there, but only accessible for advanced users.
GUI should be improved so that those who dont want to use the CLI should not have to.
ubuntu needs paid software + a cute theme like the purple wallpaper.:D


So.. you're saying the GUI should have some sort of mechanism to detect your efficiency level, and deterministically have icons to the CLI? yeah.. show me one OS that does this... Even windows has the Command prompt right under accessories, Ironically, the same place ubuntu has it..

The GUI is improved so that if you don't want to use the CLI, you don't have to. Need nvidia drivers? use the hardware drivers tool. Add a new NIC? System | Preferences | Network connections. New Apt repository? System | administration | software sources? Need to edit a file? Nautilus and gedit....

I honestly think its not ubuntu's GUI that needs improvement, its user awareness of how to use it properly.

And the idea of paid software for the sake of paid software is short-sided.. Paid software != better software. Over the years, I've paid for plenty of apps which are dwarfed by comparison to some of the FOSS out there.

Technically, the only thing stopping major paid applications from running on linux is not linux, its your application developers. It doesn't cost money to run linux compilers, and you're not required to use the GPL because the OS is. It does cost paid-software developers money to support their tools on linux because of their for-profit model around their code and not allowing a community to help them do it, or do it for them. The problem there, is not ubuntu's problem. It's still possible to make money with proprietary software in a free software environment, without all the doors and locks around the code. There are companies doing it every day.

[Shpongle]

i honestly think its not ubuntu's gui that needs improvement, its user awareness of how to use it properly.

+1

[astrobot]

But thats broken logic, to me. To say a Linux OS shouldn't have a command line is like saying a car shouldn't have a hood to open because you need to keep idiots out of the engine compartment... The average user can do everything they need in ubuntu through the GUI, but a big part of what makes linux so functional is you can do everything through the GUI, but you can still pop the hood and do anything you want. Try doing that on OS-X and have apple support you...


To be honest I don't think any OS comes close to OS X for functionality and ease of use.

It seems only Apple have put together what I would call a fully integrated desktop via features such as the drag and drop implementation.

[Frak]

...what I would call a fully integrated desktop via features such as the drag and drop paradigm.

Paradigm, not implementation.

[Irihapeti]

I guess it's easier when you have a marketing model that says you may only install the OS on certain pre-approved pieces of hardware.

I had Macs years ago. I remember that I couldn't get hold of a replacement floppy drive and install it myself, or even get a non-Apple computer tech to do it for me. Brassed me off no end, especially as I knew that some of the "authorised" techs were useless.

[toupeiro]

To be honest I don't think any OS comes close to OS X for functionality and ease of use.

It seems only Apple have put together what I would call a fully integrated desktop via features such as the drag and drop implementation.

Maybe I'm in my own little bubble here, but as someone who started on Amiga, worked through MS-DOS and Windows 3.x - current and mid to late 90's versions of Linux to current, I've seen the natural progression of the desktop on multiple platforms. My first exposure to Mac-OS was somewhere in the 7.x or 8.x versions of it (aside from the old Apple II stuff) up through Mac-OSX. I won't ever say that I've been a proficient Mac user, but thats primarily because the UI and interaction with the system has always been a complete turn-off, and in some ways, very counter-intuitive to how I'm accustomed to working on many platforms of systems. I could get better at it if I spend the ridiculous amount of money it would take to do so legally, but I fail to see anything it would provide me that I'm not already getting elsewhere with little to no difficulty at all.

It's just my opinion, but to me I think MAC computers intentionally cater to a niche market, which Steve Jobs has openly admitted to in interviews, and people who fall into that niche are going to love what Mac can do, but I don't think they have an edge in UI innovation compelling enough to warrant their TCO, especially now that they are just x86 systems which are commodity hardware.

[dyltman]

For ubuntu to actually beat apple everything must work out-of-the-box which it won't since it doesn't make its own computers. The problem is not that it does not need the terminal but for everyone who does tutorials to insteed explain how to do stuff the GUI way. It also needs to have more mainstreamed game and tools. Funny thing is that my dad is switching from a mac to ubuntu because in ubuntu the stuff he needs are easier to install (emacs etc). The best thing of linux is what people want to flee from (If you're not happy with something you can tweak it to what you like). Also I think ubuntu needs more commercials and such because people dunno what ubuntu is. But it's not like we're that far from beating apple according to: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

[Frak]

For ubuntu to actually beat apple everything must work out-of-the-box which it won't since it doesn't make its own computers. The problem is not that it does not need the terminal but for everyone who does tutorials to insteed explain how to do stuff the GUI way. It also needs to have more mainstreamed game and tools. Funny thing is that my dad is switching from a mac to ubuntu because in ubuntu the stuff he needs are easier to install (emacs etc). The best thing of linux is what people want to flee from (If you're not happy with something you can tweak it to what you like). Also I think ubuntu needs more commercials and such because people dunno what ubuntu is. But it's not like we're that far from beating apple according to: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
w3schools is not a reliable source, since the hits they measure are only from their site. A more reliable source is http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

[dyltman]

w3schools is not a reliable source, since the hits they measure are only from their site. A more reliable source is http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

Alright too bad, then I can't really see how mark thought we would catch up apple in 2 years.

[JDShu]

AFAIK Mac's don't have a maximize button. It's more akin to zoom. It simply expands the window to fit the content.

ahh is that what it does? I had no idea haha.

[TheLastDodo]

Here's a pretty good overview of Ubuntu's problems with its UI, imo; take a look. :)

http://piestar.net/2010/03/23/cargo-cult-usability/

[toupeiro]

Quantifying linux absorption is a daunting task. Apples OSX is incredibly easy to sum up. Even if the machines have no access to public internet, they can get very close estimations on units sold. I'm not convinced pulling browser stats is the most accurate way to estimate linux OS saturation. I also don't have any better suggestions at this time...

I will say though that if you focus on the timeframe and look at what each OS platform has accomplished, to consider ubuntu linux did not meet its mark is a tunnel-visioned stance. What has ubuntu brought to their desktop linux in the last two years?

Wubi
Active Directory Integration
PulseAudio (overall, things are better because of it than not IMO)
iSCSI integration
Private directory encryption
DKMS (this is huge!)
parallelized boot performance
Upstart
ksplice
Ubuntu One
KSM support (Dynamic memory sharing a.k.a memory deduplication)

and I'm sure, quite a few more things I'm forgetting about.

Mac gave us a Macbook Air, new generations of their unitasking ipod touches and iphones, and an iPad, which is just a fat iPod touch.

How about OS-X? Leopard and snow-leopard..

A new backup client?
Virtual Desktops?
Book Camp? (the ability to multi-boot?)
Having a recycle bin recover things to their original location?
better disk eject support??

I'm not making this up, I'm pulling straight from features and enhancements of OSX over the last 2 years and these are some of the "major enhancements" to their OS. Some things which, quite frankly, linux has had going for it for a long time.

I just can't get into the hype of what Mac-OSX is selling, and I certainly can't say they've outdone ubuntu in the last 2 years for desktop enhancement.

[dyltman]

Quantifying linux absorption is a daunting task. Apples OSX is incredibly easy to sum up. Even if the machines have no access to public internet, they can get very close estimations on units sold. I'm not convinced pulling browser stats is the most accurate way to estimate linux OS saturation. I also don't have any better suggestions at this time...

I will say though that if you focus on the timeframe and look at what each OS platform has accomplished, to consider ubuntu linux did not meet its mark is a tunnel-visioned stance. What has ubuntu brought to their desktop linux in the last two years?

Wubi
Active Directory Integration
PulseAudio (overall, things are better because of it than not IMO)
iSCSI integration
Private directory encryption
DKMS (this is huge!)
parallelized boot performance
Upstart
ksplice
Ubuntu One
KSM support (Dynamic memory sharing a.k.a memory deduplication)

and I'm sure, quite a few more things I'm forgetting about.

Mac gave us a Macbook Air, new generations of their unitasking ipod touches and iphones, and an iPad, which is just a fat iPod touch.

How about OS-X? Leopard and snow-leopard..

A new backup client?
Virtual Desktops?
Book Camp? (the ability to multi-boot?)
Having a recycle bin recover things to their original location?
better disk eject support??

I'm not making this up, I'm pulling straight from features and enhancements of OSX over the last 2 years and these are some of the "major enhancements" to their OS. Some things which, quite frankly, linux has had going for it for a long time.

I just can't get into the hype of what Mac-OSX is selling, and I certainly can't say they've outdone ubuntu in the last 2 years for desktop enhancement.

Also note that macbook air doesn't even have a harddrive

[aysiu]

For ubuntu to actually beat apple everything must work out-of-the-box which it won't since it doesn't make its own computers. I agree.

Having the main focus being ease of installation misses the point that most users do not install and configure their own OSes. Trying to get your OS to work well with a wide variety of hardware is far more difficult than getting your OS to work perfectly with a limited set of hardware.

[spoons]

I agree.

Having the main focus being ease of installation misses the point that most users do not install and configure their own OSes. Trying to get your OS to work well with a wide variety of hardware is far more difficult than getting your OS to work perfectly with a limited set of hardware.

Having said that, if a vendor wanted to install Ubuntu on a computer, Canonical could help them streamline it best for their system. (only minor changes though of course)

[aysiu]

Having said that, if a vendor wanted to install Ubuntu on a computer, Canonical could help them streamline it best for their system. (only minor changes though of course)
Sadly, the two major OEMs who have sold Ubuntu preinstalled (HP and Dell, though HP just dropped their Mobile Internet Experience, which was based on Ubuntu 8.04) have no concern for using Linux-friendly components. Both use Broadcom wireless cards.

So I have an HP Mini that came preinstalled with Ubuntu, but every release of Ubuntu I upgrade to I have to fiddle around with to get working with my Broadcom 4312. You'd think if you were preinstalling Ubuntu you'd just go for an Intel 2200bg or something.

[hhh]

... but every release of Ubuntu I upgrade to I have to fiddle around with to get working ...
Ubuntu's biggest failing, period. Look at that survey linked earlier, Win XP trumps EVERYTHING! Mac OS X changes every 2 to 5 years, not twice a year. People do not want to fiddle around every six months. Rolling release is your salvation.

[aysiu]

Ubuntu's biggest failing, period. Look at that survey linked earlier, Win XP trumps EVERYTHING! Mac OS X changes every 2 to 5 years, not twice a year. People do not want to fiddle around every six months. Rolling release is your salvation. Thanks for taking my quotation out of context. My point was basically that even though I bought Ubuntu preinstalled, the OEM who sold me it included a notoriously Linux-unfriendly wireless card.

Yes, Ubuntu has hardware regressions, and that's shameful. Things that are Linux-friendly should always be Linux-friendly, not friendly in one release and then not working in another.

But in this case, I'm talking specifically about Linux-unfriendly hardware.

[hhh]

Sadly, the two major OEMs who have sold Ubuntu preinstalled (HP and Dell, though HP just dropped their Mobile Internet Experience, which was based on Ubuntu 8.04) have no concern for using Linux-friendly components. Both use Broadcom wireless cards.

So I have an HP Mini that came preinstalled with Ubuntu, but every release of Ubuntu I upgrade to I have to fiddle around with to get working with my Broadcom 4312. You'd think if you were preinstalling Ubuntu you'd just go for an Intel 2200bg or something.

Le sigh.

[Groucho Marxist]

Granted, Ubuntu always has room for improvement. However, there's no way Apple can compete with the fact that I now have an honest to goodness Bat Computer.

[Frak]

<snip>

Something Mac has that BSD has, and Linux will probably never have, Grand Central Dispatch.


Also note that macbook air doesn't even have a harddrive

What?

[Doctor Mike]

something mac has that bsd has, and linux will probably never have, grand central dispatch.



What?+1 ??????????????????????????????????

[toupeiro]

Something Mac has that BSD has, and Linux will probably never have, Grand Central Dispatch.





hehe um, that sounds like a very creative way of saying it supports SMP scheduling, which by the way Linux has had for decades. Everything GCD brings to the table for BSD/Mac are not alltogether new concepts, they just have cooler names. You want to talk about very high scale parallelism? Do some reading on MPICH and OpenPBS.. Parallel computing is almost synonymous with linux in the server world.. However, I don't see a lot of parallel compute clusters around that are MAC branded or running BSD...

It's great that MAC has a parallel scheduler and the ability to properly support SMP, but linux is certainly not short any abilities of doing the same thing..

[oleink]

Ubuntu can change looks. I'm sorry but mac osx is a fail. In fact mac operating systems altogether are a fail. Unix based -freedom -free operating system +$2000 more than its worth. You can change the look of ubuntu and thats what makes it "look" better. Not to mention its just better altogether. Macs are proprietary which in computers is a fail and a curse word

PS macs are just linux with price tags all over the freaken place!!!!!!!!!

[Frak]

hehe um, that sounds like a very creative way of saying it supports SMP scheduling, which by the way Linux has had for decades. Everything GCD brings to the table for BSD/Mac are not alltogether new concepts, they just have cooler names. You want to talk about very high scale parallelism? Do some reading on MPICH and OpenPBS.. Parallel computing is almost synonymous with linux in the server world.. However, I don't see a lot of parallel compute clusters around that are MAC branded or running BSD...

It's great that MAC has a parallel scheduler and the ability to properly support SMP, but linux is certainly not short any abilities of doing the same thing..
It's so much more than that. You fail to see the significance.

[Simian Man]

There is just no way to make Linux into the integrated, well thought out solution that Mac OSX is. There are just too many different people involved with too many different ideas about how everything should look and work. I think that's a good thing because there are a lot of cool ideas to choose from, but people looking for integration and simplicity will never find it in the Linux camp. To quote Linus, "Linux is evolution, not intelligent design".

Like I said, I (and most people here probably) like the fact that there are so many approaches and choices with Linux, but if Shuttlecock thinks he can make Linux better looking and easier to use than OSX, he is destined to fail.

[Frak]

There is just no way to make Linux into the integrated, well thought out solution that Mac OSX is. There are just too many different people involved with too many different ideas about how everything should look and work. I think that's a good thing because there are a lot of cool ideas to choose from, but people looking for integration and simplicity will never find it in the Linux camp. To quote Linus, "Linux is evolution, not intelligent design".

Like I said, I (and most people here probably) like the fact that there are so many approaches and choices with Linux, but if Shuttlecock thinks he can make Linux better looking and easier to use than OSX, he is destined to fail.
I don't remember, but somebody commented that they saw Ubuntu turning into a Cargo cult. You see Mac OS X doing what it does, and destine Ubuntu to reach that. When you don't meet your goals in your allocated time (Shuttleworth set a time-limit, but I can't find it), you suffer Cargo Cult syndrome. The product ends up being a near blatant rip-off of the other, in hopes that it will bring the same fame.

Now before I get flamed like crazy on this, first, don't take offence to it, because if you do, you need to take a really long hard look in the mirror for a bit. After you've done that, turn off the computer because you just became offended over a piece of software.

[toupeiro]

It's so much more than that. You fail to see the significance.

uhh, based on what I've read on apples site, its really not, but feel free to love it like there's no other. :) I support parallel compute clusters, I'm not an expert, but I know enough to support, troubleshoot and performance tune them within limits. I'm not reading anything here groundbreaking from an industry standpoint, but maybe within MAC environments its bleeding-edge.

EDIT: If you really want to get into single-system SMP parallelism, there's still nothing that tops Solaris on an UltraSPARC T2+ chip within commodity pricing for its tier. Not even the brand new 8-core Nehalem-EX architecture. You almost have to get into supercompute nodes to do it today.

[oleink]

Networking+MAC=fail. Mac's are proprietary garbage based off of the unix system but program with a user language that doesn't support everything that linux does. Therefore when you buy a mac you are buying the look and feel of linux -freedom+price tags everywhere- support for full unix operations. That comes out to

TOTAL= MEGA FAIL

[TriBlox6432]

If Microsoft and Adobe start supporting Linux (Basically, just MS Office and Photoshop) then Linux will gain much popularity and pass Macs.

[_h_]

If Microsoft and Adobe start supporting Linux

You have GOT to be kidding.

[conradin]

Looks Like OSX to me. Linux needs much more hardware support for wide level of acceptance.

[dyltman]

If Microsoft and Adobe start supporting Linux (Basically, just MS Office and Photoshop) then Linux will gain much popularity and pass Macs.

Office is not need I think, Photoshop is however.

[toupeiro]

Looks Like OSX to me. Linux needs much more hardware support for wide level of acceptance.

Consider this position, now factor in that OSX is only officially supported on one very small subset of hardware, and nothing else (legally). Linux runs on, and supports more hardware than Windows 7 does today. The hardware arguement as a delta for linux always amazes me. Try to run windows 7 on something like an UltraSPARC T2 chip, now try to run it on an 80486 DX-4 100. Now try to embed it in your set-top DVR. Now throw a 10GbE NIC in a current-generation Intel box. I tried this with a BroadCom net-extreme II 10GbE card at work the other day on windows and had to scrounge for drivers. In linux, It worked without any drivers.. Linux is in all these places. Does it support every single piece of hardware out there? No, but it supports a far cry more than windows 7 does "out of the box", and OSX pales in comparison to either Windows or Linux for hardware support.

[Simian Man]

Office is not need I think, Photoshop is however.

The other way around I think. Way more people need Office than need Photoshop. OpenOffice good enough for most people in terms of using it to write things but not in terms of supporting common document formats.

[dyltman]

The other way around I think. Way more people need Office than need Photoshop. OpenOffice good enough for most people in terms of using it to write things but not in terms of supporting common document formats.

Openoffice beats the crap out of the office (I think it's the one from 2003 or something) that most school uses like mine for instance. Some of the computers in my school has already moved to openoffice. Also I think openoffice is easier to use then office, maybe it's just a personal thing tho.

Photoshop is much better then gimp because well it has an easier UI from what I know, I'm no graphic developer myself but I know I had an easier time using photoshop when I used it. Most tutorials are also written in photoshop I think since gimp is not that mainstream yet.

[magneze]

Office is not need I think, Photoshop is however.Loads more people use Office than Photoshop.

[Simian Man]

Openoffice beats the crap out of the office (I think it's the one from 2003 or something) that most school uses like mine for instance. Some of the computers in my school has already moved to openoffice. Also I think openoffice is easier to use then office, maybe it's just a personal thing tho.
OK that's fine, but OpenOffice still mangles the crap out of .doc and .ppt formats. And it's even worse with the [x] versions of those formats. Unfortunately compatibility trumps usability every time.


Photoshop is much better then gimp because well it has an easier UI from what I know, I'm no graphic developer myself but I know I had an easier time using photoshop when I used it. Most tutorials are also written in photoshop I think since gimp is not that mainstream yet.

Yes, but most people don't need Photoshop or Gimp.

[dyltman]

Loads more people use Office than Photoshop.

Yes but I doubt they know what openoffice is/haven't tried openoffice either. Same thing could be for gimp but meh. I still think it's more important to get photoshop to work than office.

I also think that when people is thinking about switching to ubuntu I doubt they'd mind if there's no office when openoffice is there. Those who need photoshop won't move to ubuntu because they need photoshop and not some alternative because the alternative is not as good as it needs to be.

edit:


Yes, but most people don't need Photoshop or Gimp.

Almost any graphic developer needs photoshop.

[magneze]

OpenOffice really needs to improve - it's fine when compared with the old versions but Office 2007 is a huge step forward and OpenOffice looks dated.

[Simian Man]

Almost any graphic developer needs photoshop.

Yes and what percentage of the general population do you think are graphic designers? Certainly fewer than the number of people who edit or view documents on their computer.

[dyltman]

Yes and what percentage of the general population do you think are graphic designers? Certainly fewer than the number of people who edit or view documents on their computer.

True but most of those doesn't need more features then change font, size and insert pictures if your doing a word document. Plus the learning curve is so much smaller then going from photoshop to gimp.

[Anomadeus]

ubuntu by default looks more like windows 98 or xp than it does to osx or windows 7/vista. In terms of ability to customize, of course it wins, but it shouldn't take time and effort to get something like a default install from over a decade ago.



soooo true!!!!!!

[aysiu]

True but most of those doesn't need more features then change font, size and insert pictures if your doing a word document. Plus the learning curve is so much smaller then going from photoshop to gimp. The learning curve from Photoshop to GIMP is irrelevant if most people don't even use Photoshop or its advanced features.

In terms of office, there are basically two common uses for it:

1. At home.

2. In the actual office.

For at home use, you're absolutely right--most people will just want to change font size or insert pictures. But I have noticed that even simple formatting (mainly margins and page breaks) get messed up going between MS Office and OpenOffice, and that will not make home users happy if their friends are sending them Word docs that open up messed up and not able to be printed properly.

For actual office use, some people actually do take advantage of some of the more intermediate MS Office features (changing case, mail merging, tracking changes, using pivot tables). These features are either implemented poorly or extremely differently in OpenOffice, so it is not such an easy switchover.

The switch to OpenOffice is definitely a bigger deal than Photoshop simply because it affects more people. The vast majority of professional graphic designers and photographers simply will not switch to Linux and GIMP. And everyone else does not need Photoshop to resize or crop photos.

[Simian Man]

True but most of those doesn't need more features then change font, size and insert pictures if your doing a word document.

And open files that others give them correctly.

[oleink]

OK that's fine, but OpenOffice still mangles the crap out of .doc and .ppt formats. And it's even worse with the [x] versions of those formats. Unfortunately compatibility trumps usability every time.



Yes, but most people don't need Photoshop or Gimp.

Dude are you going to be that much of a fail. Its called styles look em up!!!! the programmers of openoffice know what theyre doing clearly you have no idea how to use their software. that little thing in the top left that has a dropdown arrow and says "Default" inside can be changed. Change your Text Body to "Text Body" and save the bloody document as anything youd like and it works unless you add headers or footers in which case you just format those too. bloody heck!

[aysiu]

the programmers of openoffice know what theyre doing clearly you have no idea how to use their software. Well, the issue is what makes it difficult for most users to switch over, and most users do not know what they're doing. If they have to change their routine and approach in order to use OpenOffice "properly," they're more likely to just stick to Microsoft Office.

[oleink]

Its one step so that you can have more features is clicking on an arrow on a box and clicking "Text Body" that difficult when it means you get tons of different and better formats too?:guitar:

[hanzomon4]

Well from my perspective, as an Ubuntu on mac user, I'd say it looks really nice in comparison to OSX. In fact many people who have seen my default lucid desktop really like it.

A few things I don't like in comparison to OSX:

The font size - my god, we are not all blind. It's too big and makes everything else look crappy.

Nautilus - looks outdated, it really sells the win xp look. Not horrible but not as good as it could be. Nautilus Elementary looks great so I'm sure the program is capable of looking better.

The folder icons in the menus/places thing - The look to narrow and flat... just saying.

I like the direction Ubuntu is going though. The devs are not just adding useless flourishes to make things look better.. for the most part. Indicator is useless for alerting you to IMs and the button switch.. Well the case still needs to be made for the switch but I think it looks nice.

[oleink]

Well from my perspective, as an Ubuntu on mac user, I'd say it looks really nice in comparison to OSX. In fact many people who have seen my default lucid desktop really like it.

A few things I don't like in comparison to OSX:

The font size - my god, we are not all blind. It's too big and makes everything else look crappy.

Nautilus - looks outdated, it really sells the win xp look. Not horrible but not as good as it could be. Nautilus Elementary looks great so I'm sure the program is capable of looking better.

The folder icons in the menus/places thing - The look to narrow and flat... just saying.

I like the direction Ubuntu is going though. The devs are not just adding useless flourishes to make things look better.. for the most part. Indicator is useless for alerting you to IMs and the button switch.. Well the case still needs to be made for the switch but I think it looks nice.

Font size is changeable depending on what youre talking about

[steev182]

I am really considering building a PC specifically to put Snow Leopard on. (Sorry, buying a Mac Mini) This is because there are a few things I was used to in OSX that I haven't been able to replicate in Ubuntu (as a Desktop OS).

- iPhoto/Aperture/Lightroom - I've nigh on quit managing my photos or editing them since moving to Linux full on. I really miss the way the photo managers on OSX work. Picasa is a Wine app, F-Spot, I've just never gotten along with.
- Media Manager - iTunes may be awful on Windows, but on OSX, it is actually really good. Banshee is OK, but not too brilliant when it comes to managing different types of Video. I want something that can manage TV Shows like iTunes, but unfortunately, there is nothing.

Other than that, I'm pretty happy with Linux, but I'm using my most powerful computer as a server (Ubuntu with a mail server running in a VM) headlessly.

Trying to convince use of Open Office in a corporate environment is like asking your Managing Director to run around the office naked with people throwing dog crap at him. Yes, we understand that you have to learn to use it and use it properly, but the board (except for IT and Finance to some degree) will NOT appreciate it. At the last company I worked at, I suggested Open Office, was laughed out and told to get an order for 150 licenses of Office 2007 - worked out at about £70,000.

[oleink]

I am really considering building a PC specifically to put Snow Leopard on. (Sorry, buying a Mac Mini) This is because there are a few things I was used to in OSX that I haven't been able to replicate in Ubuntu (as a Desktop OS).

- iPhoto/Aperture/Lightroom - I've nigh on quit managing my photos or editing them since moving to Linux full on. I really miss the way the photo managers on OSX work. Picasa is a Wine app, F-Spot, I've just never gotten along with.
- Media Manager - iTunes may be awful on Windows, but on OSX, it is actually really good. Banshee is OK, but not too brilliant when it comes to managing different types of Video. I want something that can manage TV Shows like iTunes, but unfortunately, there is nothing.

Other than that, I'm pretty happy with Linux, but I'm using my most powerful computer as a server (Ubuntu with a mail server running in a VM) headlessly.

Trying to convince use of Open Office in a corporate environment is like asking your Managing Director to run around the office naked with people throwing dog crap at him. Yes, we understand that you have to learn to use it and use it properly, but the board (except for IT and Finance to some degree) will NOT appreciate it. At the last company I worked at, I suggested Open Office, was laughed out and told to get an order for 150 licenses of Office 2007 - worked out at about £70,000.

I don't know what you shoot in but I shoot in raw so I use ufraw and rawstudio which I like alot. There are other alternatives to itunes other than banshee and amarok (I use media monkey on my windows machine but I only use the machine for that cause I really like media monkey.) I use Openoffice for everything because it can use everyone elses' formats simply by clicking a box and changing the settings from default to text body and my wallet loves me for it. I love ubuntu it has everything i need including an incredible community of support. I'm testing programming and have gotten help when I needed it and extremely large amounts, I appreciate this os more than any other.

PS media monkey is only for windows sadly
BUT HAVE YOU TRIED SONGBIRD????

[oleink]

Ubuntu has all the features I want and love. adding the ppa for banshee was a good idea. Like the updated version

[JDShu]

Suggesting that a company switch to open office from MS office is absurd. The company has already invested alot into Office, you would need training which damages worker productivity at least in the short run (they could be doing something directly useful rather than learning open office), and then you have the format problem.

On the other hand, I think small, start-up businesses should use open office because they're just starting anyway.

[oleink]

Suggesting that a company switch to open office from MS office is absurd. The company has already invested alot into Office, you would need training which damages worker productivity at least in the short run (they could be doing something directly useful rather than learning open office), and then you have the format problem.

On the other hand, I think small, start-up businesses should use open office because they're just starting anyway.

THERE IS NO FORMATTING PROBLEM. I have to keep explaining this. There are things called styles. The default style is not accepted by ms word or rtf. Formatting issues are only because people do not know how to use styles. That box in the left hand corner that says default and has an arrow, you can change it to text body for your text body and it works fine!

[steev182]

I don't know what you shoot in but I shoot in raw so I use ufraw and rawstudio which I like alot. There are other alternatives to itunes other than banshee and amarok (I use media monkey on my windows machine but I only use the machine for that cause I really like media monkey.) I use Openoffice for everything because it can use everyone elses' formats simply by clicking a box and changing the settings from default to text body and my wallet loves me for it. I love ubuntu it has everything i need including an incredible community of support. I'm testing programming and have gotten help when I needed it and extremely large amounts, I appreciate this os more than any other.

PS media monkey is only for windows sadly
BUT HAVE YOU TRIED SONGBIRD????

Rawstudio looks interesting, I'll give that a go. Why do you use both out of interest?

I've tried songbird, but it doesn't manage video for me.

RE OOo, it's true, it's nearly impossible to sell Open Office to a business using MS office already, even when their current version is reaching obsolescence but a smaller, newer company may be easier to convince...

[oleink]

Rawstudio looks interesting, I'll give that a go. Why do you use both out of interest?

I've tried songbird, but it doesn't manage video for me.

RE OOo, it's true, it's nearly impossible to sell Open Office to a business using MS office already, even when their current version is reaching obsolescence but a smaller, newer company may be easier to convince...

Ufraw is great for 1 photo at a time editing and I like some of its features but rawstudio is for like all your photos at once

[asddf]

The default theme needs to look a lot better.

[Simian Man]

THERE IS NO FORMATTING PROBLEM. I have to keep explaining this. There are things called styles. The default style is not accepted by ms word or rtf. Formatting issues are only because people do not know how to use styles. That box in the left hand corner that says default and has an arrow, you can change it to text body for your text body and it works fine!

I just tried to view some powerpoint presentations with OO and they were unreadable no matter what styles I chose. I don't really use any kind of office software very often, but for people who do, expecting them to either not be able to view documents others give them, or fiddle with settings to do so is kind of unreasonable in my opinion.

[oleink]

I just tried to view some powerpoint presentations with OO and they were unreadable no matter what styles I chose. I don't really use any kind of office software very often, but for people who do, expecting them to either not be able to view documents others give them, or fiddle with settings to do so is kind of unreasonable in my opinion.
Its not really fiddling with settings and which version of OO do you have? Which version of MS windows documents are you trying to open? And if its reason enough to complain that you have to change 1 thing to get a lot more access to different (tons of different) formats, than thats a pretty lazy outlook. When I start trying to program something and I have a problem and need to fix it I don't decide to move to a different programming language because I have to change something to make it work

[hanzomon4]

Font size is changeable depending on what youre talking about

Everything is changeable... I'm talking about defaults

[oleink]

Everything is changeable... I'm talking about defaults
What do you mean by defaults. Your post was very vague haha. Do you mean for your Linux settings overall or for something else

[steev182]

I think he means he wants to be able to open ms office files without having to change any settings at all...

[oleink]

I think he means he wants to be able to open ms office files without having to change any settings at all...
You're right. I thought he was the person who posted earlier in this forum saying the only thing he didn't like about linux was font size, in which case was very vague.

[asddf]

Adobe is the key, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Illustrator, After Effects, Premier and you would pretty much take away a huge % of the reason people can't switch fully.

It would be a really good business move for Adobe with the current "Apple vs Adobe" war.

[steev182]

Ooooh interesting! I never thought of it that way!

Yes, Adobe should definitely look hard into that.

[ubun2warrior]

I want Ubuntu future releases to be very unique and original. Why copy others, let the others copy Ubuntu.

[oleink]

Adobe is the key, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Illustrator, After Effects, Premier and you would pretty much take away a huge % of the reason people can't switch fully.

It would be a really good business move for Adobe with the current "Apple vs Adobe" war.

Don't forget Quickbooks for busnesses

[oleink]

I want Ubuntu future releases to be very unique and original. Why copy others, let the others copy Ubuntu.
Agreed but still everyone does copy everyone

[hanzomon4]

What do you mean by defaults. Your post was very vague haha. Do you mean for your Linux settings overall or for something else

I mean I'm talking about the default font size. THEY'RE TOO BIG... I know they can be changed, mine are set to 8, but I'm only interested in talking about a default Ubuntu setup in comparison to a default OSX setup.

[toupeiro]

I mean I'm talking about the default font size. THEY'RE TOO BIG... I know they can be changed, mine are set to 8, but I'm only interested in talking about a default Ubuntu setup in comparison to a default OSX setup.

Seriously though, who is going to make a platform decision, separated by thousands of dollars per unit, on default font sizes? Can we get realistic about this. Font face and size has differed in every GUI since the invention of the GUI...

[jrothwell97]

There's a balance to be struck between making text and icons readable and wasting space.

Unfortunately, Ubuntu has a tendency to do the latter.

[oleink]

I understand the points but its still kind of ridiculous. a few clicks and a new font size

[zekopeko]

There's a balance to be struck between making text and icons readable and wasting space.

Unfortunately, Ubuntu has a tendency to do the latter.

I think that this has more to do with Gnome/GTK+ then Ubuntu.

[oleink]

I think that this has more to do with Gnome/GTK+ then Ubuntu.

Agreed

[azurehi]

My main concern right now is the fact that Lucid, started with Alpha 3, has become impossible to install. My equipment, video card in particular, is probably the reason. Once the final is out, I will find out for sure but I have a strong feeling that I will be unable to ever use Lucid and will be stuck at 9.10.

Shuttleworth seems to be pushing design for newer machines, IMHO.

[zekopeko]

My main concern right now is the fact that Lucid, started with Alpha 3, has become impossible to install. My equipment, video card in particular, is probably the reason. Once the final is out, I will find out for sure but I have a strong feeling that I will be unable to ever use Lucid and will be stuck at 9.10.

Shuttleworth seems to be pushing design for newer machines, IMHO.

Or you could report a bug instead of making assumptions backed by no evidence.

[bshosey]

I have been looking at Mac OSX and iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. I own an iPod Touch. I personaly think ubuntu is more atractive. When I played with OS X and iPhone OS and iPad OS I feel restricted in so many ways. So to me ubuntu has passed Mac. But all this is subjective. Other may not feel this way but I do. I wish I could get ubuntu mid to work on my touch.

[zekopeko]

I have been looking at Mac OSX and iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. I own an iPod Touch. I personaly think ubuntu is more atractive. When I played with OS X and iPhone OS and iPad OS I feel restricted in so many ways. So to me ubuntu has passed Mac. But all this is subjective. Other may not feel this way but I do. I wish I could get ubuntu mid to work on my touch.

It would be supremely awesome if we could have the beauty and usability of the OSX/iPhoneOS interface. This a segment that has only just recently started to get attention in the Linux community and mostly thanks to the efforts of Ubuntu.

[azurehi]

Or you could report a bug instead of making assumptions backed by no evidence.

Indeed, I HAVE filed a bug report and commented on others. The evidence will be supported, or not, when I attempt to install Lucid final.

[asddf]

It would be supremely awesome if we could have the beauty and usability of the OSX/iPhoneOS interface. This a segment that has only just recently started to get attention in the Linux community and mostly thanks to the efforts of Ubuntu.

The software center is kinda the same thing as the App store, I really hope Ubuntu go a lot further with it.

[zekopeko]

Indeed, I HAVE filed a bug report and commented on others. The evidence will be supported, or not, when I attempt to install Lucid final.

I was referring to this:


Shuttleworth seems to be pushing design for newer machines, IMHO.

[abhitux]

I believe that it is the consistency of themes across Mac OS which makes it "desirable". It is more to do with the "field distortion effect" and one is bound to defend an expensive piece of hardware which is going to feel useless with the new release.

I have been sporadically exposed to Apple's platform and definitely the quality of the software is worth writing about. There are innumerable posts on Aperture versus GIMP or Photoshop and each one boils down to individual perspective.

It's hard to see reason as to where Apple has a "clear advantage" but as rightly pointed out in these columns, we would need to have Gnome 3 and it's tight integration with Ubuntu.

But then, one question. Shouldn't the Mac OS fan boys be asking the question...Why can't Mac OS be like Ubuntu?

[PollieXmas]

Ubuntu has definitely improved but what is getting my friends to move to Apple (from Ubuntu and Windows) is the fact that you never have to switch it off.

They simply close the lid and that's it. Open it and continue to work...

The sleep function is just not the same... Not having this function costs me at least an hour a day and have me using my telephone for many functions which I would have rather wanted to use my notebook but I could just not be bother to wait for it to boot.

If Apple can do it then why can't Ubuntu?

Just my 2 cents.

[mart007]

The one thing I've realised is that it's far easier to break my Ubuntu box than my OS X box. Your milage may very, etc, etc

I absolutely love Linux though.

[lancest]

For me Open Office is compatible enough with MS stuff.
Documents, spreadsheets, presentations.

BTW My friends & family sometimes can't exchange documents between MS Office 2003 and 2007 (and not just because of .docx).
I've used OO to bail them out many times.

So even if you are a Windows user trying hard to be compatible with MS Office you may still run into problems.
So it's the paid upgrade rat race.

[oleink]

I have been looking at Mac OSX and iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. I own an iPod Touch. I personaly think ubuntu is more atractive. When I played with OS X and iPhone OS and iPad OS I feel restricted in so many ways. So to me ubuntu has passed Mac. But all this is subjective. Other may not feel this way but I do. I wish I could get ubuntu mid to work on my touch.

I'd love to see an ubuntu mid competitor to the ipod touch. Besides the smartq v5 anyway. I want something with multitouch. If some company like archos or maybe even sansa just took it on as a project with multitouch id be so happy about it. Maybe creative labs (zii labs)??

[hanzomon4]

Seriously though, who is going to make a platform decision, separated by thousands of dollars per unit, on default font sizes? Can we get realistic about this. Font face and size has differed in every GUI since the invention of the GUI...

I'm saying that the fonts look bad, not that someone is going switch to or from linux because of them.

[Roasted]

That being said visually, with minor exceptions, I've never felt it was all that original, especially now that it's emulating OS X (it can't be argued with).


I can only assume you're speaking in reference to the button change. If your argument is Ubuntu's new theme is emulating OSX, my argument is Ubuntu in the past has emulated Windows with the buttons on the right.

THAT is something that cannot be argued with, assuming your argument will take a shot at it anyways. ;)

So I would take a stab and disagree with you. I do not believe that Ubuntu is mimicking OSX in any way. Sure, it may look similar to some people, but at the same degree, it's a matter of opinion that can be taken only so far. Most people make that "2+2=4" connection with the button movement on the left and crap their pants about it, full well forgetting about who else had their buttons on the right. Not to mention, a taskbar at the bottom like Windows. *gasp*

[abhitux]

There is no "easy answer" to this. Has Apple really invested so heavily in design? Yes, it has. But is that worth it when you can't customise it to the nth degree, a la KDE or even Gnome?

At end of the day, any ownership of an iPod or an iPad would give me bragging rights that I own an expensive crapware. Period.

Yet, Nokia with it's ground up design of Linux has not been able to achieve any degree of success with N900 series. Is it related to the locked apps? Or very clever marketing?

I think, it's about the chattering classes on the web who tend to "promote" it through the roof without mentioning the credible alternatives. To add to the appeal is the clever design factor but then looks alone matter most of the times.

There is no easy answer...as I said earlier.

[zekopeko]

At end of the day, any ownership of an iPod or an iPad would give me bragging rights that I own an expensive crapware. Period.

I would love it if people would stop portraying Apple's products as crapware.

Contrary to your belief marketing isn't be all end all of products. The products themselves have to be of sufficient value for the buyer.

Considering Apple's growth in the past years I would say they are creating some compelling products that customers want to buy.

So please don't call a product crapware just because it is slightly more expensive then the average but offers superb software-hardware combo and people are buying it.

[Roasted]

I would love it if people would stop portraying Apple's products as crapware.

Contrary to your belief marketing isn't be all end all of products. The products themselves have to be of sufficient value for the buyer.

Considering Apple's growth in the past years I would say they are creating some compelling products that customers want to buy.

So please don't call a product crapware just because it is slightly more expensive then the average but offers superb software-hardware combo and people are buying it.

As a Mac user (in fact, a user of all 3 main platforms) I have yet to see the advantage of the software-hardware combo. Does it like, boot faster or something? Or crash less? If so, my Mac's must have problems, because they act like any other computer out there.

Macs are not crap. Definitely not. But they are definitely nothing superb. Period. They are a computer. Hardware. ASUS motherboards. Intel processors. Nvidia graphics cards. IT'S TYPICAL HARDWARE.

[zekopeko]

As a Mac user (in fact, a user of all 3 main platforms) I have yet to see the advantage of the software-hardware combo. Does it like, boot faster or something? Or crash less? If so, my Mac's must have problems, because they act like any other computer out there.

Macs are not crap. Definitely not. But they are definitely nothing superb. Period. They are a computer. Hardware. ASUS motherboards. Intel processors. Nvidia graphics cards. IT'S TYPICAL HARDWARE.

Last time I used a Mac it was very speedy (faster then my Win or Lin box).

Macs had accelerated compositing years before Linux or Windows IIRC. Its 2010 and Metacity (Gnome's window manager) still doesn't have anti-aliasing on rounder corners. Things like that.

[oleink]

Last time I used a Mac it was very speedy (faster then my Win or Lin box).

Macs had accelerated compositing years before Linux or Windows IIRC. Its 2010 and Metacity (Gnome's window manager) still doesn't have anti-aliasing on rounder corners. Things like that.

Those are minor things that actually are only needed for mac to make people think theyre better sure theyd make linux or windows faster but in general linux is lighter (ubuntu is for sure) and runs just as well. My 2 year old 2gig of ram 2ghz amd with a wireless g card runs just as fast and as well as my girlfriend's new macbook pro that has 2.53ghz processor 4gb of ram and an n capable wireless card. Although the wireless card makes the internet faster because even though mine handles networking better (native TCP/IP is linux) cannot argue with an N capable card although I can send and receive things just as quickly my card is half the price and (supposedly the speed) of hers but still handles the internet almost as well. Besides that Ubuntu has taken advantage of my hardware because everything is just as quick:popcorn:

PS TCP/IP is now used with everything for internet and has only a very minor advantage on ubuntu because it is native to it (like protools on mac vs windows it works just very very very slightly under mac on windows)

[Roasted]

Last time I used a Mac it was very speedy (faster then my Win or Lin box).

Macs had accelerated compositing years before Linux or Windows IIRC. Its 2010 and Metacity (Gnome's window manager) still doesn't have anti-aliasing on rounder corners. Things like that.

Oh. I guess something must be wrong with my Macs. Either that or you have the ability to decipher millisecond speed differences with your naked eyes.

[bshosey]

I love my iPod Toucch, I definitely do not think it is crap. I would not have bought it if I did. I do not think apple releases crap. I actually respect Apple. But I do not like the vendor lock they try to do. I also do not think every thing Microsoft puts out is crap. Now Mac OS X vs Windows, I feal OS X is a better OS in general. I also believe for what I need in a PC Linux and specifically ubuntu does what I need and want. I have done so much more with ubuntu, its repositories and its awesome forums than any OS I have tried. Now ubuntu vs Windows and OS X. Well I pick ubuntu.

You may call me an ubuntu fan boy that is fine but you know what, to me ubuntu devs have urned that.

[oleink]

I love my iPod Toucch, I definitely do not think it is crap. I would not have bought it if I did. I do not think apple releases crap. I actually respect Apple. But I do not like the vendor lock they try to do. I also do not think every thing Microsoft puts out is crap. Now Mac OS X vs Windows, I feal OS X is a better OS in general. I also believe for what I need in a PC Linux and specifically ubuntu does what I need and want. I have done so much more with ubuntu, its repositories and its awesome forums than any OS I have tried. Now ubuntu vs Windows and OS X. Well I pick ubuntu.

You may call me an ubuntu fan boy that is fine but you know what, to me ubuntu devs have urned that.

Nothing microsoft itself has put out is crap (except vista) but thats it. The vendors sometimes put out crap that use windows. aka crappy hardware. Windows itself doesn't put out the asus, acer, dell, hp, toshiba, lenovos etc. It is the hardware companies that put out some hardware that isn't great. Macs are overpriced and proprietary. Those are my major things against them. I can get the same hardware for about half the price generally speaking

[JDorfler]

I don't think it matters.

One person likes 3D desktop effects, another prefers a black screen with no icons & an overall dark theme.

Some love icons & images, some don't.

The great benefit that Linux has over OS X, is that you can change just about everything in Linux (some distro's are easier than others) & you can really change comparatively very little in OS X.

As an example; you can't even change the size of all of the OS X, fonts, & when you can, you are limited to 16 points maximum, which is miserably small on a 24" screen.

So to my mind, eye & pragmatic self, Linux wins due to its configurability, whereas OS X, wins due to its overall ease of use.

Exactly. However, I'll give up ease of use with security and doing exactly what I want with a PC.

[bshosey]

To me it is what is the best at the best price. I can build one heck of a system and install ubuntu and actually enjoy my system at a reasonable price. The reason I chose the iPod touch was I needed a device for minor browsing, listen to tunes and watch some videos. To be honest all the devices I tried the iPod touch was the best for the money. I am sure I could have found a cheaper solution. But the iPod Touch was the best solution for me. Now I would not go out and buy a Mac computer because it is not what I want or need. I also will not buy a PC for Windows either.

oleink don't forget Windows ME.

I think it is sad my favorite windows was Windows 2000

[oleink]

To me it is what is the best at the best price. I can build one heck of a system and install ubuntu and actually enjoy my system at a reasonable price. The reason I chose the iPod touch was I needed a device for minor browsing, listen to tunes and watch some videos. To be honest all the devices I tried the iPod touch was the best for the money. I am sure I could have found a cheaper solution. But the iPod Touch was the best solution for me. Now I would not go out and buy a Mac computer because it is not what I want or need. I also will not buy a PC for Windows either.

oleink don't forget Windows ME.

I think it is sad my favorite windows was Windows 2000

True i did forget that one haha. Probably because I was 8 years old when that came out

[oleink]

This was such a good thread

[toupeiro]

True i did forget that one haha. Probably because I was 8 years old when that came out

I liked XP. It was the true hybrid NT/9x technologies at its best. They'd finally gotten a product that was both enterprise and desktop sturdy, and in their enlightenment, they reinvented a perfectly rolling wheel and threw Vista out there, which rolled strictly due to the downward grade hill of innovation that inspired it.

ME was bad. Win95-A was worse.

[oleink]

I liked XP. It was the true hybrid NT/9x technologies at its best. They'd finally gotten a product that was both enterprise and desktop sturdy, and in their enlightenment, they reinvented a perfectly rolling wheel and threw Vista out there, which rolled strictly due to the downward grade hill of innovation that inspired it.

ME was bad. Win95-A was worse.

Ha yeah still I would have been 3 during Win95-A. I'm not that old yet

[d_skillz]

Ubuntu needs to have a radical default theme, one that users everywhere will look at and say WOW! Everyone doesn't think the MacOSX interface looks fantastic but the vast majority of users do. Thats what the community needs, decisions made more in the background that most users will be comfortable and like the impending changes. Egos need to be stoked too much in the Linux community, that's why there are so much forks. If we get it together we can seriously take on Mac.