"Ubuntu is an open-source alternative to Windows and Office"???

[Macfunky]

THe Ubuntu website states this. What does it mean exactly. Fair enough it is an alternative to Microsoft but Office? I don't get that part. It's an operating system, not an Office suite

[DrMelon]

THe Ubuntu website states this. What does it mean exactly. Fair enough it is an alternative to Microsoft but Office? I don't get that part. It's an operating system, not an Office suite

You can use an office suite called OpenOffice, which is included in Ubuntu.

[Macfunky]

Yes but that means that OpenOffice.org is an alternative to Microsoft Office and not Ubuntu

[Endomancer]

Ubuntu is an OS, but it also comes with Open Office.org as standard
Windows on the other hand sells it's office software seperately

[P4man]

ubuntu by default includes openoffice, its not only the OS, its an OS + a lot of programs, so in that way it does replace both windows and ms office.

[Water_Spirit]

Do you think that maybe the meaning is that Ubuntu with Open Office is an open-source alternative to Windows and Office.

[3rdalbum]

1. Ubuntu contains Openoffice.org, so it does replace MS Office.

2. Advertising that it is a replacement for MS Office stops people from trying to run MS Office on Ubuntu, and it also (in a roundabout way) tells people that they're saving twice as much money - not only do they not have to buy Windows, they also don't have to buy MS Office.

[Macfunky]

I understand where they're coming from alright but i guess i'm the only one who thinks it's weird phrasing for the website of an operating system

[asddf]

It's not weird at all.

Ubuntu is a replacement to MS Office and Windows.

Install Ubuntu -> Click Open Office

[kellemes]

I understand where they're coming from alright but i guess i'm the only one who thinks it's weird phrasing for the website of an operating system

OpenOffice has nothing to do with Ubuntu the OS, even if it's installed by default.. But it has to do with the complete package they're trying to 'sell' to people. Like.. you don't need anything else but Ubuntu, has everything you need (including wordprocessing software)... obviously not mentioning OO runs just as well on Windows.

[Pogeymanz]

I agree with the OP, it could be read in such a way as to make the reader confused. It isn't technically correct.

It should read something like: Ubuntu is an open-source alternative to Windows and comes with an open-source alternative to Office.

[P4man]

Why? Do you define ubuntu solely as an OS, or as an OS with a collection of apps? I mean, isnt gnome part of ubuntu? Therefore evolution? Why not OO? Its included and supported, that makes it part of the OS in my book.

[Tristam Green]

hah, and Microsoft couldn't make that argument with the EU in the 90s about Internet Explorer.

Ubuntu is the OS. Arguably, it's not even altogether a straight alternative to Windows, since Windows apps do not run seamlessly with it (though WINE is getting better).

OpenOffice is an alternative to MS Office.

An Operating System cannot be an alternative to an office suite.

[P4man]

So by your logic, you can not browse the web with ubuntu, because that requires a browser, right? And an os is not a browser. You can not even browse your folders, because that requires a file browser like nautilus. Oh and a desktop environment, like gnome.

If it installs with the OS, and is supported along with the OS, then its only reasonable to say its part of the OS. Whether it is gnome, gnome calculator, evolution, nautilus, firefox or openoffice. And yes, IE was part of windows. What they failed to argue was that is couldnt be removed, because it could. just like you can remove firefox or even gnome from ubuntu.

Linux is the kernel. Call that the OS if you want. Ubuntu is a distribution based on linux, it comes with a full app suite.

[Shining Arcanine]

So by your logic, you can not browse the web with ubuntu, because that requires a browser, right? And an os is not a browser. You can not even browse your folders, because that requires a file browser like nautilus. Oh and a desktop environment, like gnome.

If it installs with the OS, and is supported along with the OS, then its only reasonable to say its part of the OS. Whether it is gnome, gnome calculator, evolution, nautilus, firefox or openoffice. And yes, IE was part of windows. What they failed to argue was that is couldnt be removed, because it could. just like you can remove firefox or even gnome from ubuntu.

Linux is the kernel. Call that the OS if you want. Ubuntu is a distribution based on linux, it comes with a full app suite.

You do not browse the web with Ubuntu. You use Firefox to browse the web on Ubuntu. Firefox is a bundled application.

[AJH101]

OK children! The package is great! Get a life!

:lolflag:

[P4man]

Firefox is a bundled application.

Just like nautilus. And Gnome. And everything else that runs on top of the kernel.

[SteveHillier]

I understand where they're coming from alright but i guess i'm the only one who thinks it's weird phrasing for the website of an operating system

Macfunky, I am with you on the principle but are you being just a tad picky?

[Macfunky]

Macfunky, I am with you on the principle but are you being just a tad picky?

Well it was the principle that i was trying to make the point with. I just feel its not the best use of English. I think Pogeymanz put it like i think it should read -

"Ubuntu is an open-source alternative to Windows and comes with an open-source alternative to Office"

I understand that these programmes are bundled with Ubuntu but to quote another post (Tristam Green) -

"An Operating System cannot be an alternative to an office suite"

I don't think I'm being a tad picky. I do however feel it's an improper use of English. Not trying to create a fuzz but just wanted to see if anyone saw my point :D

[swoll1980]

If it makes you happy they can add one line of code to it, and rename it Ubuntu Office.

[P4man]

Its got nothing to do with English. Its how you define operating system. You seem to think an OS doesnt include any applications, and I think thats where you are wrong. Almost everything on top of the kernel are bundled applications, but you wouldnt think of gnome or nautilus as somehow not being part of ubuntu, or would you? Why is firefox or OO different?

Ubuntu is not an alternative to Office alone, its an alternative to windows and office. Windows + Office. Thats how I read it, and its grammatically and logically correct.

[JoeWheeler]

Its got nothing to do with English. Its how you define operating system. You seem to think an OS doesnt include any applications, and I think thats where you are wrong. Almost everything on top of the kernel are bundled applications, but you wouldnt think of gnome or nautilus as somehow not being part of ubuntu, or would you? Why is firefox or OO different?

Ubuntu is not an alternative to Office alone, its an alternative to windows and office. Windows + Office. Thats how I read it, and its grammatically and logically correct.

so if you uninstalled nautilus you would be uninstalling or changing part of the operating system?

[forrestcupp]

Its got nothing to do with English. Its how you define operating system. You seem to think an OS doesnt include any applications, and I think thats where you are wrong.

+1

What exactly is an operating system? What is Windows? Windows is an operating system, but it's not just the barebones Windows kernel + DWM (Desktop Windows Manager); it's much more than that. Depending on which version of Windows you buy, it also includes a calculator, small games, email program, Windows Movie Maker, Internet Explorer, Fax & Scan, Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center, and on and on. All that stuff makes up the Windows OS.

The difference is that it's mentally easier to lump all of that together in Windows because Microsoft develops all of that for Windows. But in the FOSS world, everything is developed individually by a bunch of different teams of developers and because of the license, they all can share everything.

Every GNU/Linux OS out there is basically just a bunch of other people's software all packaged together into one distribution/OS. That doesn't make it any less of an OS. You just need to understand that the FOSS mindset is completely different from the proprietary mindset.

Because of that, OpenOffice can be a part of the Ubuntu OS, as well as a part of the Fedora OS, as well as its own separate project. If they didn't want it to be that way, they would have released it under a more restrictive license.

And even if we're wrong about what an OS is, why does Ubuntu have to be limited to being just an OS? Ubuntu is a distribution. That distribution includes OpenOffice. So Ubuntu would include an OS plus OpenOffice. So "Ubuntu" is a viable alternative to Windows and Office no matter how you look at it.

[P4man]

so if you uninstalled nautilus you would be uninstalling or changing part of the operating system?

Depends how narrow you define operating system, but that discussion has no right answer and is not relevant here.

From the very page we are arguing about:



Ubuntu is an operating system built by a worldwide team of expert developers. It contains all the applications you need: a web browser, office suite, media apps, instant messaging and much more.

Clearly canonical thinks OO is part of ubuntu, and as such, ubuntu is indeed a replacement for windows+office.

now wether you call ubuntu only an OS or an OS + application suite is irrelevant. If I uninstalled gnome and X, I would be turning it into ubuntu server. If I add KDE, I would be making it in to Kubuntu. Is ubuntu server a different OS than ubuntu or kubuntu? How about Crunch Bang ? Mint ? I dont think that has a yes or no answer, so Ill let you decide, but I would certainly not call it an incorrect statement either way.

[forrestcupp]

Ubuntu is the OS. Arguably, it's not even altogether a straight alternative to Windows, since Windows apps do not run seamlessly with it (though WINE is getting better).

One of the definitions of "alternative" is "something which can be chosen instead". An alternative doesn't have to be compatible or do things exactly the same. An alternative only has to offer another option for getting the job done, even if it's not compatible.

So even if wine didn't exist, Ubuntu is still an alternative to Windows.

[Tristam Green]

One of the definitions of "alternative" is "something which can be chosen instead". An alternative doesn't have to be compatible or do things exactly the same. An alternative only has to offer another option for getting the job done, even if it's not compatible.

So even if wine didn't exist, Ubuntu is still an alternative to Windows.

I'll concede the semantic argument.

By that same definition, though, I suppose you could argue that Mac OS is an "alternative" to Windows, despite the fact that I cannot run, say, Final Fantasy XI on it.

[Yes]

I think it's kind of taking credit away from where credit is due. By claiming Ubuntu is an alternative to MS Office it sounds like they're claiming to have created the alternative to MS Office, and they didn't.

Besides, I disagree that an OS includes all the programs packaged with it. Ubuntu isn't an alternative to Internet Explorer, Firefox is. I'd say the same thing if Ubuntu claimed to be an open source alternative to the Desktop Window Manager - Ubuntu isn't the alternative, Gnome is.

[speedwell68]

It is a GNU/Linux OS based on Debian that has a whole suite of applications available by default and in it's repositories, all of this goes to make up the distribution that is called Ubuntu Linux. By that definition it is an alternative to Microsoft Windows and Office.

[forrestcupp]

I'll concede the semantic argument.

By that same definition, though, I suppose you could argue that Mac OS is an "alternative" to Windows, despite the fact that I cannot run, say, Final Fantasy XI on it.MacOS is an alternative for Windows, but it is not an alternative for Final Fantasy XI. ;)

Microsoft and Apple have nothing to do with what platform people create their 3rd party apps for.


I think it's kind of taking credit away from where credit is due. By claiming Ubuntu is an alternative to MS Office it sounds like they're claiming to have created the alternative to MS Office, and they didn't.

Besides, I disagree that an OS includes all the programs packaged with it. Ubuntu isn't an alternative to Internet Explorer, Firefox is. I'd say the same thing if Ubuntu claimed to be an open source alternative to the Desktop Window Manager - Ubuntu isn't the alternative, Gnome is.You're missing the whole point of FOSS. Even though Mozilla is the creator of Firefox, Ubuntu can still be made up of apps like Firefox. They're not getting the credit for creating it; they're getting the credit for putting it in a nice, easy to install package for you. Like I said before, if Mozilla didn't want Ubuntu or Fedora to be made up of Firefox, among other apps, they would release it under a stricter license. When someone releases their software under a Free license, they know what they're getting into, and they don't have the right to be offended if people use the benefits of those kinds of licenses.

You're still thinking with a proprietary software mentality. It is a viable mentality, but it just doesn't apply in this situation.

[ashokmkd]

I am not concerned about the meaning of that line, but its relevance in the homepage of Ubuntu.
It makes people think that Ubuntu is inferior to windows, yet you can prefer it since it is a FOSS.