Free operating systems cost more than proprietary?

[Paddy Landau]

Talking of desktop Linux, the author states that free operating systems cost more than proprietary.

Although he makes some good points, he also makes poor ones -- such as complaining about instability while not sticking to LTS versions.

http://www.economist.com/node/21551409

[QIII]

Many of the comments are clearly partisan, as well.

I have to wonder how it is that so many of us have gone happily from version to version without problems, albeit disliking this feature or that.

Unity pissed me off to begin with. I went back to Debian for a while. But I always knew that I was not bound to that DE.

My only gripe is that you can't select a wider variety of DEs at install. We all know we can download *buntu, of course, but what about new people? Then again, what's someone new to Ubuntu going to do to decide between an array of equally foreign choices?

[SemiExpert]

I really have to disagree with the author on just about every point. Linux was far too difficult to use back in the late 90s, which is a stark contrast with today, when an Ubuntu installation is much, much easier that Windows 7. Mint frequently introduces bugs that were apparent in Ubuntu. Oh, and the future of Windows is from assured in the enterprise market - big companies are going BYOD and migrating to iOS, OS X and Linux, and Windows 8 seems to be accelerating the shift.

[Paddy Landau]

My only gripe is that you can't select a wider variety of DEs at install.
Regarding Ubuntu, I think that is deliberate. It is primarily aimed at the non-technical "average" user (like me). For such people, the lack of choices is a benefit. I tried Bodhi, which gives several installation choices, and it overwhelmed me.

As an analogy, when you buy a car, you don't expect to have a zillion different choices as to its chassis shape, colour, steering wheel size and shape, choice of radio, chair styles, chair covers and colours, height of ceiling and so on that you can change any time you feel the whim.

The expert Linux user may want that, but the "average" user (such as me) would rather have the car (or computer) just work. Anything else is cute, and too much is overwhelming.

For example: my screensaver? It's just a black screen. There were too many choices when I looked at the options.

[Mmmbopdowedop]

Linux was far too difficult to use back in the late 90s, which is a stark contrast with today, ...when an Ubuntu installation is much, much easier that Windows 7...

I can't imagine a Windows 7 installer being more simple than it is at the moment. It's incredibly simple. I think you're confused?

[keithpeter]

Hello All

I must have been lucky in my choice of hardware over the years as I have not had the issues this author has experienced. He would definitely be better off with CentOS 6.x or PUIAS Linux 6.2, the latter of which I have on my 'lifeboat' partition while testing 12.04. PUIAS has specialised mathematical and computational repositories that might be of interest to Economist journalists (the ones who do economics anyway). The RHEL 6.2 distros are close to Lucid in software versions and interface.

I spent part of today testing the upgrade paths from 11.04 to 12.04 using the live cd, and 10.04.4 to 12.04 using the 'software update' route. Issues were mainly cosmetic and resolved by dumping the configuration 'dotfiles'. The Lucid to Precise shift was really quite smooth although time consuming. The 11.04 to 12.04 was sticker, a backup, clean install and restore would be better.

LTS -> LTS or a 'conservative' RHEL based distribution is the way to go if you want to use your computer. I don't think we need bleeding edge packages, especially now Firefox has gone to a 'channel' model were the application is automatically upgraded.

I shall have a 12.10 testing partition simply because I'm interested in what Canonical are going to do with the HUD and with Unity. They are really trying with the user test driven design. My actual day to day work will get done on 12.04.

One point: there needs to be plenty of information around targeted at a variety of audiences about Unity when 12.04 is released, and the large scale 10.04 installations start to be upgraded.

[KiwiNZ]

From professional experience converting to Linux desktop for the SME and large enterprise sectors is very costly and risky, the cost outweighs any benefits.And there there is the myriad of other hurdles and game breaker problems.

[keithpeter]

From professional experience converting to Linux desktop for the SME and large enterprise sectors is very costly and risky, the cost outweighs any benefits.And there there is the myriad of other hurdles and game breaker problems.

And so the organisations who do not have the overheads of legacy systems with expensive licencing will have a commercial advantage.

I think there will be changes over the next decade as the middle and upper management in large organisations turns over...

[KiwiNZ]

And so the organisations who do not have the overheads of legacy systems with expensive licencing will have a commercial advantage.

I think there will be changes over the next decade as the middle and upper management in large organisations turns over...

A startup will have an advantage over an existing enterprise however they will need to consider who they do business with and who they need to exchange files with. Also going forward do they have the in house expertise to support and expand as these costs are high if they don't.

[Paddy Landau]

I can't imagine a Windows 7 installer being more simple than it is at the moment. It's incredibly simple. I think you're confused?
I find Windows 7 easy. But I find Microsoft Word's "ribbon" utterly confusing. When it was introduced, I went from being a super-expert Word user to a complete dummy.

I was playing with Windows 8 today, and I struggled to find the Windows Update screen. I could not even find out how to restart; I had to log out first. Now there's a system that confuses me!

[KiwiNZ]

I find Windows 7 easy. But I find Microsoft Word's "ribbon" utterly confusing. When it was introduced, I went from being a super-expert Word user to a complete dummy.

I was playing with Windows 8 today, and I struggled to find the Windows Update screen. I could not even find out how to restart; I had to log out first. Now there's a system that confuses me!

+1

I have to learn Windows 8, I don't have to like it and I will not be using it.

[CharlesA]

+1

I have to learn Windows 8, I don't have to like it and I will not be using it.
Same here. From what I've seen, it is pretty "meh" in my book. I'll stick with Win7, but I will have to learn Win8, even if I am not going to be using it.

[kaldor]

The usage and effectiveness of FOSS really depends heavily on the situation or intended use. There's no simple "switch to FOSS for cost saving" situation.

It depends on how well the staff/users/whatever are able to adjust to new things. It also depends on what sort of software you will be replacing, and if it can do the same or better for much less.

For example, I think that the typical school computer lab would be much better suited to FOSS than Windows (ignore OS X for now). Schools often have a limited budget, and they often use heavily outdated computers and software. From my experience, the setups are usually very flaky and unstable overall. Money is often also spent upgrading, supporting, and fixing issues whereas if FOSS were used, money could better be spent on things like furniture, textbooks, and overall better classroom material. Typical reason behind FOSS doesn't need to be mentioned; I am sure everyone reading this knows what I mean.

On the other hand, if you're in a Microsoft-centric office which uses Exchange, Access, and other such software, then using FOSS would just be a mess and cause more issues than needed. Integration within the office is key, and it's just not feasible to switch over all the equipment to Linux-compatible software and services. Microsoft does have some very good software when it comes to this.

Basically, like I said, it really depends heavily on the situation. Implying that FOSS is too much to handle, or that it's much better than proprietary, is just flawed in itself. There are times when I'd never use anything but FOSS, and there are times when I'd simply be unable to. That's just it.

[forrestcupp]

I can't imagine a Windows 7 installer being more simple than it is at the moment. It's incredibly simple. I think you're confused?They're both simple and easy.


+1

I have to learn Windows 8, I don't have to like it and I will not be using it.
Windows 8 is a piece of trash. I won't like it, use it, or learn it. I've already told people not to come to me with their problems when they buy their new Windows 8 computers.

[SemiExpert]

I can't imagine a Windows 7 installer being more simple than it is at the moment. It's incredibly simple. I think you're confused?

Now just how usable is a Windows 7 PC without drivers - drivers that you have to install in the proper sequence? What about 150 updates after a reinstall? Contrast that with Ubuntu and it's pretty clear which one is more user friendly.

[forrestcupp]

Now just how usable is a Windows 7 PC without drivers - drivers that you have to install in the proper sequence? What about 150 updates after a reinstall? Contrast that with Ubuntu and it's pretty clear which one is more user friendly.

When I installed Win7 from scratch, it automatically fetched all of the drivers without me even worrying about it. XP really sucked with installing drivers, but things have come a long way since then.

Also, what about Ubuntu? With a clean install, you have to spend a half hour waiting on the language packs and updates to install, only to find out after you boot it the first time that for some reason, you still have to download and install about 200 megs of updates.

In my opinion, they're both about equal to install, and neither one is really very hard.

[fiatveritas]

As a desktop O.S. Windows 8 won't succeed. On the other hand, as a smart phone O.S. Windows 8 seems like it's going to be successful because Windows 8 is optimized for touch screens. What I don't like about Win 8 is that you can't easily navigate through directories because Win8 isn't as intuitive as a classic desktop like Win7. Actually, you have to revert back to 'Desktop' to be happy.

Here's the ad hominem: I think the writer was too biased towards closed source O.S.es and, therefore, argues that you get what you paid for when buying closed source O.S.es. The other side of the argument is Oracle's that thinks it silly to pay for plastic with data on it (Cds or Floppies). Oracle argues that the internet is better for transferring data, rather than plastic.

[MisterGaribaldi]

First off, I am automatically suspicious of someone who refers to himself in the third person. I understand there may be a time when it has to be done (certain kinds of academic or other professional papers) but if it's a one-off, fine. This article does it several times, and it is needless. A simple "I this…" or "I that…" would have sufficed perfectly.

This all harkens back to Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and, frankly, even through distributed development and all that can be (and often has been) a wonderful thing, the problem is that Linux's "write something to scratch an itch" approach has some significant downsides as well.

Now, I know there's little love here for Steve Jobs (or Bill Gates) but the one thing that both of these guys had going for them is they brought resources and focus to development, and for a lot of things I think this is sadly lacking in the Linux world. And certainly in a business sense, plurality of choice can be a handicap when it comes to supporting a platform. I'm not saying we shouldn't have lots of Linux distos -- heck, the more the merrier -- but there needs to be something approaching the ideals of the LSB so that if a company wants to write an application, or another company wants to market hardware, one doesn't have to worry about which specific distro one uses.

I've got friends who are senior people in companies which rock Linux, and I wouldn't ever try to say that Linux is perfect and they never ever have anything to deal with, but I'm certainly not hearing them complain, b***h, moan, or otherwise carry on because they're running Linux servers instead of, say, Windows or Mac OS X server systems.

So my question for this thread is: where's the fire?

[SemiExpert]

When I installed Win7 from scratch, it automatically fetched all of the drivers without me even worrying about it. XP really sucked with installing drivers, but things have come a long way since then.

Also, what about Ubuntu? With a clean install, you have to spend a half hour waiting on the language packs and updates to install, only to find out after you boot it the first time that for some reason, you still have to download and install about 200 megs of updates.

In my opinion, they're both about equal to install, and neither one is really very hard.

You really can't rely on Windows 7 for driver updates. There's a reason why Windows PC OEMs still produce Re-Imaging Guides to detail the driver reinstallation process, including the correct order of driver updates. Moreover, the Windows updating process is horrific, especially if you don't have slipstreamed reinstallation media. I'm not kidding about 150 major updates - imagine 2 years of download Tuesday. It's an all day process. Yikes! In contrast Ubuntu is a breeze. Of course, the real Windows headaches come from all of the third party software update pop-ups!

[KiwiNZ]

Now just how usable is a Windows 7 PC without drivers - drivers that you have to install in the proper sequence? What about 150 updates after a reinstall? Contrast that with Ubuntu and it's pretty clear which one is more user friendly.

I take it you have not done a Linux/ubuntu install

[QIII]

Install Ubuntu 90 days after release and you get 500 updates. There's the reality.

Linux would be suitable for the office except for one thing: the bricks are all labeled Microsoft right now because of simple historical happenstance.

Who in their right mind would tear down an edifice while trying to conduct business just to go through the heartache and headache of replacing an infrastructure that already works?

For a startup or young company it might work fine. But as someone said above, that company still has to communicate in an MS world.

Home desktop penetration is an unlikely possibility, but not likely to be quick in coming.

The "Year of Linux" is a pipe dream.

Many a wonderful thing has been left in the dustbin of history. Our pet may be one of them.

Then again, when the world of the dinosaur crashed the scruffy little insignificant mammals took over.

[SemiExpert]

I take it you have not done a Linux/ubuntu install

I've actually done a lot of Linux installs in the last couple of years, including a couple of command line installs. Every thing from really old hardware to Sandy Bridge. Hardware support has dramatically improved in just the last year or two. That old Linux frustration factor is now entirely absent from Ubuntu. In contrast, Windows 7 is a real pain to re-image. It really is an all-day job due to the updates and manual driver installation.

[KiwiNZ]

I've actually done a lot of Linux installs in the last couple of years, including a couple of command line installs. Every thing from really old hardware to Sandy Bridge. Hardware support has dramatically improved in just the last year or two. That old Linux frustration factor is now entirely absent from Ubuntu. In contrast, Windows 7 is a real pain to re-image. It really is an all-day job due to the updates and manual driver installation.

Before I do any install/ reinstall of a Desktop or re-image a server I do a thorough prep e.g make sure I have all the appropriate drivers etc before I start, be Linux , Windows, AIX etc etc.

Windows 7 install a whole day affair? with respect you are doing it wrong.

[alphacrucis2]

Before I do any install/ reinstall of a Desktop or re-image a server I do a thorough prep e.g make sure I have all the appropriate drivers etc before I start, be Linux , Windows, AIX etc etc.

Windows 7 install a whole day affair? with respect you are doing it wrong.

By the time you have installed all the apps you need. it could be.

[alexfish]

"Now let the angry ad hominems from the Linux faithful commence.." Tally ho....what the foggles is he on about.

Don't think FREE comes into the Equation of any business , Perhaps the Author has the knickers in a twist or possible just waffles his way through life , suppose he can't find any other means to make a living.

Tell him it comes down to the Software your gona run, well some of it.

If the Software is Well coded it will work on windows as well as Linux , "don't like Capital w" Ha , I can well imagine Which systems is used for development.

Mr Author, I have been through the chain of win 3. what ever, up-to to xp , "XP was the last Straw" those that have used win98 will tell you the reasons ,and some of those did not relate to third party software as in the sense "Ribbon" or word processing . I had the sense to pull the reigns in at XP. some when beyond.

Here is a Suggestion for New Start Ups ,, use Linux and be set for the future , its catching on. and so is Coding with Freedom.

[Dangertux]

The author has a point that every poster in this thread has missed.

REGRESSIONS...

This is absolutely true, PARTICULARLY in Ubuntu and other bleeding edge distros.

This is entirely the reason that Ubuntu is NOT popular in Enterprise datacenters. In fact RHEL, SEL and OEL (particularly OEL <3 Ksplice) are of the few that are actually capable of meeting the needs of a large enterprise when it comes to regression issues. Even they are not on par with Solaris. No seriously you can take Solaris 5 software and run it on Solaris10 just fine, now I dare you to install a RHEL2 package on a RHEL 6 install... Good luck :-)

Seriously, if Ubuntu (and the rest of the bleeding edge distros) want to be taken seriously, stop making pretty UI's and start practicing some consistency.

That's really all I have on that one, but hey , it's their piece of the market share.

[CharlesA]

The author has a point that every poster in this thread has missed.

REGRESSIONS...

This is absolutely true, PARTICULARLY in Ubuntu and other bleeding edge distros.

This is entirely the reason that Ubuntu is NOT popular in Enterprise datacenters. In fact RHEL, SEL and OEL (particularly OEL <3 Ksplice) are of the few that are actually capable of meeting the needs of a large enterprise when it comes to regression issues. Even they are not on par with Solaris. No seriously you can take Solaris 5 software and run it on Solaris10 just fine, now I dare you to install a RHEL2 package on a RHEL 6 install... Good luck :-)

Seriously, if Ubuntu (and the rest of the bleeding edge distros) want to be taken seriously, stop making pretty UI's and start practicing some consistency.

That's really all I have on that one, but hey , it's their piece of the market share.
+1. Bleeding edge is all well and good, but it does cause problems.

[|{urse]

+1 at Solaris.

[alexfish]

The author has a point that every poster in this thread has missed.

REGRESSIONS...

This is absolutely true, PARTICULARLY in Ubuntu and other bleeding edge distros.

This is entirely the reason that Ubuntu is NOT popular in Enterprise datacenters. In fact RHEL, SEL and OEL (particularly OEL <3 Ksplice) are of the few that are actually capable of meeting the needs of a large enterprise when it comes to regression issues. Even they are not on par with Solaris. No seriously you can take Solaris 5 software and run it on Solaris10 just fine, now I dare you to install a RHEL2 package on a RHEL 6 install... Good luck :-)

Seriously, if Ubuntu (and the rest of the bleeding edge distros) want to be taken seriously, stop making pretty UI's and start practicing some consistency.

That's really all I have on that one, but hey , it's their piece of the market share.

Solaris .Don't see the point

Solaris forum don't have one of these

The Community Cafe (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=11)

Do you think Admin will Allow me to post the above link on one there threads, Or possibly Start one:p

[|{urse]

Solaris is stable and secure, also nearly totally backwards compatible with older packages from itself as mentioned above. Perfect for server/business use. Plus Sun has very good support staff.

[MisterGaribaldi]

I've done clean installs of WinXP No SP, WinXP SP1, and WinXP SP2. I've also done clean installs of Vista No SP and Vista SP1. And, I've done installs of Win 7 No SP. For purposes of discussion, let's compare WinXP installs done late in it's life cycle as well as after Vista and/or 7 have come out, and also Vista after SP1 came out, and also after 7 came out, and lastly 7 as of the present time.

In every instance, the installation process is long and laborious, and if you don't at some point manually prompt it to check for new sets of updates, you will miss stuff. In all cases, doing all the updates requires multiple reboots and also multiple hours (essentially stretching all day long). It's insane.

Contrast that with pretty much any major modern Linux distro as well as Mac OS X. Worst case, you're talking 45 minutes, and that's with EVERY update.

[Bandit]

From professional experience converting to Linux desktop for the SME and large enterprise sectors is very costly and risky, the cost outweighs any benefits.And there there is the myriad of other hurdles and game breaker problems.

Currently this is the case. Until there are more viable & compatible solutions for *nix based systems commercial based system will rein.

[alphacrucis2]

Solaris is stable and secure, also nearly totally backwards compatible with older packages from itself as mentioned above. Perfect for server/business use. Plus Sun has very good support staff.

Has that been maintained since Sun is part of Oracle?

[Mait]

i've done clean installs of winxp no sp, winxp sp1, and winxp sp2. I've also done clean installs of vista no sp and vista sp1. And, i've done installs of win 7 no sp. For purposes of discussion, let's compare winxp installs done late in it's life cycle as well as after vista and/or 7 have come out, and also vista after sp1 came out, and also after 7 came out, and lastly 7 as of the present time.

In every instance, the installation process is long and laborious, and if you don't at some point manually prompt it to check for new sets of updates, you will miss stuff. in all cases, doing all the updates requires multiple reboots and also multiple hours (essentially stretching all day long). It's insane.

Contrast that with pretty much any major modern linux distro as well as mac os x. worst case, you're talking 45 minutes, and that's with every update.
+1

[KiwiNZ]

I've done clean installs of WinXP No SP, WinXP SP1, and WinXP SP2. I've also done clean installs of Vista No SP and Vista SP1. And, I've done installs of Win 7 No SP. For purposes of discussion, let's compare WinXP installs done late in it's life cycle as well as after Vista and/or 7 have come out, and also Vista after SP1 came out, and also after 7 came out, and lastly 7 as of the present time.

In every instance, the installation process is long and laborious, and if you don't at some point manually prompt it to check for new sets of updates, you will miss stuff. In all cases, doing all the updates requires multiple reboots and also multiple hours (essentially stretching all day long). It's insane.

Contrast that with pretty much any major modern Linux distro as well as Mac OS X. Worst case, you're talking 45 minutes, and that's with EVERY update.

For the purposes of this thread I decided to do an install of Windows Home Pro on a redundant PC I have here, it's an i5, 4GB Ram and a low end nVidia card. I started around 11.15am and it is now 2.10pm and the job is complete with the OS fully patched and MS Office installed and patched, I also loaded Adobe PS and VLC just for kicks.

[sffvba[e0rt]

For the purposes of this thread I decided to do an install of Windows Home Pro on a redundant PC I have here, it's an i5, 4GB Ram and a low end nVidia card. I started around 11.15am and it is now 2.10pm and the job is complete with the OS fully patched and MS Office installed and patched, I also loaded Adobe PS and VLC just for kicks.

No anti-virus?! :lolflag:


404

[KiwiNZ]

No anti-virus?! :lolflag:


404

ooops forgot to mention AVG added

[keithpeter]

ooops forgot to mention AVG added

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/products/security-essentials

What do you think of these? I recently did a Windows 7 install for a relative and decided to rely on the MS security essentials.

My ancient quad core workstation takes about 45 minutes to just over an hour to do a complete install of 12.04 by the way. The time depends on the internet connection speed (it includes updates).

[KiwiNZ]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/products/security-essentials

What do you think of these? I recently did a Windows 7 install for a relative and decided to rely on the MS security essentials.

My ancient quad core workstation takes about 45 minutes to just over an hour to do a complete install of 12.04 by the way. The time depends on the internet connection speed (it includes updates).

Microsoft security essentials are good and yes I will install it on folks PC's if approved.

[Paddy Landau]

First off, I am automatically suspicious of someone who refers to himself in the third person.
That is the way The Economist writes, so the author had no choice. Quite old-fashioned, perhaps, but there you go.


Now, I know there's little love here for Steve Jobs (or Bill Gates)
Oh, I don't know. Many Ubuntu users praise Apple products but cannot afford them (like me), and many enjoy Windows.


Seriously, if Ubuntu (and the rest of the bleeding edge distros) want to be taken seriously, stop making pretty UI's and start practicing some consistency.
True -- business people value reliability and stability over "prettiness". However, Canonical had to do something radical to compete on the TV, smart-phone and tablet side. If, having developed it, Canonical sticks with Unity, and concentrates now on stability and reliability, I think it has a chance. A small chance, but a chance nonetheless.

[winh8r]

The author has a point that every poster in this thread has missed.

REGRESSIONS...

This is absolutely true, PARTICULARLY in Ubuntu and other bleeding edge distros.

This is entirely the reason that Ubuntu is NOT popular in Enterprise datacenters. In fact RHEL, SEL and OEL (particularly OEL <3 Ksplice) are of the few that are actually capable of meeting the needs of a large enterprise when it comes to regression issues. Even they are not on par with Solaris. No seriously you can take Solaris 5 software and run it on Solaris10 just fine, now I dare you to install a RHEL2 package on a RHEL 6 install... Good luck :-)

Seriously, if Ubuntu (and the rest of the bleeding edge distros) want to be taken seriously, stop making pretty UI's and start practicing some consistency.

That's really all I have on that one, but hey , it's their piece of the market share.

Very true.

The article pretty much sums up the current state of play, and your comment illustrates it well also. There is no point in selling a sleek new sports car with fancy wheels if the engine does not run properly.

The whole Linux world needs to take a step back and look at what they are trying to achieve here. Functionality is the single most important part of the equation. Get it functioning in every area then and only then can you move on to the aesthetics.

It is time that developers stopped looking at what they CAN do and focused a bit more on what they NEED to do. Otherwise Linux is going to do no better than retain its current market share.

This applies to all distros, not just Ubuntu.

[alexfish]

MM!
At This Point

Lets throw some basic costing , Assuming the Business is a Small Enterprise and Money is Tight "Think the we all Know what that means. so can start with basic System.

Initial start up Costs , Here we Assume your going to pay for the PC, and an IT Expert for the installation

PC: don't forget the ARM rout in these equations

1. Cost of a the PC , Here Where not talking Latest 20 Million Ghtz gizmo that will break the bank ,

2. next take the Cost's of the OS + initial cost's in time for the installation , "why do I need Anti Virus or Security Essentials", "What are these for"

3. Office Software + the cost's in time for the installation

4. Accounting Package + cost's in time for the installation

5. IT cost's for Keeping These Security thing's up to date
" PS why do I have to pay Yearly for this Licence" , Mr IT "and what is a trojan virus"

OH! JUST SPOTTED THIS THREAD
http://ubuntuforums.org/images/misc/navbits_finallink_ltr.gif (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1952078) [SOLVED] Antivirus that actually scans for LINUX viruses.

Just one more thing , Knew there was something else niggling in the back of my mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_command_shells

Have fun

Alexfish

[Paddy Landau]

The whole Linux world needs to take a step back and look at what they are trying to achieve here.
Big problem. Every Linux distro is trying to achieve something different. Some are research-oriented; some programming-oriented; and so forth.

What is needed is a large company to be specifically business-oriented. I think Canonical is making a good fist of it, albeit not perfect by any means. I stick with Ubuntu because, as someone who is more business-oriented than anything else, it comes closest to my needs. We need Ubuntu to become rock-solid so that business-oriented people will appreciate it as much as, say, a Mac.

[MisterGaribaldi]

The biggest problem we have here is that Linux developers are like cats, and trying to have a focus and direction is a little like... you guessed it... herding cats.

We need a stable, supportable platform, and equally we need a software ecosystem which includes the apps that people and businesses need and want, otherwise, regardless of support costs, why bother using it?

Example: a friend of mine runs a small business, and he needs both QuickBooks and TurboTax, as well as Adobe InDesign, Acrobat Pro, and Photoshop. He also owns an iPhone and needs to move media onto it from time to time. For him, Linux just isn't a practical option because, as much as most of his tasks could be handled with F/OSS -- and actually are -- there's just no getting around the commercial titles he needs.

I can't speak to business infrastructure in big corporations, but given that Linx already has a huge penetration there, I don't think I really have to.

[JonasBid]

The biggest problem we have here is that Linux developers are like cats, and trying to have a focus and direction is a little like... you guessed it... herding cats.

We need a stable, supportable platform, and equally we need a software ecosystem which includes the apps that people and businesses need and want, otherwise, regardless of support costs, why bother using it?.

Totally agree!
I run a small business, installed Ubuntu 11.10 last month and the learning curve has been steep. Still to solve Network Printer & Sync from Thunderbird to my Android Phone. The rest of the office (3),are fascinated of my test & we are seriously discussing to move all over to Linux. AND can I recommend that?

Is that a good and practical suggestion? We as many others have little IT knowledge, so it's a question on how much do you want to learn/fix yourself, versus just getting your tasks done that has been easily handled with MS OS, remember most users are plain stupid, one has to make it really, really, really easy for them.

So far, Linux isn't a practical option, I wish it was, but it's not in my view, there yet for commercial use.

[Paddy Landau]

remember most users are plain stupid, one has to make it really, really, really easy for them.
That's right. Well, they're not stupid -- they just have specialities in areas other than IT. Just as I want to be able to drive a car without understanding what is under the bonnet, so the vast majority of users want to be able to run their computer without understanding the technicalities.


So far, Linux isn't a practical option
That really depends on the organisation. A number of businesses and government organisations have made the change or are in process of doing so; others cannot reasonably do so.

The problem is lock-in. If your organisation already runs Mac, it is hard to change to Windows or Ubuntu. Likewise, if it already runs Ubuntu, it will be hard to change to Windows or Mac. And so forth.

[alexfish]

Totally agree!
I run a small business, installed Ubuntu 11.10 last month and the learning curve has been steep. Still to solve Network Printer & Sync from Thunderbird to my Android Phone. The rest of the office (3),are fascinated of my test & we are seriously discussing to move all over to Linux. AND can I recommend that?

Is that a good and practical suggestion? We as many others have little IT knowledge, so it's a question on how much do you want to learn/fix yourself, versus just getting your tasks done that has been easily handled with MS OS, remember most users are plain stupid, one has to make it really, really, really easy for them.

So far, Linux isn't a practical option, I wish it was, but it's not in my view, there yet for commercial use.


To do a common thing uncommonly well brings success.
Founder Henry John Heinz

http://www.heinz.com/our-company/about-heinz/history.aspx

[SemiExpert]

Microsoft security essentials are good and yes I will install it on folks PC's if approved.

I'd argue that MSE is free and worth every penny. Nothing. It's worth remembering that Microsoft failed in the paid anti-malware suite market with Windows Live OneCare, hence they give away MSE.

[SemiExpert]

For the purposes of this thread I decided to do an install of Windows Home Pro on a redundant PC I have here, it's an i5, 4GB Ram and a low end nVidia card. I started around 11.15am and it is now 2.10pm and the job is complete with the OS fully patched and MS Office installed and patched, I also loaded Adobe PS and VLC just for kicks.

First off, there's no such thing as Windows Home Pro? Are you refering to Windows 7 Professional or Home Premium? Second of all, I don't know whether your re-installation medium includes SP1, or whether updates are slipstreamed? It makes a big difference if you've got 2009 or early 2011 vintage installation media. But the real point is that you've spent nearly 3 hours re-imaging Windows when it would take around 45 minutes in total to install Ubuntu.

[CharlesA]

I'd argue that MSE is free and worth every penny. Nothing. It's worth remembering that Microsoft failed in the paid anti-malware suite market with Windows Live OneCare, hence they give away MSE.
Would you give the same "worth" to the other free AV solutions?

[Mariane]

I think we should compare what is comparable. You cannot compare the work overhead between getting a machine already installed and doing the installation yourself.

I installed both windows and kubuntu. With kubuntu, the problems I tend to have are related to drivers. They are genuine problems, not made-up hassles. With windows, the problems I tend to have are clearly made up. You install, you activate, and sometimes later the desktop background goes black and you get an error message in the corner saying "this version of windows is not genuine", even though it is genuine. The process for solving this is very complicated and time-consuming.

Also, kubuntu does not try to prevent you from doing what you want to do. Windows does. I once was given an XP machine at work and I started by cleaning it, removing what I did not need. The software was deliberately set up to pester me. I remember in particular a directory called "msn gaming zone" where one file could not be deleted under XP, no matter what I did. I eventually had to boot the machine with a ubuntu CD to delete it.

Kubuntu usually does what I tell it to do. Windows usually does what it thinks I should be doing, and when what I really want to do is something else it fights me every step of the way. Fighting back can be very time consuming.

[synaptix]

But the real point is that you've spent nearly 3 hours re-imaging Windows when it would take around 45 minutes in total to install Ubuntu.

Takes me about 45-55 minutes to get a Windows 7 install up and running with everything I needed, including SP1 + all post-SP1 updates.

Takes even less time on a Windows 8 install, as Windows 8 automatically detects and installs the latest drivers for all my stuff.

Having a DVD with backed up programs is really nice and saves a lot of time.

[CharlesA]

Having a DVD with backed up programs is really nice and saves a lot of time.

Indeed. In my case, I have an image of a clean Win7 install so I can just do updates and be good to go.

[Roasted]

From professional experience converting to Linux desktop for the SME and large enterprise sectors is very costly and risky, the cost outweighs any benefits.And there there is the myriad of other hurdles and game breaker problems.

Any time you make a platform shift, it's risky and headache infatuated. I've heard of similar stories with Win to Mac or Mac to Win. As somebody who's been involved with Linux adoption in the educational/enterprise sector, I can say it comes down to the techs doing the migration. Anybody who says "oh this is free let's run it" is bound to run into issues. On the flip side, I've used Linux for a number of years, and dropped in LTSP servers and Ubuntu powered laptops and a few servers without a hiccup. In fact, I distinctly remember my boss during a meeting asking me how things were going, with him in disbelief when I said "everything is good." I literally had nothing to report, and the students gravitating to the Ubuntu powered thin client labs and laptop carts over the Windows counterparts was further proof.

Everybody's mileage will vary, undoubtedly, but my mileage was nothing short of great.

For what it's worth, I've since parted ways with that previous job, but colleagues working there report continued success. At my new place of work, we're even more heavily Ubuntu entrenched and success has been very comparable.

[SemiExpert]

Takes me about 45-55 minutes to get a Windows 7 install up and running with everything I needed, including SP1 + all post-SP1 updates.

Takes even less time on a Windows 8 install, as Windows 8 automatically detects and installs the latest drivers for all my stuff.



As previously stated, Windows has never been very good at finding drivers. The best bet is always to use the most up-to-date drivers provided on the manufacturers website. And of course, the really horrific part of Windows re-imaging is reinstalling drivers, in the correct sequence, and going through hundreds of Windows updates. It makes Ubuntu's Update Manager look like a miracle.
Having a DVD with backed up programs is really nice and saves a lot of time.

Drivers require reasonably frequent updates, as do other programs, so burning a DVD really doesn't make all that much sense? You can install Windows 7 from a USB drive and the same goes for other drivers and programs.

[SemiExpert]

Would you give the same &quot;worth&quot; to the other free AV solutions?

There are some paid AV suites that are worse than MSE, but there are a few that are much, much better. I'm not going to offer any endorsements for paid Windows internet security suites, but the ratings are widely available. In my opinion, it's never just an issue of free vs. paid, but about the quality of the solution. I'm not using Ubuntu because it's free, but because it's the best Debian based distro. If I really wanted to go .rpm, I'd pay the subscription fee to Red Hat. It's not all about free vs. paid.

[CharlesA]

As previously stated, Windows has never been very good at finding drivers. The best bet is always to use the most up-to-date drivers provided on the manufacturers website. And of course, the really horrific part of Windows re-imaging is reinstalling drivers, in the correct sequence, and going through hundreds of Windows updates. It makes Ubuntu's Update Manager look like a miracle.

I must be doing the whole thing wrong then. On my new desktop build, I installed off an OEM Win7 dvd (with no service packs) and the only thing I needed drivers for was the USB 3 card. Windows found drivers for everything else, including my video card.

The same thing can be said for Ubuntu too - On the new server build I did, all I did was pop in the drive from the old server and modify the network rules to get the network card to show up as eth0 and that was all. A clean install would probably do the exact same thing.


Drivers require reasonably frequent updates, as do other programs, so burning a DVD really doesn't make all that much sense? You can install Windows 7 from a USB drive and the same goes for other drivers and programs.

They do? I think the only driver that I update with any frequency is my graphics driver. If it's working, don't fix it.


There are some paid AV suites that are worse than MSE, but there are a few that are much, much better. I'm not going to offer any endorsements for paid Windows internet security suites, but the ratings are widely available. In my opinion, it's never just an issue of free vs. paid, but about the quality of the solution. I'm not using Ubuntu because it's free, but because it's the best Debian based distro. If I really wanted to go .rpm, I'd pay the subscription fee to Red Hat. It's not all about free vs. paid.

Fedora ftw. :p

[SeijiSensei]

Concerning installation....

Remember that any reasonably large enterprise does not image its systems in-house. Nowadays it's pretty common to contract with a systems integrator who'll ship computers pre-loaded with the customer's list of required software.


I must be doing the whole thing wrong then. On my new desktop build, I installed off an OEM Win7 dvd (with no service packs) and the only thing I needed drivers for was the USB 3 card. Windows found drivers for everything else, including my video card.

That's been my experience with Win7 as well.

[synaptix]

Drivers require reasonably frequent updates, as do other programs, so burning a DVD really doesn't make all that much sense? You can install Windows 7 from a USB drive and the same goes for other drivers and programs.

Realtek HD Audio and my Network controller both get updates ~3-6 months, depending on how lazy Realtek is.

AMD pushes out Catalyst versions towards the end of each month. Most of the programs I use come with auto-updaters (Firefox, Winamp, Steam/TF2, etc).

All I need to do is pop in DVD, delete program off it then drag and drop updated version onto the DVD and all done...takes less than 5 seconds.

[KiwiNZ]

First off, there's no such thing as Windows Home Pro? Are you refering to Windows 7 Professional or Home Premium? Second of all, I don't know whether your re-installation medium includes SP1, or whether updates are slipstreamed? It makes a big difference if you've got 2009 or early 2011 vintage installation media. But the real point is that you've spent nearly 3 hours re-imaging Windows when it would take around 45 minutes in total to install Ubuntu.


So I made a typo, sue me, sheesh talk about nit picking:rolleyes:

To get ubuntu installed and stable it takes a lot longer.

It wasn't three hours, and where I live three hours is a hell of a lot shorter than the previously stated "all day";)

[JonasBid]

That really depends on the organisation. A number of businesses and government organisations have made the change or are in process of doing so; others cannot reasonably do so.

The problem is lock-in....

Correct. Also I must ask the question; what benefits us best? Time consumed in a change process versus same spent in doing what we do best,sales etc?

[aysiu]

I used to have a lot more positive experiences with desktop Linux a few years ago. I would install, and the kernel would just recognize everything. These days there seem to be too many kernel regressions. I used to think drivers in Windows were a pain. Now I kind of like that you can roll back one driver to an older version and not have to change up the whole kernel and then have something else break when you fix the first thing.

[cotcot]

It is easy to state that one system is more expensive than another if you do not have to support it by facts and figures.
Nothing about the server OS where linux is fairly popular.

Maybe a title like "Is bleeding edge linux more expensive ?" would be better.

[SemiExpert]

Realtek HD Audio and my Network controller both get updates ~3-6 months, depending on how lazy Realtek is.

AMD pushes out Catalyst versions towards the end of each month. Most of the programs I use come with auto-updaters (Firefox, Winamp, Steam/TF2, etc).

All I need to do is pop in DVD, delete program off it then drag and drop updated version onto the DVD and all done...takes less than 5 seconds.
I don't favor rewritable disks as long term storage media. Actually, I haven't routinely used optical disks in years. Moreover, I find that re-imaging Windows is a task that is infrequent enough to warrant a visit to the manufacturer's driver support page for the latest tested drivers.

[SemiExpert]

So I made a typo, sue me, sheesh talk about nit picking:rolleyes:

To get ubuntu installed and stable it takes a lot longer.


I have no idea what you mean by the term stable? I've found that I can determine full functionality with a Live Disc and then get through an installation without any surprises. Not a big deal. About 45 minutes for an Ubuntu installation.

It wasn't three hours, and where I live three hours is a hell of a lot shorter than the previously stated &quot;all day&quot;;)

You quoted a time of 2 hours 55 minutes for a Windows installation. That's sounds doable, but it's a heck of a lot longer than an Ubuntu installation. As I previously stated, re-imaging Windows 7 can take up an entire day. Ubuntu takes up less than an hour under the worst of circumstances.

[jockyburns]

To be fair the author of the article has made some excellent points (which I dare hope some Linux developers take on board.
I'm currently running Ubuntu 11.04. In a few weeks I would like to upgrade to 12.04 LTS. But,,, there's a problem. I haven't upgraded to 11.10. So (as I understand things ) if I want to use 12.04, I either have to first upgrade to 11.10, then again to 12.04,, or. Backup all of my personal files etc, then do a clean install of 12.04, then put all of my personal files back.(not to mention applications I have previously downloaded and installed)
Why the developers can't seem to grasp the fact that most users don't want to upgrade every 6 months is beyond me. Specially when we see so many posts on the forums all relating to problems, problems, problems. Even those who do upgrade from say 11.04 (where they have a nice usable system) to 11.10 then find they spend hours on the forums looking for a workaround for problems like printers, video drivers, wireless networks etc
What problems are going to rear their ugly heads when 12.04 is released?

[KiwiNZ]

I have no idea what you mean by the term stable?



"resistant to sudden change or deterioration:

steadfast; not wavering or changeable, as in character or purpose; dependable."

[CharlesA]

To be fair the author of the article has made some excellent points (which I dare hope some Linux developers take on board.
I'm currently running Ubuntu 11.04. In a few weeks I would like to upgrade to 12.04 LTS. But,,, there's a problem. I haven't upgraded to 11.10. So (as I understand things ) if I want to use 12.04, I either have to first upgrade to 11.10, then again to 12.04,, or. Backup all of my personal files etc, then do a clean install of 12.04, then put all of my personal files back.(not to mention applications I have previously downloaded and installed)
Why the developers can't seem to grasp the fact that most users don't want to upgrade every 6 months is beyond me. Specially when we see so many posts on the forums all relating to problems, problems, problems. Even those who do upgrade from say 11.04 (where they have a nice usable system) to 11.10 then find they spend hours on the forums looking for a workaround for problems like printers, video drivers, wireless networks etc
What problems are going to rear their ugly heads when 12.04 is released?
The installer should detect you have 11.04 installed and bump it up to 12.04.

Or at least that is what it sounds like from what I have read in the +1 forum.

[KiwiNZ]

You quoted a time of 2 hours 55 minutes for a Windows installation. That's sounds doable, but it's a heck of a lot longer than an Ubuntu installation. As I previously stated, re-imaging Windows 7 can take up an entire day. Ubuntu takes up less than an hour under the worst of circumstances.

I said " I started around 11.15am and it is now 2.10pm and the job is complete" I did not say it took until 2.10pm

[SemiExpert]

&quot;resistant to sudden change or deterioration:

steadfast; not wavering or changeable, as in character or purpose; dependable.&quot;

It's either stable or it isn't. Typically, I've found Ubuntu releases to be very stable, even in beta and alpha stages.

[SemiExpert]

I said &quot; I started around 11.15am and it is now 2.10pm and the job is complete&quot; I did not say it took until 2.10pm

Clarify if you must?

[kaldor]

I used to have a lot more positive experiences with desktop Linux a few years ago. I would install, and the kernel would just recognize everything. These days there seem to be too many kernel regressions. I used to think drivers in Windows were a pain. Now I kind of like that you can roll back one driver to an older version and not have to change up the whole kernel and then have something else break when you fix the first thing.

Really? The Linux driver situation has improved drastically in my experiences over the last few years.

My main issue is with performance problems in the new desktop environments. As a gamer, GNOME Shell and Unity cause a lot of lag and performance drops while gaming. The desktop is also really laggy on my new AMD-powered PC, with both Fglrx and Radeon drivers. Hoping that eventually GNOME Shell/Unity will feel as responsive as GNOME 2.32 did.

Wireless works out of the box on most everything I try out. Also, graphics drivers are getting more and more mature; Nouveau, Radeon, Intel almost always work out of the box to a certain degree.

I guess it really depends on the hardware. But for me, drivers have improved drastically since Ubuntu 7.10 when I hopped on board.

[SemiExpert]

To be fair the author of the article has made some excellent points (which I dare hope some Linux developers take on board.
I'm currently running Ubuntu 11.04. In a few weeks I would like to upgrade to 12.04 LTS. But,,, there's a problem. I haven't upgraded to 11.10. So (as I understand things ) if I want to use 12.04, I either have to first upgrade to 11.10, then again to 12.04,, or. Backup all of my personal files etc, then do a clean install of 12.04, then put all of my personal files back.(not to mention applications I have previously downloaded and installed)
Why the developers can't seem to grasp the fact that most users don't want to upgrade every 6 months is beyond me. Specially when we see so many posts on the forums all relating to problems, problems, problems. Even those who do upgrade from say 11.04 (where they have a nice usable system) to 11.10 then find they spend hours on the forums looking for a workaround for problems like printers, video drivers, wireless networks etc
What problems are going to rear their ugly heads when 12.04 is released?

Try it as a Live Disc or with Unetbootin and then worry about the problems if they exist. I've been running 12.04 beta without any problems on a current, soon to be last, generation system. Does that mean that there won't be issues with Intel graphics when Ivy Bridge rolls around? I dunno. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. In general, I've found that wireless and graphics issues are typically solved by newer releases, while printing is becoming something of moot point.

[KiwiNZ]

It's either stable or it isn't. Typically, I've found Ubuntu releases to be very stable, even in beta and alpha stages.

Instability is not set in stone. An install can be unstable until remedial work makes the install stable.

To say"It's either stable or it isn't" is only true to a given instance. An install can start stable and regress to unstable or vice versa depending on a myriad of circumstances.

[synaptix]

My main issue is with performance problems in the new desktop environments. As a gamer, GNOME Shell and Unity cause a lot of lag and performance drops while gaming. The desktop is also really laggy on my new AMD-powered PC, with both Fglrx and Radeon drivers. Hoping that eventually GNOME Shell/Unity will feel as responsive as GNOME 2.32 did.

Likewise, also using AMD/ATI based system.

Found that using Unity2D in place of Unity3D, or the crippled Gnome Classic (No effects) with Gnome-shell provided the best performance gains.

[forrestcupp]

I must be doing the whole thing wrong then. On my new desktop build, I installed off an OEM Win7 dvd (with no service packs) and the only thing I needed drivers for was the USB 3 card. Windows found drivers for everything else, including my video card.

The same thing can be said for Ubuntu too - On the new server build I did, all I did was pop in the drive from the old server and modify the network rules to get the network card to show up as eth0 and that was all. A clean install would probably do the exact same thing.
+1

I've installed Win7 on quite a few computers, and the only driver it didn't fetch automatically was an obscure external recording sound card that needed custom ASIO drivers. It even automatically installed drivers and software for my all-in-one printer.

I've installed Win7 and Ubuntu a lot of times on several computers. The installation experience has always been about equal for both OSs. Anyone who says otherwise has just had a bad experience. The last version of Windows I've installed that I might say was harder than Ubuntu was XP. I've seen a forum full of people who could testify of their bad experiences of installing Ubuntu, too. If you're someone who needs to install some kind of driver in Ubuntu, you might think it's easier to get those drivers installed in Windows.

[Docaltmed]

Install Ubuntu 90 days after release and you get 500 updates. There's the reality.

Linux would be suitable for the office except for one thing: the bricks are all labeled Microsoft right now because of simple historical happenstance.

Who in their right mind would tear down an edifice while trying to conduct business just to go through the heartache and headache of replacing an infrastructure that already works?

For a startup or young company it might work fine. But as someone said above, that company still has to communicate in an MS world.

Home desktop penetration is an unlikely possibility, but not likely to be quick in coming.

The "Year of Linux" is a pipe dream.

Many a wonderful thing has been left in the dustbin of history. Our pet may be one of them.

Then again, when the world of the dinosaur crashed the scruffy little insignificant mammals took over.

For a small business, even one that's been in business for years, the changeover can be very, very cost effective. My ROI was under a year; complete switch took 6 months.

As far as dealing with the MS world, not so much. Files are files. And if a vendor doesn't support my way of dealing with things, ok -- next week, new vendor who works with me.

I got a great guy on call who can SSH in and fix things when I'm in too deep or in trouble.

My hardware costs are miniscule compared to what I was looking at to keep up with MicroBloat. I'm UbuntuOned and good to go.

Life is very, very good for this Ubuntu-based practice.

[Bandit]

IMHO for what its worth. Any time your switch platforms its going to cost serious cash. Doesnt matter if your going from Win to Lin or Win to OSX or Lin to either.. But if you start with an open *nix platform and build from there chances are 'but not always' you can come out cheaper.

[jonathonblake]

As an analogy, when you buy a car, you don't expect to have a zillion different choices as to its chassis shape, colour, steering wheel size and shape, choice of radio, chair styles, chair covers and colours, height of ceiling and so on that you can change any time you feel the whim.

If you are going to use a car analogy, then recognize that people have a basic idea of what they want in a car, before they go to the dealership, or start searching online.

I don't know what the car manufacturers currently offer, but in the mid-eighties they could produce more than a million vehicles consecutively, no two of which would be identical.

For those that make the wrong choice at the car dealership, there is a huge aftermarket that provides the right choice.

The majority of people have no idea what they want,or even should expect in an OS. Any OS.

With Linux, the ability to make the wrong choice, and to fix it, is present from the first click to install it. Contrast this with Windows, where the ability to fix a wrong choice is non-existent. You have to reinstall from scratch. I can't speak for Macs, becuase the only Mac I ever bought failed to boot.

jonathon

[Bandit]

...............

My main issue is with performance problems in the new desktop environments. As a gamer, GNOME Shell and Unity cause a lot of lag and performance drops while gaming. The desktop is also really laggy on my new AMD-powered PC, with both Fglrx and Radeon drivers. Hoping that eventually GNOME Shell/Unity will feel as responsive as GNOME 2.32 did.
.............

Hmm. Running Phenom 9850 Quad core and nVidia 460GTX with 4GB of DDR2-800. No lag issues and its very very fast. Of course it should be with those specs, but it really depends on video driver quality as much as hardware.

[Paddy Landau]

Why the developers can't seem to grasp the fact that most users don't want to upgrade every 6 months is beyond me.
The difference should be made much clearer on the download page. If you want stability, you do not upgrade every six months; you load the latest long-term support (LTS) and upgrade every two years. LTS used to be supported for three years; starting with 12.04, LTS will be supported for five.

Upgrading every six months is for those who prefer the latest and not-necessarily-greatest. The six-month release is used as a testing bed for new ideas, drivers, releases and technology.


I can't speak for Macs, becuase the only Mac I ever bought failed to boot.
That is a most unusual occurrence. Macs tend to work well because Apple keeps a firm hand on the hardware. Surely Apple fixed your Mac under guarantee?

[Gone fishing]

Well I'm going to side with Semi Expert installing Ubuntu even when you need to install codecs and drivers using the addition drivers utility, it is at most a 2 hour process and I have no idea what making it stable means, you install Ubuntu it is stable. It is possible (but unlikely) that it might not work with some of your hardware that's a problem and might take time to fix.

To install Windows under ideal circumstances i.e. you have all the driver disks, and additional software disks to hand will take about 3 hours but fully updating longer. If you don't have drivers a very long time, taking out boards Googling serial numbers avoiding scum driver sites all day sounds about right and if your unlucky say you have a Sound Blaster Live card then your going to have to buy new hardware if you want it it work with Windows 7 or really struggle (it s possible with opensource drivers but add another day).

What I don't get and it happens on this site when Windows is discussed are members who obviously loath Ubuntu and Linux who are desperate to tell us how much better Windows is, or if not better then how bad Ubuntu is. It happens when security and viruses are discussed and now installation. It is obvious if your hardware is supported (and most is) than installing Ubuntu is easier than Installing Windows so please not pretend it isn’t or have desperate attempts to tell us how easy it is to install Windows is - been there done that and know what the reality is. Actually the easiest way to install Windows is take a day getting it right then use a Linux tool to make an image and then when Windows breaks you can fix it in about 20 mins + updates.

[Paddy Landau]

... avoiding scum driver sites
What is a scum driver site?


Actually the easiest way to install Windows is take a day getting it right then use a Linux tool to make an image and then when Windows breaks you can fix it in about 20 mins + updates.
That's what I do. I take an occasional backup of Windows with CloneZilla. When the kids load viruses I just restore the partition and re-apply updates.

[forrestcupp]

What I don't get and it happens on this site when Windows is discussed are members who obviously loath Ubuntu and Linux who are desperate to tell us how much better Windows is, or if not better then how bad Ubuntu is. It happens when security and viruses are discussed and now installation. It is obvious if your hardware is supported (and most is) than installing Ubuntu is easier than Installing Windows so please not pretend it isn’t or have desperate attempts to tell us how easy it is to install Windows is - been there done that and know what the reality is. Actually the easiest way to install Windows is take a day getting it right then use a Linux tool to make an image and then when Windows breaks you can fix it in about 20 mins + updates.
I'm not a Windows lover/Ubuntu hater. I've just been realistic and honest, and I've given my personal testimony of installing both Windows 7 and Ubuntu many times. You may have had different experiences than I have, but my experience is that they are equally easy and time consuming to install, and I haven't had to manually install any drivers in Win7, except the obscure external recording sound card that I mentioned earlier. And that sound card even worked; I just had to install the custom ASIO drivers to make it realtime.

I personally use Ubuntu full time because I like it better than Windows. But just because I like Ubuntu better doesn't mean I'm going to be dishonest and tell everyone that it's even easier to install than Windows. The honest truth is that for me, it hasn't been any harder to install than Windows. That's as rosy as I can word it and still be honest.

[farrinux]

From my experince, it takes me much longer to do a fresh load on windows and update. Ubuntu is usually loaded and updated in about 2 hrs. The only time this did not happen was my first forray into ubuntu. It was 8.04 and the machine had a wireless card that simply would not work with ubuntu. The only piece of hardware that I ever had not work with ubuntu. But then I have had similar problems in windows. For me an average user FOSS just makes sense.

[Gone fishing]

What is a scum driver site?


A site that claims to have the driver, but wants you to install some crapware or worse, register and doesn’t have the driver anyway. This is a real Windows feature that is unique to that OS.

[CharlesA]

What is a scum driver site?

Guessing they mean the ones they have "tools" to scan your box and you have to pay to get access to the results.

Unless the hardware is really old, there really isn't much need to go googling - just going to the manufacturer's site and downloading the right drivers is usually fine.

EDIT: That goes without saying that you would have to know what's in your box to do that, otherwise you'd have to crack it open and look.

[Gone fishing]

I'm not a Windows lover/Ubuntu hater. I've just been realistic and honest, and I've given my personal testimony of installing both Windows 7 and Ubuntu many times. You may have had different experiences than I have, but my experience is that they are equally easy and time consuming to install

This seems fair enough, both are easy to install, even Windows if you have all the drivers etc to hand, personally I think Ubuntu is the easier and certainly the quicker. - Windows is certainly not easier and quicker.

However, we are not comparing like with like. Buy a computer with OEM Windows plus driver disks and it should be easy to reinstall Windows, the box was designed by the manufacture to run Windows not Ubuntu and it amazing how it is usually hassle free to install Ubuntu.

However, Install Windows on a box you’ve made or even one where the OEM has not provided proper driver disks etc and Windows can be very difficult.

Post Edit - A little personal experience.

After suffering with Vista on my personal box I paid for a copy of Windows 7 and was amazed how little worked. sound card, wireless, I had disks, they didn’t have 7 drivers, the Vista drivers didn’t work with 7. The manufactures didn’t have new Windows 7 drivers for this older hardware on their sites. Although for the wireless card I did find a driver, not on the main site but in on a Chinese only website in Taiwan

Non of this was a problem with Ubuntu even if we complain and rightly about the odd regression with Wireless drivers.

[forrestcupp]

However, we are not comparing like with like. Buy a computer with OEM Windows plus driver disks and it should be easy to reinstall Windows, the box was designed by the manufacture to run Windows not Ubuntu and it amazing how it is usually hassle free to install Ubuntu.

However, Install Windows on a box you’ve made or even one where the OEM has not provided proper driver disks etc and Windows can be very difficult.The experiences I was talking about were all from installing with retail copies of Windows 7 Ultimate that didn't include any manufacturer drivers. I guess I just got lucky with every computer I installed it on. :)

I will say that one of my older laptops had a GPU that is no longer supported in Windows 7, so it was more beneficial to go back to Vista. But when nVidia and AMD stop driver support, it happens in their Linux drivers, too.


Post Edit - A little personal experience.

After suffering with Vista on my personal box I paid for a copy of Windows 7 and was amazed how little worked. sound card, wireless, I had disks, they didn’t have 7 drivers, the Vista drivers didn’t work with 7. The manufactures didn’t have new Windows 7 drivers for this older hardware on their sites. Although for the wireless card I did find a driver, not on the main site but in on a Chinese only website in TaiwanSounds like you were either unlucky, or you were doing this at the very beginning of the life of Windows 7. I've been pretty impressed with how it automatically fetches all of my drivers without my even having to worry about it. In fact, the first time I installed Win7 and it installed all of my drivers for me, it kind of reminded me more of Ubuntu's installation. It's strange to hear people's different testimonies.

[alexfish]

What is a scum driver site?
.
Acronym to Acronym FUBAR:rolleyes:

[dpny]

Forgive me if someone has mentioned this, but with respect to installation times, no large business installs like you do at home. They will have pre-imaged installs ready to go: the time to install is merely the time to image the drive, boot up and connect to whatever activation servers are running. Takes about half an hour, tops.

An no large company just lets Windows install patches: they will vet every patch, bundle them and do a network wide update over the weekend. You come in on Monday and, automagically, your updated machine is ready for you.

[SeijiSensei]

I made this point earlier as well.

Many people at ubuntuforums have had no experience working in a largish installation with a mixture of platforms to support. This thread is a good example of this mindset. Individual users' experiences with installing one operating system or another have little or no relevance to managing lots of systems across a business or enterprise. The "everyone should be running Linux" crowd also consistently ignores the issues of staff training and long-term support, which are often much more costly than whether a computer has a licensed copy of Windows on it. This is even before we get to problems like vertical software applications that are typically written only for Windows.

Please, folks, think about whether your personal experiences are even relevant to the topic at hand before posting. In many instances, like this one, they're not.

[keithpeter]

Please, folks, think about whether your personal experiences are even relevant to the topic at hand before posting. In many instances, like this one, they're not.

Hello SeijiSensei and all

I understand what you are saying, and I do have sufficent experience in training and supporting software rollouts to end users to understand the issues.

The original article was a blog post by one chap recounting his experiences with end-user installations of distros such as Mint. Therefore, in my opinion, experiences from end-users are relevant.

In my opinion, had this chap stuck with RHEL/CentOS or with Debian or with Ubuntu LTS, he would not have experienced anything like the annoyances he recounts.

Does anyone here have any experience of Canonical's Landscape application? I'm specifically interested in the forthcoming upgrade from 10.04 to 12.04. I'm interested in the extent to which large scale installations of 10.04 may migrate to Gnome Classic session to avoid retraining overhead.

Personally, I rather like Unity, and I am thinking of writing a 'migration guide' poster for 10.04 -> 12.04. To this end I have


Installed 10.04.4 on a spare box
Initialised a profile with Evolution, Office and music/photos
Tested the software update upgrade route
Installed 10.04 and 12.04 default systems on two partitions on a testing box
Started to document the changes by annotating the Ubuntu-manuals docs for 10.04

[Paddy Landau]

Personally, I rather like Unity, and I am thinking of writing a 'migration guide' poster for 10.04 -> 12.04.
I also ilke Unity. I look forward to your poster. Please post the link here when you've done it so I can find it!

[forrestcupp]

Forgive me if someone has mentioned this, but with respect to installation times, no large business installs like you do at home. They will have pre-imaged installs ready to go: the time to install is merely the time to image the drive, boot up and connect to whatever activation servers are running. Takes about half an hour, tops.

An no large company just lets Windows install patches: they will vet every patch, bundle them and do a network wide update over the weekend. You come in on Monday and, automagically, your updated machine is ready for you.


I made this point earlier as well.

Many people at ubuntuforums have had no experience working in a largish installation with a mixture of platforms to support. This thread is a good example of this mindset. Individual users' experiences with installing one operating system or another have little or no relevance to managing lots of systems across a business or enterprise. The "everyone should be running Linux" crowd also consistently ignores the issues of staff training and long-term support, which are often much more costly than whether a computer has a licensed copy of Windows on it. This is even before we get to problems like vertical software applications that are typically written only for Windows.

Please, folks, think about whether your personal experiences are even relevant to the topic at hand before posting. In many instances, like this one, they're not.

Good points. I was getting into the flow of the discussion and not thinking about that corporate network installations are rolled out differently.

[alexfish]

Well .think most of us have got the gist of some of the Authors rant

but I still say he is wearing foggles and the knikers are twisted

suppose can focus on this bit of the daily rant


The problem is compounded by the way Linux has grown over the years into an ungainly edifice, built upon thousands of individual packages of computer code that have been stapled together. Contrast that with the strict quality assurance imposed by Apple and Google over their Unix- and Linux-like operating systems for tablets and phones. Both rely on just 100 or so tightly integrated core packages that have been carefully scrutinised for regressions and inconsistencies. Compared with Linux, the iOS and Android operating systems are remarkable clean and robust. With the quality of the underlying software a given, it is no surprise that developers have been able to write hundreds of thousands of effective apps for the two platforms.Don't think in terms of a geek . Mr Author , needs to be explained. ask your self , what is Android

But feel this statement could be pulled apart in many ways:

Tally ho!

[SemiExpert]

I made this point earlier as well.

Many people at ubuntuforums have had no experience working in a largish installation with a mixture of platforms to support. This thread is a good example of this mindset. Individual users' experiences with installing one operating system or another have little or no relevance to managing lots of systems across a business or enterprise. The &quot;everyone should be running Linux&quot; crowd also consistently ignores the issues of staff training and long-term support, which are often much more costly than whether a computer has a licensed copy of Windows on it. This is even before we get to problems like vertical software applications that are typically written only for Windows.

Please, folks, think about whether your personal experiences are even relevant to the topic at hand before posting. In many instances, like this one, they're not.

We're living in the era of BYOD and enterprise users are even embracing Macs in preference to Windows PCs, so it's not just an issue of Linux vs. Windows, but of IT departments that are fighting change.

[Bandit]

Forgive me if someone has mentioned this, but with respect to installation times, no large business installs like you do at home. They will have pre-imaged installs ready to go: the time to install is merely the time to image the drive, boot up and connect to whatever activation servers are running. Takes about half an hour, tops.

An no large company just lets Windows install patches: they will vet every patch, bundle them and do a network wide update over the weekend. You come in on Monday and, automagically, your updated machine is ready for you.

I was thinking the same thing.. LOL

[Sylos]

In looking at the costs of changing an existing system to a new platform it is worth considering the end user training issue. In a lot of cases it really doesnt make a huge difference wether your training them on a new platform/OS or a substantially newer version of an existing platform/OS - the end user still needs retraining in a lot of cases.

The IT in our office still runs on XP - there is a lot of worrying at the moment over having to train the existing end user staff when they are eventually forced to upgrade to Win7. The majority of users dont know anything about PCs (a colleague recently voluntarily downloaded malware when he got a pop up telling him his HDD was running at 90c, RAM was corrupted, etc etc - ooh better fix that "click"). Win7 looks different so everyone has to be taught once more exactly what to clik in what order to get their job done. In that sense it matters little if your changing XP to win7 or to Ubuntu or OSX or whatever. In that sense training the uneducated is somehow easier.

ANyway thats not to say I think a change would be cost effective - new staff with new skills, compatability with existing systems etc - all the stuff already mentioned would make it prohibitively expensive and troublesome. Just thought I'd share the point.


As far as ease of installation is concerned (which has been discussed at length) I would like to offer a possibly unusual perspective. I used to use windows before I learned anything about computers - this only happened after I got into Ubuntu. I installed Ubuntu Gutsy on my own with no internet connection as a complete novice (getting the NVIDIA driver installed was fun!). I have always found the install media pretty simple and intuitive.

In contrast I recently tried (for testing purposes due to a suspected faulty mobo) a copy of XP SP1 from disc. I found it a lot more difficult and in the end failed. Why? Buggered if I know actually. The install disc kept complaining that their was an error and that I should check my computer for viruses. :lolflag: A more fitting windows response I could not think of. Spat out an error code with enough 00 on the front end to get me to the nearest star and gave no further explanation. Those of you who know windows well will no doubt tut at my bumbling efforts and know exactly how to find the source of the problem. But for the unfamiliar I found it more hassle than its worth. I know familiarity is probably a big factor in this but I just though I'd share my experience.

Cheers

[alexfish]

In looking at the costs of changing an existing system to a new platform it is worth considering the end user training issue. In a lot of cases it really doesnt make a huge difference wether your training them on a new platform/OS or a substantially newer version of an existing platform/OS - the end user still needs retraining in a lot of cases.

The IT in our office still runs on XP - there is a lot of worrying at the moment over having to train the existing end user staff when they are eventually forced to upgrade to Win7. The majority of users dont know anything about PCs (a colleague recently voluntarily downloaded malware when he got a pop up telling him his HDD was running at 90c, RAM was corrupted, etc etc - ooh better fix that "click"). Win7 looks different so everyone has to be taught once more exactly what to clik in what order to get their job done. In that sense it matters little if your changing XP to win7 or to Ubuntu or OSX or whatever. In that sense training the uneducated is somehow easier.

ANyway thats not to say I think a change would be cost effective - new staff with new skills, compatability with existing systems etc - all the stuff already mentioned would make it prohibitively expensive and troublesome. Just thought I'd share the point.


As far as ease of installation is concerned (which has been discussed at length) I would like to offer a possibly unusual perspective. I used to use windows before I learned anything about computers - this only happened after I got into Ubuntu. I installed Ubuntu Gutsy on my own with no internet connection as a complete novice (getting the NVIDIA driver installed was fun!). I have always found the install media pretty simple and intuitive.

In contrast I recently tried (for testing purposes due to a suspected faulty mobo) a copy of XP SP1 from disc. I found it a lot more difficult and in the end failed. Why? Buggered if I know actually. The install disc kept complaining that their was an error and that I should check my computer for viruses. :lolflag: A more fitting windows response I could not think of. Spat out an error code with enough 00 on the front end to get me to the nearest star and gave no further explanation. Those of you who know windows well will no doubt tut at my bumbling efforts and know exactly how to find the source of the problem. But for the unfamiliar I found it more hassle than its worth. I know familiarity is probably a big factor in this but I just though I'd share my experience.

Cheers

Based on history

Can give some Basic costing on this system NT2000 / XP 5 user Licence

4 pre-owned win98 desktops
Microsoft Office Pro (pre owned) single user £499 (Can get around single user) just say yes to everything + quick-books

1 new server based on win NT2000
software include Sage + (ms developer pack / discounted at the time) total cost £5800

further on going cost converting dos based coms/software package , IE to talk to equipment £1700

total £7500

at the time / upgrade cost per head £1500

This does not include the cost of down time when a data transfer baulked a machine. Down time was 6 days + cost of German Interpreter for 2 days and a deep miss trust for independent "verified IT experts" , the Expert let me off for the two days , "I was so overwhelmed by his Kindness".

That's when the reigns were pulled back.

You can work out the dates of install / would I do it again

passed history........................................... ):P