My thoughts on Ubuntu and Canonical

[Tombgeek]

Hi there.

I just thought I'd share a few thoughts on a few thoughts. I'm a guy that uses both Ubuntu 12.04 and Windows 7, simply because I love both (though I am still a bit of a novice when it comes to Linux). However, I would eventually like to go to Ubuntu exclusively because I don't like the way Microsoft is going and I don't want to latch on Windows 7 forever, nor do I want to go to Apple. Here are my thoughts, as a user of both systems. And I would like to hear your opinions. Just a warning, this could be long.

Firstly, I think Canonical is being a bit too conservative in the tech world. Back when the Windows Vista controversy was heating up, I felt that Canonical should have taken advantage of Microsoft's failure and try to promote Ubuntu to the mainstream market. It could've been met with success, I believe. After all, Apple took advantage of Microsoft's failure and what happened? A lot of people bought a Mac. I felt that a lot of people could have saved themselves money by simply downloading Ubuntu (or even purchasing a CD, but I'll get to that in a second). Now that Windows 8 is creating a huge divide in the market (especially as it seems that developing software for Windows 8 will be a nightmare), I think that Canonical should act now and begin promoting Ubuntu even more so than they're doing now.

My second thought is accessibility with the general public. The common user doesn't even know what Linux is. As far as they know, Windows and Mac are the only options available. In order for Linux to become more popular, Canonical should push OEMs to sell PCs with Ubuntu. Hell, I even think Ubuntu could benefit by having its own line of computers, maybe through a merger with System76? Just a thought. (This has nothing to do with Ubuntu, but System76 should really consider expanding its horizons. I would love to purchase a System76 computer, but you can't find them anywhere in South Africa, which is a damn shame).
Also, while I understand that Canonical does sell CDs, I think Canonical should consider selling Ubuntu boxsets in shops for a small price, which includes a user manual (not sell the OS itself, but just the manual, packaging and a small profit). Another random I idea I had, though I doubt it would ever happen, it to include video tutorials after a fresh installation to explain how Ubuntu works to those who have never used it before. Remember, as geeks it's difficult for us to understand the view of an average user, but Ubuntu was designed to make Linux accessible for everyone and that's what it should strive for. After all, Apple sells well because their products are very easy to use.

Thirdly, just a bit of praise towards Canonical, I love how they’re encouraging developers to develop software for Ubuntu. Some could argue that they’re turning into Apple in terms of control over what goes into the Ubuntu Software Centre, but I see it this way: Canonical is never going to stop you installing apps outside of the Software Centre (unlike Apple). But this goes back to my second point. The Software Centre is supposed to make it easy for new users to download software. I hate using Synaptic Package Manager. The Software Centre for me is great; I absolutely love it. And because I’m going to study to university to become a software developer, I would really love to support Canonical and develop software for Ubuntu, as well as improve existing software.

However, and this is my fourth and last point, I have to criticize Canonical on one small thing. Now, most of you will probably disagree and feel free to do so, but this is just my opinion. I feel that Canonical is making a mistake releasing two versions of Ubuntu every year. I personally believe that this is merely fragmenting the use of Ubuntu even further.
Let’s take my first experience with Ubuntu. I started using 9.04, which I absolutely loved. I then moved onto 9.10 which I still liked, but I preferred 9.04. 10.04 was an improvement in terms of features, but there were a lot of annoying bugs in it that eventually drove me to Windows 7. 11.04 was a horrible experience for me and 11.10 was no better. 12.04 is the only release thus far that I love using; I could actually use it as my primary OS. The point I’m trying to make is that Canonical is not spending enough time on each release making sure that they iron out all the bugs. With every release they’re trying to bring in new features, which will most likely bring more bugs, but not fixing existing problems. I personally believe that Canonical should only release a new version once every year.

These are just my thoughts as a new user and I would love to hear your opinions. Do you agree? Disagree? Am I just talking nonsense?

[cecilpierce]

I agree, one year or maybe like ArchLinux, rolling realease.
They could put new features in the Soft Ware Center.
I started with 6.06 and been with them since but like some other OS's to.

[neu5eeCh]

The reason Apple was successful is not because of their software, but because their hardware and software was and is a complete package. Microsoft was never was, and isn't now, a hardware company (they occasionally try). And now they're paying the price. Canonical does not want to be a hardware company. In other words, like MS, they don't want to produce their own branded phones or tablets. They want other companies to do that. I think that's a mistake because, as Microsoft has discovered, it means their will always be a middleman between them and the customer, and the middleman has their own interests. (Which is why, to keep the money flowing, MS has taken to suing the middleman).

I question whether Canonical will ever be anything more than a rich man's hobby (read Shuttleworth). Ubuntu for Android is Canonical's best and only chance to break out, in my opinion. This would give Ubuntu the hardware advantage that Windows has always had. If they don't push Ubuntu for Android or if they let Chrome OS fill the void (expect Chrome OS for Android in the near future), then I don't see how Canonical will ever be anything more than a little orange speck of irrelevance.

[KiwiNZ]

There is very little profit in Desktop and Notebook PC's. Canonical should not go down that road. IBM has been considerably more profitable since selling its PC/Notebook division to Lenovo.

The PC's etc are bleeding profits from HP, Dell is just keeping above water.

Canonicals best prospects are Servers. Consultancy

[castrojo]

Thirdly, just a bit of praise towards Canonical, I love how they’re encouraging developers to develop software for Ubuntu. Some could argue that they’re turning into Apple in terms of control over what goes into the Ubuntu Software Centre, but I see it this way: Canonical is never going to stop you installing apps outside of the Software Centre (unlike Apple).

The way software is pushed into the Software Center isn't controlled by Canonical, it's totally community driven.

More info here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard

[cariboo]

Having two releases a year does serve a purpose, everything that goes into the LTS release, is released in one of the interim release first, in order to get most of the bugs worked out.

If you don't want to install a new release every 6 months, stick with the LTS release. 12.04 will be supported for 5 years, so if you keep up to date, you don't even have to reinstall when a point version is released. The developers are flirting with using the latest kernel in 12.04, to keep up with new hardware releases, so there may be new kernels available during the life of Precise, instead of just security updates.

To answer your other question, the only way we are going to see the average user run Ubuntu, is if it comes pre-installed when they purchase a new computer. Asking someone that barely knows how to use Windows to install Ubuntu from an iso, is just asking for failure.

The average user never has to install an operating system, let alone know what one is, so expecting them to install Ubuntu is just not possible.

Getting Ubuntu more well known is pretty difficult, when you give the distribution away, advertising is quite expensive, and not always the best way to get the product noticed. Canonical has been doing a fairly good job of getting Ubuntu mentioned in many different types of media, but they just don't have the funding/budget to get it mentioned on regular news casts the way Microsoft and Apple do.

Considering that Ubuntu now has an estimated user base of approximately 20 million users with an eventual goal of 200 million users by 2015, I think Canonical is doing a fairly good job of getting the product known to the general public.

[Cavsfan]

My 2 cents for what it's worth: I wish Ubuntu didn't have releases every 6 months or 2 years or whatever.
It would be nice if they just kept building on what they have. Windows was good back in the 3.1 days and
evolved into crap from there. I never touched win 95 but, heard it was crap. I used win 98 and ME - more crap.
I liked Win XP as I used it at work and home but, wasn't too fond of Vista.
Windows 7 is finally when they got it right. Now I hear they are releasing win 8. I will stay with Windows 7.

I would have liked to see Ubuntu just evolve without the need for clean installs, etc.
I do like learning and that is what makes Ubuntu/Linux interesting. But, IMO Ubuntu is not for the meek or the casual computer user.
Unless you have someone who can come in and do the maintenance required.
I would say 98% of my friends could not handle Ubuntu or even know where to begin.
But, I love it!
That is about all I have.

[Paqman]

IBM has been considerably more profitable since selling its PC/Notebook division to Lenovo.

Lenovo itself is doing very nicely (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18171209) actually. So I wouldn't agree that there's no money in desktop hardware. The market is contracting somewhat, but desktops and laptops aren't going to disappear any time soon.

Ubuntu will still have a desktop target to aim at for the foreseeable future.



Canonicals best prospects are Servers. Consultancy

This however I do agree with. There's no money in Linux on the desktop, servers and the services around them are where it's at.

[xedi]

Firstly, I think Canonical is being a bit too conservative in the tech world. Back when the Windows Vista controversy was heating up, I felt that Canonical should have taken advantage of Microsoft's failure and try to promote Ubuntu to the mainstream market.

Vista came out 2006. I think the first time I ever heard of and saw Ubuntu was in 2007 when I used it on an old Notebook as a browsing machine. While already back then Ubuntu was very user friendly for Linux standards, it still had a lot of problems especially in the WiFi area. I don't think Ubuntu was ready for the masses in 2006 and therefore even if Canonical had the resources for a major push, I think it could have backfired. Ubuntu has come a very long way in the last 6 years.


Now that Windows 8 is creating a huge divide in the market (especially as it seems that developing software for Windows 8 will be a nightmare), I think that Canonical should act now and begin promoting Ubuntu even more so than they're doing now.

I agree and my guess is that Canonical is doing their best. They just started a viral campaign on facebook and google+ and while I don't know how the success is on facebook, their post is now in the what's hot section in g+.



My second thought is accessibility with the general public. The common user doesn't even know what Linux is. As far as they know, Windows and Mac are the only options available. In order for Linux to become more popular, Canonical should push OEMs to sell PCs with Ubuntu.

I think they do that, but it's difficult because Microsoft has such power over computer manufacturers.

[azangru]

There's no money in Linux on the desktop, servers and the services around them are where it's at.

So Linux will always remain an underdog on the desktop market, and bug number 1 will never be solved?

[KiwiNZ]

A net profit of circa $350 million is not a good result for a corporation of the size of Lenovo. I would expect to profits in the Billions not Millions for it to be considered as doing nice.

[KiwiNZ]

So Linux will always remain an underdog on the desktop market, and bug number 1 will never be solved?

Bug #1 is a red hearing and should be forgotten, Canonical is better off cooperating with MSFT and Apple et al than trying to beat them.

[Paqman]

it still had a lot of problems especially in the WiFi area. I don't think Ubuntu was ready for the masses in 2006

As someone who used Ubuntu back on 6.06 I'd agree with that. Wifi, graphics and sound were troublesome, and it wasn't unusual to have to pass weird parameters just to boot because ACPI was so broken. There was no Flash for 64-bit, and no way of installing codecs or drivers automatically.

[Paqman]

So Linux will always remain an underdog on the desktop market, and bug number 1 will never be solved?

Yep. Non-server Linux will make ground if it can exploit new opportunities as they arise (Android being the obvious example, and ChromeOS is a valliant effort), but the situation is pretty deadlocked on conventional desktops. If Apple can only make a few % of the market with their vast resources and massive public goodwill, what chance does geeky old Linux stand?

[wilee-nilee]

Congratulations you win a cookie for being the one millionth person to have these same reoccurring arguments, savour it now. ;)

[Docaltmed]

Recurring in 5...4...3...2...

[xedi]

If Apple can only make a few % of the market with their vast resources and massive public goodwill, what chance does geeky old Linux stand?

OS X does not run on virtually any computer besides Apple's own overpriced hardware, of course it does not have % of the desktop market! This is obviously very profitable for them but not the best thing if you want massive market share. Apple constraints their own market share voluntarily, therefore it is a bad example.

[Paqman]

OS X does not run on virtually any computer besides Apple's own overpriced hardware, of course it does not have % of the desktop market! This is obviously very profitable for them but not the best thing if you want massive market share. Apple constraints their own market share voluntarily, therefore it is a bad example.

True, they are only chasing the top end of the PC market, but even in that sector they're far from dominating Windows. My point stands though that much better placed and funded players than the Linux distros have been unable to displace Windows, so it's unrealistic to expect our little team to be able to do so.

Desktop Linux is perfectly good, but if it was going to see widespread adoption it would have done so by now.

[Dr. C]

There is very little profit in Desktop and Notebook PC's. Canonical should not go down that road. IBM has been considerably more profitable since selling its PC/Notebook division to Lenovo.

The PC's etc are bleeding profits from HP, Dell is just keeping above water.

Canonicals best prospects are Servers. Consultancy

I would not use IBM as an example. They are fundametally an enterprise company that has developed a very strong expertise in serving the enterprise customer for well over a century. When they dabble in the consumer / small busiess market they loose money. This goes all the way back to the days of the PC Jr.

As for Canonical one huge opportunity is trademark licensing to hardware OEMs. There is a reason for the Ubuntu trademark policy http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

[azangru]

and ChromeOS is a valliant effort
That's exactly what bothers me. Who is the target audience of Chrome OS? Why would they want a browser as their OS, a computer that is mostly unfunctional without an internet connection and that will not run the much-coveted MS Office or Adobe Photoshop either? What is the benefit of Chrome OS over any end-user-oriented Linux distributon out there?

[KiwiNZ]

I would not use IBM as an example. They are fundametally an enterprise company that has developed a very strong expertise in serving the enterprise customer for well over a century. When they dabble in the consumer / small busiess market they loose money. This goes all the way back to the days of the PC Jr.

As for Canonical one huge opportunity is trademark licensing to hardware OEMs. There is a reason for the Ubuntu trademark policy http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

IBM was large in the Desktop/Laptop in both Enterprise and consumer prior the sale to Lenovo. It was however a non profit division. IBM has recently sold its POS division to Toshiba as part of their dumping non profit hardware, Servers will follow and the will be a Software and Consultancy company.

[Dr. C]

IBM was large in the Desktop/Laptop in both Enterprise and consumer prior the sale to Lenovo. It was however a non profit division. IBM has recently sold its POS division to Toshiba as part of their dumping non profit hardware, Servers will follow and the will be a Software and Consultancy company.

IBM and its predecesor companies have been in the enterprise hardware business since the 1880's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Hollerith and still are http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/index.html. The really intersting part is that while the technology has changed the business model has not.

[KiwiNZ]

IBM and its predecesor companies have been in the enterprise hardware business since the 1880's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Hollerith and still are http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/index.html. The really intersting part is that while the technology has changed the business model has not.

Their business model is changing rapidly

[Dr. C]

To bring this thread back on topic. Where Canonical is going is the transition between mobile and desktop which is precisly where GNU / Linux and Ubuntu is at its strongest and where Microsoft and Apple simply cannot compete effectively. Ubuntu for Android is just a start (http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android).

[KiwiNZ]

To bring this thread back on topic. Where Canonical is going is the transition between mobile and desktop which is precisly where GNU / Linux and Ubuntu is at its strongest and where Microsoft and Apple simply cannot compete effectively. Ubuntu for Android is just a start (http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android).

Apple cannot compete?????????????????????

Give me a break, this is a joke right?

[Dr. C]

Apple cannot compete?????????????????????

Give me a break, this is a joke right?

No. They produce two devices the iPad and the Macbook Air. They cannot produce one device that effectivly combines both functions; and has both effective mobile and desktop fuctionality. A Macbook Air whose screen detaches and becomes an iPad. Trust me if Apple could do this they would have already done it. The limitations are not hardware design and ergonomics. Apple excels at both. The limitation is that Apple does not have access to the source code for the applications and drivers in the OSX and IOS ecosystems so they cannot port applications and drivers between x86/AMD64 and ARM. This produces a tradeoff between between battery life, ARM, and desktop applications x86. As ARM processors become more powerfull this will become a greater problem for Apple.

Microsoft is attempting to address this issue with Metro applications in Windows 8 which is desinged to allow the porting of propriety applications between x86/AMD64 and ARM; however they are faced with the huge inventory of propriety applications and drivers for Windows x86/AMD64. They have also made a very poor decision by blocking from Windows 8 RT the one catgory of Windows software that can be easiy ported to ARM, namely FLOSS.

The bottom line is that Moore's law on ARM is a ticking time bomb for both Apple and Microsoft, one that Canonical is ideally placed to take advantage of.

[frncz]

The bottom line is that Moore's law on ARM is a ticking time bomb for both Apple and Microsoft, one that Canonical is ideally placed to take advantage of.

I'm not sure I understand the technical argument, but it is interesting that you are making such a point, which I assume is based on greater knowledge than I have. It will be interesting to see how the argument develops. No doubt that if you are correct, the big players wll be working hard on this. I also assume that chrome also overcomes these issues?

[KiwiNZ]

No. They produce two devices the iPad and the Macbook Air. They cannot produce one device that effectivly combines both functions; and has both effective mobile and desktop fuctionality. A Macbook Air whose screen detaches and becomes an iPad. Trust me if Apple could do this they would have already done it. The limitations are not hardware design and ergonomics. Apple excels at both. The limitation is that Apple does not have access to the source code for the applications and drivers in the OSX and IOS ecosystems so they cannot port applications and drivers between x86/AMD64 and ARM. This produces a tradeoff between between battery life, ARM, and desktop applications x86. As ARM processors become more powerfull this will become a greater problem for Apple.

Microsoft is attempting to address this issue with Metro applications in Windows 8 which is desinged to allow the porting of propriety applications between x86/AMD64 and ARM; however they are faced with the huge inventory of propriety applications and drivers for Windows x86/AMD64. They have also made a very poor decision by blocking from Windows 8 RT the one catgory of Windows software that can be easiy ported to ARM, namely FLOSS.

The bottom line is that Moore's law on ARM is a ticking time bomb for both Apple and Microsoft, one that Canonical is ideally placed to take advantage of.

'Have not' does not equate to 'cannot', iOS is supported on ARM

[Dr. C]

I'm not sure I understand the technical argument, but it is interesting that you are making such a point, which I assume is based on greater knowledge than I have. It will be interesting to see how the argument develops. No doubt that if you are correct, the big players wll be working hard on this. I also assume that chrome also overcomes these issues?

It comes down to binary vs source compatibility for applications and drivers. If I have the source code I can recompile an application or a driver for a different processor architecture say ARM, or in the case of a driver AMD64. If all I have is a binary executable all then I can do is tweak the OS to ensure an application continues to work in the same family of Intel / AMD processors.

The difference lies in the desktop software and driver ecosystems for GNU / Linux, Microsoft Windows and Mac OSX.

For GNU / Linux the vast majority of the desktop software ecosystem is FLOSS so it is simple for Canonical to provide me with the same applications and drivers that I am currently using on AMD64 Ubuntu on ARM Ubuntu. It is also the reason why peripherals that work on 32bit Ubuntu also work on 64bit Ubuntu. Canonical can recompile the drivers and applications at will. The result is migration for one architecture to another is trivial; on the other hand binary compatibility is totally broken. Try running a 20 year old Linux binary on a modern kernel with no access to the source code.

The situation with Windows is very different. Microsoft cannot recompile all my third party propriety applications every time they update Windows. What they do is take great care to ensure backwards compatibility for binary applications on Windows. The result is that a Windows 3.0 application runs on 32bit Windows 7. Yes I have run 20 year old Windows binaries on Windows 7. The trouble is that for this to work the processor instruction sets also have to be backwards compatible. With ARM since Microsoft does not has the source code they cannot update third party propriety applications in order to migrate to ARM. The situation with drivers is worse since if the driver model is changed from 32bit to 64bit or from 2000/XP to Vista/7 then the binary drivers wont work. All Microsoft has in many cases is the binary blobs and have to rely on the OEM to release updated drivers. The latter in many cases have no financial incentive to update the drivers which why so many peripherals ended up in the landfill when for example Microsoft changed the driver model from XP to Vista in order to accommodate DRM.

Apple has the same problem as Microsoft only a much smaller ecosystem. They cannot recompile Mac OSX applications and drivers for IOS because for the most part they do not have access to the source code. So no MacBook Air with a detachable screen that becomes an iPad is possible.

The various strategies are different

Google
Create a platform that allows porting of propriety applications across processor architectures Android while relying on a FLOSS kernel Linux. Problem solved.
Canonical and other GNU / Linux distributors
Rely on the source compatibility of FLOSS to port across platforms. Problem solved.
Microsoft
Create a platform that allows porting of propriety applications across processor architectures Windows 8 Metro and encourage propriety software developers to use this platform. The idea is to prevent the application problem from getting worse but the problem remains and if the Moore's Law on ARM is faster than the obsolescence of Windows applications the problem will still get worse
Apple
Treat the tablet and laptop markets as separate markets namely ignore the problem for the time being. The one option in the future is to migrate the desktop to ARM from x86/AMD64 once ARM become powerful enough. Apple has successfully already done this kind of move before.

[Tombgeek]

The reason Apple was successful is not because of their software, but because their hardware and software was and is a complete package. Microsoft was never was, and isn't now, a hardware company (they occasionally try). And now they're paying the price. Canonical does not want to be a hardware company. In other words, like MS, they don't want to produce their own branded phones or tablets. They want other companies to do that. I think that's a mistake because, as Microsoft has discovered, it means their will always be a middleman between them and the customer, and the middleman has their own interests. (Which is why, to keep the money flowing, MS has taken to suing the middleman).


While I agree with you in a sense, I believe that Apple’s success is as a result of effective advertising and their evangelical enthusiasts. People are attracted to the brand, not so often the product itself. While the products are easy to use, most people wouldn’t care if there wasn’t a logo slapped on it (there are numerous good Android tablets out there, but people buy iPads. Why? It’s because it’s Apple). There’s very little difference between Windows and Mac OSX in terms of usability: what you can do on a Mac you can most certainly do on a PC.


However, that side, Canonical needs OEM support and, as it stands, Dell and other OEMs don’t give their Ubuntu line enough attention. I do believe System76 may have the potential to make Ubuntu a bit more successful. It’s just a question, however, of how they’re going to sell more hardware. I would definitely love to buy a System76 laptop in future, but I can’t find them anywhere in South Africa.



I question whether Canonical will ever be anything more than a rich man's hobby (read Shuttleworth). Ubuntu for Android is Canonical's best and only chance to break out, in my opinion. This would give Ubuntu the hardware advantage that Windows has always had. If they don't push Ubuntu for Android or if they let Chrome OS fill the void (expect Chrome OS for Android in the near future), then I don't see how Canonical will ever be anything more than a little orange speck of irrelevance.


Ubuntu is so far the most successful Linux distro in the consumer market. But I agree that Ubuntu for Android and even Ubuntu TV might bring a bit more attention towards Canonical.


The way software is pushed into the Software Center isn't controlled by Canonical, it's totally community driven.

More info here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard

Sorry, my mistake.



To answer your other question, the only way we are going to see the average user run Ubuntu, is if it comes pre-installed when they purchase a new computer. Asking someone that barely knows how to use Windows to install Ubuntu from an iso, is just asking for failure.


Ubuntu is so easy to install that I don’t think that it’s that big of an issue. It really comes down to educating the user (though that’s implying the user wants to learn, which is unfortunately not the case).



I do like learning and that is what makes Ubuntu/Linux interesting. But, IMO Ubuntu is not for the meek or the casual computer user.
Unless you have someone who can come in and do the maintenance required.
I would say 98% of my friends could not handle Ubuntu or even know where to begin.
But, I love it!
That is about all I have.


Really? So far as I can tell, Ubuntu 12.04 is very easy to use. Hell, if you look at those people who get their dads to try out various OSs, a lot of those men had an easier time using Ubuntu than Windows 8.
And besides, Ubuntu is a perfect OS for those who really just browse the web or listen to music. I see no reason why consumers need to pay a lot of money just to do the most mundane tasks.


Lenovo itself is doing very nicely (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18171209) actually. So I wouldn't agree that there's no money in desktop hardware. The market is contracting somewhat, but desktops and laptops aren't going to disappear any time soon.

Ubuntu will still have a desktop target to aim at for the foreseeable future.

PC sales will pick up again in future, I believe. The “Post-PC” era is greatly exaggerated by Apple to get people to buy iPads. It’s a myth that makes money.


I agree and my guess is that Canonical is doing their best. They just started a viral campaign on facebook and google+ and while I don't know how the success is on facebook, their post is now in the what's hot section in g+.


That is pretty much Canonical’s best bet. Because they lack funding, as stated above, Ubuntu could do well through social networks.


That's exactly what bothers me. Who is the target audience of Chrome OS? Why would they want a browser as their OS, a computer that is mostly unfunctional without an internet connection and that will not run the much-coveted MS Office or Adobe Photoshop either? What is the benefit of Chrome OS over any end-user-oriented Linux distributon out there?


Nothing really. It’s meant to be a netbook that only browses the web. As much as I love Google as a company, this idea is one of their worst, I have to admit.


Microsoft is attempting to address this issue with Metro applications in Windows 8 which is desinged to allow the porting of propriety applications between x86/AMD64 and ARM; however they are faced with the huge inventory of propriety applications and drivers for Windows x86/AMD64. They have also made a very poor decision by blocking from Windows 8 RT the one catgory of Windows software that can be easiy ported to ARM, namely FLOSS.

The bottom line is that Moore's law on ARM is a ticking time bomb for both Apple and Microsoft, one that Canonical is ideally placed to take advantage of.


Microsoft will ignore FLOSS simply because they can’t make money from it. Microsoft I think is hoping people will buy tablets and PCs thinking they'll get the same experience only to be left severely disappointed. Microsoft still gets money, after all, and they can just throw in the usual excuse that they'll fix the problems in the next release.

[malspa]

The point I’m trying to make is that Canonical is not spending enough time on each release making sure that they iron out all the bugs. With every release they’re trying to bring in new features, which will most likely bring more bugs, but not fixing existing problems. I personally believe that Canonical should only release a new version once every year.


If you don't want to install a new release every 6 months, stick with the LTS release. 12.04 will be supported for 5 years, so if you keep up to date, you don't even have to reinstall when a point version is released.

You could stick with the LTS releases, but in addition, each non-LTS release is supported for 18 months, so there's no reason to go to the next release every six months unless you want to.

There are pros and cons to Ubuntu's release cycle. I'd agree with the point that perhaps not enough time and effort is spent on each release. But, I think they do pretty well considering the time constraints, and I think the release cycle helps keep things moving forward in a way that's kinda exciting and refreshing. There's always something like Debian Stable for those who prefer that kind of thing.

Anyway, besides taking a look at a few non-LTS releases here and there, out of curiosity or whatever, since Dapper (6.06) I've stuck with LTS releases, and that's worked out quite well here. I think a good approach is to wait a few weeks after the LTS release comes out before installing, let some of the fixes come through. Of course, I always say I'm gonna do that, then I end up being too anxious and install the LTS release shortly after it comes out. :cool:

[HappinessNow]

So Linux will always remain an underdog on the desktop market, and bug number 1 will never be solved?

Desktops themselves have become not-so-popular-as-they-once-were species. The most logical solution is for Ubuntu/ Canonical to shift their focus and they have been successful at being flexible and keeping up with the changes through time.

[ade234uk]

I honestly think Linux is going along quite nicely on the desktop. I personally don't think it needs agressive marketing campaigns when Microsoft and Apple are doing the marketing for them.

Some people will carry on paying Microsoft, they don't care. They don't know any better. When Microsft says "Jump" they jump.

Other people will get annoyed by Microsoft, so they will explore alternatives. They will find Linux, feel special and feel like they are the only person in the world to have found it.

I like the way Linux works, I like the community, I like the choice and I like the freedoms to install it when I like on what machine I like.

[KiwiNZ]

I honestly think Linux is going along quite nicely on the desktop. I personally don't think it needs agressive marketing campaigns when Microsoft and Apple are doing the marketing for them.

Some people will carry on paying Microsoft, they don't care. They don't know any better. When Microsft says "Jump" they jump.

Other people will get annoyed by Microsoft, so they will explore alternatives. They will find Linux, feel special and feel like they are the only person in the world to have found it.

I like the way Linux works, I like the community, I like the choice and I like the freedoms to install it when I like on what machine I like.

Just because someone uses Windows and not Linux does not mean they don't know what they are doing. Your attitude is arrogant and insulting.

[Mikeb85]

The most important thing that Linux distros like Ubuntu, RHEL, Suse, etc... do is disrupt the current computing paradigm. Because enterprises are now using many different platforms, they are forcing compatibility and interoperability, hence things like cloud computing and virtualization.

While 'consumer' computing is still very much dominated by MS (and to a lesser degree, Apple), in the enterprise Linux is a very important platform, and will become much more important as more and more apps are moved into the 'cloud'.

[KiwiNZ]

The most important thing that Linux distros like Ubuntu, RHEL, Suse, etc... do is disrupt the current computing paradigm. Because enterprises are now using many different platforms, they are forcing compatibility and interoperability, hence things like cloud computing and virtualization.

While 'consumer' computing is still very much dominated by MS (and to a lesser degree, Apple), in the enterprise Linux is a very important platform, and will become much more important as more and more apps are moved into the 'cloud'.

The enterprise market should qualified to server and backend. MSFT still dominates the SME and large Enterpise desktop and Mobile computing.

[Tombgeek]

Some people will carry on paying Microsoft, they don't care. They don't know any better. When Microsft says "Jump" they jump.

Other people will get annoyed by Microsoft, so they will explore alternatives. They will find Linux, feel special and feel like they are the only person in the world to have found it.

Look, I hate Microsoft as much as anyone else does, but Windows 7 still remains one of the best OSs I've ever used, next to Ubuntu 12.04. Us Linux users often look at Mac and Windows users as mindless sheep, but we don't often consider their perspective. They don't have issues with the availability of software and drivers. We do.

[ade234uk]

Look, I hate Microsoft as much as anyone else does, but Windows 7 still remains one of the best OSs I've ever used, next to Ubuntu 12.04. Us Linux users often look at Mac and Windows users as mindless sheep, but we don't often consider their perspective. They don't have issues with the availability of software and drivers. We do.

Actually looking at my post it probably came out a bit wrong. Your right they don't have issues with availability of software. I would say this is the only thing really holding Linux back. The situation is getting a lot better. Linux is being considered as another platform to develop for.

If software companies can see there is a market they will develop. This below I think is a milestone.
http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/2012/06/07/carmageddon-getting-a-reincarnation-on-pc-mac-linux-ios-thanks-to-kickstarter/

[Paqman]

That's exactly what bothers me. Who is the target audience of Chrome OS?

Most people do the vast majority of their recreational computer use
solely in a browser.


Why would they want a browser as their OS, a computer that is mostly unfunctional without an internet connection

When would it ever be without a connection? If this was an issue, smartphones would suffer from the same problem
It's not useless when offline. All the core Google apps have some offline functionality, and this will continue to grow.




and that will not run the much-coveted MS Office or Adobe Photoshop either? What is the benefit of Chrome OS over any end-user-oriented Linux distributon out there?

The objective of Chrome OS is strategic. Google produced it for the same reason they created a browser. From Google's point of view the web is the only platform that matters. They want to make it possible to do everything that you want to do there (through them, while viewing the ads they sell). They want to improve the web, but they want to shape it in the way that suits them (which thankfully for us is an open model).

You've got to admire Google's get-up-and-go. They wanted to push HTML5 and better javascript, so they built a browser that smoked all it's contemporaries at that. Now they want to push the web over local apps, so they've made an OS that does that.

Google don't try to shape the web by stopping people from doing what they don't want them to, they do it by giving people good (free, open source) tools to get them to do what they do want.

[rk0r]

IBM was large in the Desktop/Laptop in both Enterprise and consumer prior the sale to Lenovo. It was however a non profit division. IBM has recently sold its POS division to Toshiba as part of their dumping non profit hardware, Servers will follow and the will be a Software and Consultancy company.


I doubt servers will follow, as a recent conversation with a work colleague (a solutions architect ) working at a government contract explained that IBM are focusing on Hardware / Servers and all the gubbins to go along including consultancy.

IBM have a lot of business contracts their biggest earner in the UK is DVLA.

[mips]

The way software is pushed into the Software Center isn't controlled by Canonical, it's totally community driven.

More info here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard

Don't you think that the changes Ubuntu applies to upstream deviates a lot from the core. To the point of these changes only being available in Ubuntu derived stuff and the rest of the Linux community does not follow suite because it goes against core principals. I mean everyone is free to do as they please with GPL software but it does not generally benefit the whole community and the entire community does not really agree with the direction. So with every iteration you remove yourself further from the core. I say this from the point of hearing others speaking of trying to implement features of Ubuntu in other distros ala unity. There seems to be a mentality that Ubuntu does not contribute to core projects but rather just takes and modifies.

This is the general impression I get and I could well be wrong so share your thoughts with us.

[rasmus91]

as far as i recall, when you go to Ubuntu's homepage and press download, it automatically recommends the LTS, right?

So i don't really see the problem. I also remember reading that the releases inbetween the LTS's are only for people who want the most "bleeding edge" software available, so i do not see it as a problem.

Yes, there are bugs with every release. But there were also a lot of bugs with windows 7 to begin with, heck, it was like an anthill or a beehive, but they eventually turned it in to something less hospitable for bugs, limiting the amount of bugs there. And even though there still are some, its much better than it was to begin with.

If you are the kind of person that do not like a release every halfyear, don't upgrade. I love it. I love that i get to see what they are up to so often, so that i may actually better see the path that they are taking, and where everything is going with Ubuntu.

[Tombgeek]

If you are the kind of person that do not like a release every halfyear, don't upgrade. I love it. I love that i get to see what they are up to so often, so that i may actually better see the path that they are taking, and where everything is going with Ubuntu.

Like I said, it's just my view. You're welcome to disagree with me.
My reasoning is like this: while I understand that the non-LTS releases are intended for "bleeding-edge" software and to throw new ideas onto a canvas to see what sticks, I just think they should spend a bit more time developing these new ideas.

My view of this mostly stems from the whole Unity controversy. Unity was awful in 11.04; it was rushed and incomplete. As I see it, if Canonical spent more time on it, it would have been a lot better by the time 11.10 was released. And there is also added stress of developing updates for each release while developing new features.

My view is simply what makes logical sense to me. However, I understand your point of view.

I do intend sticking with 12.04 until the next LTS. So far, Canonical has done a fantastic job with 12.04 in my opinion.

[xedi]

My view of this mostly stems from the whole Unity controversy. Unity was awful in 11.04; it was rushed and incomplete. As I see it, if Canonical spent more time on it, it would have been a lot better by the time 11.10 was released. And there is also added stress of developing updates for each release while developing new features.


This is becoming quite a mantra in the Ubuntu community but I disagree. I had to get used to Unity (learn that I should type what I want and that super+w is awesome), but it was never inherently awful, it was never buggy for me and speed was also good. No doubt, 12.04's Unity is better, but from my perspective Unity was also ready in 11.04 and here is the problem: Software is never complete, it's constantly improving and there is no such thing as perfect software, so where do you draw the line? When in 14.04 Unity will hopefully be 100000x better, will we also say that 12.04 was horrible and Ubuntu should have waited for 14.04 to introduce Unity?

I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong, but rather that there is no right one. Everybody has a different tolerance to what one would consider to be ready and in my opinion, Unity in 11.04 was ready.

[elliotn]

for Ubuntu to step up in the game they need to be unique, eg Rhythmbox is a universal Linux player which makes no different if u are in fedora etc, canonical should make a media player unique to Ubuntu just as they did with unity, some staff need to be Ubuntu based than being Linux based, if Ubuntu can get all this Linux users to use Ubuntu then the number of users will grow thus it will be easy to get windows users to try Ubuntu, Apple approach is is an example, they have iTunes, they have their own Office suite, they have a killer video editor etc they make users wanna use apple

[Tombgeek]

This is becoming quite a mantra in the Ubuntu community but I disagree. I had to get used to Unity (learn that I should type what I want and that super+w is awesome), but it was never inherently awful, it was never buggy for me and speed was also good. No doubt, 12.04's Unity is better, but from my perspective Unity was also ready in 11.04 and here is the problem: Software is never complete, it's constantly improving and there is no such thing as perfect software, so where do you draw the line? When in 14.04 Unity will hopefully be 100000x better, will we also say that 12.04 was horrible and Ubuntu should have waited for 14.04 to introduce Unity?

Unity in 11.04 was very buggy and slow, at least for me. The dock would sometimes refuse to appear when I hid it, the global taskbar wouldn't show options when I hover over it and it crashed twice. Maybe it was because I was running it in a virtual machine, but it was very unusable for me.

And I understand that software is never complete and I believe that it's good that software is constantly being improved. However, as I see it, if Canonical spent a bit more time improving Unity before release, I believe it would have been received a lot better.

[Copper Bezel]

The trouble is that the more they do that, the more they get criticism like mips cited earlier, that they're not contributing to desktop Linux as a whole. And really, there's a limit to what their development teams can do. With Unity and the other Ayatana tweaks to the UI, the Ubuntu Software Center, and Ubuntu One, along with systems "outside" the OS like Launchpad, they're working to make the OS as a whole more usable and inviting. Time spent on reworking more task-specific, end-user applications or developing them from the ground up just doesn't fit into their agenda. Users have a lot of options for applications, and they're trying to focus their efforts on things that benefit the whole user base, as they see them.

[Evil-Ernie]

Mobile computing is where everything is going, its going to disrupt the PC market as the technology is accepted. This is why Ubuntu is looking at touchscreens and the Unity shell, just like both Microsoft and Apple are making OS's that are more small touchscreen friendly.

A big box PC will become a niche market and sway more to the All-in-one systems and self built high end gamer/enthusiast machines.

Laptops will be here to stay but will evolve towards the more svelt Ultrabook and Mac Air styles and will include touchscreens, people are saying this is silly as we already have tablets to fill this market but I believe people will still want a tactile interface (i.e. keyboard) and have the convenience of a touchscreen as well.

Finally the big growth will be the pocket sized devices like smartphones, already PC processors are already in these (Intel Atom) and the way development is going CPUs with power comparable to desktops and laptops will be in our pockets where we can plug in one (or even several) screens, a mouse and keyboard and we have a fully functional PC. Operating systems will need to be able to switch from being mobile and touchscren compliant in one instance to spreading out to the room afforded by added peripherals.

Its an exciting time for technology and it will be interesting to see how software companies deal with it.

[Tombgeek]

A big box PC will become a niche market and sway more to the All-in-one systems and self built high end gamer/enthusiast machines.

Sorry, I disagree. The tower will always exist. It's just a lot more flexible and cheaper than an All-In-One PC. Computer enthusiasts will always want to upgrade their PCs without buying a new one. All-In-Ones are primarily geared to those who want a "minimalist" workstation, but the cons of using one far outweigh its benefits.

And besides, it's not really possible to say that All-In-Ones are the future because Apple makes the best All-In-One PC at the moment and there is very little competition. While the competition isn't bad, adding touch-screen to a desktop PC is just stupid in my opinion (except maybe with image-editing). There's a very good reason Apple is not doing that with the iMac, at least not yet. And let's hypothetically say that it is a good idea; Windows 7 has awful touch-screen capabilities. These All-In-Ones will only be useful once Windows 8 hits shelves.


Laptops will be here to stay but will evolve towards the more svelt Ultrabook and Mac Air styles and will include touchscreens, people are saying this is silly as we already have tablets to fill this market but I believe people will still want a tactile interface (i.e. keyboard) and have the convenience of a touchscreen as well.

This I do agree with, however.
Now that the tablet fad is fading, most people now realize Apple's propaganda for the "Post-PC" era was just a cleaver marketing tactic to sell iPads. The tablet is nothing more than a consuming device to browse email and Facebook and play Angry Birds. It has no real productive use. Ultrabooks, having a full keyboard and an OS with multitasking (Android does have multitasking, I know) and a proper file manager, will provide portability while not compromising on features.
However, I'm just a little disturbed that Apple filed a patent on the Macbook Air's appearance. This is primarily the reason I refuse to give them my money: the fact they want to be the big bully who controls all the little companies.

[Evil-Ernie]

Sorry you misunderstand me, I don't think towers or desktops will disapear completely but compared to today the will diminish as will become a rarity as the years go by. Emerging markets are still driving desktops in the present but elsewhere its laptops and AIO that have took over the traditional desktops. Once those markets mature they will be wanting laptops and mobile devices as well.

I will always have a desktop PC like many enthusiasts as I like to tinker and mod which is near to impossible with laptops and mobile devices.

Tablets are great for their intended purpose, a mobile computing device to compliment a main computing device. However they are not replacements to a PC or laptop, maybe in the future they could be sole computing devices but at present no. I am not a fan of Apple but they are not the only ones in the technology sector using litigation to stifle rivals innovation, problem is if everyone does this we will hit a legal deadlock. Ideas and inventions should be protected but a lot of the 'look and feel' lawsuits are just plain silly.

There was talk about Intels Ultrabook infringing Macbook Airs patent but Apple are in a position that they need our processors and going forward in mobile computing may have to look at Intel solutions if ARM dont come up with the goods. I would imagine if Apple tried to sue Intel would just stop selling processors to them.