Linux vs. Vista

[dapperjohndoe]

Microsoft Windows Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 are on the horizon, including new fancy graphic user interfaces... is Ubuntu Linux likely to survive against such strong competition?

John

[Zdravko]

Yes, of course. Every action has an opposite reaction, remember. Ubuntu will react with dignity.

P.S. I hate fancy user interfaces. I prefer simplicity.

[ProjectGod]

speaking of fancy graphics... check this link out!

http://www.linuxsoft.cz/screenshot_img/53-a.jpg

[23meg]

Microsoft Windows Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 are on the horizon, including new fancy graphic user interfaces... is Ubuntu Linux likely to survive against such strong competition?

John
I don't really get why Vista should be a "competition" that will affect the "survival" of Ubuntu. I'd like to discuss this in factual detail rather than general terms such as these; if you have reasons why it should be, please state them and I'll voice my doubts about them if any.

For fancy interfaces check out Compiz, which is available today, rather than being "on the horizon" and delayed and delayed.

[Zerocool10482]

Windows and OX10 are nice but I like something that has more value and simplicity.

[_simon_]

Microsoft Windows Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 are on the horizon, including new fancy graphic user interfaces... is Ubuntu Linux likely to survive against such strong competition?

John

I can't see Ubuntu users suddenly deciding to fork out on MS products because of a fancy GUI. Vista is still windows, it still costs money, apart from eye candy not much appears to have changed.

I've seen no beta reviews or MS press releases to say it won't suffer the same things that XP does i.e. getting bogged down and requiring a reinstall every few months, daily virus/spyware/malware scans, time spent waiting for apps to load after boot etc.

Many people won't even upgrade from XP to Vista, never mind move from linux to Vista.

As for Office, OpenOffice offers more than most people ever need. Lets face it in the majority of homes, I suspect word is only used to write the odd letter and Excel to handle the monthly finances. Again it's down to fancy bells and whistles, most of which the average user would probably never use.

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

Microsoft Windows Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 are on the horizon, including new fancy graphic user interfaces... is Ubuntu Linux likely to survive against such strong competition?

John

Vista needs about 3 times the hardware resources than Ubuntu and that means a new box just to run Vista for a lot of folks. I think Vista will be very good for Ubuntu, an opportunity rather than a threat.

[Zdravko]

Off-topic: ProjectGod (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=87256), the desktop looks awful! I hate black color.

[tommcd]

Windows 95 and 98 required a "second edition" to fix all their problems. Windows 2000/ME only lasted 1 year before they were replaced with XP. WinXP had a lot of problems that had to be fixed with SP1. Why should Vista be any different? I would not even think about buying vista for 6-12 months after it is released. Hopefully, by then most of the inevitable problems will be fixed! (This is 'competiton' for Ubuntu??).
Vista will require high end hadware to run smoothly. At least a 3GHz Pentium or equivalet AMD CPU, plus at least 1GB RAM (probably more loke 2 GB for gaming or multitasking, with all the eye candy).
In contrast, you will probably be able to run Dapper on the same PC you have now!

[tommcd]

BTW, my Microsoft wireless mouse actually tracks better in Ubuntu than in Win XP, even with the MS driver installed!! In windows it would frequently meander all over the place, so I stopped using it. In ubuntu it tracks perfectly. This is actually a decent wireless mouse. It just needed a better OS!

[Porta]

It is not vista or office that's gonna make trouble, they can be easily avoided.
The problem i think will be CPU's like the pentium D (Intel) and the presidio (AMD).
These will both have built in DRM and other nasty crap like trusted computing and such stuff.
The question i have about this; will we still be able to run open source software in the future or will i have to throw my computer(s) on the rubbish-dump?

Porta

[nocturn]

About the nice interface.

Only the current extremely high end machines or future pre-builds with Vista will have the Aero interface that everyone likes so much.

People with an average computer can forget it and will be very disappointed if they do shell out money for it, specially when you have a free addon for XP that mimics 90% of the Vista look already.

[Koech]

I don't thik Windows belongs to the same class as Ubuntu, we way much civilised and orderly than them. We don't hide source, postpone releases or make software that hang our comps out that servicepacks follow each other every so often. Ubuntu rocks and it will for a long while.

[Sef]

Vista will need realistically 1 GB ram, 128 graphics card, and 1000 MHz processor. I can build a computer with much less specs and have Ubuntu run great.

[Jussi Kukkonen]

It is not vista or office that's gonna make trouble, they can be easily avoided.
The problem i think will be CPU's like the pentium D (Intel) and the presidio (AMD).
These will both have built in DRM and other nasty crap like trusted computing and such stuff.
The good thing about hardware companies is that in the end, regardless of the sweet talking they give to software companies, they tend to listen when money talks -- see what happened when Microsoft talked iriver into including DRM in their portable players: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/26/iriver_gives_custome.html

We don't hide source, postpone releases ...
...with the exceptions of Rosetta (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RosettaFAQ#head-19c96d73454bfa4dc8a7b7e3fa487b4c9e34de19) (closed source) and the Dapper release (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DapperReleaseSchedule) (delayed 6 weeks). Oops :)

[az]

is Ubuntu Linux likely to survive against such strong competition?

John

If not Ubuntu, some other free-libre software. People will not pay for something if they can get it for free. The desktop operating system is becoming a commodity. That means that you won't care really which one you get, if they all work.

Add to that the principles of openness which removes the mystery in what your computer is doing behind your back and it will be hard for proprietairy OSes to compete with FLOSS.

[Klaidas]

Will Ubuntu survive?
Sure! What's not to survive?

Let's take a look:
Windows-only users will use vista. They don't use ubuntu anyway, so whatever
Dual boot userv will use Windows (Vista) and Ubuntu (Dapper drake). Not a lost :)
Ubuntu-only users will use ubuntu for it's idealogy, free software, etc :)
Server admins [very probably] won't change to resource-eating-vista's server :)

So, what's not to survive? ;)

[mats-a]

I think ubuntu's featurure looks great, I switched to Ubuntu because I heard of Vista, I can't take another not working system hog like Vista will be.

Windows will never be any threat to Ubuntu, those who will make the switch don't really understand the magic of Ubuntu :D

[adam.tropics]

Vista will require high end hadware to run smoothly. At least a 3GHz Pentium or equivalet AMD CPU, plus at least 1GB RAM (probably more loke 2 GB for gaming or multitasking, with all the eye candy).
In contrast, you will probably be able to run Dapper on the same PC you have now!

Look I am no M$ fan by any means, but the propeganda machine tends to get a tad out of hand. 3GHZ Pentium, I think not, that would cut out nearly the entire laptop user base!

Take a look here (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx)

...
A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that runs Windows Aero2.
* 128 MB of graphics memory.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

and yes, that's with Aero. The free disk space is kind of huge though.

Also, the previous poster re: Compiz is correct, we already have the effects should we choose to use them, and they run fine on a far far lower spec than even the quoted ones.

[3rdalbum]

Look I am no M$ fan by any means, but the propeganda machine tends to get a tad out of hand. 3GHZ Pentium, I think not, that would cut out nearly the entire laptop user base!

I think he was talking about running Vista smoothly. Maybe it wouldn't require a 3GHz processor, but I doubt it would run usably with a 1GHz processor. Think about it: What 1GHz computer has a 128mb graphics card, 1 gig of RAM and a DVD drive? Answer: A computer refurbished by someone who probably uses Linux :-)

[Denis]

[...] including new fancy graphic user interfaces
I think Linux systems can also have fancy interfaces in the future. Actually you can allready experiment with XGL/Compiz in Dapper! Take a look at this tread: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=148351

You'll see the amazing things that XGL and Compiz can do. I can only hope this will make it to the mainstream distributions quickly.
Not convinced yet? Take a look at the Kororaa Xgl Live CD (http://kororaa.org/static.php?page=static060318-181203). This live CD starts a fully functional XGL/Compiz gnome or KDE session. I was stunned by it. The effects look great and it's very speedy. Seeing this, I think the interface of the Linux system has a very bright future.

[adam.tropics]

I think he was talking about running Vista smoothly. Maybe it wouldn't require a 3GHz processor, but I doubt it would run usably with a 1GHz processor.

That may be, but the figures are from the horses mouth so to speak, so make of them what you will I guess. In fact the basic version without aero is meant to run on..


A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

* A modern processor (at least 800MHz1).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

I don't know, I guess it's really a moot point till release. As for


Think about it: What 1GHz computer has a 128mb graphics card, 1 gig of RAM and a DVD drive? Answer: A computer refurbished by someone who probably uses Linux

Or any number of laptops whose owners ticked the 'double up memory offer box!!

[Porta]

I've read an article a while back about the fact that you won't be able to dual-boot with an other OS, if vista is installed, because of something called 'bitlocker'.
It's supposed to be some sort of security-feature for when your computer gets stolen.
So when you want to switch then, you really have to switch. :)

Porta

[adam.tropics]

On the upside, just imagine how many linux capable decent desktops/laptops will be coming to an ebay near you courtesy of the windows junkies!! Can't wait!

[Lord Illidan]

Remember back in the year 2000-2001, when XP was released. Back then, Linux was ugly, at least from screenshots in magazines of that period like PC Plus, had very little hardware support, and less software.

Xp sported a fancy new, easy interface, etc,etc.

Linux still survived, and thrived.

Why shouldn't we survive Vista, then?

[dalee]

Hi,

Very few people are going to worry about the hardware specs for Vista. They will just let Dell, HP, or who ever built their PC worry about that. Very few people buy an operating system by itself, they buy a new computer instead.

dalee

[az]

Remember back in the year 2000-2001, when XP was released. Back then, Linux was ugly, at least from screenshots in magazines of that period like PC Plus, had very little hardware support, and less software.

Xp sported a fancy new, easy interface, etc,etc.

Linux still survived, and thrived.

Why shouldn't we survive Vista, then?
Bingo!

And Dapper's role would be to gain even more traction. The magical number is said to be ten percent.

Once ten percent of Desktops are running free-libre software (Ubuntu, Fedora, Linspire, Mepis, whatever) harware manufacturers and distributers will take notice and the growth will skyrocket.

Will Dapper be on ten percent of Desktops? No, probably, not. Will it succeeed in getting even more people's attention? I think so.

And more people who pay attention mean more people who contribute and more issues getting resolved (itches getting scratched). And that leads to better software and more and more market share.

[wpshooter]

Vista needs about 3 times the hardware resources than Ubuntu and that means a new box just to run Vista for a lot of folks. I think Vista will be very good for Ubuntu, an opportunity rather than a threat.

I completely agree with you.

I think M/S is about to, as the old saying goes "shoot themselves in the foot".

I believe they are about to offer Ubuntu the vast majority of the home computer user market on a silver platter !!!

And if there is any way we can help them, I hope they will let us know.

[uzi09]

well, linux already has its own "fancy" set of graphics...and they're out already...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2626198040635992645&q=linux

[Dancingwllamas]

I've read an article a while back about the fact that you won't be able to dual-boot with an other OS, if vista is installed, because of something called 'bitlocker'.
It's supposed to be some sort of security-feature for when your computer gets stolen.
So when you want to switch then, you really have to switch. :)

Porta

From what I understand, that is only if you actually enable bitlocker.

If you just install Vista, dualbooting should still work fine.

[p1r0]

speaking of fancy graphics... check this link out!

http://www.linuxsoft.cz/screenshot_img/53-a.jpg

Off topic: I loved that desktop!!!
I was looking for a theme like that for Ubuntu for a long time now. Is there any way at all to make Ubuntu look some way similar to that???

Thanks

p1r0

[gr0kzer0]

For many Microsoft users, after waiting patiently through delay after delay, this last Visa postponment will have been the last straw, and they'll have jumped ship to Linux. Those who do wait for Vista's release will have to upgrade their hardware to run the thing, which means lots of perfectly good computers appearing on the second hand market. If I didn't know better, I'd think someone high-up at Microsoft actually had a pro-Linux agenda.

[Porta]

Yes, that is what we need, i have ubuntu running on a pentium 3 here and it's doing great. :D

[richbarna]

Ubuntu has :- speed, security, it's free, it's mine, all the apps I need.
Ubuntu doesn't have :- viruses, hefty price tag, diet of RAM and CPU

Also, I have introduced a lot of people to Linux through Ubuntu and they have seen how user friendly it is "getting".

The likes of Dapper, Automatix and ubuntuforums are opening a lot of eyes to a better way of home computing.

I can only see Linux distro's getting better and allowing the less computer literate the freedom to choose.

[catlett]

Ubuntu is not in danger of Vista. Noone who runs Linux regularly wants windows. Windows is in a little bit of danger from Ubuntu.
Why? $$$$ Money. Vista is expensive and runs on expensive hardware. Linux is free and runs great on existing hardware.
Windows future is to charge a subscription for it's commercial accounts. They have been reported as saying they want to do something like Norton Antivirus where you pay for a yearly subscription. They want to do that with Vista the os and windows live. They are so paranoid about piracy that they want you to pay and pay for your Microsoft software.
The linux side is going in a totally different diredction. Linux companies say. "We'll give you the OS, the server capabilities and the office suite but you will have to pay for support and any customisation you need to fit your specific business."
That is the furure and I think it favors linux. Nevermind that linux is more secure that is huge in its own right.
I think Windows is overestimating what companies will pay for Microsoft products. I also think they are overestimating the consumer demand for a high end home computer. I don't see many homwowners upgrading from XP. All the people from my class (working class, big city) do not need anything more than XP. They can do with linux but don't know how to use it.
That brings up the last point. The biggest growth in linux is people like myself. The computer enthusiast who has XP but is into computers and satisfies their computer "itch" by dual booting a linux OS. The enthusiast isn't doing anything with a microsoft product. If you fiddle around with your microsoft computer you will be calling Microsoft every other week defending yourself. They shut down your OS when the hardware configuration changes and you have to call and activate.
I had to call twice before I found linux. Screw them. I own this copy who are they to tell me I can't put it on a computer I'm piecing together.
Microsoft is going the way of the their video gane system XBOX. To expensive and not as powerful as they claim.

[Lord Illidan]

The big thing about Vista, imho, is the usercandy. That's all. And most of it we can already have on Linux, if not more. So why worry? It is because Linux is opensource that it will survive. If it was not, then it might haven't survived XP and 98, let alone Vista.

[_simon_]

I've read an article a while back about the fact that you won't be able to dual-boot with an other OS, if vista is installed, because of something called 'bitlocker'.
It's supposed to be some sort of security-feature for when your computer gets stolen.
So when you want to switch then, you really have to switch. :)

Porta

Apparently bitlocker only comes with Enterprise and Ultimate editions.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1969163,00.asp

[Porta]

You are correct Simon, i,ve read that article after i had posted here. The info i based my post on was from a earlier date, in that article there was no mentioning of this fact. ;)

regards

[Schalken]

Something has been bugging me since I have switched to Ubuntu several months ago. Don't get me wrong I LOVE Linux, and Ubuntu is the best distribution I have used (3), but the upcoming Windows Vista release seems to be Microsoft's big reteliation on the opposing free software threat, attempting to make every possible improvement that Linux does on Windows and more. How will the open-source community react, and will this be the end of the time when Linux is simply been better?

Internet Explorer and Firefox has been one of my concerns. IE7 provides tabbed browsing, an RSS reader and claimed %50 better security over IE6, in addition to a overall much more pleasing interface. Will Firefox maintain it's position as a viable competitor?

Vista's new widget API, Aero, which draws glossy trasparencies, blurs and shadows that I am yet to see in a fully stable and supported OpenGL window manager. Will XGL, and hence GNOME and hence Ubuntu feature such good looking graphics-accellerated features by default before Vista officially takes the cake?

What about all the other software improvements, like Office 2007 and Windows Media Player? Will OpenOffice.org and Totem/Rythmbox and the rest of Ubuntu's software be able to keep up?

These are just some things that have been on my mind while reading about Microsoft's new software. I would really like to hear what other people have heard and their opinions!

And remember this is not your average Linux vs Windows thread, this is about Ubuntu, Vista and where you see Ubuntu and it's software being at the time of Vista's release.

[lapsey]

I'm not going to say what I think of Vista since I haven't used it yet..

There will only be one release of Vista for a long time, barring a few tweaks; while Ubuntu and Desktop Linux in general pushes out new functionality constantly. That's how.

[Gannin]

Everything I have read about Vista, including hands-on reviews by people that have been testing the beta, says that it's a mess. Also, I've heard that Aero is really flaky and slow.

[koshari]

compete in what ways,

compiz is a good start,

check this screenshot,
http://www.in.com.au/~holty/temp/Screenshot.jpg
you thing your gonna get a vista shot to look like that?
:-)

[lapsey]

compete in what ways,

compiz is a good start,

check this screenshot,
http://www.in.com.au/~holty/temp/Screenshot.jpg
you thing your gonna get a vista shot to look like that?
:-)

I don't think anyone would want their screenshots to look like that (use png next time :P)

[koshari]

"use png next time"

its a bandwidth thing

[XQC]

compete in what ways,

compiz is a good start,

check this screenshot,
http://www.in.com.au/~holty/temp/Screenshot.jpg
you thing your gonna get a vista shot to look like that?
:-)
Don't want to sound rude but about any other Vista Screenshot I've seen looks better IMO...

[koshari]

its not being rude,

to be honest i was just checking out tranperancies and wouldnt usually have a browser window open like that,

[Schalken]

compete in what ways,

Compete in all ways, on the desktop I mean (not the server). Compete with looks, compete with interface, compete with security, structure, ease of use etc etc, and most of all, features.


compiz is a good start,

check this screenshot,
http://www.in.com.au/~holty/temp/Screenshot.jpg
you thing your gonna get a vista shot to look like that?
:-)

Sure, see here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Windows_Vista_5472_desktop.png it has transperency of part of the windows, blurring etc. (and BTW yes thers a little too much JPEG compression in that screen of yours)

Do you see Ubuntu acheiving a truly competing level of flashy-looks during the Vista days to come?

[frodon]

LOL, the computer who can't run vista with all the eye candy doen't exist yet.

Seriously i think vista will be the beginning of the end for microsoft, the power needed to run vista in a smooth way is just incredibly high, even the latest dual core processor with the latest graphic card can't run vista with all the eye candy enabled smoothly and this eye candy isn't as good as what compiz offers now.

So i have really some doubts about the success of vista but obviously it's just my opinion which is surely not objective.

[Gannin]

It might take a bit of work to get XGL / AIGLX to work on Ubuntu, but it's out right now and you can do it.

Vista isn't even out yet, and therefore you can't use Aero yet. By the time it comes out, XGL / AIGLX will have been developed even further, and implementation will be even easier.

[cantormath]

Ubuntu is more like Mac OSX, not Vista,

and what I mean by that is that one would compare those two systems.

You dont compare vista to ubuntu. There is no comparison. You can do anything and anything better on ubuntu then on vista. That is like comparing a ferrari to fat ****....

The only thing holding ubuntu, and all linux distributions, back is that Microsoft and hardware companies dont want to make it easy for people to use linux. If you use linux you can keep the same hardware for about twice as long. and you will probably never get ride of a working linux box. Now the reason vista is sooooooooooooo bing-bang-boom is that they have it running on some seriously new hardware. Try putting vista on one of your old PCs and see how it works,or put linux on that vista machine and see how much faster it is. Vista is more resource intensive then XP. That is the Microsoft way, make it as fat as possible so that people have to buy new computers.........ah!, hence, the hardware companies wont mind holding back linux drivers........ah!

China said a few months ago that it is going to be completely open source by 2008. An entire country is going open source. Even if they dont get there by 08, the fact they want it is amazing. There is a good reason why china is going anti-microsoft and its not just cause its free....
Its cause its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.

If you want a supported no problems computer, you can buy linux desktops and laptops all over the place now, and usually they are cheaper.

Here is a list....
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/
Or just buy a mac. AND DONT DUAL BOOT XP/VISTA ON IT!!!!


Indiana is sold
http://tuttlesvc.teacherhosting.com/wordpress/?p=148

Pakistan is sold
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Jul/gee20020716015414.htm

There is a reason microsoft want to just give its code to china. A billion more slaves stuck with the blue screen of death. You would think over the years they would have changed the color.

[Skia_42]

The main focus for the discussion so far has been features, I know an avid Windows user and he would never consider switching to Linux or any other OS not because he doesn't want to but because it isn't practical. If you are familiar with windows and you know how to efficently get a large amount of work done, windows is great. The main advantage in my mind that MS has over linux is ease of use, If time is money then linux in unexperienced hands is alot of money.

[kabus]

How will Ubuntu compete with Vista?

Why does it matter?

[lazyd2]

Here is a small example of what you can do with linux(if you want to that is):mrgreen::mrgreen:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1130/screenshot3xh4.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot3xh4.jpg) http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/103/screenshot1tm0.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot1tm0.jpg) http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/856/screenshotto1.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotto1.jpg) http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/1433/screenshotyj2.th.png (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotyj2.png)

[Please don't hit me, these are just for presentation]:p

[Schalken]

Ubuntu is more like Mac OSX, not Vista,

and what I mean by that is that one would compare those to systems.

You dont compare vista to ubuntu. There is no comparison. you can do anything and anything better on ubuntu then on vista. That is like comparing a fierrai to a fat ****....

First of all, easy with the language.

Okay look at it this way: Mid 2007 you have a dual boot Ubuntu (with OpenOffice.org) and Windows Vista (with Office 2007) box. You want to complete a project using either office suite. Would you rather use Vista with Office 2007 (given the screenshots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_2007) or Ubuntu with OpenOffice.org (given were you see OOo and Ubuntu being at that time)?

It's not like Ubuntu and Vista were made to serve different purposes. They both are made (more or less) for the home desktop, therefore they are easily comparible, for eg, which would you prefer to use for common tasks?

[cantormath]

The main focus for the discussion so far has been features, I know an avid Windows user and he would never consider switching to Linux or any other OS not because he doesn't want to but because it isn't practical. If you are familiar with windows and you know how to efficently get a large amount of work done, windows is great. The main advantage in my mind that MS has over linux is ease of use, If time is money then linux in unexperienced hands is alot of money.

Practical:
Mac is Unix(BSD) and has to be the easiest OS in the world to use.
You can do anything and waaaaaaaay more with MAC OSX compare to MS-windows, including running windows on mac hardware (Which is stupid).
The point of bringing the mac into this, is that I can make my Ubuntu look like mac, or Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is just as easy as windows and Mac OSX, if it is install correctly by a computer person. Remember, windows and macs are installed my computer people.

get a large amount of work done:
with ubuntu I never have spyware or viruses, so my computer works just as fast if not faster as the day I made it. Oh, and all my computer with all the software takes as much room as a windows install with nothing but the calculator.
If you can make it, buy it, cheap,
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/


That is the delusion of a windows user if one thinks that linux/unix is not practical or gets less work done.

[cantormath]

Sorry about the language ::grin::](*,)

[darkmatter]

Don't want to sound rude but about any other Vista Screenshot I've seen looks better IMO...

ok... how about this one ;)

http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/data/2/thumbs/screen4.jpg (http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=3118&size=big&cat=2)

[Schalken]

Practical:
Mac is Unix(BSD) and has to be the easiest OS in the world to use.
You can do anything and waaaaaaaay more with MAC OSX compare to MS-windows, including running windows on mac hardware (Which is stupid).
The point of bringing the mac into this, is that I can make my Ubuntu look like mac, or Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is just as easy as windows and Mac OSX, if it is install correctly by a computer person. Remember, windows and macs are installed my computer people.

get a large amount of work done:
with ubuntu I never have spyware or viruses, so my computer works just as fast if not faster as the day I made it. Oh, and all my computer with all the software takes as much room as a windows install with nothing but the calculator.
If you can make it, buy it, cheap,
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/


That is the delusion of a windows user if one thinks that linux/unix is not practical or gets less work done.

Whoa! Hold on, this wasn't meant to be your common Windows vs Linux thread (which we all have bursting opinions on, of course), but rather Vista (and only Vista) compared to where we see open source software, such as GNOME, Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Rhythmbox, Gaim etc at the time of Vista's release.

Has anyone seen any interesting development work being done on OSS that looks comparable to what Vista will offer?


ok... how about this one ;)

http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/data/2/thumbs/screen4.jpg (http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=3118&size=big&cat=2)

That does look pretty impressive (as do all of those Compiz screens). :D

Do you think graphics such as that offered by Compiz will be the default in Ubuntu within the next few releases???

[slimdog360]

Here is a small example of what you can do with linux(if you want to that is):mrgreen::mrgreen:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1130/screenshot3xh4.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot3xh4.jpg) http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/103/screenshot1tm0.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot1tm0.jpg) http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/856/screenshotto1.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotto1.jpg) http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/1433/screenshotyj2.th.png (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotyj2.png)

[Please don't hit me, these are just for presentation]:p

how did you make the window transparent, is it compiz?

[frodon]

Yes it is compiz, you can also do that with any window manager which have a compositor like Kwin (KDE), xfwm4 (XFCE) but with metacity you'll need to run an additional compositor like xcompmgr.

[Stormy Eyes]

Compete in all ways, on the desktop I mean (not the server). Compete with looks, compete with interface, compete with security, structure, ease of use etc etc, and most of all, features.

It doesn't matter. Those who like the taste of Microsoft's Kool-Aid will continue to use Windows. Those who want to run a Unix at home will either run Linux or a BSD, or take the easy way out and buy a Mac.

[lazyd2]

how did you make the window transparent, is it compiz?Yeap.:)

[loell]

shouldn't it be, "how will vista compete with ubuntu?"
because with all the latest and ongoing developments how can vista cope with that.;)

[Miguel]

I don't understand those who drool about Vista looks. Sure it might look good but, after a while, you realize that:
UserAccountControl is way to intrusive (ruining the "don't run as admin" concept)
The default theme is awful. Transparent window titles? They suck. Background windows? They look the same as foreground ones.
Monad (the shell, not installed by default) is not bash-compatible and uses a radically new syntax.
Non-aero UI actually runs slower than Aero... and uses more RAM.
The DX9 compatibility is slow
All the requirements will probably mean awful battery life in laptops.


In case you don't believe it, I'll repeat: Vista's default theme sucks. It is something designed for the initial oohs and aaahs, but a theme without clear focused/unfocused differences is not usable. You add to this the blurry translucid window borders and the user's thought is: Where is my Winnie the Pooh? I miss him so much.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are cool ideas in Vista. Like finally separating admin and users accounts (so that no app that copies preferences in system folders will work). Like the new CLI. Like moving the graphics drivers out of ring0 (better in terms of stability, very bad if you have a SLI setup). I do think that if user accounts are done right, together with a few restriction on open ports by default, the windows world would improve a lot from a security point of view. But again, their implementation has been dubious, even among the M$ fans (you know, there are fans everywhere).

And I haven't said anything about the seven different versions, the pricing or M$ policy.

I will leave now, admitting a thing: I don't like Xgl. It has some very good things (the exposé copy, the zoom, the accelerated video) but the rest, IMHO, hurt usability.

PS: The real trick is finding out that, actually, Linux doesn't have to compete with Vista.

[3rdalbum]

Vista's new widget API, Aero, which draws glossy trasparencies, blurs and shadows that I am yet to see in a fully stable and supported OpenGL window manager. Will XGL, and hence GNOME and hence Ubuntu feature such good looking graphics-accellerated features by default before Vista officially takes the cake?


Maybe not, but these Linux features will run on a quarter of the system requirements. (besides, Aero isn't on by default, is it?)


What about all the other software improvements, like Office 2007 and Windows Media Player? Will OpenOffice.org and Totem/Rythmbox and the rest of Ubuntu's software be able to keep up?

What do Office 2007 and WMP offer that earlier versions didn't? Office 2007 has an XML-based format and some kind of groupware that 99% of people will never use. WMP has more restrictive DRM and possibly support for Microsoft's MP3 player. The question you should be asking is "Will people realise that Office 07 and WMP Vista offers nothing over Linux?".

[3rdalbum]

China said a few months ago that it is going to be completely open source by 2008.

Not to criticise the newest open-source darlings, but I'd rather China used proprietry software and opened everything else up.

[Yossarian]

The original poster is spot-on in his/her observations. Popular groupthink on this board aside, Vista will not cause a mass-migration from Windows to Ubuntu.

For one thing, if people don't like Vista, they can just keep using 98/2000/XP. Why not? It works now (more or less) and it won't evaporate from their disk when Vista is released. I don't think people care very much about using an older or unsupported OS, as is often supposed.

The other thing is that Vista isn't as terrible as supposed. UAP sounds better than what currently exists (which is running installers and the control panel using run as), and even that is tolerable. For really big tasks, there's fast user switching into an admin account. As always there's MS office available for those with money/no scruples, and open/gnome office for everyone else. So its definitly possible to get work done with it.


Posted by 3rdalbum
Not to criticise the newest open-source darlings, but I'd rather China used proprietry software and opened everything else up.

I thought I was the only one severely disturbed by this worship of the Chinese government going on here. I've never been the biggest fan of Free software politics, but this is beyond the pale here. The Chinese government are not nice people, no matter how much they love firefox and open office. I can walk 5 minutes from my office and see falun gong protestors on the hill. Their air is so polluted you can scarcely see the sun in some cities. But at least their secret police no longer have to worry about being locked-in by MSs proprietary formats, or something.

[linuksamiko]

It seams to me that most of the people talk about which solution looks cooler Linux or Windows Vista. That is how Windows advertises in public "Look at this cool looking system" but people want more then just "cool looking systems".

The system has to WORK! Their apps and games have to work in a blink of an eye and I gues there is the real problem of Ubuntu, Linux and all non-Windows-systems in general because not everything works instentaniously! It doesn't matter wich system you take (Linux, MAC, BSD) if you can't run every program you buy at your store right around the corner the system will hardly be mainstream.

It is not all about features cool looking systems and having (almost) no viruses. That is (IMHO) reason why cool systems are hold back.
Of course my Ubuntu (former suse) can do alot more things then my windows (that I haven't used for weeks) but the regular user doesn't need this.

Vista will be a major releas for microsoft and they won't give away there throne but alternative systems will gain on ground within the next 5 years.
I will stick with my Linux-Box no matter what other people think is the one and only system on the world.

[Gannin]

It sounds to me like most of the people here are telling you that, yes, Ubuntu can and will continue to compete with Windows, and that there isn't even much of a comparison, based on how Vista reportedly works and the amount of power it needs just to run acceptably.

Here's an interesting perspective on the future of Microsoft:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1993524,00.asp

[gThree]

I started out, as I recall, with an indifferent/positive attitude toward Microsoft. After my experience with 98-2000-XP and Office, I will no longer purchase Microsoft products. That's not due to misguided idealism, or some sort of fanaticism, that's due directly to my experience with the company and their products. I won't be asking how Vista compares to Ubuntu ... to me, it's irrelevant.

In general, I think Linux is moving into the "good enough" position Windows used to hold relative to OSX. In this case, it's free, it works, and if it lacks a bit of polish around the edges, as long as that doesn't affect my work, what does it matter?

So Microsoft/Vista/etc. aren't even on my radar at this stage and -- unless I find something I can't do in Ubuntu/Kubuntu or OSX -- they're unlikely to ever get back on it.

[mips]

Why does Ubuntu have to compete with Vista ?

[gruvsyco]

Why does Ubuntu have to compete with Vista ?
+1

[MS7]

I've got a trial of Vista Ultimate running on the same box this copy of Ubuntu is on. It's a 4400+ / 1GB 2.5 3 3 7 DC DDR400 / 850 XT 256MB / UDMA 133 and Vista runs like a dog... It's SO heavy. It feels like a 1.5GHz P4 running XP. Apparently M$ have designed Vista around catching up with the power of PCs nowadays because they are about 3 years behind...

I don't want an OS to do much more than sit there behaving itself running my apps although a decent security model wouldn't go amiss ;) I certainly don't want the box struggling to run stuff because it's weighed down by the OS!

Vista is very pretty although it does look a bit OTT. The transparent boarders look messy TBH... I could go on...

Anyway, will Ubuntu compete with Vista? Not for everyone is won't - not by a long way yet.

It's quite different from what most people are used to. It isn't easy enough to set up. It took me a day of messing about using an old PCI graphics card to get my ATI to work. I can't compile anything despite loading the correct packages and stuff... All the facilities (IPtables etc) seem too remote and inaccessible. Windows is pretty intuative and everything is available - the available packages are easy to use on Ubuntu but without GUI front ends and double click and exe to install, Windows users won't be happy.

Ubuntu is very different to what most windows users are used to. To win windows usesr, the transition myst be easier, they must get from Ubuntu what they are expecting from Windows. The interface is spot on but there is a lot of knowledge required to acomplish what is pretty easy in Windows.

Anyway- first impressions - excellent, it's me that's holding back the system at the moment ;)

With more GUI front ends, better (more extensive) hardware support, more easily accessible facilities, easy of installation of packages I.E. not having to compile etc and stuff like that, the thinking Windows users may switch and stay switched :)

[jc87]

A) Lower hardware requirements to perform the same task ( eyecandy , watch a movie , etc...)

B) Ubuntu doesnt need to be backward compatible with crappy previous OS designs and implementations (this means previous windows releases), giving it more edge to improve and change.

C) Both free beer and free speech.

D) Is a fact that every windows release only becomes "stable" after the firt service pack , on the other hand Ubuntu is stable at all non-edgy releases.

E) Windows still lacks a centralized software instalation / update /remove tool , Ubuntu on the other hand has got apt-get with great (and growing) repositories.

F) Choice , with Ubuntu you can use your favorite Desktop manager (Gnome , Kde , Xfce , fluxbox) , browser (Firefox , Konqueror , epiphany) , etc... with windows you are stuck with several annoying defaults.

G) You still need to run an AV with Windows , and defrag , with Ubuntu you dont need no AV (and dont say is because is less used , but because is just better designed when it comes to safety) , and defrag , what fsck is that?

H) Ubuntu is sexy TM

Of course there is room in the market for both OS´ses , but Ubuntu has got a shiny future waiting for him;)

[lone_lylinux_user]

I've just installed Ubuntu yesterday, this being my first experience with this flavour. I previously used fedora core 2 and 4, xandros, mandriva, and have played about with damn small. Why is this significant? Ubuntu is so far, the only linux I have installed, and found that everything just works. The install is very easy, just answer a few questions yet with the possibility to configure it more if you know what you're doing, and after looking around in the os for a bit, i got my wifi working too. wifi has been the bane of my linux experience so far. What has all this got to do with this thread?? Well, in my opinion, Ubuntu won't compete with vista. win 2k wasn't very good, xp is a mess, and from what I've heard vista is a joke. What they're TRYING to do with the appearance has been done far better by apple, osx being the most beautiful os I've seen so far, and linux having by far the most configurability of any system. The system load of vista is apalling, and even xp leaves a lot to be desired. Is it too much to ask to open a menu and not have to wait (albeit a few seconds) for it to populate? I rekon the only people who will go with vista are those die hard m$ fans or people with money to throw away who don't know better. Apple have by far the most user friendly systems, and nicest looking hardware, and for those with a little more knowledge or willingness to learn will try a few linux distros and get rid of windows altogether. (or use it as an afterthought) Getting back to Ubuntu, I intend to change over completely, and will be buying a cedega subscription in order to play my beloved games. I'd be delighted to pay 5€ per month to a company where I have a say on what they work on, rather than having the hassle of having to keep and dual boot into any m$ os, and after my previous nightmare with xp insecurity (resulting in a HD format and reinstall), I'm loathe to risk using windows.

Comparing Ubuntu to vista is not, in my opinion, possible. I've been in the linux scene off and on now for about 5 years, and it's come on in leaps and bounds. By the time vista is released, Ubuntu will have been updated and refined such that it will be far better than vista would be if it was improved just as much.

Thanks for listening!

[OffHand]

Internet Explorer and Firefox has been one of my concerns. IE7 provides tabbed browsing, an RSS reader and claimed %50 better security over IE6
50% of 0 is still 0 :!:

[Dinerty]

Vista requires ALOT of power to make it look good, Ubuntu requires half the power to do excatly the same job ;)

[Shay Stephens]

Something has been bugging me since I have switched to Ubuntu several months ago. Don't get me wrong I LOVE Linux, and Ubuntu is the best distribution I have used (3), but the upcoming Windows Vista release seems to be Microsoft's big reteliation on the opposing free software threat, attempting to make every possible improvement that Linux does on Windows and more. How will the open-source community react, and will this be the end of the time when Linux is simply been better?


For me it's not about feature vs. feature and is linux faster, prettier, or more popular than XYZ. For me it comes down to freedom. Freedom to install hardware when I need to without fear that I will break my activation. Freedom to use open formats that will stand the test of time and operating systems. Freedom from having to cede control of my computer to an outside "authority".

You will notice that every year that passes, windows activation gets more and more restrictive. They continue to tightne the noose around users. It will get to the point where users will beg to have a rental scheme in order to avoid all this trouble, and then Microsoft will have you in it's total control and domination.

Even if Linux turns out to be slower, uglier, and unpopular compared to Vista, it will be worth the sacrifice in order to retain my freedom. I don't trust Microsoft anymore to do the right thing. So they will never get a place on my computer again until such time they change and I can trust them again.

Truth be told, I don't expect Microsoft to be the top dog 5 years from now anyway. Vista will be their last major OS. So people are going to need an alternative soon anyway. Might as well begin now eh? ;-)

[Carrots171]

Firefox 2.0, which is going to come out by the time IE7 does, has several advantages over IE7: Themes and extensions, more tab controls (dragging tabs, undo close tab, tab scrolling), a spell checker, and better security.

XGL/Compiz has all of the visual effects that Vista's "aero" does, yet it has lower hardware requirements.

Microsoft Office has changed little between new versions - If OpenOffice can compete with Office 2003, it can compete with 2007 because so little changes between versions of Microsoft Office. OpenDocument is also an ISO standard now, while Microsoft's format isn't.

I think that Ubuntu doesn't need to catch up to Vista - it can already do everything that Vista can do, and can even do some things better. However, I don't think that Ubuntu or any OS can really compete with Vista on the home PC right now because of Microsoft's monopoly.

[NiceGuy]

I downloaded the vista beta when it was available and have just got around to installing it and I have to say IMHO Ubuntu is infinitely better!

Why? Well mainly because I can actually install Ubuntu!!!!! I'm afraid I seem to be a victim of the seemingly common "Setup Failed To Open The Windows Image File" problem.

So ok, its only beta but for goodness sake its BETA ie. pre-production testing! It may only be me who feels this way, but beta, to me, means all the big bugs (like not installing!) - have all been ironed out!

On the plus side the setup screen seems nice (pretty graphics and backgrounds etc.) but I'd prefer it if it installed!

Apparently a potential work around may be if I install XP and then use daemon tools to mount the cd image so I'll try that - but really you shouldn't have to 'hack out' a solution like that.

I'll try to give a more complete analysis of Ubuntu vs vista if/when I actually manage to get it installed.

[Donnut]

I think I will continue to always run ubuntu because it uses fairly less computer recources than vista/xp. It makes my laptop look like hor stuff! People who are not big into the computer world just ooooo and ahhhhh when my screen fades into a blank screen and then into a screensaver seamlessly. Also, it fits people on a far lesser budget. I know kids growing up and putting ubuntu on ancient laptops and other hardware simply because they could never afford any distro of windows, or wish to run on lesser hardware. And best of all, it has sort of "forced" me to learn a whole lot more of the computer world!

Now if only cedega could find a way to succesfully emulate everquest 2...

[Cyraxzz]

Why compete? i think "Vista" means "the End" in some language.

[G Morgan]

WRT the eye candy. I'm not big on check box developing, I had XGL and I turned it off (admittedly it'd still be on if it was less buggy) so it isn't a killer feature for me and the same applies to Vista.

I expect a new OS to:
-support newer hardware
-have superior security
-run more efficiently

Dapper did all of this but so far Vista definately seems to fail the last point and the second one is yet to be tested.

[Johnsie]

At the moment XGL+Compiz is still hard to install on Linux and buggy. For XGL+compiz to compete with Aero it needs to work, and needs to be easily installable.


There's no doubt that Microosft will launch a massive marketing campaign when Vista comes out. Linux people need to prepare for that marketing campaign and actively counter it.

This doesn't need to be done confrontationally.... All we need to do is equal or better their advertising campaign by doing one of our own. Where does the money come from? Who needs money, we are the kings at finding free stuff and can find thousands of free places to advertise. I say we step things up in terms of marketing Linux.

[aktiwers]

I downloaded the vista beta when it was available and have just got around to installing it and I have to say IMHO Ubuntu is infinitely better!

Why? Well mainly because I can actually install Ubuntu!!!!! I'm afraid I seem to be a victim of the seemingly common "Setup Failed To Open The Windows Image File" problem.

So ok, its only beta but for goodness sake its BETA ie. pre-production testing! It may only be me who feels this way, but beta, to me, means all the big bugs (like not installing!) - have all been ironed out!

On the plus side the setup screen seems nice (pretty graphics and backgrounds etc.) but I'd prefer it if it installed!

Apparently a potential work around may be if I install XP and then use daemon tools to mount the cd image so I'll try that - but really you shouldn't have to 'hack out' a solution like that.

I'll try to give a more complete analysis of Ubuntu vs vista if/when I actually manage to get it installed.

I wrote a guide how you can install Vista without burning the Iso. Its in my signature.

[simonn]

People are always facinated with things that go bing.

Really, what actual use are Aero and XGL+compiz?

Anyway, most people will use whatever comes with their computer.

The amount of topics from newbies on this forum of which "Linux is not like windows so it is crap" could be an accurate synopsis is an indication that people are generally not willing to learn anything new. Keep in mind that these are people who actually care enough to give it a go. Most people do not care as long as they can browse t'interweb, read email and write a letter.

My, not very techno-savy (but not to bad) nearing 60 mum (sorry mum!), uses windows at home. When she stays with us she uses OS X or Ubuntu. When I asked her what she thought about OS X, Linux and windows her answer was "It's all the same really". However, she would not be able to install any of them herself. SHe is sort of looking for a new computer, so I suggest that she get a Mac, but she has her Windows XP for dummies, is familiar with window enough to do what she wants to do, knows about firewalls and updating, so why would she change to something else?

Unless Linux (or some other OS) manages to get distributed with new PCs there will be no, or very little, change. For a while you will get a choice of XP or vista with a new computer, then only vista - as has happened since the dos + win 3.x days.

I do however see Linux becoming a big player in the appliance PC market.

[Gannin]

Ah, I see you've got the machine that goes bing!

[mcduck]

Really, what actual use are Aero and XGL+compiz?
XGL allows you to use your graphics card to draw your desktop instead of using CPU to do this. As GPU handles graphics way better than CPU does this results in more responsive desktop with less load on your CPU. Compiz is just a window manager that is able to use XGL.

So in short XGL/Compiz gives you faster desktop with less CPU use, and all the eyecandy is just a free extra (that you can disable if you don't like it). I haven't tried Vista myself so I can't say anything about how responsive Vista's desktop is.

The problem with Aero compared to XGL is that Aero requires you to have a fairly high-end graphics card with pixel shaders when XGL&compiz are made to work without them. So XGL/Compiz also works on older graphics cards. (XGL currently does everything Aero does except blurring in window frames, and people are now trying to implemet that too without relying on pixel shaders.)

[_simon_]

At the moment XGL+Compiz is still hard to install on Linux and buggy. For XGL+compiz to compete with Aero it needs to work, and needs to be easily installable.


There's no doubt that Microosft will launch a massive marketing campaign when Vista comes out. Linux people need to prepare for that marketing campaign and actively counter it.

This doesn't need to be done confrontationally.... All we need to do is equal or better their advertising campaign by doing one of our own. Where does the money come from? Who needs money, we are the kings at finding free stuff and can find thousands of free places to advertise. I say we step things up in terms of marketing Linux.

I've installed XGL + Compiz on 2 machines now, it wasn't hard to install, i didn't experience any problems and not come across any bugs!

[GoA]

XGL + Compiz is still too buggy. Basic user can't install it with a click of a mouse. I tried the automatic script install and it hosed my X. luckily I know how to fix it. And there still are bugs. Videos don't display automaticly correct, sometimes the titlebar just disappeares etc. Far away from usable for basic user.

[mcduck]

XGL + Compiz is still too buggy. Basic user can't install it with a click of a mouse. I tried the automatic script install and it hosed my X. luckily I know how to fix it. And there still are bugs. Videos don't display automaticly correct, sometimes the titlebar just disappeares etc. Far away from usable for basic user.Did you try the old version that is in Ubuntu repositories or QuinnSorm's version/CVS version? The one in repositories has some annoying bugs that were fixed in less than a week, after that I haven't had any problems with it. And it takes me about 5 minutes to install it, including downloads ;)

[grizzly]

how come none of you actually comparing features??

like vistas all new shell
its voice recogintion - according to some, it works amazingly well, and the best part is, that it si 'aware' , so for example one can say "link 'some link that one see' " , and you are there!!

[Stormy Eyes]

how come none of you actually comparing features??

Because I don't give a damn. I will use Vista at work if my employer insists upon it. I will never use a Microsoft product at home.

[AndyCooll]

Well a recent edition of Linux Format gave a number of reasons on how Linux already competes with Vista's supposedly spiffy new "innovations".

- Instant Search (Linux has had Beagle for awhile now)
- Aero Interface (Linux has xgl)
- Desktop widgets (Linux has had Superkaramba for ages)
- Network Explorer (Linux has Bonjour)
- Built in firewall (Need I say more?)
- Bitlocker (Linux has built-in filesystem encryption)
- IE7 tabbed browsing (How many years has Firefox had this?)
- Avalon graphics (Linux has Cairo graphics)
- XAML GUIs (Linux has XUL GUIs)
- Automatic Updates (Ubuntu has Automatic updates)

:cool:

[forrestcupp]

Ubuntu will never need to compete with Vista. Vista will never be released.

[ygarl]

Compete in all ways, on the desktop I mean (not the server). Compete with looks, compete with interface, compete with security, structure, ease of use etc etc, and most of all, features.



Sure, see here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Windows_Vista_5472_desktop.png it has transperency of part of the windows, blurring etc. (and BTW yes thers a little too much JPEG compression in that screen of yours)

Do you see Ubuntu acheiving a truly competing level of flashy-looks during the Vista days to come?

Ooooooh! See your computer crawwwwwwl while you try to run Firefox and Excel at the same time.
Gasp in awe as your PC attempts to play a Metallica video while rendering a 3d Anim in the backround and run EMule... and the Frame rate keeps falllings.... <stutter stutter FREEZE>
Freak as you get the bill for your new PC capable of acheive this level of importance just to look "cool"...

I love Microsoft.

BLOOOOOOOAT!

[Jimmy_r]

Well, i did install and test the vista beta 2 a while ago so here is a small comparison(from memory) to ubuntu 6.06:

Installation
Vista:
Choose country and keyboard and fill in an activation number, then vista installed and updated itself.
It booted into 1280x1024 resolution, detected and had correct drivers for all hardware except for my integrated sound(asus a8n-e)

Ubuntu:
Booted the livecd, choose a keymap, language and resulution.
Bootscreen had my choosen resolution (1280x1024), when x started resolution got to 800x600 or something.
Installation just as easy as in vista, click a few buttons and fill in some fields.
After installation it booted into 800x600 resolution. It detected all my hardware correctly but i had to manually install drivers for my nvidia graphics card.
I also had to manually edit my xorg.conf and menu.lst to get correct resolution at the bootscreen and X.

Pros and cons
Vista
+Really flashy bootsplash(the initial bootscreen was some black/white ugly scroller, but after that it was moving colors(like spotlights) then it toned out and displayed the desktop(which also was pleasing to the eyes))
+Detected graphics card and network, set the resolution correct
+Flash working out of the box(it was the 64-bit version i installed)

-Did not find integrated sound. Had to install drivers manually.
-Very annoying confirmations of things like :"Do you really want network manager to run" on every startup

Ubuntu
+Found all hardware

-Even though i told it what screen resolution i wanted before the installer booted, it could only remember it through the cd´s bootsplash, then i had to manually edit config files after installation

-The regular need to follow a walkthrough to get flash and other non 64-bit things working.

Summary:
It does not matter, really. Ubuntu does not need to compete with vista, and should not either. Ubuntu does not, in my opinion, need every windows user to convert to it, it does still survive.
And I can tell you that the ordinary people(not us geeks) will not install any operating system and are as glad if they never need to know what an operating system is.
They are glad to pay for a preinstalled system that just works. And it would not matter if that system is Vista or Ubuntu, if it would only be used for web browsing, emailing and such.

The problem comes if the "regular" user, in some rare occation, wants to change something. Lets say his monitor breaks and he buys a new. Then he wants to change screen resolution. He might just manage to find the resolutions setting in windows. But in ubuntu, if the xorg.conf is not configured for the new resolution, he will be stuck. He will, like in Vista, manage to find the gnome resolution settings, just to discover that ubuntu does not support the resolution he wants. He will, if he has no support thingy or geek friend, probably use his computer with the unwanted resolution, and the next time he buys a computer, he will choose another operating system, which is capable of more than 800x600 resolution.

The thing is, the command line is a brick wall for a "regular" user. A "regular" user do not know what a howto is, and do not wish to know either. He is freightned of it, and of editing config files.
And with good reason. In my opinion that is one of the things to focus on in ubuntu.
While a command line might be really useful at times, I see it as a design flaw if something cannot be edited without use of config files and command lines. AND there should be ONE config file for the same thing, not two or more. One time i changed my screen updating frequency through gnome, just to get a message at every boot that my xorg.conf and gnome settings mismatched and asked me which one to use.

As ubuntu is free, for me it is a dead race between it and Vista. If both did cost the same amount of money and i had to buy one of them, I would definetly go for Vista.

[Gannin]

It sounds to me like you're comparing Vista 64-bit and Ubuntu 64-bit, which is a bit different than comparing Vista 32-bit and Ubuntu 32-bit, especially considering most things work more easily on Ubuntu 32-bit for now.

As for the screen resolution issue, Ubuntu booted up into the proper resolution for me, and when I installed the nVidia driver, it automatically configured the xorg.conf file for me. I haven't had to touch xorg.conf since installing Ubuntu. The Gnome resolution switcher also lists all the available resolutions for me.

[Carrots171]

At the moment XGL+Compiz is still hard to install on Linux and buggy.

Remeber that this is "at the moment". Because it's a beta "at the moment", you could say that Vista is "hard to install" and "buggy" too.

[GuitarHero]

Once XGL+Compiz have more stable versions, they can be added to programs like Automatix and Easy Ubuntu so anyone can have them. The artwork for edgy is coming along really nicely. Along with XGL+Compiz, I think it will look as good if not better than vista. I don't think ubuntu vs. vista has anything to do with the competence of ubuntu, its the market share of windows. Almost all businesses and families are tied to windows and do not know anything else exists becides windows and macs. Ubuntu just needs to continue what its doing, improving. In only 2 years ubuntu's growth and media exposure has exploded. The future can only be better.

[Jimmy_r]

It sounds to me like you're comparing Vista 64-bit and Ubuntu 64-bit, which is a bit different than comparing Vista 32-bit and Ubuntu 32-bit, especially considering most things work more easily on Ubuntu 32-bit for now.

Well, if i would compare ubuntu 32-bit to vista 32-bit, the difference would be:
Vista recognizes all hardware, including sound(driver issue from manufacturer)
And ubuntu does not take an howto to get flash working, that is the difference.


Ubuntu booted up into the proper resolution for me
How good for you, it did not for me. Even after telling the installer what resolution i wanted. What is the use in selecting resolution for the installers bootsplash only?
Not that my hardware is too odd either: An EN6600GT and a LG Flatron L1950H.

Those are the kind of issues that should be focused on fixing instead of getting all the latest bling into a new version.
If ubuntu still wants to compete with Vista, those kinds of glitches are unacceptable. Imagine the outrage if vista did something similar: "I told it what screen resolution i want, but it forgot it so now i must edit the windisplayconfig.something to get it back." Imagine how the linux community would taunt Vista and Microsoft...
Ubuntu should try to get where distros like SUSE are before trying to take on the giants.

[Gannin]

My point is that even though Ubuntu doesn't work perfectly for you, it does work perfectly for other people. Just like your Vista experience wasn't too bad, but other people's Vista experiences have been horrible, with problems even bigger than the hypothetical one you mentioned, so not all experiences will be like yours with either system.

[Jimmy_r]

Yes, but the thing is Vista is Beta, while Dapper was released almost two months ago, with LTS and supposed to be the most stable ubuntu release for a while.

[muz1]

At the start I thought about that to.
The thing that comes to mind is Microsofts track record of screwing up Operating Systems. Vista may look like all that, but there is one major flaw that I cannot see Microsoft fixing up. It is called 'BLOATWARE'. I have seen Vista in action and it is a beast. It can do heaps of things and alittle more. Problem is you need a scary amount of resources to get the thing running properly and you also really need to surrender over your system to the OS as well.

The words 'overkill' come to mind. They are hyping this operating system as being the best thing for business and personal useage. My question. Who's business and which users personal useage??? Do you really want something that is massively 'powerful' and complex if all you want to do is make something simple?
This is an old problem which for MS is getting worse and worse. They seem to think that by giving you everything, you will be happy.

Linux is a mentality not just an operating system.
If people want easy and don't mind sacrificing choice, go out and get Windows. It won't do what you really want but will make you think that what it does is so much better.

Linux can be anything you want it to be... anywhere... anytime.

Linux is stable.

Linux is open and totally configurable. Windows cannot claim any of these things.

Linux has a community that genuinely wants to help. The channels, chatrooms and forums contain people that are really into communicating.

I could really go on and on but I hope that you get my perspective of the situation. I would not really worry about the titanic. (Oops sorry meant Vista). Let is float it's own boat. Besides, Linux is not about catching up, it is about setting ones self free.

Cheers and propz
muz

[Johnsie]

Upgrading from XP to Vista will be as easy as inserting the CD and clicking upgrade (just as previous Windows upgrades, thanks to autorun)


Upgrading from XP to Dapper/Edgy this way would be nice..... Is there an autorun feature on the Dapper cd? If not then there should be!

[jc87]

Upgrading from XP to Vista will be as easy as inserting the CD and clicking upgrade (just as previous Windows upgrades, thanks to autorun)


If it was so easy , why about 3 years ago me and my sister failed at doing it from Me to XP?

No need to say it didn´t worked and a format was the way!

This kind of update from windows to ubuntu would be unpossible , unless we are talking about some settings importing like firefox bookmarks and etc...

[Lord Illidan]

Anyone remember the state of linux around 2000/2001? It was horrible. Looks-wise, XP had it beat to hell (GTK 1 was v. ugly).
Hardware compatibility was damn useless.
Distros...very few out there..main ones Redhat and Mandrake.
Applications...count them on a few fingers.

And we still competed with XP, and have now drawn ahead of Vista already. If we keep this same pace...we'll be unbeatable.
Vista looks good, I grant you, but it will only be a small matter of time for Linux to look better...as for applications, etc, as Linux becomes more popular, more devs will jump in.

The real threat to linux is neither vista nor the mac, but damn software patents.

As for china, they don't want US software on their pcs, and I can't blame them..

[jonifen]

I think the prices of the two systems will be enough to keep Ubuntu popular.
Plus, as Lord Illidan has already said, in the past 5 years, Linux has grown massively from what it once was and is a true competitor to Windows. Give it another year or so, and it'll shoot ahead again.

[linuksamiko]

Anyone remember the state of linux around 2000/2001? It was horrible. Looks-wise, XP had it beat to hell (GTK 1 was v. ugly).
Hardware compatibility was damn useless.
Distros...very few out there..main ones Redhat and Mandrake.
Applications...count them on a few fingers.

And we still competed with XP, and have now drawn ahead of Vista already. If we keep this same pace...we'll be unbeatable.
Vista looks good, I grant you, but it will only be a small matter of time for Linux to look better...as for applications, etc, as Linux becomes more popular, more devs will jump in.

The real threat to linux is neither vista nor the mac, but damn software patents.

As for china, they don't want US software on their pcs, and I can't blame them..
I wouldn't say that Linux was this bad as you described it. But you are right that it isn't comparable with the Linux that we have today (87v² I would say that SuSE was bigger than Mandrake but that depends if you live in the US or in Europe).

Still I believe it is a little too early to say that Linux is comming to the desktop. People are saying this for 5 years and it's still Microsoft who has a market share of about 95%.
But with more popularity, there are more and more people who are willing to try something new.
It took 5 years that people know what you are talking about when you mention the word "Linux" (becaus everything earlier then 2001 or 2000 hadn't something to do with focus on desktop imho) and it will take another 5 years to get it on so many computers that you can say that it is mainstream (talking about a market share of maybe 15 or 20%)

Maybe I see this whole thing a little pesimistic but such a big step (changing your OS) takes time.

[Lord Illidan]

I wouldn't say that Linux was this bad as you described it. But you are right that it isn't comparable with the Linux that we have today (87v² I would say that SuSE was bigger than Mandrake but that depends if you live in the US or in Europe).

Still I believe it is a little too early to say that Linux is comming to the desktop. People are saying this for 5 years and it's still Microsoft who has a market share of about 95%.
But with more popularity, there are more and more people who are willing to try something new.
It took 5 years that people know what you are talking about when you mention the word "Linux" (becaus everything earlier then 2001 or 2000 hadn't something to do with focus on desktop imho) and it will take another 5 years to get it on so many computers that you can say that it is mainstream (talking about a market share of maybe 15 or 20%)

Maybe I see this whole thing a little pesimistic but such a big step (changing your OS) takes time.

When I saw linux screenshots from that period in computer magazines like PC Plus, I saw ugly interfaces everywhere, to the extent that I never thought I would use it. When Pc Plus reviewed XP, it said that Microsoft would not lose sleep over Linux.. Now it is losing cash, too.

Bout suse and mandrake, well, distrowatch always reported mandrake at being at the top of the list. BTW, both are based in europe..SUSE in Germany, Mandrake/Mandriva in France.

Changing an os does take time, it's true. It took me a couple of months to get settled comfortably with Linux.

[Iandefor]

XGL + Compiz is still too buggy. Basic user can't install it with a click of a mouse. I tried the automatic script install and it hosed my X. luckily I know how to fix it. And there still are bugs. Videos don't display automaticly correct, sometimes the titlebar just disappeares etc. Far away from usable for basic user. AIGLX has already been integrated into Xorg 7.1, to which Edgy just updated. Compiz will rapidly become obsolete with the stabilization of compositing in metacity- worst you'll have to do to enable it, once it hits stable, is to check off a setting in gconf. XGL is a little pointless with an AIGLX module in X itself.

So: Wait until edgy!

[cristi201]

Some bank institutions that I know, will never use Microsoft based software nor even Mac/Apple. They are using linux, customised for their needs.

The point is: Ubuntu should not challenge Vista nor MacX. Ubuntu should challenge the Linux platform.

We need better software platforms and better linux.

[Lord Illidan]

Some bank institutions that I know, will never use Microsoft based software nor even Mac/Apple. They are using linux, customised for their needs.

The point is: Ubuntu should not challenge Vista nor MacX. Ubuntu should challenge the Linux platform.

We need better software platforms and better linux.

We are talking about the desktop platform here, not the banks!

[Blondie]

I've used both Vista Beta 2 and XGL / Compiz on Dapper. Here's my honest comparison between Vista and Ubuntu features-wise.

XGL / Compiz in terms of features is far superior to Aero. The difference is so large that I would question whether this is even a matter of opinion. At the moment XGL / Compiz is somewhat more buggy than Aero, in the sense that it more often does odd things, but it is faster and smoother than Aero in general use even now. Of course there is still a while to go before Vista is released by which time I would presume that most of the bugs in XGL / Compiz will be ironed out. If not then then soon after, and Vista will not be updated for years. One might I suppose argue that default Aero is more "tastefully done" than a default Ubuntu with XGL / Compiz on top but you could easily customise your desktop to look as good or better. Aero has nothing like the desktop cube, on movement and manual windows transparencies, special effects like the water and so on, and all the functions that are in Aero are replicable in XGL / Compiz AFAICS apart from that Aero has a stacked "Expose feature" while in XGL / Compiz the equivalent feature is face on like in OSX. Since XGL / Compiz can, apart from that, do everything that Aero can do plus lots more on top it's hard to see how someone could say Aero was superior.

IE7 is better than Firefox 1.5.x *if you don't take extensions and security into account*. The basic IE7 is less cluttered than IE6, has just about all of the "out of the box" functionality of Firefox 1.5.x, eg. tabbed browsing, and a few extra bells and whistles on top, one of which at least, being able to display all your tabbed windows on one page and select them with a mouse click is actually quite useful IMO. As to security I can't really comment since I didn't go around trying to deliberately get myself infected with spyware and viruses! I couldn't imagine IE being less prone to viruses / spyware than Firefox no matter how much it's security has improved though. IE7 cannot compete with Firefox for extensions and it's hard to imagine it ever will because of it's closed nature. Also bear in mind that by the time Vista comes out Firefox 2.0 should be out, if not 3.0. One thing I liked in IE7, each tab having it's own little X to click to close it, is already in Firefox 2.0 beta right now AIUI.

Vista gadgets are nice, though at the moment there aren't many of them, but they basically replicate functionality that is in Linux already (and XP with third party stuff like Google Gadgets). Even stevens.

Speedwise Vista is slower on the same hardware, though not ridiculously so as some people make out.

User Account Control, the new security feature in Vista is annoying and it would be easy to see how people, Chicken Little like, would end up ignoring the security warnings and just clicking through them without thinking since it warns you so often that when something dangerous does come along you might just click yes anyway. I can't see how it can match Ubuntu in security. No way.

So, I think that the future looks bright for Linux. Where Vista has features superior to Linux a Linux feature equivalent or better is visible just around the corner (eg. Compiz, Beagle). Vista may have a greater general polish and less rough edges but Linux is currently gaining those things at a fast speed, particularly Ubuntu.

Since Vista + 1 is unlikely to come out for several years after the release of Vista it is pretty much a dead cert that Linux will produce a more feature rich and usable desktop for the general user and not just the "geek" long before the end of Vista's life. Some may argue it's already here, some that it will be here by the time that Vista is released, but for sure if not by then it won't be much later. That will be a significant crossing point, because then the only reasons for Windows dominance will be it's locking in of proprietary formats and the network effect of it being so widely used affecting third party apps like games, but I don't think that in the long term Windows can maintain it's position for those reasons alone, while providing a product that is inferior to a product available for free for the average user in all other respects.

[ExMachina]

Ok... Ive used Vista on this laptop.
2.8ghz , 512ram , sony vaio PCG-k13.. i disliked it greatly.
To me its XP with a new skin and more resource whoring +10.

Ubuntu runs perfect on a 100gb hdd. load or music videos and pretties

[meney]

I just recently loaded the vista beta and I have to say I was disappointed. The only real upgrade from XP is the eye candy. I was hearing reports about a new file system, this seems to have been scrapped. The only reason I can see microsoft producing vista is to catch up with apple/linux.

So you ask how will Ubuntu stay on top? Well, I don't see Microsoft distributing a new OS packed with the latest advancements every six months.

[bsalt]

I have personally tested Vista on my PC at home with an ATI Radeon 9500, and I just read that even the Intel GMA950's can run the little Aero stuff. But the OS is incredibly slow. I personally hate it. It takes incredibly long to set up and to boot up to, it is WAY behind the times - Mac OSX already had all the features Vista claims to be proud of - and it really isn't all that big of an improvement from XP. If it was life or death - Windows Vista or death... I'd choose death.

Now to the light side of things (pun intended). I LOVE Ubuntu. It's free, easy to install, and compatible with everything I own. (I even own a PlaysForSure MP3 player and I got it working with Gnomad2) I don't think Ubuntu should even compete with Vista... but more or less, use the mack daddy of what is Unix-based - OSX - as an example. I even just finished watching SUSE 10 videos, and they've got Expose and all that good stuff going for them. This most likely would be something to be seen in Edgy Eft. (crosses fingers)

-Jon

[Vlatko]

Here is a small example of what you can do with linux(if you want to that is):mrgreen::mrgreen:

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/856/screenshotto1.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotto1.jpg)

[Please don't hit me, these are just for presentation]:p
ok..how do i make my ubuntu look like this? (newbie here) :D

[Vinze]

Well, I think Ubuntu is reasonable competition to Vista, especially when taking in mind that the next Vista (or even Service Pack) is going to take ages. Therefore, after a while you'll be able to compare Ubuntu Dapper+8 against pretty much the same Windows. I think Ubuntu it moving forward faster than Windows so after a while it's by far surpassed Windows.
However, that does not mean users will actually switch. Most users are very stubborn. Look to Firefox vs. IE: there really is no doubt that Firefox is better than IE, you just have to try it. However, they (that is: stubborn IE users) keep saying IE works for them. Tabbed Browsing? So what, what's so good about that. You don't know if you haven't tried!

For businesses, the really interesting feature of Vista would've been WinFS, but they scrapped it. Maybe they will stay with Windows XP, but only if Microsoft does not stop support after eight years just as with Win98/98SE/ME, because then they'd have only two years left ;). Meanwhile, Linux is getting more and more interesting to them.

[Bezmotivnik]

I think Ubuntu it moving forward faster than Windows so after a while it's by far surpassed Windows.

I've been hearing variations of that line about Linux desktop in general for about ten years, and unfortunately it hasn't happened yet.:-( I personally don't think it ever will until there's a giant injection of money, say from some MS-hostile outfit like Google, which I think will eventually happen. There's so much work and so little Linux money relative to what's available for the dominant OS's development and third-party development for that OS. It's all about money. That's life.


However, that does not mean users will actually switch. Most users are very stubborn. Look to Firefox vs. IE: there really is no doubt that Firefox is better than IE, you just have to try it.

I think it's better -- on the whole -- but it certainly has its problems and people have had some real grief with such things as memory leaks, etc.


However, they (that is: stubborn IE users) keep saying IE works for them. Tabbed Browsing? So what, what's so good about that. You don't know if you haven't tried!

Actually, I hate tabbed browsing and have it turned off. :)

I do like all the extensions (the ones that really work) that cut down on ads, and I appreciate the (apparent) higher security with Firefox.


For businesses...Maybe they will stay with Windows XP
Businesses are extremely slow to change OSs. It's disruptive and expensive, and it's expensive because it's disruptive. They're not geeks and fanboys who stand in line all night to get the first (buggy) release of an OS at 0900 on the day it comes out.

You'd be amazed how long it takes a major corporation to migrate OSs.


Meanwhile, Linux is getting more and more interesting to them.
Not desktop, however. Linux is making good inroads into the things it does best, servers, big nets, embedded, etc., etc. Linux does a lot of stuff beautifully, but desktop and mobile have a lot of problems that make it unattractive to businesses. Money for licensing an OS is trivial to a business. Hassle of any kind is expensive, and Linux for desktop/notebook is still more hassle than XP...but so will Vista be for a year or two, plus hardware will have to be upgraded to run Vista. Vista's not going to be making any huge inroads into the typical business for at least a year after it's released, but Ubuntu won't either.

I don't see desktop Linux ever making giant growth until either

1: It gets a monumental dose of development money and project management, or...

2: Some giant with unlimited resources, like Google, builds their own proprietary, highly-developed, Linux-based operating system and gives it away.

A lot of insiders think #2 is likely in the next few years, especially if this Google v. Microsoft/Godzilla v. Rodan battle-of-the-Titans stuff heats up. I personally doubt they could make this work right away, if for no other reason than hardware support deficiencies.

[Vinze]

I've been hearing variations of that line about Linux desktop in general for about ten years, and unfortunately it hasn't happened yet.:-( I personally don't think it ever will until there's a giant injection of money, say from some MS-hostile outfit like Google, which I think will eventually happen. There's so much work and so little Linux money relative to what's available for the dominant OS's development and third-party development for that OS. It's all about money. That's life.

Sure, I haven't said it'd be happening soon, just long-term ;)

Anyway, as for money, I think that shouldn't be too big of a problem, see mr. Shuttleworth's donation earlier.


I think it's better -- on the whole -- but it certainly has its problems and people have had some real grief with such things as memory leaks, etc.



Actually, I hate tabbed browsing and have it turned off. :)
But you know because you tried ;)

I do like all the extensions (the ones that really work) that cut down on ads, and I appreciate the (apparent) higher security with Firefox.


Businesses are extremely slow to change OSs. It's disruptive and expensive, and it's expensive because it's disruptive. They're not geeks and fanboys who stand in line all night to get the first (buggy) release of an OS at 0900 on the day it comes out.

You'd be amazed how long it takes a major corporation to migrate OSs.
True. However, do see that Microsoft will have to support a six year old OS for several years still to go.


Not desktop, however. Linux is making good inroads into the things it does best, servers, big nets, embedded, etc., etc. Linux does a lot of stuff beautifully, but desktop and mobile have a lot of problems that make it unattractive to businesses. Money for licensing an OS is trivial to a business. Hassle of any kind is expensive, and Linux for desktop/notebook is still more hassle than XP...but so will Vista be for a year or two, plus hardware will have to be upgraded to run Vista. Vista's not going to be making any huge inroads into the typical business for at least a year after it's released, but Ubuntu won't either.

I'm not sure about that. Well, I don't think it'd be largely embraced, but at least some growth in market share. And some might make a first move towards transition by e.g. switching to OpenOffice.org, especially now with the totally renewed interface with ribbons that's to come with Office. In such cases, I think many will prefer OpenOffice. Wich is a first step, because it is available for Linux too, making transition easier.


I don't see desktop Linux ever making giant growth until either

1: It gets a monumental dose of development money and project management, or...

2: Some giant with unlimited resources, like Google, builds their own proprietary, highly-developed, Linux-based operating system and gives it away.

A lot of insiders think #2 is likely in the next few years, especially if this Google v. Microsoft/Godzilla v. Rodan battle-of-the-Titans stuff heats up.

I think the first is not a problem, and the second is unlikely to happen nor help if it does. Maybe something like YouOS (http://youos.com) but then it doesn't really matter which OS you use, so you could switch to e.g. Kiosk CD (http://kioskcd.com), which is based on Linux and free as in beer.

[aev]

looking at the system requirements for Vista the first thing that comes up to my mind as a numerical computations programer is: what the heck is Ms thinking? What kind of a machine I must have in order to maintain a resonable speed for my calculations, how much memory, how many CPUs? As I have written somewhere before, my codes run approximatelly 2.5 time faster on Ubuntu than on WindowsXP. This is my answer - Linux is lighter, faster and does not mess on the hard drive /it does not install anything you don't want/:cool: . As for the software performance - I haven't had any problems finding any program I need under Linux.

[Vinze]

looking at the system requirements for Vista the first thing that comes up to my mind as a numerical computations programer is: what the heck is Ms thinking? What kind of a machine I must have in order to maintain a resonable speed for my calculations, how much memory, how many CPUs? As I have written somewhere before, my codes run approximatelly 2.5 time faster on Ubuntu than on WindowsXP. This is my answer - Linux is lighter, faster and does not mess on the hard drive /it does not install anything you don't want/:cool: . As for the software performance - I haven't had any problems finding any program I need under Linux.
Well, I think it's a smart move actually, it has two advantages:
1. You can easier create good-looking graphics
2. Heavy system requirements force people to buy new hardware if they want Vista, and admit it: about the only time people pay for Windows is when it's included in the price for their hardware.

[1oki]

Well I can say from personal experience that Vista is... well Cute... Anyone who is used to using windows will end up being confused unless you sit down and play with it for a few hours... Who would want to do that?! I beta tested it, just to see how it was and what the big who ha was about... Like I said... It’s cute. All bubbly and crap! If you like OSX than you might like vista. (OSX Sucks btw)

Micro$oft spent a lot of time revamping their system, and it does look like it was intended to compete with linux. Though, when it comes down to it, micro$oft is still micro$oft! By this I mean, it is very resource intensive. You need a 256mg graphics card to get the "full experience". They recommend 1 gig of ram.

Now with new systems these days this would be fine... but for all those older systems out there that are pushing the 1 gig processor and 128 Ram with a 32meg vid card... well Vista is craped on! Linux will still the tighter system, Micro$oft will always be targeted by people who hate them.

If anything I think Vista will push the open-source community to build bigger and better things! Competition is always best for R&D :D

p.s. I feel that vista is almost like a last ditch effort to take care of the open-source problem... I know they have billions, but people are starting to wake up. South American contracts with M$ have dropped dramatically in the last few years. They are making the switch to Linux. Asia is using Linux. M$ can’t give away window$ in India (least that’s what my Sri Lanka'n friend tells me). They see their future, and it doesn’t look good!

My name is Loki, and I wrote all this using micr$oft windoz…

[commodore]

I heard that even Microsoft developers don't like Vista because of how the heads design it. Someone wrote an article that the next release after Vista should be a fork of Windows 2000 because that was the last good Windows :D

[schurtek]

Vista (shudder) vs Ubuntu... firstly... let me recommend some good reading... It's called Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf) and it addresses a lot of your concerns about the future of open source software. The most valuable thing I have learned from that book is that while Proprietory Software has Larger Finacial Resources, Open Source has Larger Human Resources. So at the end of the day... it kind of balances out.

Personally, I don't think I will even look at Vista (shudder), as I am much happier in my little linux world. The reason why... not cos Ubuntu is better than windows (shudder), but simply because of the failure to impress or perform when it comes to previous operating systems from Microsoft (shudder).

The last good operating system they had was DOS 5.0, from then on, it all went to hell. I only kept using there software cos I had no choice... I believed that Windows (shudder) was my only option. Then one night when I had drunk to much vodka, I saw a pink penguin who showed me Slackware... then Redhat... Suse... then Gentoo... then Redhat CentOS... now Ubuntu... Man I loved that penguin, and he went nice with a mushroom sauce. HE HE!

Back to my point... bells and wistles... Microsoft (shudder) are promising all these bells and wisltes, but to this day I still haven't seen anything worthy of using 35% of my CPU. So I always turn off the fancy shyte and go bare... like a nudist in the mountains. I have seen much better bells and wistles on Linux, Unix and Soloris systems, than any Windows (shudder) system ever.

In fact the best was on an O2 from SGI (Silicon Graphix). I tried out one of their O2's at a Computer Fair and they had a 3D gui, where you could move your windows in 3D, literly, move them back and forward... it was awesome... but what do you expect on a PC that costs more than my uncles Porsche?

Talking about Silicon Graphix (http://www.sgi.com/products/software/opengl/), they developed OpenGL (http://www.opengl.org/). And it is an open standard. And they claim it to be OPEN SOURCE???

Well, if it is not truely open source then you can always look at one of the many open source solutions... one of them being Mesa (http://www.mesa3d.org/)

Also http://nehe.gamedev.net/ have some nice FREE tutorials on programming with OpenGL (http://www.opengl.org/).

Another thing I have learnt about Windows (shudder) and it's so called Enhance Graphics. It comes at a cost. And I don't mean the cost of the software (which is ridiculously high), but at the cost of Hardware Upgrades. My PC that is only six weeks old, will be rendered useless when Vista (shudder) comes out, as it won't have nearly enough RAM or Processing Power to run all the enhancements.

I am running a 2.66GHZ Intel Process with 1024MB RAM. Two SATA Hard Drives, one for Software, and one for Swap and Data. My machine kicks down, and when put to the paces against my mates 3.2GHz Dual Core, I KICKED HIS *** TO NEXT SUNDAY... the secret is in having the swop files for all software on a seperate drive... for both Windows and Linux...

Anyway.. .I am off to bed now, as it is 10pm and past my bed time... I know... I am just making excuses... I just really want to get a few hours of WarBlade in before I go to the office tomorrow.

CIAO

[Bezmotivnik]

Anyway, as for money, I think that shouldn't be too big of a problem, see mr. Shuttleworth's donation earlier.
Shuttleworth has enough money to be a world-class playboy, but every penny he can lay hands on is chicken feed compared to what it would take to build a complete operating system that would displace Microsoft Windows.

Windows and third-party software for it have consumed (and no doubt squandered) breathtaking amounts of development and marketing money. I don't believe that there's any truly accurate way of determining a comprehensive figure, but published "experts" I've read say the total costs to the present have been in the trillions -- with a "T."

Contrast that with the proud announcement on the Debian site a while back that they had received a development grant or award for $3,000. The software startups I was around in the '90s spent more than that on a single executive office chair.

It's just sad. :(

Even if you could somehow manage through pure magic to come up with a Microsoft-beating desktop OS that had rock-stable applications and managed to get every peripheral manufacturer to have rock-solid drivers and frontends with perfect reliability and interoperability and have all this ready to go at the same time, and make it available for free, there would still be the huge job of getting people to try it or buy machines with it installed.

This wouldn't be easy or cheap, this promotion and marketing, and would take years.


Well, I don't think it'd be largely embraced, but at least some growth in market share.

Maybe. But at the end of the day, the problem is that Microsoft Windows, through fair means or foul, managed to achive market dominance when it mattered, and is now an established part of the world infrastructure.

Getting significant change is nearly like trying to get municipalities to change the wall voltage to their communities. "But, but...162VAC is scientifically better!" So what? Any change to a "better" non-standard system is going to be isolating and a major headache that will bear costs far more than it would theoretically save.

Realistically, I don't expect that Microsoft will be displaced as the (very) dominant desktop operating system within my lifetime. But you're probably younger than I am. ;-)


And some might make a first move towards transition by e.g. switching to OpenOffice.org, especially now with the totally renewed interface with ribbons that's to come with Office. In such cases, I think many will prefer OpenOffice.

Maybe, but I don't see OO displacing Office until MS is forced by fiat to become 100% interoperable with some open-source standards. Personally, I don't like OO nor do I find it to be as good as the Office programs I am more or less forced to use.

Some MS-based state government riding the open-source buzz could mandate that on 1/1/07 all their software had to be adaptable to open-source document and file standards and that MS would have to have patches available to back-convert existing data to this sixty days prior to that date. One of two things could happen: Microsoft could knuckle under and do it, or Microsoft could tell them, "Sorry, we have no intention of doing this and we'll take all possible legal action against anyone using parts of our proprietary code in this conversion software." If they did the latter, they'd probably ruin some politician's career and put an end to using open source in short order, as it would be an impractical move hugely more expensive than maintaining the status quo.

Where Linux and open source might make inroads would be in purpose-built, closed corporate systems. I think about this a lot and this is the only scenario I can see working at all. A new company has a scratch-built Linux system put together by its resident IT department months ahead of time, through rigourous testing, finding computers, components and peripheral hardware that are absolutely 100% bulletproof-supported by the approved 100% bulletproof Linux distribution and applications. Make the Mark I GlobalWidgetCorp desktop computer a failsafe, perfect Linux desktop, order three hundred of them, install the software, get them rigged into the corporate Linux network, get the 100% bulletproof printers and whatnot rigged up and then write corporate policy stating that any contractor, executive or employee adding any non-approved hardware or software will be summarily taken out to a shed behind the HR building and shot behind the left ear.

I think at some point a few companies will try this, just to get some "cutting edge" publicity. Using the standard Microsoft OSs and proprietary applications is an accepted part of doing business and is not normally seen as any real drawback, nor are its costs seen as objectionable in the big picture.

[schurtek]

China said a few months ago that it is going to be completely open source by 2008.

Actually... a few weeks back... Microsoft (shudder) and China entered into talks to offer a specialised Windows (shudder) especially for the Chinese market at the price the Chinese will pay. I am sure they will do this with all their software.

[schurtek]

Has anyone ever asked them selves the question: "What do I want/need more... pretty colours, graphics, animation, sound and music... or do I really need/want a functional operating system/software package?"

I used Office 2003 (shudder) and OpenOffice.org 2.0 for a long time... and I soon realised that OpenOffice.org was faster and more functional. Office 2003 (shudder) CD's make cool frizbees...

In open source, I have noticed that guys would rather spend their time making their software work better than spend their time making their software look better.

I used to have a Ford Escort 1982 Hatch Back. Another friend had a very similar car to mine... but his looked better... fancy spray job, tinted windows, bling bling mag wheels, spoilers, etc... mine however had a fully customized engine with ground down cam shaft, teflon coated pistons, valves and combustion chamber, custom made aluminium radiator, custom built Weber carborator, custom made exhaust, blah blah... my point, where my friends car looked good... I had a top speed of 217 KM per hour... him, 130 and some change. We had similar budgets, and did all the work ourselves... it was only what we worked on that was different.

[commodore]

But your car wastes more fuel and ruins the nature :(

[Vinze]

Shuttleworth has enough money to be a world-class playboy, but every penny he can lay hands on is chicken feed compared to what it would take to build a complete operating system that would displace Microsoft Windows.

Windows and third-party software for it have consumed (and no doubt squandered) breathtaking amounts of development and marketing money. I don't believe that there's any truly accurate way of determining a comprehensive figure, but published "experts" I've read say the total costs to the present have been in the trillions -- with a "T."

Contrast that with the proud announcement on the Debian site a while back that they had received a development grant or award for $3,000. The software startups I was around in the '90s spent more than that on a single executive office chair.

It's just sad. :(
Sure, I didn't say the open source community had as much financial resources available as Microsoft, but they do have enough. Limited budgets encourage innovation, look at the independent, non-Hollywood backedd movies: some are junk, but some very good ones happen to be among them. Same goes for Open Source products (and Linux).

Even if you could somehow manage through pure magic to come up with a Microsoft-beating desktop OS that had rock-stable applications and managed to get every peripheral manufacturer to have rock-solid drivers and frontends with perfect reliability and interoperability and have all this ready to go at the same time, and make it available for free, there would still be the huge job of getting people to try it or buy machines with it installed.

This wouldn't be easy or cheap, this promotion and marketing, and would take years.



Maybe. But at the end of the day, the problem is that Microsoft Windows, through fair means or foul, managed to achive market dominance when it mattered, and is now an established part of the world infrastructure.

Getting significant change is nearly like trying to get municipalities to change the wall voltage to their communities. "But, but...162VAC is scientifically better!" So what? Any change to a "better" non-standard system is going to be isolating and a major headache that will bear costs far more than it would theoretically save.

Realistically, I don't expect that Microsoft will be displaced as the (very) dominant desktop operating system within my lifetime. But you're probably younger than I am. ;-)

I don't know how old you are, but I hope to still have many years to come ;)
Anyway, I don't see Windows being replaced, but maybe in my lifetime the choice of Operating System really being a matter of choice for all people, even if they have not investigated whether alternatives are available.


Maybe, but I don't see OO displacing Office until MS is forced by fiat to become 100% interoperable with some open-source standards. Personally, I don't like OO nor do I find it to be as good as the Office programs I am more or less forced to use.

Sure, but when companies have paid loads of money to finance training their employees to work with Office, they may find the switch to OO.o cheaper than switching to the new Office.

[AllenGG]

"Anyway, I don't see Windows being replaced, but maybe in my lifetime the choice of Operating System really being a matter of choice for all people," and".Sure, but when companies have paid loads of money to finance training their employees to work with Office, they may find the switch to OO.o cheaper than switching to the new Office.[/quote]
Vinze, you're probably right. But many countries have downplayed the use of MS Windows. And O-O is sooo much easier to use and train staff with it.
Will Ubuntu compete with Vista ? the question is reversed IMHO, Ubuntu has become the dominant player in the open market (free vs $$)
And once again Vista's release date has been moved foward.

[Vinze]

"Anyway, I don't see Windows being replaced, but maybe in my lifetime the choice of Operating System really being a matter of choice for all people," and".Sure, but when companies have paid loads of money to finance training their employees to work with Office, they may find the switch to OO.o cheaper than switching to the new Office.
Vinze, you're probably right. But many countries have downplayed the use of MS Windows. And O-O is sooo much easier to use and train staff with it.
Will Ubuntu compete with Vista ? the question is reversed IMHO, Ubuntu has become the dominant player in the open market (free vs $$)
And once again Vista's release date has been moved foward.

The problem is that being the dominant player isn't a matter of humble opinions but of having the most users, which currently isn't the case, even though it should be, in my humble opinion.

[msandersen]

"Anyway, I don't see Windows being replaced, but maybe in my lifetime the choice of Operating System really being a matter of choice for all people," and".Sure, but when companies have paid loads of money to finance training their employees to work with Office, they may find the switch to OO.o cheaper than switching to the new Office."

Vinze, you're probably right. But many countries have downplayed the use of MS Windows. And O-O is sooo much easier to use and train staff with it.
Will Ubuntu compete with Vista ? the question is reversed IMHO, Ubuntu has become the dominant player in the open market (free vs $$)
And once again Vista's release date has been moved foward.
Aah, the naivity... Will Vista compete with Ubuntu :D I guess Microsoft might as well throw in the towel, then.
Linux, and Ubuntu specifically, is not a significant threat to Microsoft's Desktop dominance, not even a little bit. Linux has quite a way to go to match even XP in usability, I'm sorry to say. Yeah, I can hear you whince, but there you go, it's true. I'm not even going to go into the multitude of problems Linux has as a General Desktop alternative (ie non-geek). As long as users need to know what a "terminal" is, forget it. The Unix file structure is archaic and inappropriate for a GUI-based Desktop environment.
I haven't tried SuSE, but it will be some time before I could recommend Linux to my non-techie friends. I can see it on corporate desktops of medium-to-large corporations where they have tech support, if it wasn't for all the proprietary capture which has kept people stuck with no other alternative for so long. A Microsoft memo that came out in the antitrust trials admitted as much. That's not going away. Business has too much money invested in complex proprietary systems and software that actually work.
There's the politics alone, the fact that all OEMs are dependent on bulk discounted versions of Windows. Microsoft has made it clear they won't tolerate Linux, and so no major OEM like Dell will dare rock the boat too much, though they quietly wish they could. Linux as a Desktop alternative won't get traction until it is preinstalled on a significant number of machines, and people are actually aware of Linux and willing to buy them despite no Windows. I believe OpenOffice will be a significant lynchpin in that respect. It is NOT yet as good as Office, but it is getting there. Governments in particular have been waiting for something like ODF for a long time. Momentum is building. But not necessarily on Linux because of the significant cost of switching.
Thinking Vista will fail is merely wishful thinking. Without Aero it will run fine on a 1Ghz computer with a modest graphics card and 512Mb RAM. The new generation of integrated Intel graphics are perfectly able to run Aero. It will be standard on all new PCs. Yes, like early versions of OSX, it probably won't be as responsive as it could be, but subsequent service packs will fix that.
XGL does look sexy though, and I hope it will be stable enough for standard inclusion by next year, and that they come to terms with Red Hat on common APIs so we don't get another KDE/Gnome split. NVidia and ATI won't officially support it until they standardise. Who knows, maybe KDE4 will be stunning, but they would need a significant overhaul before I'd care to use it. Here's hoping Gnome3 takes it to KDE in the polish department etc.

"This is the year of the Linux Desktop... Well, this year for sure!... Well, maybe this year..." :p

[Vinze]

I don't really think Linux users need to know what a Terminal is. They can do fine without. The main problem I think is reputation and tradition.
Reputation because, if they try it, or see someone else use it, and witness a problem which is not easily solved (and might involve copying and pasting some commands in that thing called Terminal) they immediately label it as being typically for Linux, while Windows has it's own problems that aren't solved that easily. Linux just has more problems on the hardware side, but on other areas Linux does significantly better.
Tradition because most Manuals, Guides and whatnot about Linux involve using the command-line, even though it's possible in the GUI. How many times have I seen people saying to apt-get something while you can also use Synaptic. And will people ever say "Double-click that .deb and it'll open gdebi"? No, they'll keep saying use sudo dpkg -i. (allright some'll do ;)
Really, command-line is unnecessary.

[aysiu]

In Ubuntu, the command-line becomes necessary for certain tasks. I'd say it's completely unnecessary in Mepis and Linspire. Of course, some people think that if Ubuntu suffers from command-line dependency then all distros do... and also some people think just because a command-line solution is recommended that that's the only solution.

[Vinze]

In Ubuntu, the command-line becomes necessary for certain tasks. I'd say it's completely unnecessary in Mepis and Linspire. Of course, some people think that if Ubuntu suffers from command-line dependency then all distros do... and also some people think just because a command-line solution is recommended that that's the only solution.
Really? The command-line has never been necessary for me for normal tasks, only when there's some error so it cannot be done the normal way (e.g. no Linux driver available).

[aysiu]

Really? The command-line has never been necessary for me for normal tasks, only when there's some error so it cannot be done the normal way (e.g. no Linux driver available).
I guess it depends on what you consider a "normal" task. Yes, for the typical end-user normal tasks are almost done with point and click, but the reality is that most people who use Ubuntu also installed and configured it and tend to have more than "normal" needs (like enabling extra extra repositories--not just the ones you can check off in Synaptic--like reinstalling Grub, like mounting Windows partitions with the appropriate read/write permissions).

[Vinze]

I guess it depends on what you consider a "normal" task. Yes, for the typical end-user normal tasks are almost done with point and click, but the reality is that most people who use Ubuntu also installed and configured it and tend to have more than "normal" needs (like enabling extra extra repositories--not just the ones you can check off in Synaptic--like reinstalling Grub, like mounting Windows partitions with the appropriate read/write permissions).

Well, I guess Ubuntu modified Synaptic so that you can't add extra repositories, but I don't know if Xubuntu includes update-notifier now, but before when I did not have it installed, I could just add extra repositories. I also have a Windows hard disk.

[Bezmotivnik]

the reality is that most people who use Ubuntu also installed and configured it and tend to have more than "normal" needs (like enabling extra extra repositories--not just the ones you can check off in Synaptic--like reinstalling Grub, like mounting Windows partitions with the appropriate read/write permissions).
I doubt that you can get a general-purpose Ubuntu (or any other Linux) desktop really configured and functioning without using command line at some point. It doesn't really matter -- I use command line in XP all the time for stuff, simply because I don't know an easier way. Typing long command lines is my idea of hell. I always have to try about four times before I get it right. :oops:

Linux command line is easier for me to use, though, with that nice ease of cut & paste.

[aysiu]

No, you can add extra repositories in Synaptic, just not all the extra, extra ones. I think you can add Universe and Multiverse, but a lot of power users here like to add a few others as well, including the PLF ones. You don't technically need the command-line, but you do need to at least type
gksudo nautilus to edit the configuration file without using the terminal.

[aysiu]

I doubt that you can get a general-purpose Ubuntu (or any other Linux) desktop really configured and functioning without using command line at some point. You don't need the command-line to set up Mepis or Linspire, trust me.

[Vinze]

I doubt that you can get a general-purpose Ubuntu (or any other Linux) desktop really configured and functioning without using command line at some point.

I guess I'm one of the rare cases then. Though I don't have internet access, but that's because my adapter does not support WPA (it should for Windows, but even there it doesn't). Otherwise, I had no problems that would make my computer unusable or prevented me from using some default functionality. The only time I can think of now I'd really need the command line is for changing my Usplash but I think I might make an interface for that ;)


No, you can add extra repositories in Synaptic, just not all the extra, extra ones. I think you can add Universe and Multiverse, but a lot of power users here like to add a few others as well, including the PLF ones. You don't technically need the command-line, but you do need to at least type
gksudo nautilus to edit the configuration file without using the terminal.

I know, but I could just enter the URLs, check if it was a source or binary and add the name that's it.

[Bezmotivnik]

You don't need the command-line to set up Mepis or Linspire, trust me.
I can't imagine getting, say, a wireless device set up and running properly in any Linux without going into terminal or a config editor at some point. Likewise A/V, which I've never really sorted out in Linux (not that I ever got wireless sorted out either).

My one brief, terrible experience with the late and very unlamented Linspire was that there was almost nothing in the basic installation to begin with, so of course I never got into command line to configure it. What I'm getting at is that if there's a limited function set to begin with, you probably won't be going into terminal much.

[Vinze]

I can't imagine getting, say, a wireless device set up and running properly in any Linux without going into terminal or a config editor at some point. Likewise A/V, which I've never really sorted out in Linux (not that I ever got wireless sorted out either).

Not all wireless brings up problems. My device does support WEP and that worked without going into the terminal.

Plus, the NetworkManager app does some great things too, if you're not always at the same spot.

[Bezmotivnik]

Not all wireless brings up problems. My device does support WEP and that worked without going into the terminal.

Plus, the NetworkManager app does some great things too, if you're not always at the same spot.
Not to let this go too tangentially, but the choice of WEP or open AP (not that much difference) is not what I call wireless support in 2006, and it's really unfortunate that Network Manager is still a full two generations behind in wireless security. Maybe the GTK wireless frontend thing will address all this as promised. We'll see. [fingers crossed]

To get the proper features of a current, Linux-supported wireless device working now, you do have to get into some manual configuration editing, and I don't know of any distro where this is not the case. Certainly not Linspire.

[Vinze]

Not to let this go too tangentially, but the choice of WEP or open AP (not that much difference) is not what I call wireless support in 2006, and it's really unfortunate that Network Manager is still a full two generations behind in wireless security. Maybe the GTK wireless frontend thing will address all this as promised. We'll see. [fingers crossed]

To get the proper features of a current, Linux-supported wireless device working now, you do have to get into some manual configuration editing, and I don't know of any distro where this is not the case. Certainly not Linspire.

NetworkManager does support WPA, the hardware is the problem. I'm saying that there still was no need for me to go into the command-line (OK to get into my neighbour's WEP network I had to, but that's another story).

[frrobert]

I think the key for Ubuntu to compete with Vista is to show Ubuntu as a viable ugrade path from Win 98/ME. Yes, many people are still using it. My wife's computer is a a Micron machine made in 2000 that came loaded with ME. Since 98 & ME is no longer supported many people are looking to upgrade, my wife included.

Ubuntu provides a nice upgrade for her without the hardware investment. Her old machine with Ubuntu runs as fast as my XP machine even though I have twice the memory and a faster procesor.

Why upgrade your hardware if you can just upgrade your OS?

[aysiu]

I think the key for Ubuntu to compete with Vista is to show Ubuntu as a viable ugrade path from Win 98/ME. Xandros is trying (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Jul/gee20060731037713.htm).

[Gannin]

I got my wireless device to work by plugging it in. That's all it took.

You can add repositories by going to Synaptic > Settings > Repositories > Add. No command line needed.

[und3rtug4]

Something has been bugging me since I have switched to Ubuntu several months ago. Don't get me wrong I LOVE Linux, and Ubuntu is the best distribution I have used (3), but the upcoming Windows Vista release seems to be Microsoft's big reteliation on the opposing free software threat, attempting to make every possible improvement that Linux does on Windows and more. How will the open-source community react, and will this be the end of the time when Linux is simply been better?

Internet Explorer and Firefox has been one of my concerns. IE7 provides tabbed browsing, an RSS reader and claimed %50 better security over IE6, in addition to a overall much more pleasing interface. Will Firefox maintain it's position as a viable competitor?

Vista's new widget API, Aero, which draws glossy trasparencies, blurs and shadows that I am yet to see in a fully stable and supported OpenGL window manager. Will XGL, and hence GNOME and hence Ubuntu feature such good looking graphics-accellerated features by default before Vista officially takes the cake?

What about all the other software improvements, like Office 2007 and Windows Media Player? Will OpenOffice.org and Totem/Rythmbox and the rest of Ubuntu's software be able to keep up?

These are just some things that have been on my mind while reading about Microsoft's new software. I would really like to hear what other people have heard and their opinions!

And remember this is not your average Linux vs Windows thread, this is about Ubuntu, Vista and where you see Ubuntu and it's software being at the time of Vista's release.


That can't (in my point of view) be compared! Vista stills "crappy" proprietary software, and the major changes are in the way it looks and some more few option and apps that dont make the diference that they should after so many time of development!

Ubuntu will always be free software, and its growing every day! In all these years watching all those linux distros come up, Ubuntu is the most well organized, supported, and with the quickest development i ever have seen! It's growing every day, creating a enormous comunity of open minded computer users. I wonder if it is not the most active open-source nowadays (dont include the linux kernel project, thats huge ;) ).

Back to the vista subject...

... Windows Vista will bring a lot off "pain in the ***" to its users, since, (again, in my point of view), its developed to secure the microsoft interests and some "monopolist corps and orgs" that they are getting along with. The security was a major milestone on teh vista development, but the main security changes aim the security of Microsoft, not the Vista users and their privacy!

Theres a pretty good and funny article on distrowatch.com, written by Robert Storey, that covers the "Vista subject".

Link to article: Windows Hasta La Vista - Ironclad Security (http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=review-winvista)

:mrgreen: Props to all

[deizel]

vista @ too bloated (and buggy atm).

i installed the 64bit b2 version, which crashed after installing, and left me with a copy of windows that i could not log into, as it never created the user accounts i typed in. (not to mention it completely destroyed my proper os which was on _another hdd_!)

second attempt, it didn't crash? anyway i got logged in and everything had memory leaks tbh, or maybe it was just that aero glass effect.

no wait, classic mode tells me its just buggy. open windows media player and ie7 then prepare to wait upwards of 30seconds to get into my computer. and thats not to mention the beloved "file indexer" (search ur pc liek google wow) which i turned off.

you can see they have attempted to copy *nix when it comes to security as it doesn't let you be an admin without your password when you are.

"you are going on the internet. the internet isnt safe. are you sure you want to go on the internet?" "you are changing your wallpaper. are you sure you would like to change your wallpaper? please type your password"

*SIGH* its hardly secure if the first think you do is turn the service off.

i went into the hardware manager. well, i went to go into the hardware manager, and was faced with a xp style "here's a n00b" screen. it had a button to "rate" your hardware. bring it on i thought...

i got an average score of 3/10, out of 5 tests or so (over standard stuff like video, cpu, etc)

so yeh, basically, point of my post is that, i reckon the recommended spec for vista with all its eyecandy is targetted at computers that aren't even out yet.

oh yeh, my hardware...
athlon fx-55 cpu @ 2.61ghz notoc
4gb ocz paired dualchannel ram CL2.5etcetc
nvidia geforece 7800gtx xxx (extreme edition) 256mb gpu oc@550mhz
soundblaster audigy 4 zsthingy
> 450gb over 3 sata2 disks....

3/10, k.

linux anyday.

</rant>

[bsalt]

Exactly... I would doubt that Vista is incorporated in the next 6 or 7 years into the busines side. I work in retail, and we use WinXP... and it locks up profusely - usually once a day on some machine. So why upgrade to another OS by a company who can't put out good software that won't crash? I'd say just stick with WinXP - as all businesses probably will do, due to costs in required hardware to upgrade to Vista in the long haul. Vista is power-hungry - which would not go well for the portable world (I speak for one person in that world with my lappy). More and more people wanna be able to take their computer wherever they go with them. Vista will have a hard time getting started with that for a while. Why can't Windows just try to be Windows without copying another OS as well? (I recently heard that Bill Gates even owns a Powerbook G5 or somethingorother) Windows is already behind Mac... so why try to win the losing race as far as enhancements go?

And as far as the people saying that Linux will not make it big... I think Microsoft - specifically Windows - is on it's downhill stretch now. Gates is retiring I hear... or something like that... and Vista just doesn't make the slice of cake (let alone the icing)... I am currently 19... and almost all my friends look at Mac as the next leader in PC's. (They all either want a Mac and currently have a PC, or want a better Mac, or enjoy bashing Windows talking about their Mac.) I'm not a huge Mac fan, myself... but I do like software that works. And I think OSX works far better than any other OS on the market as of yet. If/When Mac wins the top tier over Microsoft, Linux will then be able to follow suit following Mac-daddy as the good alternative to Personal or Corporate Computing.


Edit: When I say Linux, I mean Ubuntu. (didn't see that rule)

[Vinze]

I think the key for Ubuntu to compete with Vista is to show Ubuntu as a viable ugrade path from Win 98/ME. Yes, many people are still using it. My wife's computer is a a Micron machine made in 2000 that came loaded with ME. Since 98 & ME is no longer supported many people are looking to upgrade, my wife included.

Ubuntu provides a nice upgrade for her without the hardware investment. Her old machine with Ubuntu runs as fast as my XP machine even though I have twice the memory and a faster procesor.

Why upgrade your hardware if you can just upgrade your OS?

Maybe because you don't know better?




Exactly... I would doubt that Vista is incorporated in the next 6 or 7 years into the busines side. I work in retail, and we use WinXP... and it locks up profusely - usually once a day on some machine. So why upgrade to another OS by a company who can't put out good software that won't crash? I'd say just stick with WinXP - as all businesses probably will do, due to costs in required hardware to upgrade to Vista in the long haul. Vista is power-hungry - which would not go well for the portable world (I speak for one person in that world with my lappy). More and more people wanna be able to take their computer wherever they go with them. Vista will have a hard time getting started with that for a while. Why can't Windows just try to be Windows without copying another OS as well? (I recently heard that Bill Gates even owns a Powerbook G5 or somethingorother) Windows is already behind Mac... so why try to win the losing race as far as enhancements go?

And as far as the people saying that Linux will not make it big... I think Microsoft - specifically Windows - is on it's downhill stretch now. Gates is retiring I hear... or something like that... and Vista just doesn't make the slice of cake (let alone the icing)... I am currently 19... and almost all my friends look at Mac as the next leader in PC's. (They all either want a Mac and currently have a PC, or want a better Mac, or enjoy bashing Windows talking about their Mac.) I'm not a huge Mac fan, myself... but I do like software that works. And I think OSX works far better than any other OS on the market as of yet. If/When Mac wins the top tier over Microsoft, Linux will then be able to follow suit following Mac-daddy as the good alternative to Personal or Corporate Computing.


Edit: When I say Linux, I mean Ubuntu. (didn't see that rule)

I don't know. I often make the mistake that how everything goes around me is how it goes throughout the world. Now I know that's not the case, but that also means that not everyone is looking at the Mac, let alone knowing that it exists! People are influenced by their environment. Really. The PS2 was the most popular console in its generation, but all my friends were really into the Xbox. I have nothing with consoles anyway, so from my viewpoint I could just see the PS2 was better for me (if I'd want a console) because it looked better, had better games. But if I'd be into consoles, I'd probably like the Xbox better just because I can talk with my friends about it (now I always just hang aside :(). Same goes for the next generation: I like the capabilities and the looks of the PS3 more, but no, they just switch to the 360.
Same for OS's -- thanks to me, my friends know what Linux is, but they don't know what it's like let alone switching!

[seshomaru samma]

It's quite likely that Ubuntu will not compete with Vista . If Vista is not successful , I believe most people will stay with XP.
As much as I love Linux , I think XP is much better for those who are totally not interested in computers . The main reason is that everybody uses it so if something goes wrong they can ask someone. I know I’m being asked to fix Windows stuff by friends constantly .To many people looking for a solution on an internet forum seems difficult and a big hassle.
Now ,some of my colleagues showed an interest in Linux after I installed XGL on a PC at work. They loved the fact that it’s free and I showed them how it can do everything – internet ,word processing , IM etc…
They, however, showed no interest in learning how to install it, tweak it or maintain it. They just wanted me to do everything for them. They were also disappointed that you can't run MSN on it and send silly flash animations on it. One of them is a hardcore leftist who always complains about how evil corporations exploit the masses. She was even shocked at my suggestion of switching from hotmail to gmail- it seemed too technical for her...

If we can convince more hardware manufacturer to support Linux, get more software ,games and perhaps an easier method to install programmes (yes, easier than synaptic) we might see “the year of Linux” but it wouldn’t mean mass conversion to Linux ,rather an increase of Linux’s desktop share to 5% or something.

[Vinze]

It's quite likely that Ubuntu will not compete with Vista . If Vista is not successful , I believe most people will stay with XP.
As much as I love Linux , I think XP is much better for those who are totally not interested in computers . The main reason is that everybody uses it so if something goes wrong they can ask someone. I know I’m being asked to fix Windows stuff by friends constantly .To many people looking for a solution on an internet forum seems difficult and a big hassle.
Wait... You're saying you can easier ask other people for support for Windows than for Linux? I have to strongly disagree with that. Windows has no active community also consisting of developers. And there's not always someone around that knows a lot about Windows. In my class, there happen to be two people that can handle computers better than average, one of which is mine. Now, I can't help them with Windows as I don't use it as an admin. The other guy also uses Linux but does know some things about Windows as he maintains the PC of his parents too. Still, it could just be that he did not know a lot of Windows, who then would they have to go to?

Now ,some of my colleagues showed an interest in Linux after I installed XGL on a PC at work. They loved the fact that it’s free and I showed them how it can do everything – internet ,word processing , IM etc…
They, however, showed no interest in learning how to install it, tweak it or maintain it. They just wanted me to do everything for them. They were also disappointed that you can't run MSN on it and send silly flash animations on it. One of them is a hardcore leftist who always complains about how evil corporations exploit the masses. She was even shocked at my suggestion of switching from hotmail to gmail- it seemed too technical for her...


I totally know what you mean here, it's too bad, but true.


If we can convince more hardware manufacturer to support Linux, get more software ,games and perhaps an easier method to install programmes (yes, easier than synaptic) we might see “the year of Linux” but it wouldn’t mean mass conversion to Linux ,rather an increase of Linux’s desktop share to 5% or something.

But what could be improved on Synaptic? Maybe a review for every piece of software like Linspire's CnR? You can say anything you want, but I think Synaptic is way easier that downloading .exe's, installing, and having to check for updates for each program separately on a regular basis.

[msandersen]

...perhaps an easier method to install programmes (yes, easier than synaptic)...
Very true. Two methods come to mind: The Windows way, and the Mac way.
For the Windows way, look at PC-BSD's PBI packages (http://www.pcbsd.com/?p=learnpbi), loosely based on the typical Windows Wizard installer.
You download a PBI, say from Download.com, a company website, or a central repository, just as you would a Windows .exe installer, and double-click it. A Wizard steps you through any needed questions, if any, and allow the user to agree to any license necessary (including the GPL). This may be important for commercial support (though strictly against Stallman's vision of Free software). Similarly, there's an equivalent to Windows' Remove Software window, one-click uninstallation including config files etc.

For the Mac way, think Drag-and-Drop. Think GnuStep App Folders, based on OSX's applications. You drag the app package to an Applications folder, preferably called that (definitely NOT "bin"; "opt" isn't human friendly enough either). Optionally, the package may contain an installer which puts files where they need to be and install an appropriate Menu entry. Either way, all dependencies are in one package.
Further, if Gnome were to incorporate the GnuStep framework, we could have the advantage that Mac apps would be easy to port, usually as easy as a recompile, since they maintain compatibility to the OSX API.

[Vinze]

Very true. Two methods come to mind: The Windows way, and the Mac way.
For the Windows way, look at PC-BSD's PBI packages (http://www.pcbsd.com/?p=learnpbi), loosely based on the typical Windows Wizard installer.
You download a PBI, say from Download.com, a company website, or a central repository, just as you would a Windows .exe installer, and double-click it. A Wizard steps you through any needed questions, if any, and allow the user to agree to any license necessary (including the GPL). This may be important for commercial support (though strictly against Stallman's vision of Free software). Similarly, there's an equivalent to Windows' Remove Software window, one-click uninstallation including config files etc.

For the Mac way, think Drag-and-Drop. Think GnuStep App Folders, based on OSX's applications. You drag the app package to an Applications folder, preferably called that (definitely NOT "bin"; "opt" isn't human friendly enough either). Optionally, the package may contain an installer which puts files where they need to be and install an appropriate Menu entry. Either way, all dependencies are in one package.
Further, if Gnome were to incorporate the GnuStep framework, we could have the advantage that Mac apps would be easy to port, usually as easy as a recompile, since they maintain compatibility to the OSX API.


As for the Windows way, Loki installers can do just that. As for the Mac, I have no experience with that nor do I have any idea what GnuStep is. Any explanation?

[bsalt]

It's quite likely that Ubuntu will not compete with Vista . If Vista is not successful , I believe most people will stay with XP.

Yeah, good point. Ubuntu might be on the top of the list at Distrowatch.com... and could be one of the top picks for Linux anywhere else as well... but we are an extreme minority in general Linux, let alone Ubuntu. If Vista is a flop, the users of it would switch back to XP... or never switch to Vista... I think the competition between Vista and Ubuntu will never be a physical competition where Microsoft breaks a sweat to beat Ubuntu - I wish - but it wouldn't happen. The competition is still alive with us though. Ubuntu wasn't founded, however on the spirit of being a rebel. It was created to be a community driven and freely distributed OS based on Linux.

And that alone, wins my vote over Windows anyday.

We are able to talk to the makers of Ubuntu on IRC if we wanted to, or even possibly on these forums from time to time. There are also people willing to help other people out in a friendly manner on these forums and others across the internet. Ubuntu, like everything that is in the computer world, could become outdated one day... but I hope the spirit doesn't die. The spirit itself wins the competition with Vista.

[Vinze]

Yeah, good point. Ubuntu might be on the top of the list at Distrowatch.com... and could be one of the top picks for Linux anywhere else as well... but we are an extreme minority in general Linux, let alone Ubuntu. If Vista is a flop, the users of it would switch back to XP... or never switch to Vista... I think the competition between Vista and Ubuntu will never be a physical competition where Microsoft breaks a sweat to beat Ubuntu - I wish - but it wouldn't happen. The competition is still alive with us though. Ubuntu wasn't founded, however on the spirit of being a rebel. It was created to be a community driven and freely distributed OS based on Linux.

And that alone, wins my vote over Windows anyday.

We are able to talk to the makers of Ubuntu on IRC if we wanted to, or even possibly on these forums from time to time. There are also people willing to help other people out in a friendly manner on these forums and others across the internet. Ubuntu, like everything that is in the computer world, could become outdated one day... but I hope the spirit doesn't die. The spirit itself wins the competition with Vista.

I agree. But this will prove more difficult for Microsoft than with previous Windows versions as they will now have to keep supporting a six year-old OS for a couple of years to go. Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me because I can benefit from the joy that Linux and open source in general brings, I'll try to convert others but for their benefit, it they remain stubborn it's their missed chance.

[x1alfa]

Hi, to all.

From the first computer i owned, i used dos then windows. I though that windows and dos is the only OS in the world. after that i noticed that there is something else, it's name is linux and there is more (Mac, Unix, .. etc). After reading box, i understand every thing. Unix is just like the grand father. windows and linux is the small boys.
Let me tell you the fact, linux is not a desktop system for every body. Windows was bulid to be easy, funny for all the ages. Linux was build to be stable.
For me windows is the perfect thing if i want to play games.
But any thing else, like surfing the internet or firewalls, web server, email server, etc. Linux is the only OS, that can handle these.

So, don't care if windows have a transpernt window, this windows will disapeare when a virus kill your windows box.

Sorry for my bad english, i just want to pass what i want to say.

[AllenGG]

Maybe we all haven't treated this question with the respect it deserves !
Sure, I said that "will VISTA compete with UBUNTU?" that the question was reversed. And that UBUNTU is the most popular distro, based on the "Distro-Watch" (http://distrowatch.com/) numbers, but we haven't addressed the question !!!
For our non-tech friends, associates etc, how do we put a package of UBUNTU programs together on one DVD that requires little user input ?
Yes, i know it's a seperate ??? Limit the choices !!!

[msandersen]

As for the Windows way, Loki installers can do just that. As for the Mac, I have no experience with that nor do I have any idea what GnuStep is. Any explanation?
The Loki installer does sound interesting, it doesn't have to be for games only. There's also AutoPackage. Don't know much about either, actually. Gdebi is fine as far as it goes, not sure if it could be extended to do everything a wizard installer does in an attractive manner. And of course it is Debian only and often debs are Distribution dependent, ie Debian packages may break Ubuntu, or incompatible with Xandros or Linspire. Maybe the Linux Standard Base will help the situation.
GnuStep is actually a cross-platform Development framework based on the NextStep operating system, started a few years before Apple bought it, waaay back in 1993. At one point their window manager Window Maker mas considered for the official Linux window manager, from what I've read. But they still haven't come up with a final product after all these years. They maintain API parity with OSX though, which make it interesting, in that OSX apps work on it after a recompile. They worked with Sun for a while before they made Java, as a way of making cross-platform applications. Like Java, you'd have the framework installed on your OS, and apps written for it would work on any platform.
But the point was that the system employs drag-and-drop a lot. App folders look just like an executable with the .app extension, but is actually an executable bundle of folders and files, which can be dragged to any location and run from there since it is self-contained. Gnome could be easily made to recognise app folders.

In any case, Linux needs some standard consistent way of installing 3rd party applications across all the different distros, which allows for customisation where applicable (say install directory or optional package selection like localisation files), approval of licences, display any messages the developer wants, and preferably being able to display images during the installation such as a game graphic or logo etc. It is not reasonable to assume that a distro's repositories has every 3rd party application available. Think how huge a Windows repository would be, and the downtime due to overload. Maybe there's a way for the installer to register a company repository for automatic updates, or apps have their own checking mechanism as many Windows apps do.
System files are another matter altogether, they would continue using the current local system, like apt-get or rpm, using official repositories. Even Microsoft and Apple has this for system updates.

[Blondie]

Shuttleworth has enough money to be a world-class playboy, but every penny he can lay hands on is chicken feed compared to what it would take to build a complete operating system that would displace Microsoft Windows.

Windows and third-party software for it have consumed (and no doubt squandered) breathtaking amounts of development and marketing money. I don't believe that there's any truly accurate way of determining a comprehensive figure, but published "experts" I've read say the total costs to the present have been in the trillions -- with a "T."

Contrast that with the proud announcement on the Debian site a while back that they had received a development grant or award for $3,000. The software startups I was around in the '90s spent more than that on a single executive office chair.

It's just sad. :(



Well this academic paper (http://people.debian.org/~jgb/debian-counting/counting-potatoes/) found that if you wanted to make Debian 2.2 (ie. the Debian released in August 2000) from scratch it would cost you $1.9 billion USD. Ubuntu Dapper would undoubtedly cost much more than that to make from scratch, considering the additional work that has been done both to Debian since then and to Ubuntu on top of that. That's a hell of a lot of voluntary developer man-hours. The fact that those dollars were never in the form of actual cash does not mean that the value isn't there.

Of course building a better operating system cannot just be measured by how much money was thrown at the task.

[wgaprotest]

You might gather from my user name that I'm finally trying to install linux on my Vista-capable machine as an alternative to windows after the whole WGA Notify hell Microshaft is putting so many XP users through now, and is promising to made mandatory for licensed, legit users this fall. It will certainly incorporate the WGA Notify into Vista, too. So you could say Linux is already competing very well with Vista on the security front, as I'm a prime example of what's in store.

In case you non-win users don't know what the WGA Notify hell is, back in April they made some changes to the XP Windows Genuine Advantage Validation tool, pushed it out to all users as a "critical update" and incorporated the WGA Notify as a second program into the tool - without disclosing what it actually does. It spawned one class-action lawsuit that states that WGA Notify is spyware similar to the Sony rootkit disaster because it was phoning hme to MS servers every day, giving them information about your setup, including the HD serial number. The suit has some real merit, as even some of the biggest MS journalists admit.

The day after the lawsuit was filed, they changed the WGAV tool, incorporating a new EULA that "clarifies" what you're allowed to do (in effect changing the terms of the contract), made it phone home only every 14 days, and downgraded it from a 'critical update' to a 'high priority' one.

Besides the phoning home and surreptitious way they pushed it, a BIG problem is the amount of false positives the beta and it's June 28th release have: a full 20%. Even the US Department of Defence was effectively called a pirate, users of new and year-old PC's are being locked out of their PC's through a non-operational OS, and even though my PC was re-validated after being forced to go through the whole WPA process last Sunday, what MS reps are telling us is very disturbing.

I and others have been reportedly told that, every single time we install a new 3rd party application or shareware, we could be forced to go through the whole WPA process, proving to MS that we're not pirates. (I woke up to a message that said my hardware had changed significantly, and it had not changed one iota in 3 months since my last reinstall when I had validated it). MS feel they have the right to monitor everything we do with our PC's.

You cannot remove this WGAV tool that was released June 28th the regular way, I was even told by MS it would be illegal to remove it, but I did anyway, and never again will I use automatic updates if MS is going to lie to me, change our contract on the fly, spy on me, call me and millions of other users/builders a pirate, try to extort more $ from me, and try to shut me out of my property if I don't submit to their suspicious interrogations. A seocnd lawsuit has now been filed, too.

If you want more info, you can check out Groklaw, Ed Bott's ZDnet blog, Ed Foster's blog, Lauren Weinstein's blog, and even Alex Kochis' own MSDN blog written precisely to 'calm the fears and get their side out. Alex is a senior product manager for the WGAV tool, and while he alone from MS is saying it won't be used as a 'kill switch', making it mandatory in September (you're apparently going to be given 30 days to enable the WGA Notify or else the OS doesn't allow you to access Windows at all anymore; I got only 3 days) I don't see any difference between an inoperable OS/PC and a kill-switch.

Nor do I feel that MS has any right, whatsoever, to hide behind the rhetoric of piracy and claim it is a way to combat their 'victimization from pirates' as a way to force us to accept their monitoring of us.

Finally, there is no way in hell I'll accept Alex Kochis' claim that licensed, genuine legal copies of any OS can fail the validation process months and years after it's purchased "as it *should* " (my sarcastic emphasis) because it's the licensed legal user has been victimized by the theft, and we should bear the price of a further theft of our time and $ to make it genuine again -- only this time from Microshaft. They just want to surreptitiously get us all used to paying rental fees of the software at $150-$200 + at random.

To put it mildly,

I'm still rip-roaring mad.

[velorz]

until they fix the idiocy of the permissions (ie: never having root access) ubuntu will continue to suck.

[aysiu]

until they fix the idiocy of the permissions (ie: never having root access) ubuntu will continue to suck.
You must not like Mac OS X, either, then.

[djsroknrol]

You might gather from my user name that I'm finally trying to install linux on my Vista-capable machine as an alternative to windows after the whole WGA Notify hell Microshaft is putting so many XP users through now, and is promising to made mandatory for licensed, legit users this fall. It will certainly incorporate the WGA Notify into Vista, too. So you could say Linux is already competing very well with Vista on the security front, as I'm a prime example of what's in store.

In case you non-win users don't know what the WGA Notify hell is, back in April they made some changes to the XP Windows Genuine Advantage Validation tool, pushed it out to all users as a "critical update" and incorporated the WGA Notify as a second program into the tool - without disclosing what it actually does. It spawned one class-action lawsuit that states that WGA Notify is spyware similar to the Sony rootkit disaster because it was phoning hme to MS servers every day, giving them information about your setup, including the HD serial number. The suit has some real merit, as even some of the biggest MS journalists admit.

The day after the lawsuit was filed, they changed the WGAV tool, incorporating a new EULA that "clarifies" what you're allowed to do (in effect changing the terms of the contract), made it phone home only every 14 days, and downgraded it from a 'critical update' to a 'high priority' one.

Besides the phoning home and surreptitious way they pushed it, a BIG problem is the amount of false positives the beta and it's June 28th release have: a full 20%. Even the US Department of Defence was effectively called a pirate, users of new and year-old PC's are being locked out of their PC's through a non-operational OS, and even though my PC was re-validated after being forced to go through the whole WPA process last Sunday, what MS reps are telling us is very disturbing.

I and others have been reportedly told that, every single time we install a new 3rd party application or shareware, we could be forced to go through the whole WPA process, proving to MS that we're not pirates. (I woke up to a message that said my hardware had changed significantly, and it had not changed one iota in 3 months since my last reinstall when I had validated it). MS feel they have the right to monitor everything we do with our PC's.

You cannot remove this WGAV tool that was released June 28th the regular way, I was even told by MS it would be illegal to remove it, but I did anyway, and never again will I use automatic updates if MS is going to lie to me, change our contract on the fly, spy on me, call me and millions of other users/builders a pirate, try to extort more $ from me, and try to shut me out of my property if I don't submit to their suspicious interrogations. A seocnd lawsuit has now been filed, too.

If you want more info, you can check out Groklaw, Ed Bott's ZDnet blog, Ed Foster's blog, Lauren Weinstein's blog, and even Alex Kochis' own MSDN blog written precisely to 'calm the fears and get their side out. Alex is a senior product manager for the WGAV tool, and while he alone from MS is saying it won't be used as a 'kill switch', making it mandatory in September (you're apparently going to be given 30 days to enable the WGA Notify or else the OS doesn't allow you to access Windows at all anymore; I got only 3 days) I don't see any difference between an inoperable OS/PC and a kill-switch.

Nor do I feel that MS has any right, whatsoever, to hide behind the rhetoric of piracy and claim it is a way to combat their 'victimization from pirates' as a way to force us to accept their monitoring of us.

Finally, there is no way in hell I'll accept Alex Kochis' claim that licensed, genuine legal copies of any OS can fail the validation process months and years after it's purchased "as it *should* " (my sarcastic emphasis) because it's the licensed legal user has been victimized by the theft, and we should bear the price of a further theft of our time and $ to make it genuine again -- only this time from Microshaft. They just want to surreptitiously get us all used to paying rental fees of the software at $150-$200 + at random.

To put it mildly,

I'm still rip-roaring mad.

I couldn't agree with you more wgaprotest..that's why I'm not buying any more MS products for my home use, and I don't even recommend them to anyone anymore..For quite some time now, I've believed that Billy sold us out to the DOJ, and they've got a backdoor to any MS OS since Win98. It is a documented fact that one was found in 98 already..I'm not an alarmist or extremist by any means, but I don't think that a MS OS is safe anymore, no matter how much protection is applied to it.

Any yes, an OS is only as safe as the user, but I also believe that when the time is right, things like WGA will get under a few more people's skins.

[Blondie]

Besides the phoning home and surreptitious way they pushed it, a BIG problem is the amount of false positives the beta and it's June 28th release have: a full 20%. Even the US Department of Defence was effectively called a pirate, users of new and year-old PC's are being locked out of their PC's through a non-operational OS, and even though my PC was re-validated after being forced to go through the whole WPA process last Sunday, what MS reps are telling us is very disturbing.

The famous game designer American McGee (Doom, Quake, Alice) says (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=227299) that he's switched to Ubuntu for the same reason. He was a false positive (http://www.americanmcgee.com/wordpress/?p=171) for WGA.

[BuffaloX]

MS feel they have the right to monitor everything we do with our PC's.

You cannot remove this WGAV tool that was released June 28th the regular way, I was even told by MS it would be illegal to remove it,

Nor do I feel that MS has any right, whatsoever, to hide behind the rhetoric of piracy and claim it is a way to combat their 'victimization from pirates' as a way to force us to accept their monitoring of us.

To put it mildly,

I'm still rip-roaring mad.


EXACTLY..
I agree on EVERY count.
My question is, why are there not more people who are mad about this?
XP is born with spyware, it's born defect by design. (It can suddenly stop working, because Microsofts feels like it).
Microsoft performs illegal actions, but are pointing fingers at everybody else.
BUT if Microsoft persists with this kind of behaviour, it may make more people consider Linux.

[scotty32]

TBH i havent read all of this, but it seems silly to have this debate on a linux forum, as wont everyone be pro linux?

same as if it was on a windows forum, everyone would be pro windows.


i my self, am trying to convert to ubuntu (stilly trying to decide between ubuntu and kubuntu), but am having problems syncin my WinCE PDA with kontact or evolution, and am also having huge problems setting up my DVB TV Card, any tutorial i try i fail with.

i concider my self very good with a windows PC, am able to do anything i want to do, but with linux, am a complete beginner, and it was hard getting out of the "windows" mindframe, but if am a beginner, how are the "average people" on the street going to feel trying to use linux?
i get the impression linux is used mostly by people who've grown upwith it and know it extremely well, so it seems they'd rather not have all the "easy" way of doing things and having it treat them like an idiot, like windows would, but for the avarage user - you'd need that "treated like an idiot" because, you are.

once ubuntu is setup, the average user would be able to use it to check emails or surf the web, but i doubt they'd manage updates or installing new software.

so i think if the linux community want to take over windows, they need to simplify it alot more for the average user, once it gets to a level they can use it, it will start to take alot more ground i think.


back to the orignal "ubuntu vs vista", once i crack PDA and TV, and the other stuff i need from windows, i'll be deleting my windows partition in a shot, i dont even want to try vista, yeah it "looks" good but, i dont wanna go there.

[Gannin]

As for root permissions, there are special options during the installation process that allow you to set up a traditional root and user account. Even with sudo, you can always do "sudo bash" or change the password on the root account and start using it as you normally would.

As for installers, Loki Installer, BitRock, and a few others, already do most of, if not everything, that was already mentioned, and have been around for a while.

And finally, as far as updating and installing software goes:

System > Administration > Update Manager

But usually, you don't even need to do that. Checking for updates is enabled by default when you install Ubuntu, and you only need to do the above if you've disabled the automatic checking.

Applications > Add/Remove

That's all it takes to install, and remove, new software.

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by scotty32
TBH i havent read all of this, but it seems silly to have this debate on a linux forum, as wont everyone be pro linux?

same as if it was on a windows forum, everyone would be pro windows.


i my self, am trying to convert to ubuntu (stilly trying to decide between ubuntu and kubuntu), but am having problems syncin my WinCE PDA with kontact or evolution, and am also having huge problems setting up my DVB TV Card, any tutorial i try i fail with.

i concider my self very good with a windows PC, am able to do anything i want to do, but with linux, am a complete beginner, and it was hard getting out of the "windows" mindframe, but if am a beginner, how are the "average people" on the street going to feel trying to use linux?
i get the impression linux is used mostly by people who've grown upwith it and know it extremely well, so it seems they'd rather not have all the "easy" way of doing things and having it treat them like an idiot, like windows would, but for the avarage user - you'd need that "treated like an idiot" because, you are.

once ubuntu is setup, the average user would be able to use it to check emails or surf the web, but i doubt they'd manage updates or installing new software.

so i think if the linux community want to take over windows, they need to simplify it alot more for the average user, once it gets to a level they can use it, it will start to take alot more ground i think.


back to the orignal "ubuntu vs vista", once i crack PDA and TV, and the other stuff i need from windows, i'll be deleting my windows partition in a shot, i dont even want to try vista, yeah it "looks" good but, i dont wanna go there.

Actually, alot of the people on these boards are pretty new to Ubuntu and Linux. If you're good with Windows, it probably means you grok computers, at least a little. If you're willing to put a little time into it, you can figure this stuff out.

As someone who switched pretty recently, the only advice I can give you is to read guides when you need help. The pyschocats guide to Ubuntu , written by a prolific poster named aysiu is very helpful. There's probably a bunch of others. The wiki and these boards are good.

So keep plugging away. The first time you do anything, like install programs or burn cds or watch a DVD it will probably take you a long time. And you'll probably get frustrated, knowing that you could do whatever in windows faster. I found it very frustrating when I ruined a bunch of CDs trying to get burning working. I actually had to burn something quickly, so I just switched to windows for that. Later I went back to it, and now CD burning is just tickety-boo.

One last thing: I would advise you to keep windows, in case you do need to get something done in a hurry. You'll find some Ubuntu users are to be more Windows-haters than Linux-lovers. Don't let this scare you away. Sometimes Windows is necessary for compability, like it or not.

Take care, and enjoy the free software.

PG

EDIT: Added fiber.

[Bragador]

Just wanted to answer since I'm new. So if you want a real opinion from a real n00b, please take the time to read.

I installed linux 2 days ago and I really wanted to try it for a while before deciding if it was for me. I have been a linux fan boy in the past... without actually having tried linux lol... Right now I am trying it without really wanting to try it so I'm pretty neutral.

I'll say this : I'm pleased with it and feel that it is much better than windows.

The only weekpoint linux has is not that it's not ready to compete with windows, it's only that it's not popular. Not only does almost nobody knows what linux is around here but the corporations don't back Linux. So the lack of popularity is what'd hurting linux in my opinion.

For example, imagine a world where windows was the underdog and linux was the dominant OS. The lack of support for windows would prohibit many people from trying it because things wouldn't "work out of the box".

Right now I like Linux since I only want my pc for music, the net and games. Since my laptop is weak I can't play games anyway so that's why I decided to try linux. I'm not risking to lose anything special.

My only fear ?
-> Compatibility with microsoft office.
This is my ONLY fear and this is why I keep my windows xp on a part of my computer just in case.

Fix the office suit compatibility (if there is any issues) and nobody will care about windows except hardcore gamers.

[UltraMathMan]

Iirc OpenOffice.org is fully compatible with MS Office formats (read/write) :)

[3rdalbum]

OOo isn't quite fully compatible. Equations, VBA, and some formatting issues are still a problem. But for simple/simplish documents it's fine. Also, OOo can't open Access databases.

Keep Windows on your hard drive for compatibility. Or, if for nothing else, keep it on there so you can easily pick up native DLLs for Wine :-D

It sounds like many of us have grown up with Linux, but it's not always true. I've only been using Linux for 7 months, and although I consider myself a new user, I think I've got a pretty good handle on how to do things and use all the technical terms.

[BlaineM]

It is my plan that after college, I will buy an apple laptop, and dual boot with linux. A thought occured to me, that the reason that I like to run Windows is because of the ease of use. Little configuring and installing of drivers and such... I would ultimately do away with the use of Windows all together, and am in the process of doing so by learning to use Linux and make the necessary changes that are needed.
As far as competition goes between the two OS (vista and ubuntu), there is none for me because of personal taste and preference. I like Ubuntu because its free and with a little trying, can do almost anything that I want to the level that I want. It is in the process of change because of people that want to see new features and uses. It is not driven by money. Some basic software restrictions as far as features and such with the open source software development that I have tried holds me back though, once again an issue with money.
Back to my preference... I like Ubuntu, and will continue to use it. But like I said, after college, I will buy an Apple and use it, getting rid of Windows. If I could afford to do that now, I would.
No competition for me.

[thsman]

Well I have been using Vista Beta 2 (5384) for about 6 weeks and have just started using Ubuntu about two weeks ago too. I know Windows very well and have worked in support and have developed several apps for it too. I'm very new to Linux. I tried out Red Hat, Mandrake and Suze about 5 years ago but didn't go very far with them. In a very short time with Ubuntu I am beginning to like it very much and I will continue to use it. But the things I like about it are not the things the average mainstream Windows user will like. I like to tinker with an O/S and find out how it works and tweak things and just play around. Ubuntu is great for that.

I'm not a Microsoft basher though I do have some special reasons for seeking out different technologies to theirs.

As someone who has worked for many years supporting businesses and home users on Windows I can say with great confidence that the mainstream Windows user will love the look of Vista. I think it looks beautiful with Aero Glass and it looks pretty good without it too. I have run it on three different systems so far with no problems getting the Aero effects. Yes it does like a lot of memory but it does run fine. It is beta code and I fully expect thate when optimized it will run considerably faster.

Vista has a lot of new features that mainstream Windows users will hate. And strange as it may seem these are the features that Linux has had for years such as account control and escalation.

Anyway I don't want to write a huge post on this right now. But I do want to make a point to Linux people who want to see more Windows users coming over. There is a huge amount of work to be done before Ubuntu or a similar type distro can become mainstream. Mainstream users will never respond well to having to use a command line interface of any kind. We need many, many more GUI interfaces for configuration of all aspects of a desktop system.

Mainstream Windows users do not know or care about the free software philosophy. Free as in free beer is good. Free as in changing the way the software works is a complete non starter and should not be promoted to mainstream Windows desktop users.

Think of a cross between AOL and the Mac O/S and you might begin to get the idea. Mainstream Windows users want to turn on their machines and get to work with their favourite apps straight away. Anything more difficult is a job for tech support or their techie friends. There aren't enough Linux knowledgable people in the world to support the average mainstream Windows user.

[darkenedday]

I've tried vista and thought it was the ugliest and most bloateed version of windows, I've also read many reviews saying that if it continues the way it goes since the time it was pushed back, it will be an even bigger flop than windows ME

[nu2this]

1st when I first started Windows it ran well then they got complacent Windows got bad. Then they promised to have Longhorn out anytime now! Delay,Delay,Delay then a rename to Vista which would be out any day now!
Delay,Delay,Delay Windows got worse & worse & worse, so I & a few thousand others left for linux. MSFT noticed this thought "My God they're leaving us!We'll tell them Vista will be out summer of 2006! No wait ah Xmas of2006!
Noo sometime in 2007 anytime then!" Then in what had to be a stroke of marketing genius,"While we make Vista pretty we'll tell everybody Linux is no good."
Meanwhile Ubuntu improved the open source guys made better stuff some people tried it liked it kept it improved it. It got added to Ubuntu made it better
Hoary,Breezy,Dapper & soon to be released Edgy(sooner in that it might be out before Vista). Even some users helped improve Ubuntu & it got better still!
Finally, Vista comes out! all the PC mags will say how great it is MSFT's stock price goes up,it runs well, & MSFT gets complacent. Vista gets bad cycle repeats.
Some people get tired of MSFT's crap come to Ubuntu. Ubuntu gets better.Yes indeed Ubuntu's best ally in marketing itself after all of us here in these forums helping the noobs, making suggestions for improvement, & all the dev people that Ubuntu has is MSFT!
That's How!!

[Derek Djons]

How will Microsoft Windows Vista compete with Ubuntu Linux? I don't think they will compete. Why? Has Ubuntu Linux being made to conquer market percentages from Microsoft? No! Has Ubuntu Linux been made to deliver a killer product compared to Microsoft Windows? No!

Technically Microsoft Windows Vista will be renewed. Large portions of the code will be rewritten or cleaned up. The overall security will be increased. As promised Microsoft will try to integrate it's LIVE services as good as possible and the system will be able to provide connectivity and hardware support for the upcoming years.

If somebody is feeling in a comparison's mood, comparing Microsoft Windows Vista and Mac OS X / Mac OS X 10.5 will be more realistic. Both are commercial, both promise heaven on earth and both are working on extra services (.Mac / Live).

For the rest competing means there is a winner! How can there be a winner when all the people on earth have different wishes, desires and requirements. People don't simply choose an 'OS of the Year'.

[aysiu]

This is Bug #1 at Launchpad (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1):
Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix.

Microsoft has a majority market share | Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world's population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry.
Steps to repeat:
1. Visit a local PC store.
What happens:
2. Observe that a majority of PC's for sale have non-free software pre-installed
3. Observe very few PC's with Ubuntu and free software pre-installed
What should happen:
1. A majority of the PC's for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu
2. Ubuntu should be marketed in a way such that its amazing features and benefits would be apparent and known by all.
3. The system shall become more and more user friendly as time passes. Emphasis added, but the fact remains Ubuntu was created to directly compete with Windows. I'm not sure what you mean by "winner"--no OS will ever have 100% market share--but it seems one of the goals of Ubuntu is to make it so that at least Windows isn't dominant.

Personally, I'd like to see something like 36% Windows, 30% Mac, 30% Ubuntu, 4% other.

[nu2this]

Aysiu,
Based on the history of IE V Firefox I agree with you. When I first looked at Ubuntu it reminded me immensly of Mozilla, & now just look at Firefox now!http://www.spreadfirefox.com/

[Gijith]

If we're gauging this competition by market share, then I think the question is entirely dependant on Microsoft release date for Vista +1. Right now, a combination of Micorsoft's bad press and outdated features are causing a slightly elevated number of people to jump ship. As of 2006, Firefox and Mac OS have been heralded as superior products, not only by critics, but by a very large percentage of typical PC users (ubuntu hasn't recieved such a level of acclaim/attention from the masses).

But next year will probably be an entirely different situation. IE7, while still not a huge improvement, is has probably changed enough to win back the majority of people who start using Vista. It's Media Center/Player has been tweaked to go just beyond what most players offer. The new Office is very nice. And most people and critics are raving over Aero. So, in the immediate time following Vista's release, I doubt any OS, even Apple's (seriously, Time Machine is the best new feature they could come up with?), will be in a position to win much market share. Plus, by stratifying their pricing and pumping absurd amounts of money into marketing, MS is essentially guaranteeing that the vast majority of people will upgrade. Unless the critics are extremely harsh, which they haven't been yet, the chances of Vista bombing are very low.

But, let's fast foward a few years. All those features in Vista that were just barely ahead of the competition in 2007 will be long buried. Considering how fast Linux and other open source development can move, I'd like to think that Compiz, Firefox, amaroK, and Gnome (well, maybe KDE) could be back out in front and winning over lots of supporters. Assuming that people are still using desktops in the foreseeable future, I think this is how the competition will have to play out. Up and down, as Ubuntu very slowly chips away some users.

[daou]

China said a few months ago that it is going to be completely open source by 2008. An entire country is going open source. Even if they dont get there by 08, the fact they want it is amazing.

I think they should concentrate on going open society first ;) .

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by daou
I think they should concentrate on going open society first.

I second that motion.

[.t.]

Yeah! What if someone writes a program that involves voting!

And on a side note, please do not refer to Xglx as if it was the compositing manager. It is not, it is a server architecture to accelerate indirect OpenGL commands. AIGLX does the same thing in a different manner, but both use Compiz to produce the effects.

[hobieone]

from what i read ands talked to people thst are using the most recent beta releaseof vidts. i think micro soft has shot themselves in the foot with vista. one its bloated and two the biggest issue peple are having with it is that fact it not backwards compatiple with hardly any existing software. most current games and software will not run on it. due to they wernt programed with direct x 10 and windows xp will not begetting direct x 10. also this puts software companies in a vary awkward spot. becuase they need need to be producing two versions of thier product on for xp and one for vista. also comapnies with online mmorpg like ccp and soe will have too not only have two seperate client versions of games like everquest and eve-online but also two set of servers for each client. which increases thier cost. and they arn't very happy. which is why ccp started working with trandgamming to make thier game eve-onl;ine fully compatiple with linux and ea started releasing stuff to them for games like need for speed. also the system requirements for vista is insane 1 gig min and atleast 2 gig ram just to run it effectivly. and following micro soft press releases lately they have been cutting features from the vista 32 bit version and there rumors microsoft may not reales a 32bit version of vista and just release a 64 bit version forcing everyone to upgrade hardware. along with one i read about awhile back wher if vista doesn't sell or go over well that microsoft may completly dump all support for windows xp.

so if vista flops like likw windows me did i think both linux and mac os are gonna shine and may become dominate.

[Dr. C]

There are some very fundamental differences between the 32 bit and 64bit versions of Vista due to a large degree to DRM. The choice comes down to this.

The 64 bit version of Vista will play the HDCP DRM media (HD and Blu-Ray) but will have very poor driver support (hardware driver hell courtesy of Microsoft and the MPAA). This because the drivers will have to be signed so that they can be trusted by the MPAA etc. If one tries a hack to make “untrusted” hardware work with 64 bit Vista that will be illegal in some countries (for example in the US under the DMCA).
The 32 bit version of Vista will not play the HDCP DRM media (HD and Blu-Ray) but will have very good driver support. XP drivers may actually work in 32bit Vista. No need for the drivers to be trusted by the MPAA. Contrary to many reports this will turn out to be a valuable feature of 32 bit Vista that will allow it to compete very well with Linux in the 32bit arena.

As for Ubuntu. The 64bit version of Ubuntu will easily beat 64 bit Vista in hardware support. This is not much of a fight when the competition is really “ defective by design”. The 32 bit version of Ubuntu will lag slightly behind the 32bit version of Vista in hardware support as is the case now with XP.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/25/microsoft_vista_no_32bit_hd/

http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne/2006/08/1139/microsoft-cuts-another

[AndrewLZ]

i think that ubuntu won't be able to supplant windows until the following things are fixed:

1. Fonts! Until the set of default fonts is improved and font renderring actually looks good, it's gonna always have that unpolished "rough" look that will push users away.

2. Programs. Gthis, Gthat, Kthis, Kthat. I like linux a lot, but this sh** gets confusing with all these duplicate programs that all have pretty much the same name. There needs to be some unification in software development (this is why proprietary companies do it better; profit motive)

3. Folder system. "/" is just too polluted. I think it would be fairly easy to restructure the folders in a way that Mac OS X has, but it would go a long way to improve the user's experience.


My $.02

- Andrew

[SoundMachine]

There are some very fundamental differences between the 32 bit and 64bit versions of Vista due to a large degree to DRM. The choice comes down to this.

The 64 bit version of Vista will play the HDCP DRM media (HD and Blu-Ray) but will have very poor driver support (hardware driver hell courtesy of Microsoft and the MPAA). This because the drivers will have to be signed so that they can be trusted by the MPAA etc. If one tries a hack to make “untrusted” hardware work with 64 bit Vista that will be illegal in some countries (for example in the US under the DMCA).
The 32 bit version of Vista will not play the HDCP DRM media (HD and Blu-Ray) but will have very good driver support. XP drivers may actually work in 32bit Vista. No need for the drivers to be trusted by the MPAA. Contrary to many reports this will turn out to be a valuable feature of 32 bit Vista that will allow it to compete very well with Linux in the 32bit arena.

As for Ubuntu. The 64bit version of Ubuntu will easily beat 64 bit Vista in hardware support. This is not much of a fight when the competition is really “ defective by design”. The 32 bit version of Ubuntu will lag slightly behind the 32bit version of Vista in hardware support as is the case now with XP.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/25/microsoft_vista_no_32bit_hd/

http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne/2006/08/1139/microsoft-cuts-another

Heh, no, both 32 and 64 bit Vista will have the WHQL requirement and both will have better support than any version of Linux simply because it's prioritized. Hardware vendors cares about their customer base and the majority will use Vista.

When it comes to SW, it's even worse.

Now, what most people don't seem to realize is that Vista is completely rewritten code with most of the news under the hood and not GUI. Security will be extremely improved and I welcome that, the GUI i couldn't care less about, if i can find the apps I use I'm good.

Things like the new network stack, the BitLocker partition encryption schemes, such things are the important stuff, the aqua interface i couldn't care less about.

[SoundMachine]

i think that ubuntu won't be able to supplant windows until the following things are fixed:

1. Fonts! Until the set of default fonts is improved and font renderring actually looks good, it's gonna always have that unpolished "rough" look that will push users away.

2. Programs. Gthis, Gthat, Kthis, Kthat. I like linux a lot, but this sh** gets confusing with all these duplicate programs that all have pretty much the same name. There needs to be some unification in software development (this is why proprietary companies do it better; profit motive)

3. Folder system. "/" is just too polluted. I think it would be fairly easy to restructure the folders in a way that Mac OS X has, but it would go a long way to improve the user's experience.


My $.02

- Andrew

1. Looks ok on my setups.

2. Well, no one is asking you to install everything, how do you find the progs to use in windows? By randomly searching? Of course not, you go by recommendations and reviews, use the same practice in Linux and you'll be fine.

3. You have to be kidding me? Where are the config files in Windows? Are they in the program directory, the windows directory, the system32 directory, the drivers or the inf or aaaarggh! In Linux the structure is wonderfully set up, / is root directory, but what is c:\? Is it the root on the system partition or the boot partition or both, is the system partition d:\ or is that the cdrom? You never know.

How many dirs do you have in / and how hard is it to navigate? OSX is a bastardization of the BSD structure which changes when you install programs that don't follow the rules, in Ubuntu, if it's in the official repo, you know where it will place it's files. (except for Gnome which has become terrible at this lately with config files in the strangest places and binaries under a lib directory, not to mention their imitation of the registry, gconf)

[peabody]

3. You have to be kidding me? Where are the config files in Windows? Are they in the program directory, the windows directory, the system32 directory, the drivers or the inf or aaaarggh!


Unfortunately I have to agree with the original poster. The fact that Linux is a take on Unix is both blessing and curse, and it's a curse in this regard. There's no way to understand the rationale behinde the structure without reading about it. All the location and naming conventions were pretty much historical accidents. In the CLI environment, it was historically advantageous to store the binaries for programs in one big folder and the application resources in another. It's still that way, but it manages to make it highly inconvenient to browse the filesystem the graphical way. It is convenient to think of individual application packages within their own sub heirarchy.

Also, there is just no reason one would need to view folders like /bin, /lib, /boot, /sbin, /dev and /usr in nautilus. Maybe /etc, maybe, /usr/share/doc, but seriously, show of hands, how many people pop open nautilus and browse these folders? Everytime I find myself in a gui under the root account and staring at the /root home folder instead of my own, I pop up one level only to stare at a screen of folders I'm never going to have to explore and strain my eyes until I manage to zoom in on /home. We really should try to find a way to hide this folder structure to novice users. Mac OS X is not a bad model for some inspiration here.

[AndrewLZ]

Well first of all I never said Windows does it any better. I've gotten used to Windows just as I'll get used to ubuntu. All I'm saying is it's really much easier when it's intuitive like on Macs. No need to get all hostile.

On a side note - my sister has a Mac and she always tells me how she likes all the effects; how they're so smooth. I showed her XGL/Compiz running - it blew her away =)

[SoundMachine]

Unfortunately I have to agree with the original poster. The fact that Linux is a take on Unix is both blessing and curse, and it's a curse in this regard. There's no way to understand the rationale behinde the structure without reading about it. All the location and naming conventions were pretty much historical accidents. In the CLI environment, it was historically advantageous to store the binaries for programs in one big folder and the application resources in another. It's still that way, but it manages to make it highly inconvenient to browse the filesystem the graphical way. It is convenient to think of individual application packages within their own sub heirarchy.

Also, there is just no reason one would need to view folders like /bin, /lib, /boot, /sbin, /dev and /usr in nautilus. Maybe /etc, maybe, /usr/share/doc, but seriously, show of hands, how many people pop open nautilus and browse these folders? Everytime I find myself in a gui under the root account and staring at the /root home folder instead of my own, I pop up one level only to stare at a screen of folders I'm never going to have to explore and strain my eyes until I manage to zoom in on /home. We really should try to find a way to hide this folder structure to novice users. Mac OS X is not a bad model for some inspiration here.

Of course, if you don't learn the system, you won't know the system.

1. Why would you browse these folders? To change a config setting, you do that with the CLI, this is the way it works, get used to it.

2. You find yourself in the gui as root? There is but ONE system that i am aware of that allows you to do graphical login as root and if you are using ubuntu, you shouldn't even have a root account. If you are using Linspire, well there is your problem right there.

3. Linux has worked this way for 15 years, it's not going to change because people who DON'T participate in development want it to work as their favourite OS. Maybe you can get them to change the icon colors but something that every program that runs on Linux depends on? Well, no, i don't think so.

Besides, when you know it it's like finding your way around the house you live in, you could do it with your eyes closed, how about learning something instead of demanding change that might make you happy but would invariably lead to extreme amounts of work for devs for no good reason at all?

"WE"? well if you are a dev then by all means, go right ahead and do it, rewrite all 20k+ apps in Ubuntus repos, repackage then and you will have your wish.

[maniacmusician]

@SoundMachine:
I think you've interpreted peabody's post the wrong way. he's not saying the file structure should be changed, just that system folders should be hidden to the average user inside a gui. his reason for saying this (or so i percieved) was that to a new user, it feels really cluttered because they don't know what any of these folders are. As you yourself said, to change those config files, you would most likely use a CLI, so why expose new, graphical oriented users to them right away? I don't think it is too far-fetched to add an option in the file manager's preferences that says "Hide System Folders" and to have it checked for a new user. Or to make it "Show System Folders", even add it in the right click menu.

This doesn't do much for seasoned users, but it makes brand new converts feel more at ease and less cluttered, and that's generally a good thing. no reason to get so hostile :) anyways, I don't know that this would be so difficult, though I do think it should instead be submitted to the developers of Desktop Environments rather than say the ubuntu dev team. That way, each Environment would apply it to their native file manager, and the ubuntu devs could concentrate instead on more pressing issues.

as per the actual topic of this thread, a lot of good points have been made already. It is true, Ubuntu does not need to compete with Vista; but it can, and already does with XP, however passively that may be. I think a major deterrant to the progression of linux in mainstream areas is the tendency of its users to install on low-end machines. I think more people need to take interest in this distro as a real, full-on OS, and start putting it on machines that can really deliver performance. A lot of users do this, but not quite enough, I think. Linux is always being promoted as the system that can run on crappy machines, and this mentality has to change. Sure, we know it can, but it doesnt need to. With Vista coming up, it would probably be a good time to promote the graphical capabilities of Linux on a larger scale.

Everything that can be done on the developers' end is being done already. great code is being written and rewritten, there are improvements every day, and eye candy has come a long way. And now, with the community stepping up to the plate in the form of better promotion and advertisement, Ubuntu is definitely on the way to being able to compete with vista (if it wants to)

[aysiu]

This is one thing Mac OS X does quite well.

Most Mac users have no clue that OS X follows roughly the same file structure as Linux, but if they go into the terminal, it's virtually the same as Ubuntu (down to sudo, too).

[insub2]

I'm not really sure what is meant by "compete". I guess this is about users.

Well, I don't believe Vista is going to get any Ubuntu users. Us Linux users like Linux. We have an assload of reasons for it. Vista is being sold on it's looks which isn't much of a pitch to Linux users because we already got it (if we want it). Also, the minimum system requirements for Vista's eye candy is ridiculous. I have a system that is considered pretty good for Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=14270) and it is the minimum system to run Vista with it's effects(aside from my larger hard drive). From what I hear, Vista isn't very good. Also, if previous Windows releases can be used as clues, it probably isn't very good. So I don't think Ubuntu has to worry about Vista stealing any users.

On the other hand, if we're talking Ubuntu gaining users at Vista's expense, then this is the standard lin vs. win discussion. It has everything to do with Ubuntu's public image. A lot of people don't even know about Linux. And for those that do, it is perceived as something for computer nerds but is too complicated for common people. And, frankly, at the moment, it kinda is. Linux requires learning new programs because users can't install their favorite games or Adobe Illustrator and so on. Ubuntu doesn't have out of the box support on mp3s, dvds, a slew of wireless cards, etc. It's getting better. For example, my printer/scanner was not supported in Breezy but it is in Dapper (which is awesome by the way).

The way this goes is Windows users will upgrade to Vista (if their computer is good enough). Ubuntu users will upgrade to Edgy. And slowly windows users will upgrade to Linux as it becomes more accessible.


Unless, of course, by "compete" you mean there's a battle cage somewhere and a couple of operating systems are going in and only one is coming out. Then I say Ubuntu hasn't got a chance because XP clobbered my Breezy real bad this one time (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=232269) and Vista is "more powerful".

[aysiu]

I may have mentioned this earlier in this now-16-page thread, but it doesn't matter how good the quality of Ubuntu's software is--very few currently XP users will be thinking, "Hm. I guess I have to upgrade now that Vista's out. Should I buy a legitimate copy of Vista or install Ubuntu?"

Seriously. How many people will be asking themselves that question? Almost nobody.

People who would give Ubuntu a shot would have given Ubuntu a shot anyway because they were interested.

People who think it's a cost issue will either stay with Windows XP or pirate a copy of Vista.

People who are willing to spend the money will most likely spend the money for Vista or buy a new computer with Vista preloaded on it.

[paul cooke]

compete??? who says we HAVE to compete... best thing to do is ignore vista and get on with improving Ubuntu. Linux improves continuously... ms-windows doesn't, it "improves" in monumental jerks forcing users to make monumental shifts.

When XP came out, my father found his printer and scanner (both perfectly serviceable) were no longer supported. He couldn't use them at all and the manufacturers just waved him away (their option to him was to purchase new XP compatible hardware, they weren't going to write XP drivers for his old hardware).

It's going to be the same with Vista... the hardware companies are licking their lips at the opportunity to drop hardware support and force users to upgrade yet again or stick where they are on XP. Same with the software companies... they're salivating at the prospect of forcing customers to buy new vista compatible versions.

[ago]

Something has been bugging me since I have switched to Ubuntu several months ago. Don't get me wrong I LOVE Linux, and Ubuntu is the best distribution I have used (3), but the upcoming Windows Vista release seems to be Microsoft's big reteliation on the opposing free software threat, attempting to make every possible improvement that Linux does on Windows and more. How will the open-source community react, and will this be the end of the time when Linux is simply been better?

I do not see the issue...

Vista will be out (maybe) by the end of January. It will fight with

Edgy
Edgy+1
Edgy+2 (LTS)
Edgy+3
Edgy+4
Edgy+5 (LTS)
Edgy+6
Edgy+7
Edgy+8 (LTS)
Edgy+9

Now just consider the improvements from Hoary to Hoary+3 (Dapper), and multiply by 3...

Then consider that when Hoary came out, linux was still arguably behind windows on the desktop in some areas, we played catch up, and we surpassed XP within 3 releases. Now we start from the same point but we have 9 releases to play with...

In fact when Vista comes out it will probably be pretty close to Edgy in terms of end-user functionality, and still far behind in terms of backend stability and security. It will be behind edgy even for eye candy if aiglx drivers are released in time (probably not for Edgy but certainly for Edgy+1)...

I think that already Edgy+2 will be clearly superior (also superficially), by Edgy+5 (mid-cycle of Vista) there will be no comparison. Within the Vista cycle you will probably see full support for KDE4, Gnome3, XFCE5, AIGLX, XEGL, Cairo, Xen, Gimp3with 16bits, Firefox 5, semantic file system, GTK3, fully compatible Wine, fully compatible Mono... Linux is just developing much faster than anything else out there.

And by the way, after the Vista patchwork, windows will probably need a major rewrite, and that will take quite a lot of time...

I am concerned. But for windows. And apple...

[BuffaloX]

I may have mentioned this earlier in this now-16-page thread, but it doesn't matter how good the quality of Ubuntu's software is--very few currently XP users will be thinking, "Hm. I guess I have to upgrade now that Vista's out. Should I buy a legitimate copy of Vista or install Ubuntu?"

Seriously. How many people will be asking themselves that question? Almost nobody.

People who would give Ubuntu a shot would have given Ubuntu a shot anyway because they were interested.

People who think it's a cost issue will either stay with Windows XP or pirate a copy of Vista.

People who are willing to spend the money will most likely spend the money for Vista or buy a new computer with Vista preloaded on it.

I'm afraid you are about 90% right. But if you are 10% wrong it could be a very big deal. :D
People who think it's a cost issue, would just as likely want to use a system legally. (I hope)

[bruce89]

I think that already Edgy+2 will be clearly superior (also superficially), by Edgy+5 (mid-cycle of Vista) there will be no comparison. Within the Vista cycle you will probably see full support for KDE4, Gnome3, XFCE5, AIGLX, XEGL, Cairo, Xen, Gimp with 16bits, Firefox 5, tracker... Linux is just developing much faster than anything else out there.

Gnome 3 isn't going to happen for a while, and when it does, it will take 2 years to write.

Firefox 5.0 will be soon thanks to their stupid version numbering.

Edgy+1 will be out about the same time as Vista by the way.

[ago]

"Hm. I guess I have to upgrade now that Vista's out. Should I buy a legitimate copy of Vista or install Ubuntu?"

I do not think many people will shed money for a boxed Vista to install on old hardware in a criplled way.

For the ones that will buy new hardware they will get vista preinstalled, as it has always been the case. Nothing new here.

But consider also that, differently from the past:

1) Some retailers will install Ubuntu preinstalled and appeal to the budget buyer, probably not many, but some will, including some big name...

2) The ones that will bother to install Vista on current machines, will probably also give Ubuntu a shot.

3) Some people will learn that they can have a free operating system that will beat vista feature for feature (except for video games), and will run just fine on existing hardware... Before buying new hardware some people will try Ubuntu to see if they can manage to postpone their purchase.

4) Even if they buy new machines with Vista, the old machines will be ideal candidates to to experiment with Ubuntu. And many that did not dare to repartion, will have far fewer hesitation to put ubuntu on their old machine.

5) It is not unrealistic to think that Dapper can become clearly superior to Vista... Don't forget that people will not compare Dapper to Vista, but Dapper+2,3,..,9 to Vista... Maybe not until Dapper+3, but after that the marketing campaign will cool off and by then Vista might well look poor in comparison.

I also disagree that all the people that wanted to use ubuntu have already done so. Many have not, because Ubuntu was somewhat short of their requirements in some area (hardware, software, look and feel, ease of installation). On every marginal improvement the threshhold will be lowered and far more people will switch...

Many people did not even hear of Ubuntu. Just ask around where you live... But I noticed that even windows pc magazines that traditionally did not have a single paragraph on linux, nowdays have extended reviews of new distros, particularly Ubuntu, and even trial CDs. I am not talking about linux magazines, but generic PC magazines generally targeting windows users. And those reviews will keep coming and the name will get recognized.

Do not forget that most people do not normally repartition the hard disk to try ubuntu. But because windows is windows and reformatting is a periodic necessity, people do need to reformat once in a while. Often this is the moment when people try Ubuntu. You have just to wait and every single time windows needs to be formatted some new users will join the Ubuntu boat...

[ago]

Gnome 3 isn't going to happen for a while, and when it does, it will take 2 years to write.
Still planty of time... I only mentioned that Gnome 3 will be with us by the time the next windows version is released. We have 4-5 years...

[graabein]

Ubuntu is free and open source and good for human kind. No contest.

[chaosgeisterchen]

Hmh.. once we get better driver support (mainly from ati and nvidia) Linux will overtake Windows in some aspects.

If Vista keeps consuming system ressources bigtime while being idle, games will run better under Linux in future - if we get the drivers. Should be for sure. Perfect Windows 'emulation' with Wine 1.x will also be a big step forward as well as Mono 2.0+.

We are merging Windows with Linux more and more and by doing this we are tearing down fences between the OS worlds. It's only a matter of time :)

Hoping for a glorious future - but still I'd rather like Linux to stay a minority to keep us from being target for internet security issues. I'd be rather disappointed to have to use some virus scanner in the future while running Linux. This may be against the target of Ubuntu, but I believe that Linux users will ever be the 'different minority'...

[aysiu]

compete??? who says we HAVE to compete... Mark Shuttleworth?
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1


People who think it's a cost issue, would just as likely want to use a system legally. (I hope) I'd hope so too, but I haven't always found that to be the case.



1) Some retailers will install Ubuntu preinstalled and appeal to the budget buyer, probably not many, but some will, including some big name... I haven't seen any evidence that big name companies are preinstalling Linux in any way that's easily accessible to the public (and not yet Ubuntu). We have System 76 (http://www.system76.com) for now, but they're not appealing to the budget buyer--Dell is.



2) The ones that will bother to install Vista on current machines, will probably also give Ubuntu a shot. But they're just as likely to give it a shot on their XP boxes, too, before Vista comes out. The people who actually install an operating system themselves are a very small percentage of the general computing population and already the majority percentage of those using Ubuntu.



4) Even if they buy new machines with Vista, the old machines will be ideal candidates to to experiment with Ubuntu. And many that did not dare to repartion, will have far fewer hesitation to put ubuntu on their old machine. But that's not competing with Vista, then.


I also disagree that all the people that wanted to use ubuntu have already done so. Many have not, because Ubuntu was somewhat short of their requirements in some area (hardware, software, look and feel, ease of installation). On every marginal improvement the threshhold will be lowered and far more people will switch... Again, this has nothing to do with Vista.




[QUOTE=chaosgeisterchen;1441118]Hmh.. once we get better driver support (mainly from ati and nvidia) Linux will overtake Windows in some aspects. You mean once Linux overtakes Windows, it will get better driver support? You see the problem here, right?

[Blondie]

Mainstream Windows users do not know or care about the free software philosophy. Free as in free beer is good. Free as in changing the way the software works is a complete non starter and should not be promoted to mainstream Windows desktop users.

While what you say may perhaps be true of a majority of Windows users, IMO for every one person using Linux there are probably ten people who like the FOSS philosophy but don't use Linux because they think it would just be too hard for them and probably another ten who would like the FOSS philosophy if they had ever heard of it but they haven't.

Perhaps most people won't care but I still think that it provides a USP for marketing and promotion of Linux that can be effective, at least from the position we have now. IMO Firefox and OpenOffice on Windows are trojan horses (in marketing terms) that can be "exploited" for the promotion of Linux and Ubuntu specifically, perhaps particularly.

IMO the prominence of the FOSS philosophy in how Ubuntu presents itself (even the very name echoes it) has helped it get to where it is today and will help it in the future too.

Look at how Apple promotes itself. "Think Different" etc. almost as a rebel against the Microsoft "evil empire". I don't see why Linux cannot usefully use this kind of angle (amongst others) to promote itself. Of course the difference between Linux and Apple in this regard is that Linux is the real deal. :D

[aysiu]

People would care about open source if you pitched it to them as "It doesn't contain spyware. It will almost always be free of cost. You won't have to deal with weird licensing restrictions."

Now, some of those things aren't guaranteed, but they're pretty much de facto parts of open source software. In other words, it's conceivable that an open source project could have spyware, but I've never heard of one having spyware--whereas there are plenty of "freeware" projects that definitely have spyware. Likewise, not all open source software is free of charge, but almost all of it is. And I don't see a lot of open source projects (I can't think of any off the top of my head, actually) that have a 30-day trial, nagware (please buy the "real" version!), or a limit on how many computers you can install the software on.

Those are meaningful selling points to end users. "You can modify the code yourself and look at the source code" is not a meaningful selling point.

[ago]

I haven't seen any evidence that big name companies are preinstalling Linux
For now sthere have been some pilot programs with Lenovo and Walmart... But I am quite confident there will be more. Some chains like to sell low-end PCs, Ubuntu is a logical choice in this case.


But they're just as likely to give it a shot on their XP boxes, too, before Vista comes out.
What I mean is that some users will need to reformat their current XP machine when they try Vista. At this point some will probably also try Ubuntu.


The people who actually install an operating system themselves are a very small percentage of the general computing population and already the majority percentage of those using Ubuntu.
Which does not mean that the majority of people who can actually install an operating system already run ubuntu... There are large gains to be done here. And this is an influential crowd, that normally can set up systems for several other people. I know quite a few "power users" that are competent enough to do an installation but have not tried Ubuntu yet. Moreover you can expect the installer to get easier and easier. Moving away from the iso to a single executable will be a big help (many people have problems burning an iso). There are already some options in this respect (see instlux for instance). Widespread virtual environments will also help.


But that's not competing with Vista, then.
Yes you are competing... You will have more people installing and using Ubuntu on old machines, and the total number of ubuntu machines will increase. You think in terms of market share of new computers, but what matters is the market shares of all computers in use. Some of those users will then install Ubuntu also on their new machine, and on their next purchase will get a machine with Ubuntu preinstalled.


Again, this has nothing to do with Vista.
It does. It means that many potential switchers that have had a sit and wait attituted so far, will be more inclined to switch once Ubuntu gets better and better. Some of them will use Ubuntu instead of Vista.


You mean once Linux overtakes Windows, it will get better driver support? You see the problem here, right?
Nope. Not in hardware support, but you can beat Vista in several other areas. Windows will likely succumb in some of its traditional strongholds like look and feel (aiglx/xegl), ease of use, quality of applications, compatibility (wine will get pretty good in the next few years)... Plus the traditional strong points that windows cannot touch, like: security, scalability, performance, stability, flexibility....

You do not need to have better hardware support than windows. You only need to have good enough hardware support for commonly used hardware: decent drivers that get automatically installed. The hardware support is already quite good (exceptional for an OS without backing form manufacturers), but with some slight improvements in the video card and wireless areas it will go to the next level. And given the merger of AMD and ATI as well as the release of Intel driver code, this might well happen fairly soon.

[aysiu]

For now some pale trials with Lenovo and Walmart... But I am quite confident there will be more. Some chains like to sell low-end PCs, ubuntu is a logical choice in this case. I know about those. Seems your selectively quoting and missed this bit I'm now bolding for you:
I haven't seen any evidence that big name companies are preinstalling Linux in any way that's easily accessible to the public


Which does not mean that the majority of people who can actually install an operating system already run ubuntu... But that also doesn't mean those who haven't already tried Ubuntu (but who are willing to install their own operating systems) will once Vista comes out.

[DoctorMO]

You do know that Windows is loosly classed as open source right? Free Software is a stronger term when it comes to meaning. or better saying things are GPL is far more exact.

Linux is the Utility in the fact of the Microsoft Corperatism.

[aysiu]

You do know that Windows is loosly classed as open source right? Free Software is a stronger term when it comes to meaning. or better saying things are GPL is far more exact.

Linux is the Utility in the fact of the Microsoft Corperatism.
Actually, I've never heard that before. Can you explain what you mean by "loosely classed as open source"?

[ago]

in any way that's easily accessible to the public

Pilot programs are starting now. A few years ago even that would have been unthinkable... Give it some time... If and when video drivers will be open sourced, there will be some further impulse.


But that also doesn't mean those who haven't already tried Ubuntu (but who are willing to install their own operating systems) will once Vista comes out.
Some will, not all of them, but some will...

[aysiu]

I'm excited about the pilot programs, believe me. I just wanted to be precise--the average (or even above average) Windows user will not easily be able to find those systems. The only people who know about those systems are the ones who follow Linux in the news.

Check out this extremely long essay I wrote and let me know if you disagree with it: http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth

[DoctorMO]

aysiu the code for windows 2000 (not sure about later versions) was released by microsoft to a select group of partnered companies and govenments. you could get the source on request thus open source (very loose definition since you did have to sign NDAs).

The point is that true open source i.e. GPL would always be available for free because cost imposes restriction and thus not truly open.

[aysiu]

That's interesting to know, DoctorMO. From an end-user perspective, it may not matter, though. I just did a Google search for
windows "open source" and none of the first twenty results had anything about releasing the source code for Windows 2000. All the links talked about Windows not being open source and being proprietary.

[ago]

I do not think you can expect much right now... And I am thinking in terms of the next 2-5 years... These things do not follow a linear pattern, once a critical mass has been reached, things will move quickly.

Ask yourself: if you see a system with Dapper+3 or +5 with full 3D desktop costing half (software and hardware) than the windows system next to it (and far less than half if you include the bundled software), and looking even cooler and snappier, would you buy it? If you would but it, why would somebody not sell it?

I know very well of MS strong hand on retailers. Yet once the system becomes clearly superior and there is money to be made (by selling high volumes at low prices), it will be difficult to control them.

[Blondie]

People would care about open source if you pitched it to them as "It doesn't contain spyware. It will almost always be free of cost. You won't have to deal with weird licensing restrictions."

Now, some of those things aren't guaranteed, but they're pretty much de facto parts of open source software. In other words, it's conceivable that an open source project could have spyware, but I've never heard of one having spyware--whereas there are plenty of "freeware" projects that definitely have spyware. Likewise, not all open source software is free of charge, but almost all of it is. And I don't see a lot of open source projects (I can't think of any off the top of my head, actually) that have a 30-day trial, nagware (please buy the "real" version!), or a limit on how many computers you can install the software on.

Those are meaningful selling points to end users. "You can modify the code yourself and look at the source code" is not a meaningful selling point.

I disagree. Marketing is not such a hard-headed, robotic, cost-benefit analysis as you appear to make out. The whole "humanity to others" aspect of Ubuntu can be an effective selling point to people who wouldn't even consider looking at a single line of source code themselves. As I said look at how Apple has used vaguely this kind of angle in their own marketing, even without any real substance. Even the new SUSE ads from ultra-corporate Novell have this angle under the surface, eg. talking about it being created by the "global community" and improved by Novell. I just think that this is a marketing aspect with potential - if not for everyone then nevertheless for lots of people who are currently not using Ubuntu. Of course it should not be the only string on Ubuntu's marketing bow.

Even the whole billionaire cosmonaut philanthropist turns to providing free operating systems through voluntary contributions for everyones' benefit (particularly the third world) story is capable of pulling in column inches by itself, and here in the UK Mark Shuttleworth has even had a national television news feature about Ubuntu and his life. There's promotional potential there, and it shouldn't be dismissed. That's all I'm saying.

[aysiu]

That's not disagreeing with me--that's just taking another angle. Yes, the concept of "humanity toward others" and being part of the "global community" can also appeal to the end-user.

My point was simply that you have to put things in meaningful terms; otherwise, end-users don't see the appeal of open source or Linux. If you just say "This is open source" or "You can modify the code how you want," non-programmers won't care.

[Blondie]

That's not disagreeing with me--that's just taking another angle. Yes, the concept of "humanity toward others" and being part of the "global community" can also appeal to the end-user.

My point was simply that you have to put things in meaningful terms; otherwise, end-users don't see the appeal of open source or Linux. If you just say "This is open source" or "You can modify the code how you want," non-programmers won't care.

It's taking another angle, but it still relates to the same thing ie. that Ubuntu is FOSS. I guess the wider point I was making is that marketing isn't only about practical and concrete things.

[aysiu]

It's taking another angle, but it still relates to the same thing ie. that Ubuntu is FOSS. I guess the wider point I was making is that marketing isn't only about practical and concrete things.
I agree with you on that--but my qualification is that the marketing does have to be meaningful to non-programmers. Abstract ideas can be meaningful. The ability to modify code isn't for that target group.

[jimcooncat]

FOSS is great for end users. Hundreds of great programs, one very fast install method, central maintained repositories, no licenses to read and click on, uninstall can clean up all the mess. Anyone who likes to experiment with different software will appreciate this, if it's explained correctly.

Compare with most software written for Windows. Note this has nothing to do with Microsoft (except that they are in a position to provide the level of service Linux distributors do):


Only a few programs available at individual vendors.
Centrally maintained download sites aren't protected by keys, and have some questionable quality software on them.
Long, mostly unintelligible license agreements one must click OK on in order to just use the software.
Special update procedures for each individual vendor, and no centralized update notifications.
Uninstall scripts are generally poor quality, leaving cruft and even running services -- sometimes intentionally.

[Blondie]

I agree with you on that--but my qualification is that the marketing does have to be meaningful to non-programmers. Abstract ideas can be meaningful. The ability to modify code isn't for that target group.

OK fine. We've both made our points.

[peabody]

Of course, if you don't learn the system, you won't know the system.

1. Why would you browse these folders? To change a config setting, you do that with the CLI, this is the way it works, get used to it.

2. You find yourself in the gui as root? There is but ONE system that i am aware of that allows you to do graphical login as root and if you are using ubuntu, you shouldn't even have a root account. If you are using Linspire, well there is your problem right there.

3. Linux has worked this way for 15 years, it's not going to change because people who DON'T participate in development want it to work as their favourite OS. Maybe you can get them to change the icon colors but something that every program that runs on Linux depends on? Well, no, i don't think so.

Besides, when you know it it's like finding your way around the house you live in, you could do it with your eyes closed, how about learning something instead of demanding change that might make you happy but would invariably lead to extreme amounts of work for devs for no good reason at all?

"WE"? well if you are a dev then by all means, go right ahead and do it, rewrite all 20k+ apps in Ubuntus repos, repackage then and you will have your wish.

Thank you maniacmusician for properly interpreting my post. SoundMachine, you responded more harshly than I expected. The Ubuntu community is a really wonderful community, but you my friend are a blight on it if you behave like this. As maniacmusician pointed out, I was merely suggesting doing a better job of abstracting the complexity in the file system to new users. You proceeded to read what you wanted, and then patronized my ability to use Linux. I have been using Linux since 1999, and I have developed on it. I am perfectly well aware that the Linux filesystem structure is welded to the way it works and that there's no way to get rid of it. I was merely suggested it be abstracted.

[Yossarian]

Wouldn't abstracting the filesystem be basically hiding everything from the user, barring /home and /media?

A little education would be better, I think. I'm sure someone's written some quick Intro to Linux that's about 10 minutes reading. A copy of this could be left on the desktop from a fresh install.

The worst thing would be to have a guide written for geeks. Riding roughshood will do here. Explain that everything is in a folder called /, your settings and files are in /home, CDs and USB sticks are in /media, you install software with Synaptic, and you're basically good.

[aysiu]

Mac OS X isn't perfect, but this is one thing it certainly gets right. The power users who actually care about the filesystem have access to the *nix-level directories via the terminal. The regular users who don't care about the filesystem need only see their /home and /media directories and the applications folder (in Mac, it's slightly different... /Users, /Volumes, and /Applications).

[peabody]

Mac OS X isn't perfect, but this is one thing it certainly gets right. The power users who actually care about the filesystem have access to the *nix-level directories via the terminal. The regular users who don't care about the filesystem need only see their /home and /media directories and the applications folder (in Mac, it's slightly different... /Users, /Volumes, and /Applications).

Thanks aysiu, I completely agree with this. To answer SoundMachine's comment about running a gui with root (which I don't, I have never done this) I was running reconstructor app to play with building my own Live CD. To do this, the script runs as root via gksu. During the use of the app, I'm presented with a file browser dialog...in /root, not my home directory. Now, it's no big deal for me to just browse out to "/", find /home find peabody find my Desktop and then find the ISO files. But every time I browse / it has all of these folders in it that I will obviously never browse while in a gui. Any process that levels up to root priveleges and runs a file browser will likely need the user to do this. Having this cluttered listing makes it much more difficult to find /home quickly. I think hiding most of these folders in nautilus is a good idea, with maybe an option to turn them on.

I agree that education is in order for people who want it, but I was under the impression that we're talking about how to make Ubuntu easier for novice users. This seems like something Mac OS X has done right. The folders aren't in the Finder where they look cluttered. Yet they're still there an accesible in the Terminal, where it makes sense to have them.

[dolphinsonar]

The fact that windows came out with Vista proves how much they recognize the power of GNU/Linux over closed source/proprietary software. Its totally jocking the Linux style.

All the hotfixes in the world cant compare to the awsome power of a million trillion (thats the official number) eyeballs on the codebase that so many of our lovely open source programs have.

We are pioneers, the masses will follow, and when they do it will be corny.

[chaosgeisterchen]

You mean once Linux overtakes Windows, it will get better driver support? You see the problem here, right?

Well, I seee _one_ probleme here. Bad driver support keeps users kinda away from Linux, if they cannot get everything out of their hardware when using Linux but they can under Windows, so, where is the intention to switch then?


"Support the spirit of Ubuntu, for god's sake, do not care about your hardware not being supported properly. You can ignore that (in some way)..."

Hey, it's rubbish. Linux is great and it will certainly be once the system making more out of the hardware of a common computer. And with common I mean those computers being sold in masses.

And the first issue to cover here is clearly graphics drivers. Especially ati should open their source, oh my. But.. you see, industry is not very fond of this idea, arent't they?

[vinodis]

Linux is the Cart. Vista is the Bullock.

[aysiu]

Well, I seee _one_ probleme here. Bad driver support keeps users kinda away from Linux, if they cannot get everything out of their hardware when using Linux but they can under Windows, so, where is the intention to switch then? And how is Linux going to get better driver support? By being more popular.

How is Linux going to be more popular? By getting better driver support.

Don't you see where this is going?

[bobbybobington]

one "solution" to this is OEM/preinstalled and supported linux boxes. More users without(or less) driver problems to an acceptible level.

Another is to continue what we're doing. Convert users who can accept the level of driver problems to maximize marketshare to leverage hardware manufacturers to provide good drivers.

In all this everything is in shades of gray. Users have their own levels of problems they can live with. Preinstalled linux can help this especially with joe user who usually accepts whatever comes on his computer. so basically there is no abolute solution in black and white(short of all manufacuters writing good drivers magically), and only in sort of wriggling around in shades of gray can we nulify this catch 22.

[DoctorMO]

Not really, Driver makers can't make drivers that are closed source in the case of the kernel, or sane, or gutten print (GPL) so they're up the duff. they have to provide detailed specifications or open source drivers.

On the other hand: all hands to driver making stations. I've already made several patches for printers and scanner support.

[Dramist]

Personally i have used vista twice, once was in the early stages of beta. No compatability for anything.

And my 2nd time was about a week ago i was using the Pre-RC1 build. Its sexy lol, everything ran smooth and good, i uninstalled because of some network issues but the OS was great, ATM im not quite sure how it compares to Ubuntu (because i have only been using ubuntu for about 5 hours) and i plan on sticking to it for awhile. But once vista is out im definatly going to be upgrading my dualboot.

And im not 100% sure on this fact.

But i would think firefox was made by a bunch of people that wanted to expand internet explorers capabilities so they made their own browser by intergrating IE6's capabilities and adding what they wanted to have.

I would think this same theory with Windows vs linux

They both study eachother and think of features they should add and make to put them ahead of the competition. Vista comes out, next thing u know it we got another version of Ubuntu out with more features.

[Dramist]

delete

[Dramist]

Delete

[ago]

Vista comes out, next thing u know it we got another version of Ubuntu out with more features.

Not 1 but 9 more versions...

[ago]

Don't you see where this is going?

No I don't.

I have seen hardware compatibility continually improve over the past years (notwithstanding poor support from the manufacturers, if not plain hostility), I have seen far faster development in linux than in any other company, I have seen the linux user base constantly increase.

Contrary to your opinion, I do not think those trends are going to reverse. Quite the opposite, I think that linux is close to critical mass, after which hardware manufacturers (and retailers) will support linux as opposed to linux developers struggling by themselves (which they managed to do quite well so far). This will lead to more users adopting linux, which will lead to more manufacturer support... You see where this is going?

The critical areas that need improvement at the moment are video cards (which looks promising considering ATI and Intel stories) and wireless. Once those are sorted I do not think that hardware support will be so much of an argument.

If one webcam out of 10 is not going to be supported it is not goint to be a decisive criteria for the vast majority of users. In most cases you can fix those issues with little investment for a serial modem/network card/webcam... Do you prefer to spend $10 to buy a compatible hardware or $100 to buy a compatible OS + $200 to buy adequate hardware for the hungry compatible OS + $100 for extra software required by the compatible OS?

Moreover, not all hardware works on OSX, still before buying some hardware a mac user simply checks if it is compatible. And it is considered perfectly acceptable. Why should the same not be true for Linux users? Why is Linux expected to work on any toaster on earth or face death?

There are other factors which are more important than hardware support (once video/wireless is fixed). I am not an eye candy fan, but average consumers give great importance to eye candy. And with Xgl & co we are well positioned. Softaware availability is another important area and again things look good there too. As mentioned by mid-cycle of Vista, I expect Ubuntu to completely outclass vista in those areas...

[aysiu]

No I don't.

I have seen hardware compatibility continually improve over the past years (notwithstanding poor support from the manufacturers, if not plain hostility), I have seen far faster development in linux than in any other company, I have seen the linux user base constantly increase. Yeah, it's definitely increasing, but to simply say "Linux needs better hardware support" is demanding what you can't just demand.

What you're saying is true--the Linux user base is constantly increasing and will eventually reach a critical mass that will draw the attention of hardware vendors. But this is a gradual thing and simply saying "Linux needs better hardware support" sounds as if it's the fault of the Linux developers (implied: "They're just not working hard enough or creating a high quality product").

[ago]

Yeah, it's definitely increasing, but to simply say "Linux needs better hardware support" is demanding what you can't just demand.
I simply meant that video and wireless are at the moment the 2 big showstoppers. Once those are fixed, the "needs-better-hardware-support" argument will be muted. I certainly do not expect to see "better hardware support than windows" for any peripherical under the sun, all is required is improvements in those 2 areas. And, for a change, improvements might come from the manufacturers themselves...


But this is a gradual thing
It's not gradual at all. Is a completely non-linear event. Once you get critical mass, you very quicly accelerate from 0 to 100...


sounds as if it's the fault of the Linux developers (implied: "They're just not working hard enough or creating a high quality product").
Quite the opposite. I am astonished at what linux developers have accomplished considering the little support from the manufacturers. In fact I expect the improvement in the video card section to come from manufacturers finally open sourcing drivers... I thought I was clear on that.

[aysiu]

Once those are fixed, the "needs-better-hardware-support" argument will be muted. Maybe that's what should happen, but I think you're being a bit optimistic. People will complain no matter what as long as not everything works "out of the box."

And "out of the box" for new users generally has two separate definitions:

"out of the box" Windows--preinstalled and preconfigured when bought.

"out of the box" Ubuntu--installed by me on a computer I bought that previously had Windows on it.

Preinstalled is the only foolproof way to get 100% hardware support and "needs better hardware support" arguments muted completely.

[DoctorMO]

Like a lot of problems the fact that we don't even know how much hardware there is to support is a constant niggle.

[ago]

Maybe that's what should happen, but I think you're being a bit optimistic. People will complain no matter what as long as not everything works "out of the box."

And I think you are overly pessimistic. Once the main hardware (i.e. video/network/sound for main brands) works well the rest is nice-to-have type of features... And we are almost there (if ati and intel manage to reach out). If something is missing in other areas it is not going to be a big deal, you can simply buy an alternative product that will work. Particularly considering that the alternative is to shed substantial amounts of money for an OS that will work with the peripherical but will not work too well with the current machine (vista is only "compatible" if you have hardware that meets 2*minimum requirements...)

Users should simply get educated about Ubuntu supported hardware and orient their purchases accordingly (like it happens with OSX).

I think it is essential to create an official supported-by-ubuntu type of list with some simple and clear rating (gold, silver, bronze, lead). The hardware support wiki does not cut it. Nor do the several other compatibility lists on the web. We need some sort of official certification. Which will also act as an incentive for manufacturers to have a more friendly attitude.

[aysiu]

Users should simply get educated about Ubuntu supported hardware and orient their purchases accordingly (like it happens with OSX).

I think it is essential to create an official supported-by-ubuntu type of list with some simple and clear rating (gold, silver, bronze, lead). The hardware support wiki does not cut it. Nor do the several other compatibility lists on the web. We need some sort of ufficial certification. Which will also act as an incentive for manufacturers to have a more friendly attitude. Finally--something we fully agree on!

[maniacmusician]

haha and a great agreement it is. We should organize and get this done. I suggest making threads in the forums for different types of hardware, ie: Processors, graphics cards, monitors, networking (perhaps a seperate one for wireless), Printers, Scanners, and so on. I can't really think of anything else at the moment. I guess infrared and bluetooth. Also it should be on two levels: whole, and broken down. By whole I mean, a whole computer system. ie, a Toshiba Satellite Pro 4300. People would list their system, say what worked, what didn't, and the persons monitoring the thread would compile all that information into an organized form that we could make a wiki or website out of. I'm willing to help with some of this (probably just collecting the data and organizing it; i'm not good at much else), if you guys are really up to it. a worthy project for sure...

[bobbybobington]

Woo hoo im all for it, but it may be better to use a system already in use and more controled like launchpad or a database or something:-? It would be alot smoother and easier to find stuff than forums.:KS

edit: perhaps there could be some colaboration with the open hardware project (http://knowledge76.com/index.php/Open_Hardware_Project)?

[ago]

haha and a great agreement it is. We should organize and get this done. I suggest making threads in the forums

I submitted a specification on the subject:

Officially supported hardware list (https://features.launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/supported-hardware-list)

[DoctorMO]

I'm working on a tool that will allow this kind of hardware listing to take place, instead of waiting for some with the patience to input hardware into a database (that they might not even be technicaly apt to do) which I see has been tried before too.

I have a program, written in python/gtk for gnome that uses HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) and the internet in order to 1) discover the hardware on a system, 2) download information automaticly about discovered hardware 3) allow the selection of a specific hardware model where option is available 4) allow non probable hardware ports such as serial/para to have a list of available hardware from which to select. 4) to be able to change the information including the information structure from the application with regards to hardware installed with in the system 5) to be able to upload the hardware information once changed to a central server 6) to be able to rate compatability which will be tied to distro and kernel version.

Download the very early alpha here: http://www.postmaster.co.uk/fs/doctormo/Public/do.tar.bz2

unpack and run do.py (which doesn't do allow yet but it is fun to unplug and plug in usb hardware :-P) fields.py for the editing phase and config.py for the config modual which I'm working on tonight.

P.S. yes development will include server side software for easy administration, something a kin to the rosseta stone in ease of use will be required.