Ubuntu Experiment & Windows/Linux Desktop Comparison [Archive]

totalshredder

April 30th, 2005, 05:07 AM

For your reading pleasure:

A good but not only positive review of Ubuntu:
http://linuxblog.sytes.net/index.php?/archives/77-Experiment-1.5-Ubuntu-5.04-Hoary-Final-Rating.html

And some eye-candy:
http://opensourceversus.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=155&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Why was that eye candy? It was kind of boring lol :)

The review was strange but good. She doesn't seem to understand a few things, but good angles :)

Luke

TravisNewman

April 30th, 2005, 06:23 AM

Wow, the eye candy part: the middle one sure did look a lot better ;)

HungSquirrel

April 30th, 2005, 06:36 AM

Wow, the eye candy part: the middle one sure did look a lot better ;)
My thoughts exactly! :-D

somuchfortheafter

April 30th, 2005, 01:03 PM

actually i disagree, the ubuntu default background is honestly hiddious lol just my opinion on the matter, and using just nautilus istead of nautilus --browser tends to make the distro look as though it has less functionality to newcomers who do not know about the extra option, personally i have mine changed to the browser however its still pretty sad thas a up-to-date ubuntu is that it uses nautilus defaulted as its file browser.

TravisNewman

April 30th, 2005, 01:18 PM

somuchfortheafter-- that's because the browse method doesn't make sense for file management-- it's just what everyone is used to because of MS hooking IE4 into the os so tightly. there are MANY documents fom studies done by neutral parties about this, and human interface guidelines, etc, that support this decision. The only problem, then, is the users who don't like it because they're used to something that completely BREAKS human interface guidelines.

Domhnull

April 30th, 2005, 02:36 PM

I understand the experimenter's point. She wants everything that she has been doing to 'just work' exactly the same as it had without doing anything. She doesn't want to hear any issues about non-free software or anything else. Frankly, I think that's the sort of user that is a problem. I happen to think that the reasons behind not using non-free software are good reasons.

Before I dumped WinXP I took my time to learn. I read about the Gnu philosophy (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html), about spatial mode (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/finder.ars/1) and decided that was the sort of system I wanted. I started slow, trying different distros, LiveCDs, and then went to a dual-boot system. For awhile I booted by default into WinXP but that changed and now WinXP is no longer on my system.

Unfortunately most users aren't going to want to go through that process. Like the experimenter they don't want to hear anything else. If someone doesn't want to learn it makes it really hard for them to change.

Besides, if they want everything the same why are they spending any time using Linux at all?

GTKpower

May 3rd, 2005, 02:21 AM

Spatial method does indeed make more sense. Now, if you're used to finding files using the navigation style, you'll think navigation makes more sense.

So we have a deadlock. It's whatever you're used to, right? WRONG.

Whatever you're used to isn't necessarily the best. I find spatial browsing and navigation browsing equally easy. I come from a Mac background (no, not OS X), so I grew up with Mac's spatial browsing. Got used to it. Liked it. When I finally dumped Mac altogether in 2002 (I had my PowerMac 6100/60 running System 7.0 - OS 8 since 1994) when I found that OS X had taken over, I went to a Windows system. Navigation browsing seemed weird and unintuitive, and the "tree" structure always seemed cumbersome, but I got used to it. It became easy as well. No choice but to get used to it.

Now that I've been running Linux for a solid year and GNOME 2.10 for nearly three weeks, I'm exposed to spatial browsing once again, and now I see why it is an excellent way of getting to your files. It's faster, everything is right there in front of you - nothing is easier than "a folder is a window" - and dragging/dropping files is a breeze.

Mac GUI designers in the old days had the right idea. You spent more time wokring with your files, rather than searching for them. In fact, spatial browsing naturally made you create files and folder structures in a very logical, trimmed-down manner. Not because you were afraid to open alot of windows, but because deep file structures made no sense when it came to day-to-day tasks. Spatial browsing encourages good work habits.

The only reason people have become accustomed to navigation browsing is because Microsoft closed the door a long time ago by integrating IE so closely with the GUI.

nocturn

May 3rd, 2005, 09:31 AM

I understand the experimenter's point. She wants everything that she has been doing to 'just work' exactly the same as it had without doing anything. She doesn't want to hear any issues about non-free software or anything else. Frankly, I think that's the sort of user that is a problem. I happen to think that the reasons behind not using non-free software are good reasons.

The problem is that users like her don't care about legal issues such as MP3 and Java, most of them download their XP from the net (or a friend). The actual price of a Windows install for them equals the price of Ubuntu.

But even then, she still misses the point. Even winXP cannot play all formats (like quicktime, ogg, ...) out of the box. A clean install has media player, notepad and calculator, but no Office, no Calendaring app, no PDA support. Ubuntu has all those by default, she just needs to add mplayer/Xine/vlc and xmms, which is much easier then installing Office, Anti-Virus, ...

It is not only her past experience, she shows a clear personal bias for WindowsXP and every other way of doing things is wrong.

Stormy Eyes

May 3rd, 2005, 02:26 PM

I understand the experimenter's point. She wants everything that she has been doing to 'just work' exactly the same as it had without doing anything. She doesn't want to hear any issues about non-free software or anything else.

I understand it too; I just don't agree with it. The FMOS (F---ing Magic Operating System) she wants is not what Ubuntu offers. She unreasonably expects Ubuntu to do everything Windows does in exactly the same way, which doesn't jibe with Aristotle's law of identity: Windows is Windows, and Ubuntu is Ubuntu.

Frankly, I think that's the sort of user that is a problem.

Frankly, I think that's the sort of user that deserves Windows. Call me elitist, but I'm still used to the idea that Linux is for people who are willing to "make an effort" to actually understand how their computers work.

UbuWu

May 3rd, 2005, 05:50 PM

Don't agree on that. I think it should just work, or at least making it work should be two clicks away at most. If it is not legal to distribute plugins or codecs with ubuntu, it should be made as easy as possible. If a user comes to a website wich requires a certain plugin it should be possible to download and install that with just a few clicks with the mouse. If someone clicks on a file that needs a specific codec, ubuntu should ask if you want to download the neccesairy codec (if that is legal of course...) Why make it harder on people? Linux should be for everybody, not just the people that want to know eveything there is to know about their computer. I am quite comfortable at doing things on the commandline, still I would prefer to do most things just using my mouse.

The point of the article is that this is the way most users will look at Ubuntu. It would be great if they had a better experience than with Windows or any other operating system.

Leif

May 3rd, 2005, 06:30 PM

It is not only her past experience, she shows a clear personal bias for WindowsXP and every other way of doing things is wrong.

True, but it is probably not done maliciously, to her the default XP install is an OS, and not only that, it is the exact definition of it. This is just the way things are with most people, as pointed out, she still needs to install other stuff, but to her this is *natural*, while the extra steps in linux are unnatural. People instinctively resist change.

What it boils down to is that people cannot make judgements about an OS unless they've spent a good amount of time living with it, so they start to realize the good parts as well as the bad.

void_false

May 3rd, 2005, 07:03 PM

About booting Ubuntu and all the lines that no one understand. LOL! This really made me laughting my ass off. :razz:
Personaly I prefere to see WTF is going on instead of watching some progress bar that freezes sometime and i dont know what to do.
If Ubuntu would have such splash screen - i'd disable it.

poofyhairguy

May 3rd, 2005, 08:36 PM

Why make it harder on people?

Legal liability. It sucks but its true.

poofyhairguy

May 3rd, 2005, 08:38 PM

It is not only her past experience, she shows a clear personal bias for WindowsXP and every other way of doing things is wrong.

Thats the way of the world. Most people I know who have rejected Linux isn't because it couldn't do somethign (cause I hammered on the box till it could do everything Windows could), its because "something isn't right."

Let people have what they want....

Spoofhound

May 3rd, 2005, 08:40 PM

Don't agree on that. I think it should just work, or at least making it work should be two clicks away at most. If it is not legal to distribute plugins or codecs with ubuntu, it should be made as easy as possible.

I really agree with this. The author of the Ubuntu review is very definitely in the "it should just work" camp - and rightly so. If Linux is truely "for the people" then simplicity in all aspects of the concept should be a goal. In its bloated, oversized and over expensive way, Windows provides the two clicks experience that most ordinary users require - like it or not, in terms of simplicity, this is the bar that's been set.

Expecting simplicity in this way is not elitist - but believing that people should have some understanding of their computers in order to use them is. Would it be acceptable to most buyers if owning a car needed more mechanical knowledge than just where to put the oil and fuel? I doubt it - no matter how sexy looking the car was, or how eco-friendly, efficient, etc.

I'm totally new to Linux. I've tried a few distros and I like the "feel" of Ubuntu, just as I like the "feel" of Gnome better than that of KDE. However, having to open terminal windows and enter lengthy command strings to achieve certain results, should not in my opinion be seen as a necessary evil, or worse still a badge of distinction. Its what it is - a pain.

BAshworth

May 3rd, 2005, 08:40 PM

Legal liability. It sucks but its true.

It's a legal liability that the "Missing Plugin" installation inside of Firefox works in Windows, but not in Linux? I think that's is what the woman writing the review was commenting on being frustrated with.

Leif

May 3rd, 2005, 09:09 PM

I really agree with this. The author of the Ubuntu review is very definitely in the "it should just work" camp - and rightly so. If Linux is truely "for the people" then simplicity in all aspects of the concept should be a goal. In its bloated, oversized and over expensive way, Windows provides the two clicks experience that most ordinary users require - like it or not, in terms of simplicity, this is the bar that's been set.

Expecting simplicity in this way is not elitist - but believing that people should have some understanding of their computers in order to use them is. Would it be acceptable to most buyers if owning a car needed more mechanical knowledge than just where to put the oil and fuel? I doubt it - no matter how sexy looking the car was, or how eco-friendly, efficient, etc.

I'm totally new to Linux. I've tried a few distros and I like the "feel" of Ubuntu, just as I like the "feel" of Gnome better than that of KDE. However, having to open terminal windows and enter lengthy command strings to achieve certain results, should not in my opinion be seen as a necessary evil, or worse still a badge of distinction. Its what it is - a pain.

In general, I agree with you. There is no reason to expect people to know the intricacies of linux, and this will get ironed out in the future, I'm sure.

What I think you may be forgetting is that windows is not *that* simple either, depending on what you do. If you surf the net, open emails, and download the occasional program, for example, you need to go and install a half dozen things to keep yourself secure - firewall, anti-virus, several flavours of anti-spyware. You don't have this with linux. If you have never had to go crawling through the registry to remove references to some program that didn't uninstall cleanly, you're lucky. Keeping programs updated is a pain, with every single app launching its own update check. The list goes on.

My point is that while I agree that windows may be more user-friendly to the general user, a part of this has to do with the fact that linux gets judged by what it lacks compared to windows, and not by what it excels in. Which is ok, as improvement is always a good thing, but this does not equate to windows being all-round better.

BAshworth

May 3rd, 2005, 09:30 PM

My point is that while I agree that windows may be more user-friendly to the general user, a part of this has to do with the fact that linux gets judged by what it lacks compared to windows, and not by what it excels in. Which is ok, as improvement is always a good thing, but this does not equate to windows being all-round better.

Very good point. It did seem that what was being tested were the things that work more seamlessly in Windows than they do in Linux.

I'll have to see if she did a review of Suse, because the installer gives you the option of installing the java, flash, pdf, and mplayer plugins during the initial installation.

Too bad one of their tests wasn't to use the computer with an internet connection for a week, and then see which one was still operating at the same speed as when it was when first installed.

Spoofhound

May 3rd, 2005, 09:44 PM

My point is that while I agree that windows may be more user-friendly to the general user, a part of this has to do with the fact that linux gets judged by what it lacks compared to windows, and not by what it excels in. Which is ok, as improvement is always a good thing, but this does not equate to windows being all-round better.

Your point is well taken. However, first impressions count, and it is easy for the (current) initial "difficulties" with Linux in terms of installation and configuration to overshadow its longer term benefits and ease of use (updates, cleanliness etc.) In the case of Windows the perceived initial simplicity veils all the other longer-term crap that a user has to put up with. Even after a very short exposure to Linux I don't think that Windows is better - but then I never thought it was very good to start with. Improving the initial user experience will go a long way to building a better perception and level of acceptance and diminish the effect of dummy reviews such as that at the core of this thread

Leif

May 3rd, 2005, 09:58 PM

Your point is well taken. However, first impressions count, and it is easy for the (current) initial "difficulties" with Linux in terms of installation and configuration to overshadow its longer term benefits and ease of use (updates, cleanliness etc.) In the case of Windows the perceived initial simplicity veils all the other longer-term crap that a user has to put up with. Even after a very short exposure to Linux I don't think that Windows is better - but then I never thought it was very good to start with. Improving the initial user experience will go a long way to building a better perception and level of acceptance and diminish the effect of dummy reviews such as that at the core of this thread

You're right that first impressions count. Right now, linux is a bit of a "grower". I hope that security and stability will always come first for linux, but great strides are being made all the time in terms of ease of use as well. Given the state of affairs compared to even two years ago, the time when most people can live with a linux desktop without touching a single config file is not far off.

UbuWu

May 4th, 2005, 01:39 AM

There are a lot of posts here talking about 'but ubuntu has other strengths', and this is certainly true: it is a great advantage you don't need a virusscanner or anti adware tools (yet). But that doesn't make the other arguments about how too much complicated some things are in Ubuntu less true.

It always strikes me that when you say something negative about any linux distro, it will suddenly be compared to Windows, even by the most enthousiastic linux fans.... I don't think you should do that... Of course there is nothing wrong with linux being compared to windows, but if there are some points made against linux, it would be a lot better to just listen to these and make it (linux / Ubuntu) better. One day I hope Ubuntu / linux has only advantages over Windows, but we are not quite near that point yet.

UbuWu

May 4th, 2005, 01:52 AM

Legal liability. It sucks but its true.

But that is not the end to it. Keep being creative... ;-) This way it could (probably) work legally:

One of the most convenient features of Mandriva Linux is the way it handles commercial DVD movies. Put an encrypted DVD into your DVD-ROM and the Kaffeine video player pops up a window that checks for the required libraries and codecs. If some are not found -- Win32 and libdvdcss are not installed with the distribution because of legal issues in some countries -- you're told where to go to get them. Click the provided links, download the RPMs, install them using Mandriva's software installer, and within five minutes you have DVD and Windows media file playback capabilities. Many distributions try to force you to buy proprietary DVD players or provide disabled versions of video players that can't use the libdvdcss decryption library, making it inconvenient for the user to add this functionality.

From http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/04/26/2015205.shtml?tid=2&tid=130

poofyhairguy

May 4th, 2005, 02:26 AM

This way it could (probably) work legally

Ok. Thats probably a good idea for Java, Mp3 support, and Flash support. But things like windows codecs and libdss are not legal in a few important places. Mandriva can get around this because it its based out of France and so it can have this stuff in France (on its mirrors). Either Ubuntu would have to move all its package servers to France or Ubuntu would have to set up an extra repo where this can be provided. The first solution is illogical (and might not still shield Ubuntu from legal harm) and the second one is already done by jdong.

But is all cases, none of this would be supported and that might be a deal breaker anyway for some people.

nocturn

May 4th, 2005, 08:17 AM

True, but it is probably not done maliciously, to her the default XP install is an OS, and not only that, it is the exact definition of it. This is just the way things are with most people, as pointed out, she still needs to install other stuff, but to her this is *natural*, while the extra steps in linux are unnatural. People instinctively resist change.

Indeed, I do not thing the bias is malicious or even intended, but it is there.
A good testcase for me was my mother. She had never used any computer until I built her a Linux box. She is used to it and if she sees Windows, she doesn't know what to do with it, everything there is unnatural for her.

What it boils down to is that people cannot make judgements about an OS unless they've spent a good amount of time living with it, so they start to realize the good parts as well as the bad.

Yes. Every review of an OS should be from people who used it day-to-day for about 2-3 weeks.

nocturn

May 4th, 2005, 08:24 AM

I really agree with this. The author of the Ubuntu review is very definitely in the "it should just work" camp - and rightly so. If Linux is truely "for the people" then simplicity in all aspects of the concept should be a goal. In its bloated, oversized and over expensive way, Windows provides the two clicks experience that most ordinary users require - like it or not, in terms of simplicity, this is the bar that's been set.

On this point we disagree. Not that I do not thing Linux should be simple to use, but I do not thing windows is that way today.
Take the blue-screen-of-death which most users interpret as 'my computer is broken'. Not to mention that for most users, it is impossible to comprehend anti-virus and firewall sofware which is needed because the platform is so very vunerable.

Expecting simplicity in this way is not elitist - but believing that people should have some understanding of their computers in order to use them is. Would it be acceptable to most buyers if owning a car needed more mechanical knowledge than just where to put the oil and fuel? I doubt it - no matter how sexy looking the
car was, or how eco-friendly, efficient, etc.

OK, this sounds bad, but as it stands today, yes you need either some knowledge to the working of your computer or someone that does stuff for you.
Most WinXP users run with Admin privileges all the time because MS made it 'just work'. So, viruses and spyware 'just work' on it too.
These users get their PC hacked and sometimes personal data stolen or even a webcam turned on without their knowledge. These are the consequences of the design decisions taken in Windows, I do not want them to creep into Linux.
[/QUOTE]

nocturn

May 4th, 2005, 08:27 AM

It's a legal liability that the "Missing Plugin" installation inside of Firefox works in Windows, but not in Linux? I think that's is what the woman writing the review was commenting on being frustrated with.

It worked for the Flash plugin in FireFox/Linux too. Off course, it depends on how the plugins are made available (for flash, there is a specific Linux version).
The java plugin for example depends on JRE, which needs to have a system-wide install (cannot be done from within FF).
Windows uses a different install-dogma, which is also the reason for the continued security problems on that platform.

UbuWu

May 4th, 2005, 10:08 AM

It worked for the Flash plugin in FireFox/Linux too. Off course, it depends on how the plugins are made available (for flash, there is a specific Linux version).
The java plugin for example depends on JRE, which needs to have a system-wide install (cannot be done from within FF).

Isn't is even possible when it askes you for your password?

UbuWu

May 4th, 2005, 10:14 AM

Ok. Thats probably a good idea for Java, Mp3 support, and Flash support. But things like windows codecs and libdss are not legal in a few important places. Mandriva can get around this because it its based out of France and so it can have this stuff in France (on its mirrors). Either Ubuntu would have to move all its package servers to France or Ubuntu would have to set up an extra repo where this can be provided. The first solution is illogical (and might not still shield Ubuntu from legal harm) and the second one is already done by jdong.

But is all cases, none of this would be supported and that might be a deal breaker anyway for some people.

As Canonical seems to be based on the isle of man, is it illegal there? And if that is not possible, you should at least be given information about why things don't work and if possible also information what you can do to make things work.

poofyhairguy

May 4th, 2005, 10:21 AM

As Canonical seems to be based on the isle of man, is it illegal there?

Trick is that they can't violate laws in places Ubuntu wants to do big business (just ask DeBeer's executives about that, they can never come into U.S. because they violated U.S. law)

And if that is not possible, you should at least be given information about why things don't work and if possible also information what you can do to make things work.

I think that telling people: "You cannot watch this movie (or play this song, or go to this shockwave page , etc.) because of copyright restictions" too many will say "screw OSS and its difficult approach to copyright."

I prefer the intructions in the wiki and the official forum. That way people can learn the truth from an intermediary (and not kill the OSS messenger).

nocturn

May 4th, 2005, 10:38 AM

Isn't is even possible when it askes you for your password?

Ideally, only one user has root on a box (be it sudo or full root). So, asking the password for the others will not do much good. This is good for security, be it less convient.

The flash plugin works because it just installs in your home directory ~/.mozilla/firefox/default/plugins

Besides all of this, we should either have a system that is secure with an unsecure user (not happening any time soon), or only install things that the user knows.

If you do the option you suggest, you get into the MS trouble where a malicous page pops up the 'search plugin' and the unknowing user installs something called 'SVG viewer' which actually is a trojan. That is the consequence of making things too easy.

UbuWu

May 4th, 2005, 11:03 AM

I think that telling people: "You cannot watch this movie (or play this song, or go to this shockwave page , etc.) because of copyright restictions" too many will say "screw OSS and its difficult approach to copyright."

Yeah, but when it just doesn't work giving you no clue whatsoever on why it doesn't work, people will say another thing that doesn't work, screw it! And in the case of mp3, you could tell them about ogg in the same message...

rpm

May 4th, 2005, 03:06 PM

Ubuntu is my favourite linux distro but I can swear that if I ask my wife to try it, she will express almost identical feelings like the reviewer.

It's a fact; yes linux is different, and better but you can't say is easier for a newbie.

At least at this point

bye

rpm

nocturn

May 4th, 2005, 03:11 PM

defkewl

May 4th, 2005, 03:14 PM

That's nice. Thanks for sharing it with us

poofyhairguy

May 4th, 2005, 07:50 PM

Yeah, but when it just doesn't work giving you no clue whatsoever on why it doesn't work, people will say another thing that doesn't work, screw it! And in the case of mp3, you could tell them about ogg in the same message...

Good point. I guess its one of those things where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.....

EDIT: I think the solution would be an easy way to set up Real Player. It has legal MP3 support in Linux (they paid for all of us) and it would do away with that problem...