ExtremeTech Review slams Feisty!

[rsambuca]

Ouch. I don't know much about the author, but he sure didn't like ubuntu 7.04.

Review here (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2124099,00.asp).

Doesn't sound like he tried very hard, though.

[Brunellus]

ExtremeTech is a haven for gamers, overclockers, and Windows users. Nothing is ready for the desktop for them.

[karellen]

who cares? I'm happy with feisty and that's all that I need to know

[M$LOL]

If he doesn't like it, he can go and use Windows. He's whining about Flash not being installed by default, I mean WTF is his problem???

[karellen]

ExtremeTech is a haven for gamers, overclockers, and Windows users. Nothing is ready for the desktop for them.

well maybe they should ask themselves if they are ready for linux :)

[rsambuca]

ExtremeTech is a haven for gamers, overclockers, and Windows users. Nothing is ready for the desktop for them.

Ah... that makes more sense to me. Why even bother trying linux then??

[proalan]

half effort lazy review, rushed the installation / configuration, probably not spent more than 30 mins using it.

- 'suprised flash not install on firefox by default'
- 'didn't install nvidia drivers by default'

not much different to a windows install, these aren't installed by default on any other OS anyways.

[BLTicklemonster]

There's always bashers out there. That's our great first amendment at it's best. sorta

[Hex_Mandos]

How is it that "previous Ubuntu releases have been better"? Which release was better than Feisty?

[justin whitaker]

How is it that "previous Ubuntu releases have been better"? Which release was better than Feisty?

That was my question as well. Feisty is one of the best Linux distribution releases, period.

[rsambuca]

half effort lazy review, rushed the installation / configuration, probably not spent more than 30 mins using it.

- 'suprised flash not install on firefox by default'
- 'didn't install nvidia drivers by default'

not much different to a windows install, these aren't installed by default on any other OS anyways.

The "didn't install nvidia drivers by default" comment is puzzling to me as well. I would be willing to wager that this same guy downloads the latest drivers from the nvidia website and installs them on a regular basis, then rolls a few of them back because they don't work properly. He then complains that ubuntu doesn't install them by default. Expectations are a weird thing!

[Adamant1988]

That review borderlines pathetic. Obviously the person reviewing the system ignored the other TONS of distros that don't load flash and drivers by default. That's the kind of user Linspire was designed for, yup.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

That reviewer had an easy time compared to me. I'll have to wipe Feisty, and re-install Edgy. Imagine the labor that goes into doing just this.

[gashcr]

This guy is crazy... he is asking more than what is legally possible... that review should be banned... jaja

[mech7]

ExtremeTech is a haven for gamers, overclockers, and Windows users. Nothing is ready for the desktop for them.

Then why does he recommend Xandros ;)

[Adamant1988]

Then why does he recommend Xandros ;)

No clue, he should have recommended Linspire. Since it includes everything he wants out of the box.

[BWF89]

That was a pretty bad review.

[bastiegast]

I stopped reading at no flash by default just to comment here. If I come across a flash item on a website I can click on it to install the plugin and I'm three clicks away of having flash without even having to restart firefox, how hard is that? I'm beginning to wonder if this guy has even tried ubuntu.

And as said before, windows too doesn't have flash nor nvidia drivers installed by default

It's is actually easier to install nvidia's drivers in ubuntu than it is in windows!

[lepz]

I think he may have missed Edgy ;)

[jrusso2]

How is it that "previous Ubuntu releases have been better"? Which release was better than Feisty?

The things that he didn't like about Feisty were missing in previous versions also. No flash, no nvidia drivers, no DVD.

I don't understand his review.

[LMP900]

I stopped reading at no flash by default just to comment here. If I come across a flash item on a website I can click on it to install the plugin and I'm three clicks away of having flash without even having to restart firefox, how hard is that? I'm beginning to wonder if this guy has even tried ubuntu.

And as said before, windows too doesn't have flash nor nvidia drivers installed by default

It's is actually easier to install nvidia's drivers in ubuntu than it is in windows!

Exactly my thoughts. After installing Windows or Mac OS X, Flash was not installed by default on Internet Explorer or Safari, respectively.

[adamklempner]

No clue, he should have recommended Linspire. Since it includes everything he wants out of the box.

Nah. Xandros includes all of that stuff plus CrossOver Office, and does a better job of it than Linspire...

I personally prefer things to "just work", but hey, more stuff "just works" in Ubuntu than does in a bare install of XP. So he really has nothing to complain about...

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

That review borderlines pathetic. Obviously the person reviewing the system ignored the other TONS of distros that don't load flash and drivers by default.
Yes, it is obvious that he ignored distributions that he was NOT reviewing. Amazing how in a review of Ubuntu he didn't start spontaneously reviewing distributions that aren't Ubuntu.

[Adamant1988]

Yes, it is obvious that he ignored distributions that he was NOT reviewing. Amazing how in a review of Ubuntu he didn't start spontaneously reviewing distributions that aren't Ubuntu.

You missed the point. He reviewed Ubuntu, and graded it down, on a series of points that effect almost every single major distribution of Linux.

If distribution A, B, C, D, E, and F all have the same problems, is it fair to assume that Ubuntu should magically improve on these - and grade it down when it doesn't? (notice that he has no problem mentioning the commercial distro Xandros in an Ubuntu review)

[LMP900]

Yes, it is obvious that he ignored distributions that he was NOT reviewing. Amazing how in a review of Ubuntu he didn't start spontaneously reviewing distributions that aren't Ubuntu.

I think you missed his point. It's like me reviewing a Volkswagen Rabbit and complaining that it doesn't feature regenerative braking, when almost every car out there (save for hybrids) do not have the feature either.

Edit: Damn, beat me to it. ;)

[FoolsGold]

That reviewer was so damn ignorant. :(

And as for gamers, overclockers and Windows users always saying Linux is never ready for the desktop, well I come from a heavy grounding of the gamers and Windows parts, but I still had the determination and perspective to make the thing work, and you know what? It was damn well WORTH the effort expended. It can be done.

I'm developing a major dislike for those who don't understand the reasoning behind some decisions in Feisty, such as why this or that aren't included (eg. Flash and NVIDIA binaries). Surely they can find out and at least appreciate the reasoning, instead of asking questions without giving answers, no?

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

You missed the point. He reviewed Ubuntu, and graded it down, on a series of points that effect almost every single major distribution of Linux.
No, you missed the point. This is a review. A review means you discuss what you found good or bad about it. What you don't do in a review is list what you think makes it like other Linux distributions. Or do you think someone who wants Flash, crazy though he must be to want something that awful, should stop wanting Flash just because other distributions won't give it to him?

[LMP900]

No, you missed the point. This is a review. A review means you discuss what you found good or bad about it. What you don't do in a review is list what you think makes it like other Linux distributions. Or do you think someone who wants Flash, crazy though he must be to want something that awful, should stop wanting Flash just because other distributions won't give it to him?

If you can find a review from the same writer mentioning the absence of Flash in the default installation of Safari or Internet Explorer, then I will concede to your argument.

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

If you can find a review from the same writer mentioning the absence of Flash in the default installation of Safari or Internet Explorer, then I will concede to your argument.
Show me his Internet Explorer review. Where did you find it? I can't find it anywhere. Of course, even had he reviewed every single product on Earth with the same problem he says Ubuntu has as you seem to think he has an obligation to do (he doesn't), you are still resorting to logical fallacy by suggesting that a widespread problem makes something not a problem.

[MilosDusan]

It just seems like he purposely went around the fact of not mentioning that other OS's come with these items to purely bash FF.. And his only con's were 'Didn't install and configure video drivers' (which still doesn't happen in Windows if you want to take full advantage of your NVidia card), and 'Windows Migration tool didn't work' .. eh .. With those two minor gripes, he still have it a 4 out of 10? Pfft..

[ErikTheRed]

His complaint about flash not being installed by default is rather stupid. Windows doesn't have it installed by default either. It's more a licensing issue than anything (I think so at least).

[LMP900]

Show me his Internet Explorer review. Where did you find it? I can't find it anywhere. Of course, even had he reviewed every single product on Earth with the same problem he says Ubuntu has as you seem to think he has an obligation to do (he doesn't), you are still resorting to logical fallacy by suggesting that a widespread problem makes something not a problem.

I am simply saying that if he reviewed Mac OS X or Windows Vista, he probably would not have criticized these operating systems for the fact that neither Safari nor Internet Explorer has Flash pre-installed. Yet, he seems to do so with Ubuntu 7.04. Again, if you can find a review of his which proves my assumption wrong, I will concede to your argument.

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

I am simply saying that if he reviewed Mac OS X or Windows Vista, he probably would not have criticized these operating systems for the fact that neither Safari nor Internet Explorer has Flash pre-installed. Yet, he seems to do so with Ubuntu 7.04. Again, if you can find a review of his which proves my assumption wrong, I will concede to your argument.
You automatically are wrong in your criticism, because if you found a reviewer who liked Ubuntu but didn't like another OS with the same merits, you would probably would not criticize him for it. If you find an example of you criticizing someone who gave Ubuntu a positive review but did not review every other OS, I will concede to your argument. Otherwise according to your own statements you must be wrong.

Nice being on the receiving end of your own logical fallacy, isn't it?

[Tundro Walker]

You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time...but you can never please leet haxorz.

[brim4brim]

I stopped reading at no flash by default just to comment here. If I come across a flash item on a website I can click on it to install the plugin and I'm three clicks away of having flash without even having to restart firefox, how hard is that? I'm beginning to wonder if this guy has even tried ubuntu.

And as said before, windows too doesn't have flash nor nvidia drivers installed by default

It's is actually easier to install nvidia's drivers in ubuntu than it is in windows!

I just thought I'd point out that Windows XP does have Flash installed by default. Its just way out of date at this point so you always get told to install Flash which is the same thing basically but it is there.

nVidia drivers not being installed is utter crap because XP has almost no drivers installed default. This guy is talking about buying a computer where someone did that for him but expects Ubuntu to do it for him automatically. When I reformatted my Dell I had to install ATI drivers, sound card drivers, modem drivers and wireless card drivers. In Ubuntu it was ATI drivers.

As for codecs, Windows Media Player does not play DVD's out of the box because it lacks the DVD codec which has to be attained elsewhere for licensing reasons so he's more complaining that Totem doesn't go download codecs automatically for him and on that he might have a point. It would be nice if Totem went a looked for codecs and asked if you wished them to be installed and warned that they might not be legal in your region. Its not a deal breaker for me though.

[Tundro Walker]

You know what, I was gonna just leave it at a stupid comment and let it go, but I can't. Screw this guy that reviewed Ubuntu and slammed it so bad.

For crying out loud, Ubuntu is FREE! FREE! Let me repeat that ... FREE! As in "no cost", "gratis", and "quit your complaining".

Windows sucks? Great. I can understand somebody slamming it...you pay like $400-$500 for a new version of Vista. You have the right to get upset.

Mac OS X sucks? Great. I can understand somebody slamming it...you have to specifically buy a Mac just to use it. You have the right to get upset.

Ubuntu sucks? Dude, you should be thankful you even got the chance to review it without having to fork over some serious cash for a license for it or for a computer that can run it. You do NOT have the right to get upset.

You have a FREE OS distro, produced by a company with much more limited resources than Microsoft or Apple. Linux has been around for years, but Canonical has only had a couple years to tweak their distro. The others just give you an OS, while Ubuntu gives you a whole desktop suite, office suite, etc. Ubuntu's graphics are as good if not better than Windows and Mac. The stuff you can do with it is comparable, and then some, because you have access to the source code. If you don't like something, you have the potential to CHANGE IT!

Man, folks like this, and the ones that blame the OS for their hardware not working, make me sick. I can understand if he was tech-reviewing a product all of us would pay money for. EG: like tech bloggers who get free electronics from companies that want them to review it for potential customers. But this is a FREE product. Show a little more aplomb for the folks who are busting their butts to deliver it to you. IE: while you can get all uppity and harsh at Microsoft, or Apple, or whomever you spent way too much money to for whatever product of theirs you hate, if somebody has done something for you for free, you don't just slam them when you don't like something about it. You thank them for it, and then constructively critique it on the points you don't like.

Honestly, this is why I agree with folks saying Ubuntu isn't "competing" with Microsoft or Apple. In my opinion, there is no competition. Ubuntu is in a totally different class...it's FREE. If Microsoft or Apple both produced a free OS of their own, then I'd say there was a competition (equal footing), but currently, Ubuntu is in a league of it's own (well, it's "competing" with the other free Linux distro's, so really, they're all in a league of their own.)

With that, I'll exit the soap-box, stage right.

[LMP900]

You automatically are wrong in your criticism, because if you found a reviewer who liked Ubuntu but didn't like another OS with the same merits, you would probably would not criticize him for it. If you find an example of you criticizing someone who gave Ubuntu a positive review but did not review every other OS, I will concede to your argument. Otherwise according to your own statements you must be wrong.

Nice being on the receiving end of your own logical fallacy, isn't it?

Firstly, you seem to be bitter, so let's start with smiley.

:)

Now, on to the topic at hand. I am not saying that the reviewer is out-of-line for suggesting that Flash should be installed by default. However, it doesn't merit a negative rating when even mainstream propriety operating systems do not include it by default either. It just doesn't seem like an impartial review. He gave Ubuntu 6.06 an 8/10, while he gives Ubuntu 7.04 a 4/10, claiming that "Past releases of Ubuntu have been better than this." Yet, his main complaints are problems with DVD playback and Flash not installed by default. He never mentioned what exactly the past releases of Ubuntu had that 7.04 doesn't.

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

Now, on to the topic at hand. I am not saying that the reviewer is out-of-line for suggesting that Flash should be installed by default. However, it doesn't merit a negative rating when even mainstream propriety operating systems do not include it by default either.
You just made the same mistake yet again. Where in that review did he state he was doing a comparison to a proprietary operating system? It looked to me like a review, not a Lionux pageant. In a review, you talk about the product you reviewed, not the products you didn't. If you think something is a problem, then it doesn't matter if someone else has that problem. A shared problem is still a problem. He also said he thought Ubuntu had a great installer?

Let me turn this around. You think he should discount his complaint on Flash because other distros also don't have Flash. He also says Ubuntu has a great installer. Should he discount that merit (and not count it as a positive in his final tally) because many other distros have great installers, too?

[LMP900]

When reviewing a product, you inherently compare it to the competition (which, in fact, he does when he mentions OS X and Xandros). He made it clear that he expected Flash to be present. When it was not, he graded it down. When he reviewed earlier versions of Ubuntu, his expectations were seemingly not as high, which resulted in praise and high ratings. When he reviewed Ubuntu 7.04, he expected things to be there, and when they were not, he claims that earlier versions of Ubuntu were better. A consistent criteria is obviously not present in his reviews.

[JerseyShoreComputer]

I have not had any of the problems that author mentions. I think he should give it a second look on a different machine,

But whatever - what was that Clint Eastwood said in "Dirty Harry" about opinions? I like Ubuntu and I'm sticking with it. Apparently, Dell likes it to so they must be doing something right.

[robtg]

How is it that "previous Ubuntu releases have been better"? Which release was better than Feisty?

6.10 installed without a hitch on my Compaq laptop. I couldn't do a clean install of 7.04; it wouldn't detect my video card. So, to me, 6.10 was a better release than 7.04.

Some day the good folks who put together Linux distros will stop looking at them as science fair projects and start looking at them as something that will compete with Windows and Mac OS.

The every-6-month schedule that Ubuntu has committed to seems a bit nutty to me. Why not release a distro when it's ready? I'd rather have stability and something I don't have to tinker with for hours than "Beryl". Leave that junk to the Windows kiddies.

-Rob

[PhatStreet]

I'd rather have stability and something I don't have to tinker with for hours than "Beryl". Leave that junk to the Windows kiddies.
-Rob
Agreed. To be honest, I don't see why distros waste time adding eye candy that adds nothing to productivity (save the Expose-clone, possibly), and "extremely important" goals such as the bulletproof X server are missed. I realize that different people work on different things, but if people want Ubuntu to compete as a desktop OS, let's stop putting effort into low-priority apps and systems.

[rsambuca]

Beryl isn't pre-installed because it isn't ready, and Mark has said so.

[troymcdavis]

You just made the same mistake yet again. Where in that review did he state he was doing a comparison to a proprietary operating system? It looked to me like a review, not a Lionux pageant. In a review, you talk about the product you reviewed, not the products you didn't. If you think something is a problem, then it doesn't matter if someone else has that problem. A shared problem is still a problem. He also said he thought Ubuntu had a great installer?

Let me turn this around. You think he should discount his complaint on Flash because other distros also don't have Flash. He also says Ubuntu has a great installer. Should he discount that merit (and not count it as a positive in his final tally) because many other distros have great installers, too?

The question is simply thus: why does he expect Ubuntu to have Flash installed out of the box? It's not because anybody else (Windows, OS X, most if not all linux distros) does it. Why doesn't anybody do this? Simply because Adobe owns the license and refuses to let these OS makers do so. Why does he hold that against Ubuntu, when clearly he should be complaining at Adobe?

And what's with the DVD support? Again, why does he expect Ubuntu to have these codecs available (illegally by many countries standards)? Why this expectation? Nobody else does it, and the problem is with the DVD manufacturers who insist on using CSS/DRM, not Ubuntu.

Why is Feisty graded so harshly on these seemingly trivial points? Dapper didn't seem to suffer that much because of it. Why did his expectations change so drastically, so suddenly?

Anyway, let me restate that this author should not be blaming Ubuntu when they have no choice in these matters and thus are not responsible. Canonical is not a group of teenage hackers operating out of some basement in Sweden, and if these companies (Adobe and DVD Manufacturers) want to throw the DMCA at Shuttleworth, he's a big target (read: has lots of money). The choices are: play by the rules, or release no OS at all.

[BLTicklemonster]

You automatically are wrong in your criticism, because if you found a reviewer who liked Ubuntu but didn't like another OS with the same merits, you would probably would not criticize him for it. If you find an example of you criticizing someone who gave Ubuntu a positive review but did not review every other OS, I will concede to your argument. Otherwise according to your own statements you must be wrong.

Nice being on the receiving end of your own logical fallacy, isn't it?

:confused: Pulling your own chain there, Mack?

[kvonb]

You know what, I was gonna just leave it at a stupid comment and let it go, but I can't. Screw this guy that reviewed Ubuntu and slammed it so bad.

For crying out loud, Ubuntu is FREE! FREE! Let me repeat that ... FREE! As in "no cost", "gratis", and "quit your complaining".

Windows sucks? Great. I can understand somebody slamming it...you pay like $400-$500 for a new version of Vista. You have the right to get upset.

Mac OS X sucks? Great. I can understand somebody slamming it...you have to specifically buy a Mac just to use it. You have the right to get upset.

Ubuntu sucks? Dude, you should be thankful you even got the chance to review it without having to fork over some serious cash for a license for it or for a computer that can run it. You do NOT have the right to get upset.

You have a FREE OS distro, produced by a company with much more limited resources than Microsoft or Apple. Linux has been around for years, but Canonical has only had a couple years to tweak their distro. The others just give you an OS, while Ubuntu gives you a whole desktop suite, office suite, etc. Ubuntu's graphics are as good if not better than Windows and Mac. The stuff you can do with it is comparable, and then some, because you have access to the source code. If you don't like something, you have the potential to CHANGE IT!

Man, folks like this, and the ones that blame the OS for their hardware not working, make me sick. I can understand if he was tech-reviewing a product all of us would pay money for. EG: like tech bloggers who get free electronics from companies that want them to review it for potential customers. But this is a FREE product. Show a little more aplomb for the folks who are busting their butts to deliver it to you. IE: while you can get all uppity and harsh at Microsoft, or Apple, or whomever you spent way too much money to for whatever product of theirs you hate, if somebody has done something for you for free, you don't just slam them when you don't like something about it. You thank them for it, and then constructively critique it on the points you don't like.

Honestly, this is why I agree with folks saying Ubuntu isn't "competing" with Microsoft or Apple. In my opinion, there is no competition. Ubuntu is in a totally different class...it's FREE. If Microsoft or Apple both produced a free OS of their own, then I'd say there was a competition (equal footing), but currently, Ubuntu is in a league of it's own (well, it's "competing" with the other free Linux distro's, so really, they're all in a league of their own.)

With that, I'll exit the soap-box, stage right.

I'm with you 100% Tundro Walker, this growing "I demand everything free and I'm going to whine about it if it's not exactly what I want" mentality it getting right up my nose too.

I just wish that Microsoft would come up with a completely unhackable and foolproof copy protection system for their products, then we'd start to see a huge percentage of these Microsoft advocate blogs suddenly changing their views!

[WalmartSniperLX]

Seems like he doesn't know much about linux in general maybe? Maybe he would understand that flash isn't installed on default because of copyright protections. Besides, it's not hard to install it. Go to a flash site, click "install plugins" or whatever, and install. If it doesnt work, then dl and extract it. Jeez.

Seems like a bias windows power user.

Bah. Why doesn't he review Gentoo.

(sorry but I didnt read the whole review. I got a little upset after the 2nd page.)

[FuturePilot]

He never tried changing the resolution with the Nvidia-settings. The correct res is almost always listed there.


The Linux 2.6.2.0 kernel
Typo?:confused:

[Polygon]

he complained that flash and nvidia drivers are not included in default. The drivers would of been included but there was some reason it was pushed back, not to mention most of the community not wanting it. Flash and the drivers are also closed source.

the migration assistant didnt work with vista. Well, even native windows programs are having trouble running on vista. The os came out like 4 months ago... give it time and it will work

those were the only three points..... he gave more kudos to ubuntu then criticisms and he still gave it 4/10... not very logical.

but whatever, he also mentioned that software selection was good but not overwhelming. Compared to windows the selection of software is a godsend! having a good fully feature office program, paint program, and all that included for free? what is he complaining about? (from a vista user that spent 100$s of dollars on office/photoshop)

[WalmartSniperLX]

but whatever, he also mentioned that software selection was good but not overwhelming. Compared to windows the selection of software is a godsend! having a good fully feature office program, paint program, and all that included for free? what is he complaining about? (from a vista user that spent 100$s of dollars on office/photoshop)

Well said :guitar: I was going to post about that but didn't have the right words. Don't know why :) Also Ubuntu is very light-weight; even feisty is very clean.

[steven8]

This reminds me of a time, back in the '80's, when our local paper, The Akron Beacon Journal, sent their guy who normally reviewed symphonys, to cover a concert by the glam-heavy metal band Poison. No matter what I may have thought of the band Poison myself, it was a doomed review from the word go!

[Lord Illidan]

You know what, I was gonna just leave it at a stupid comment and let it go, but I can't. Screw this guy that reviewed Ubuntu and slammed it so bad.

For crying out loud, Ubuntu is FREE! FREE! Let me repeat that ... FREE! As in "no cost", "gratis", and "quit your complaining".

Windows sucks? Great. I can understand somebody slamming it...you pay like $400-$500 for a new version of Vista. You have the right to get upset.

Mac OS X sucks? Great. I can understand somebody slamming it...you have to specifically buy a Mac just to use it. You have the right to get upset.

Ubuntu sucks? Dude, you should be thankful you even got the chance to review it without having to fork over some serious cash for a license for it or for a computer that can run it. You do NOT have the right to get upset.

You have a FREE OS distro, produced by a company with much more limited resources than Microsoft or Apple. Linux has been around for years, but Canonical has only had a couple years to tweak their distro. The others just give you an OS, while Ubuntu gives you a whole desktop suite, office suite, etc. Ubuntu's graphics are as good if not better than Windows and Mac. The stuff you can do with it is comparable, and then some, because you have access to the source code. If you don't like something, you have the potential to CHANGE IT!

Man, folks like this, and the ones that blame the OS for their hardware not working, make me sick. I can understand if he was tech-reviewing a product all of us would pay money for. EG: like tech bloggers who get free electronics from companies that want them to review it for potential customers. But this is a FREE product. Show a little more aplomb for the folks who are busting their butts to deliver it to you. IE: while you can get all uppity and harsh at Microsoft, or Apple, or whomever you spent way too much money to for whatever product of theirs you hate, if somebody has done something for you for free, you don't just slam them when you don't like something about it. You thank them for it, and then constructively critique it on the points you don't like.

Honestly, this is why I agree with folks saying Ubuntu isn't "competing" with Microsoft or Apple. In my opinion, there is no competition. Ubuntu is in a totally different class...it's FREE. If Microsoft or Apple both produced a free OS of their own, then I'd say there was a competition (equal footing), but currently, Ubuntu is in a league of it's own (well, it's "competing" with the other free Linux distro's, so really, they're all in a league of their own.)

With that, I'll exit the soap-box, stage right.

Personally, the fact that it is free doesn't mean I can't criticize. The difference is that I know how to criticize constructively, in order to help improve the product. The fact that it is free doesn't mean one shouldn't complain when something goes wrong. Should I not give a bug report because it is free? Or can I launch a barely working piece of software, just mark it as free, in order to cover my steps?

I guess Linus recieved a lot of criticism when his OS was still growing up. He must have heard some of them..imagine if he just said "This is FREE, wtf are you complaining about?"


Regarding the flash drivers, could they be considered as codecs and installed with the gstreamer plugins?

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

The drivers would of been included but there was some reason it was pushed back, not to mention most of the community not wanting it. Flash and the drivers are also closed source.
Finally someone who can cite the real reason this review falls flat on its face. Not because of some absurd idea that he is obligated to review every single OS on the planet if he reviews one, and then decided he doesn't hate what he hates if any single other one also has that problem (but to exempt compliments from that requirement, because after all, the rules are meant to make Ubuntu look good), but because the things he hates aren't actually problems! I will never use an OS that includes an abomination like Flash out of the box. Ever. I don't have Flash installed. I don't want Flash installed. Even if it were free, I would hate Flash. It is useless, is only used by lazy web developers who aren't smart enough to use the standards that 95% of the time would work better for the same purpose, and most uses of Flash are just to irritate and annoy.

[tageiru]

"Feisty Fawn" indeed. I think "Crappy Cow" is more like it.
No love there. :)

I wonder if this has anything to do with Matthew Garretts (ubuntu developer) criticism of the ExtremeTech book Hacking Ubuntu to Improve Performance here (http://discuss.extremetech.com/forums/1/1004377438/ShowThread.aspx).

He wasn't very nice. :)

[PrimoTurbo]

I agree this guys is 100% correct. When i install ubuntu I expect for everything to already to installed and configured to my liking. How come there are no games included like counter-strike and world of warcraft, I also want to have a button on the desktop that runs vista in a little window so I can drag files across the operating systems. I tried installing some .exe programs and they didn't work, wtf why can't ubuntu run some simple .exe files.

[LMP900]

I agree this guys is 100% correct. When i install ubuntu I expect for everything to already to installed and configured to my liking. How come there are no games included like counter-strike and world of warcraft, I also want to have a button on the desktop that runs vista in a little window so I can drag files across the operating systems. I tried installing some .exe programs and they didn't work, wtf why can't ubuntu run some simple .exe files.

Have you tried earlier versions of Ubuntu? They are much better and can do all these things you mention.

[jcooper]

Have you tried earlier versions of Ubuntu? They are much better and can do all these things you mention.
I hear it's a bug in Feisty. The workaround is to hold one leg and hop up and down 50 times while your PC boots.....

[kelvin spratt]

thats why ubuntu is at no1. 2895 dists and zandros is no 24. 294 dists in a week so if the reveiwer is to believed thier most be 2,606 misguided people last week? i don't think so.

[Rashedul]

I agree this guys is 100% correct. When i install ubuntu I expect for everything to already to installed and configured to my liking. How come there are no games included like counter-strike and world of warcraft, I also want to have a button on the desktop that runs vista in a little window so I can drag files across the operating systems. I tried installing some .exe programs and they didn't work, wtf why can't ubuntu run some simple .exe files.


Have you tried earlier versions of Ubuntu? They are much better and can do all these things you mention.


I hear it's a bug in Feisty. The workaround is to hold one leg and hop up and down 50 times while your PC boots.....

best replies so far ...
:lolflag: :popcorn:

[mikewhatever]

The author of the review (Jim Lynch) seems to be completely unaware of Ubuntu's ideology. Hence, the demand for flash and other non free stuff. He also seems to have a particular liking for lots of programs preinstalled. The resolution problem is the only real issue he encountered, and it seems to be a frequent one for a lot of users.


I agree this guys is 100% correct. When i install ubuntu I expect for everything to already to installed and configured to my liking. How come there are no games included like counter-strike and world of warcraft, I also want to have a button on the desktop that runs vista in a little window so I can drag files across the operating systems. I tried installing some .exe programs and they didn't work, wtf why can't ubuntu run some simple .exe files.
Reply With Quote

Do you have these features pre-installed in XP or Vista? Ubuntu can't run exes for the very same reason you can't eat grass as a cow or a horse. It can run debs instead, as well as converted rpms. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

[FoolsGold]

Do you have these features pre-installed in XP or Vista? Ubuntu can't run exes for the very same reason you can't eat grass as a cow or a horse. It can run debs instead, as well as converted rpms. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
I believe the poster was being hugely sarcastic. If he was serious... then may God have mercy on us all. :)