Ubuntu Linux - a Windows users perspective

[bikeman123]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

Windows works with my printer/scanner etc..
With Ubuntu nothing works..

My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..

When I install applications on windows I just double click a download..
When I install software on Ubuntu I have to hope it is in the repository or do without it..

When I upgrade windows it just works..
When I try to upgrade Ubuntu it either can't find 101 dependencies or it overwrites grub and stops my dual boot working..

When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

I can now fix most problems that occur with win98/XP/Vista..
After months of casual Linux use I still struggle to get anything useful done..

Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

[MetalMusicAddict]

IMO your not ready for linux. Sorry. Use what works for you.

[ENN0]

What you are complaining about is baby stuff....windows is closed source so you are suck with what ya got,can you build programs on windows....i dont think so,everything you use on windows initially started on Linux and thats what its there for.not to double click away into simple land ¬¬
BTW windows is as unstable as Charles manson and is constantly attacked by malware spyware and virisus!!

[_simon_]

Sounds like your unlucky with your hardware, everything works for me on a clean install. Ok I get a resolution of 1024x768 but that's easily changed to 1680x1050 by installing the driver and editing Xorg.

As for software, if it's not in the repo, it's not the end of the world. Most of the time you can find a deb and if not, compiling is not difficult.

Perhaps you need to try a different distro that might have better suited hardware support out of the box for your setup?

[Lster]

Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

That's a strange resolution! ;) I get 1024x768 every install - but then I use the restricted driver manager (or whatever it's called!) to install the correct driver... Even 3D works great.

Like _simon_ said, probably just unlucky with you hardware.

[bikeman123]

Maybe not - but I am very experienced with windows so despite the impression given I should be able to get Ubunto going. I know that Canonical spend a great deal of money trying to get towards establishing Ubuntu in the mainstream as a Windows alternative. I think they should be concerned that even experienced windows users end up frustrated with so many problems after what should be a simple install procedure.

Canonical - spend some of your marketing budget on getting your install working rather than keep sending out Ubuntu CDs that dont install properly.

[Pinger05]

IMO your not ready for linux. Sorry. Use what works for you.

+1. Sorry it didnt work out for you.

[bikeman123]

What you are complaining about is baby stuff....double click away into simple land

Helpful response and typical of someone who doesnt want it to be easy because they like the superiority that their knowledge gives them. I think if you had a financial interest in Ubuntu going mainstream like Canonical does you might take more notice.

[Dokatz]

Maybe not - but I am very experienced with windows so despite the impression given I should be able to get Ubunto going. I know that Canonical spend a great deal of money trying to get towards establishing Ubuntu in the mainstream as a Windows alternative. I think they should be concerned that even experienced windows users end up frustrated with so many problems after what should be a simple install procedure.

Canonical - spend some of your marketing budget on getting your install working rather than keep sending out Ubuntu CDs that dont install properly.

The greatest thing about Ubuntu is, We don't care if you use it or not. Not like it makes a difference. If you want help, We try our best to provide it as VOLUNTEERS whom love the community and the operating system.

If you want to stick with windows, Hey that's cool too man. I personally don't hate windows, But I bet if I had a harder time getting Ubuntu to work from the start I wouldn't react like you at all. If it's possible to figure out, Even if I have to learn the system from the ground up, I'm willing to do it. It's called learning.

And I think it was one of the admins who said 'Teaching someone who doesn't know computers to use Ubuntu is easier than teaching someone who has always used windows.", Just like a second language versus a first one.

It's cool though man, Really. Whatever works for you works, And I'm glad. If you feel like coming back to Ubuntu again sometime down the road feel free to hit up the forum again, Or even me PERSONALLY. I think my contact information is public.

[bikeman123]

The greatest thing about Ubuntu is, We don't care if you use it or not. Not like it makes a difference..

And is that my point - you dont care because you are not paying for Ubuntu.. Canonical are and they are not doing for love - they are doing it to establish a brand which they hope to make money from - either by selling the OS, lincencing or support.

Canonical need people like me who show an interest in their product because it is people like me who they hope to eventually sell it to.

It is people like you who they dont need because once their commercial model is defined it is you who will move onto the next free distro.

[tgalati4]

All of your observations are correct. Ubunutu has a long way to go before becoming perfect.

[ThinkBuntu]

The millions of Ubuntu users are clearly cheap, masochistic, or are computer nerds. You've convinced me. I'm off to buy Vista now.

[MetalMusicAddict]

And is that my point - you dont care because you are not paying for Ubuntu.. Canonical are and they are not doing for love - they are doing it to establish a brand which they hope to make money from - either by selling the OS, licensing or support.

Canonical need people like me who show an interest in their product because it is people like me who they hope to eventually sell it to.
The only thing Canonical will sell is support. Not Ubuntu itself.

It is people like you who they dont need because once their commercial model is defined it is you who will move onto the next free distro.
You REALLY need to read up on things here and become more informed because you clearly dont know how Ubuntu works. This isn't meant mean-spirited at all. Your just saying a lot of things that are uninformed.

Really. Don't fight it. Use Windows. If it works why switch?

[Dokatz]

The only thing Canonical will sell is support. Not Ubuntu itself.

You REALLY need to read up on things here and become more informed because you clearly dont know how Ubuntu works. This isn't meant mean-spirited at all. Your just saying a lot of things that are uninformed.

Really. Don't fight it. Use Windows. If it works why switch?

Plus one.

And hey, It's a whole lot easier to nay-say what people give and take out of the community. You know...COMMUNITY...Like how Linux works, For the most part.

[smoker]

And is that my point - you dont care because you are not paying for Ubuntu.. Canonical are and they are not doing for love - they are doing it to establish a brand which they hope to make money from - either by selling the OS, lincencing or support.

Canonical need people like me who show an interest in their product because it is people like me who they hope to eventually sell it to.

It is people like you who they dont need because once their commercial model is defined it is you who will move onto the next free distro.

you've obviously been listening to FUD. here are some links that may help you understand the community and philosophy of Ubuntu:
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing

Maybe once you read up a bit, you may understand better, anyway, best of luck with windows.

[ceelo]

Picture this:

On Linux, I can upgrade my OS without needing to buy new hardware
On Windows, I'll have to buy a whole new PC to run Vista...

On Linux, the system has built-in security features
On Windows, I have to buy third-party anti-virus software

On Linux, I can install 10 programs with one command
On Windows I have to go to 10 (or more) different websites to get the same 10 programs

On Linux, I got my desired 1280x1024 resolution by default
On Windows, I had to install video card drivers or else be stuck with 640x480...

With Linux, I connected to the internet off of a Live CD
On Windows, I had to install network drivers after installation

On Linux, sound worked instantly
On Windows, I had to install sound card drivers


You see, it goes both ways. Windows isn't perfect either but since you know it better, you can solve Windows issues. Just because you personally are struggling with issues inn Linux doesn't mean it's a bad OS. It just means you aren't used to how things are done. You don't seem like you're willing to learn Linux at all so you definitely should just stick to Windows for now.

[Calash]

My experience is very different from yours....everything has worked very well out of the box.

Your impression of how to install software is very wrong though. You can have the same level of click,download,install via .deb files, or you can compile from source if you are ready for that step (Note, compiling is NOT for beginners). I have yet to not be able to find software I want via a deb file or reposetory.

Upgrading has been very smooth for me. I went from Edgy to Feisty online with 0 issues on 3 systems.

As for answers....This has been the most helpful community I have every been a part of...I am not sure what has given you a different impression.

[Lord Illidan]

What you are complaining about is baby stuff....windows is closed source so you are suck with what ya got,can you build programs on windows....i dont think so,everything you use on windows initially started on Linux and thats what its there for.not to double click away into simple land ¬¬
BTW windows is as unstable as Charles manson and is constantly attacked by malware spyware and virisus!!

That's no help at all, incredibly biased, and incredibly misinformed. Some window apps started on UNIX, and from the university of Berkeley, but that's it.

To the OP, yes, Linux is not perfect. Most of your issues are hardware issues, and the majority of them are the fault of the hardware developers that fail to write Linux drivers or give the specs and help out the kernel developers.
It can also be something as simple as your Ubuntu version being out of date, my printer was not supported in Edgy but worked ok in Feisty.


When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

I can now fix most problems that occur with win98/XP/Vista..
After months of casual Linux use I still struggle to get anything useful done..

The first one is a common problem. However, if you ask about the command, or even google it, you will find an explanation. Some of us type in that command so often that we neglect to explain what it does.

Regarding the second issue, it's probably because of your problems with the hardware. Also you must consider that Linux is a totally different OS. Once you've learnt it, and if you have no problems, then your productivity will shoot up. My father and 2 sisters both use Linux all the time - browsing, surfing, music playing, Runescape, etc. Of course, I did all the rough stuff like configuring their system, but I am not a genius. I started out a complete newb just as you did.

[Nekiruhs]

Picture this:

On Linux, I can upgrade my OS without needing to buy new hardware
On Windows, I'll have to buy a whole new PC to run Vista...

On Linux, the system has built-in security features
On Windows, I have to buy third-party anti-virus software

On Linux, I can install 10 programs with one command
On Windows I have to go to 10 (or more) different websites to get the same 10 programs

On Linux, I got my desired 1280x1024 resolution by default
On Windows, I had to install video card drivers or else be stuck with 640x480...

With Linux, I connected to the internet off of a Live CD
On Windows, I had to install network drivers after installation

On Linux, sound worked instantly
On Windows, I had to install sound card drivers


You see, it goes both ways. Windows isn't perfect either but since you know it better, you can solve Windows issues. Just because you personally are struggling with issues inn Linux doesn't mean it's a bad OS. It just means you aren't used to how things are done. You don't seem like you're willing to learn Linux at all so you definitely should just stick to Windows for now.
+1 I had the same issue after reinstalling windows from a frickin' OEM CD. Gateway doesn't even know the drivers this computer needs.

[DagMan]

I normally don't but I can't resist right now

When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..
...yeah sure, if you need intructions like "grab the device that moves the pointy thing around the screen (it usually has a cord attached to it) and...."

[ceelo]

+1 I had the same issue after reinstalling windows from a frickin' OEM CD. Gateway doesn't even know the drivers this computer needs.

My issue was with Dell, and what actually happened was they sent me a CD with drivers on it that were too recent for my PC. So I had to get the drivers off their website. But remember, my internet wasn't working. :lol: Luckily I have another PC in the house or else I would have had to wait until they sent me out another CD, which (hopefully) had the right drivers.

[vexorian]

When I installed ubuntu it chooses a good resolution for me, 1280x1024 which is the max for my card, when I install windows it gives me 600x400. I have to pray I didn't lose my graphic card's driver CD.

When I install Ubuntu it detects my printer correctly (I just have to go the add printer window).
When I install windows it doesn't, I have to pray that I didn't lose my printer's CD rom.

When I look for software in Ubuntu, I know that there is a place where I can find all kinds of useful software, actually free and actually stable, and all software gets installed the same way, when I want to uninstall software I got from repositories I just use synaptic to uninstall it...

When I want software on windows I have to be precautious, look in plenty of places and make sure that what I am installing is not spyware, or adware or crappy shareware that won't work, and uninstall is not guaranteed to work.

I don't have to upgrade ubuntu since all my files are kept safe in a home partition I just install the new version over the previous system partition.

In windows, I have to be extra careful when upgrading since it might wipe my desktop, I'll also probably need to get a whole new computer to upgrade, and there are always these "addons" that come with new windows versions, I guess a lot of people love the idea behind WGA and DRM , I don't. And then it will rewrite the MBR and I have to get grub working...


Windows makes newbs lose time on a lot of confusing GUIs that are hard to explain .
On ubuntu I can get or give accurate instructions in a second.

Every version of windows gets more and more inflexible and limits my ways of fixing issues or tweaking/customizing the OS without downloading 300 programs that might not be free or might rely on hacking executable files.

On Ubuntu I am free to mod it to the extreme.

Can someone remind me again what is so great about MS windows.

[swoll1980]

.

Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=2906677#post2906677


I'll tell you the same thing I told the last guy that couldn't cut it in the world of Linux

I'll also so add that theres no way your windows install had drivers. Your talking about a update or restore.
And you will also notice if you look at your pc it says designed for windows on it, so if it seems like windows is more compatible with your hardware that is probably why. Go buy a sun micro system and try to put windows on it, or one of the dells that are made for Ubuntu see how compatible your windows is with that hardware.

[init1]

IMO your not ready for linux. Sorry. Use what works for you.
I agree. Linux works for some, and not for others.

[dca]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=2906677#post2906677

I'll also so add that theres no way your windows install had drivers. Your talking about a update or restore.


HAHA! I love that Windows just works. Has anyone that said they are a Windows power user ever perform a core install from a licensed media CD or store bought full install CD and work there way through installing the chipset drivers, USB hub drivers, whatever PCI cards installed drivers, etc, etc, etc???

It's almost become a joke of itself: "So, I went to the store, plopped out $1000, took the box home, opened it up, turned it on, and guess what??? Windows just works..."

[karellen]

What you are complaining about is baby stuff....windows is closed source so you are suck with what ya got,can you build programs on windows....i dont think so,everything you use on windows initially started on Linux and thats what its there for.not to double click away into simple land ¬¬
BTW windows is as unstable as Charles manson and is constantly attacked by malware spyware and virisus!!

everybody should use the os that suits his needs better. who are you to judge others' needs and desires as "baby stuff"?...can you tell me why would an average-user want to build a program? it this the supreme test for being able to talk "grown-up" stuff?. and I hope you know not everything that's on windows started on linux (say xerox, apple, maybe unix). do a little research on your own.
I find your reply childish and malicious. and btw, if you are curious, I'll get a degree in computer science next year so I probably know something, don't you think?

[SunnyRabbiera]

I would personally suggest another distro, as ubuntu is not the end all and be all of distros.

Some distros might work better for you thin Ubuntu, there is PClinux my preferred distro at this time
there is Mandriva
There is Mepis
heck there is Suse, that is owned by microsoft so you would feel at home :p

[vexorian]

not sure how exactly another distro would fix his complaints

[smiggs]

And is that my point - you dont care because you are not paying for Ubuntu.. Canonical are and they are not doing for love - they are doing it to establish a brand which they hope to make money from - either by selling the OS, lincencing or support.

Canonical need people like me who show an interest in their product because it is people like me who they hope to eventually sell it to.

It is people like you who they dont need because once their commercial model is defined it is you who will move onto the next free distro.

If you want to communicate with Canonical this is probably not the forum to do it in. I suggest you visit Launchpad (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu) and log the bugs you've found in the wireless drivers, printers, and upgrade process or perhaps head to the IRC channel. You're far more likely to find someone of a corporate nature through these channels, this forum is not official.

And don't forget to do a search on your problems, you can't expect to everything to work straight out of the box. It doesn't on Windows either.

[SunnyRabbiera]

not sure how exactly another distro would fix his complaints

well the thing is that sometimes another distro works better then another, and yeh ubuntu sometimes does not work for some.
I suggest if someone is going to try linux try at least five flavors of it before deciding, the top distros I personally suggest are:

Mepis
PClinux
Ubuntu
Mandriva
Sabayon

[elfstone214]

Helpful response and typical of someone who doesnt want it to be easy because they like the superiority that their knowledge gives them. I think if you had a financial interest in Ubuntu going mainstream like Canonical does you might take more notice.

I started using Linux no more than a month ago and almost everything you complained about can be fixed as easily as just asking or searching this forum.

Like someone said you are not ready to take the time to learn so stick with what you know.

[Steve B]

i would agree with elfstone.
i've been using Ubuntu for less than two weeks, mainly because the systems we use at my new job are linux, so i am forced to learn about it. i would also add that i'm an experienced windows user. The ubuntu forums have been the greatest asset to me, mainly because im running it on a macbook.

If you would care to reword your point, I would be much obliged...:) as I couldn't really see one...

[NewJack]

I started using Linux no more than a month ago and almost everything you complained about can be fixed as easily as just asking or searching this forum.

Like someone said you are not ready to take the time to learn so stick with what you know.

+1 to elfstone.

I have been using Ubuntu for 2 months now and ran into a few issues. I won't call them problems because once I asked or read about the issue(s) I had either in books or on the forums here, I got a solution and fixed it(them).

To the OP, the problem with people like you is that you refuse to learn anything new. You have gotten so used to Windows and it's point and click environment that you can't comprehend anything else, like the terminal or command line.

Sorry, but I am so sick and tired of reading posts like this. They are never constructive, always just "Ubuntu sux and I'm leaving". Maybe if people like this just tried a little harder to learn the OS and figure out their problems, they might get something out of it.

If you don't like it, that is fine. If you want to go back to windows, that is fine. We just don't need to hear about it.

[juxtaposed]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

The exact opposite for me (except windows gives me 800x600, and everything looks weird and such).


When I upgrade windows it just works..

Honestly? You've upgraded from one version to another and it worked fine?


When I try to upgrade Ubuntu it either can't find 101 dependencies or it overwrites grub and stops my dual boot working..

Ive upgraded flawlessly between different versions alot.


When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..

Most of my problems on windows are unfixable, Many of my problems on linux are either easly fixed or hardly fixed... But atleast they can be fixed.


I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

Copy and paste...?


Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

The fact that it works great for us?

We use linux because we like it. SImple.

Don't like it? Don't use it :D


Maybe not - but I am very experienced with windows so despite the impression given I should be able to get Ubunto going.

How does windows experience help you on linux?

It doesn't :P


I think they should be concerned that even experienced windows users end up frustrated with so many problems after what should be a simple install procedure.

And they should be happy that millions of people use it fine.



Canonical - spend some of your marketing budget on getting your install working rather than keep sending out Ubuntu CDs that dont install properly.

Microsoft spends 5 billion a year and all we get for it is a bloated uncustomizeable operating system.


Canonical need people like me

People like you who don't realise that it works on millions of other computers?


It is people like you who they dont need because once their commercial model is defined it is you who will move onto the next free distro.

I doubt Ubuntu will ever get all uber-commercialized. Even if it did, I use Debian, so...

But just understand that even though it doesn't work well for you, it works great for millions of other people.

[bone43]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

Windows works with my printer/scanner etc..
With Ubuntu nothing works..

My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..

When I install applications on windows I just double click a download..
When I install software on Ubuntu I have to hope it is in the repository or do without it..

When I upgrade windows it just works..
When I try to upgrade Ubuntu it either can't find 101 dependencies or it overwrites grub and stops my dual boot working..

When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

I can now fix most problems that occur with win98/XP/Vista..
After months of casual Linux use I still struggle to get anything useful done..

Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

Well maybe Linux isnt for you right now and really you should use the software that YOU like to use and that works best in your situation.

Theres nothing wrong with using windows if thats what you like its a choice,

That said there was a time i felt as you do frustrated with Linux, so i left and came back several times each time trying a few distros to see what had changed.
In the end I found one I liked and stayed that was several years ago and yes i still use MS products Im typing this from Vista at work but at home I run Linux and prefer it.

Just remember Linux takes time to learn you dont have to figure it all out in one day, so if you do leave please come back and try it again later maybe you will stay I did. :p

[Extreme Coder]

My magic 8-Ball reveals... that this is going to be merged with the hundreds of other topics merged at "The Desktop Linux Readiness Thread" :D

I'm not even going to waste my time explaining it to you when others here did that in a better way. But I have one thing to say though:

I think they should be concerned that even experienced windows users end up frustrated with so many problems after what should be a simple install procedure.

You're contradicting yourself here. You just said by yourself experienced windows users. Ubuntu is NOT supposed to be a cheap knock-off of Windows, it's an OS in its own right.

You know what? My Sister, who has only used computers this year, and only used Linux, I for fun sat her down in front of a Windows XP computer, and asked her to manage herself ( Her computer was damaged by a 2-yr old visitor, and the company which fixed it installed Windows XP on it). A few hours later, she asked me:
"Why can't I install any program from Add/Remove? I want X-Moto and Amarok"

Now I'm going to send an e-mail to Microsoft telling them Windows is not ready for the desktop.

[santy_kushwaha]

only thing u like is that everything to be done in a click but world is more then click try to learn then u will know ok baby

[WinterWeaver]

As others have said...You might not be ready for linux.... you didn't even try too hard with 9 posts outside of this thread (at time of writing this, you've made a total of 13 posts, 4 of which is on the first page of this thread)....

have fun ^_^

WW

[Gary.M]

Hmmm.... well I am a recent "convert" and I am liking my Ubuntu experience. BUT I agree with the originator of this thread, Ubuntu is not ready for "prime-time".

Just because it has a community and the geeks find it fun to use doesn't make it a success. Linux needs to become an OS that will just install and run with a minimum of fuss. It needs better hardware support and better gui configuration tools. No average user should have to touch the terminal or command shell, ever. In a way the current Linux experience is like a cross between MS-DOS and Windows XP.... you're going to have to get your hands dirty... Again this is OK for the geeks, but not good for the world at large.

What is clear to me from what I hear Canonical saying is that they want this to go mainstream... they are saying they need to fix all of these issues.... they are aware. This isn't just a socialist experiment.

Lets not play the "emperors new clothes" and delude ourselves that this OS is superior... not yet anyway...

[Dokatz]

So I guess all the bands I listen to are obviously inferior cause most people don't like them and they don't make great record sales. :( I better get to writing a letter.

[Gary.M]

So I guess all the bands I listen to are obviously inferior cause most people don't like them and they don't make great record sales. :( I better get to writing a letter.

The superiority of the clique eh?

This seems to pervade these threads... the "I'm exclusive so I'm special" attitude. Problem is for Linux to really succeed it has to climb over this... And like it or not, succeed for an OS means to gain mainstream acceptance. And I reckon I know what all the Linux geeks want... to be able to stand up and say... "look the market split is now better than 50% Linux, the rest between MS and Apple..."

[qamelian]

Hmmm.... well I am a recent "convert" and I am liking my Ubuntu experience. BUT I agree with the originator of this thread, Ubuntu is not ready for "prime-time".

Since his comments mirror my experience with Windows, I guess I'd be justified in claiming that Windows isn't ready for "prime-time".

I've worked for years in an environment supporting Windows-based networks, and I have very seldom seen a Windows install where everything worked "out of the box", certainly not on any of my personal hardware. Ubuntu on the other hand ( and most of the major distros, as well) requires nothing more than a 5 minute job to to install and configure NDISwrapper on my laptop and no additional steps at all on my desktop to have everything just work. A Windows install requires a minimum of 4 additional driver CDs just to get to the minimum level of functionality, and then I still have to install the apps that I need to be productive.

[NewJack]

Ubuntu is not ready for "prime-time".

Since my switch 2 months ago, I think that Ubuntu is more than ready to compete with Windows xp/vista. You can do anything in Ubuntu/Linux that you can in Windows. The only thing Windows has on Linux right now is the gaming aspect, but the tide is slowly turning around.
I am trying to get my wife to switch over now that she is seeing that she can do all the same stuff she is used to. Oh and BTW, at least with Ubuntu I can still use some of my older hardware and am not required to go by a new rig just to upgrade to the newest OS (Vista anyone???). Oh and let me know when Microsoft stops patching their products with security fixes. Haven't you learned by now that MS never puts out a "prime-time" product upon release.


Just because it has a community and the geeks find it fun to use doesn't make it
a success. Linux needs to become an OS that will just install and run with a minimum of fuss.

First off, if it weren't for a geek named Bill Gates you wouldn't even have Windows. Second, that is what makes Ubuntu strong is it's great community. When I have an issue/question, I post it here and usually get a quick answer. With the exception of an issue with my NVIDIA card, I had no issues at all with installing and running Ubuntu. As a matter of fact, it took less time to install than when I last installed WinXP. Oh and please do tell me that you never had to install WinXP more than once. I know that I had to install it at least 4 or 5 times since it came out.


It needs better hardware support and better gui configuration tools. No average user should have to touch the terminal or command shell, ever.

Do you realize that it is not Ubuntu or Linux as a wholes fault that there is not more hardware support. It is the companies such as Canon for instance that do not provide drivers for their hardware for linux. I had a Canon printer that essentially became a paperweight. So since I love Linux so much now since jumping into it, I went and bought an HP printer. Why? Because they fully support their printers with Linux drivers. And what is wrong with using the terminal and running command lines to get a task done whether it be installing a program or running system diagnostics?


In a way the current Linux experience is like a cross between MS-DOS and Windows XP.... you're going to have to get your hands dirty... Again this is OK for the geeks, but not good for the world at large.

BTW, how long have you owned a computer? Ever own a computer that ran Win 3.1 or even Win95 for that matter. Alot of stuff ran in DOS (especially games) back then. The problem with most people today is that they have been forced to become competent Windows users and not competent computer users due to the fact that Windows has the majority of the market share. I became a lazy Windows user just like you and have woken up to realize what I have been missing by just "going with the flow". Getting your hands dirty is part of the fun of computing.

[Gary.M]

I am trying to get my wife to switch over now that she is seeing that she can do all the same stuff she is used to.

Ditto, me too exactly.


Oh and let me know when Microsoft stops patching their products with security fixes. Haven't you learned by now that MS never puts out a "prime-time" product upon release.


Thats what I hate about Windows too, and the general bloat that itsoccurring.


Oh and please do tell me that you never had to install WinXP more than once. I know that I had to install it at least 4 or 5 times since it came out.


Actually its been the most stable of all the Windows for me. My current install is my first and has been running for several years.



Do you realize that it is not Ubuntu or Linux as a wholes fault that there is not more hardware support. It is the companies such as Canon for instance that do not provide drivers for their hardware for linux. I had a Canon printer that essentially became a paperweight.

Again, just like me. I have a Canon scanner and printer. The printer I have working, the scanner by running XP in Virtualbox... And the reason Canon aren't supporting it is just lack of critical mass... make this a real viable alternative and I'm sure they will be persuaded...


BTW, how long have you owned a computer? Ever own a computer that ran Win 3.1 or even Win95 for that matter. Alot of stuff ran in DOS (especially games) back then. The problem with most people today is that they have been forced to become competent Windows users and not competent computer users due to the fact that Windows has the majority of the market share. I became a lazy Windows user just like you and have woken up to realize what I have been missing by just "going with the flow".

Since about 1986. And for 10 years ran a small business support company doing hardware and software. The world has moved on, the average user (those I supported anyway) have no desire to get their hands dirty, that is not their idea of fun. Computers are supposed to be a tool aren't they? And tools just turn on and work. We're still in the dark ages really.

This isn't a ******* match, this is about just being realistic about where we are and where we need to go... the inevitable march of progress....

[Luksion Knight]

individuality is what spawned windows, unix, linux, even the computer in of it-self. and its what is causing the schisms, comparisons, and criticisms. so this difference of views is not caused by the operating system, nor is it a problem. its just humanity, all we can do is help eachother. overall point is, there's no need to compare systems, there is no need to criticize eachother, and there is no need to prove which system is better, because its just a personal paradox. its all in the eye of the beholder.

[karellen]

individuality is what spawned windows, unix, linux, even the computer in of it-self. and its what is causing the schisms, comparisons, and criticisms. so this difference of views is not caused by the operating system, nor is it a problem. its just humanity, all we can do is help eachother. overall point is, there's no need to compare systems, there is no need to criticize eachother, and there is no need to prove which system is better, because its just a personal paradox. its all in the eye of the beholder.

actually very few that visits those forums will ever stop and think about your words. human nature....and there's nothing that can be done about it

[Gary.M]

individuality is what spawned windows, unix, linux, even the computer in of it-self. and its what is causing the schisms, comparisons, and criticisms. so this difference of views is not caused by the operating system, nor is it a problem. its just humanity, all we can do is help eachother. overall point is, there's no need to compare systems, there is no need to criticize eachother, and there is no need to prove which system is better, because its just a personal paradox. its all in the eye of the beholder.

Hear hear!:D

[Sweet Mercury]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

Windows works with my printer/scanner etc..
With Ubuntu nothing works..

My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..

When I install applications on windows I just double click a download..
When I install software on Ubuntu I have to hope it is in the repository or do without it..

When I upgrade windows it just works..
When I try to upgrade Ubuntu it either can't find 101 dependencies or it overwrites grub and stops my dual boot working..

When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

I can now fix most problems that occur with win98/XP/Vista..
After months of casual Linux use I still struggle to get anything useful done..

Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

Ignore some of the snobbery here.

You've got 3 different issues that I can see here. Hardware problems, learning curve, and personal preference.

Hardware issues are a pain. Plain and simple. It's easy for people to say "get a new computer or compatible hardware," but that's just not a viable option for most people. And you're right, it needs to be addressed by the whole Linux community. But also understand that a lot of the hardware compatibility issues are the fault of the hardware manufacturers themselves.

Learning curve, well, some stuff is just different. It's a fully functioning OS, and anything you are trying to do to it, you can, just a different way. No real difference than switching to a Mac. The underlying way the operating system works is completely different from Windows, so Windows-like functionality can only go so far. The learning curve is just something you have to deal with whenever you change a way of doing something in a major way, like switching from ProTools to Logic, or even from an automatic transmission to a manual.

And for your personal preference, you like what you like, man, and no one can tell you you're wrong. If you like the way certain things happen in Windows, and dislike the way they work in Ubuntu, then it sounds like you're a Windows user at heart. I was too, until they released Vista and announced a support-pull for XP.

So there it is. To answer your question, why do I think Ubuntu is great? Well, it's free, for one. But besides that, after the learning curve, the way the system works itself is great. I like the program repository and package manager install idea, I like that everything is a terminal command. And mostly I like the customization capability. If I don't like my DE, switch it out. File manager? Window manager? Theme? Shell? Panel? Anything? Switch it out. Some is easier than others, I admit. I still haven't gotten Enlightenment to integrate into GNOME, but the fact that I can or that I can switch to KDE in the highly unlikely event that they blow GNOME out of the water, is great for me.

[cunawarit]

Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

As both a Windows and Linux your experience with Ubuntu is not one I share. Overall I find Ubuntu easier to install and get a full working system than XP.

[vexorian]

As both a Windows and Linux your experience with Ubuntu is not one I share. Overall I find Ubuntu easier to install and get a full working system than XP.
I installed both of them multiple times, and If I never had to get a system completely running in less than 2 hours I would choose ubuntu instead of windows everyday. Windows installation is a terrible nightmare for me.

well the thing is that sometimes another distro works better then another, and yeh ubuntu sometimes does not work for some.
I suggest if someone is going to try linux try at least five flavors of it before deciding, the top distros I personally suggest are:

Mepis
PClinux
Ubuntu
Mandriva
Sabayon
I understand that, but I meant that his complaints seemed more linux related than really ubuntu related


Hmmm.... well I am a recent "convert" and I am liking my Ubuntu experience. BUT I agree with the originator of this thread, Ubuntu is not ready for "prime-time".

Just because it has a community and the geeks find it fun to use doesn't make it a success. Linux needs to become an OS that will just install and run with a minimum of fuss. It needs better hardware support and better gui configuration tools. No average user should have to touch the terminal or command shell, ever. In a way the current Linux experience is like a cross between MS-DOS and Windows XP.... you're going to have to get your hands dirty... Again this is OK for the geeks, but not good for the world at large.

What is clear to me from what I hear Canonical saying is that they want this to go mainstream... they are saying they need to fix all of these issues.... they are aware. This isn't just a socialist experiment.

I don't know from which alternate dimension you come from, but under that logic windows is not ready for prime-time either.

I would say that of all windows users 99% have never installed it, the windows installation is a total pain in the ***, and there are many situations in which windows requires you to use the terminal, (recovery console, anyone?) Fact is that console is all in one not needed unless you got very specific, non-essential needs or in sometimes you are not configuring the system.

That's it, 99% of the windows users don't install/configure their system, and It is actually EASIER to configure your system in Linux than on windows, Overall It takes much less time to do it.

As a matter of fact those are thngs that are supposed to be hard. And no, this is not an issue about average users, the deal with windows is that it comes preinstalled everywhere, thus there is no configuration or installation needed at all. That installing or configure windows is easier than Linux is a myth I am pretty tired of reading.

Regarding your definition of windows experience as a cross between MSDOS and windows XP it is totally wrong, neither of them never had such an incredible shell.



It's easy for people to say "get a new computer or compatible hardware," but that's just not a viable option for most people. And you're right, it needs to be addressed by the whole Linux community

First of all it was already being worked on by the whole Linux community even since the creation of the kernel, the issue is that some hardware developers don't contribute or help at all, in those cases it is better not to use their hardware on Linux, thus I have to say, if you got incompatible hardware: Replace it OR don't use Linux, don't blame Linux for the fact YOU chose to use incompatible hardware AND then YOU INSTALLED linux.

There are plenty of hardware Windows does not detect correctly, I can list my sound card, hp printer, hp scanner and graphic card, for all of those I needed the hardware vendors to give me a driver CD. Windows does not detect my hardware thus under some people logic it is "not ready for desktop" You see, Linux developers are supposed to make 5 times the work of MS developers, because they also got to make drivers for any random piece of hardware that is ever created else Linux is blamed to not be ready for the desktop.

I must say, if windows 3.11 was ready for the desktop, Ubuntu was ready for the desktop years ago.

[Sweet Mercury]

First of all it was already being worked on by the whole Linux community even since the creation of the kernel, the issue is that some hardware developers don't contribute or help at all, in those cases it is better not to use their hardware on Linux, thus I have to say, if you got incompatible hardware: Replace it OR don't use Linux, don't blame Linux for the fact YOU chose to use incompatible hardware AND then YOU INSTALLED linux.

You forgot to include the part of my post where I explicitly stated that a lot of the hardware issues are the fault of the manufactures themselves. I should ask that in the future you don't mangle what I say in such a manner in order to have a stepping stone for a rant.

Back to the original point of why I brought that up: telling people to get a new computer, or new hardware, or to not let the door hit their butt on the way out is not very helpful advice. In fact, it's not advice at all, it's a slap in the face from a community that exists to support each other in this project. Many people can't afford to just buy a new machine, or even new parts. Many people, laptop users, don't have the option of just switching out hardware, which is ironic because one of the many claims of Ubuntu is how perfect it is for laptops.

Blaming people for their hardware issues is completely ridiculous on its face. "YOU chose to use incompatible hardware AND then YOU INSTALLED linux" might rank among the more absurd statements I've seen in my short time as part of this community. The fact is, no one "chose" to use incompatible hardware, most users don't choose their hardware in any real sense. I was given 2 year old Dell laptop by my employer and decided to experiment with Ubuntu. Many people are given a machine as a gift and decide to experiment with Linux in some form. Many others have friends who help them fix their virus/spyware-riddled Windows machine by installing Linux. None of these people willingly chose to use hardware that they knew to be incompatible with Linux—they installed the OS on their machine expecting it to work. I didn't expect Ubuntu to be like Windows or like Mac, in fact I didn't know what to expect, but I did expect the basic functions of a computer to work.

Side note: I wanted to play with NexentaOS a bit, because it's getting a bit of attention at the moment. The installer did something that the Ubuntu installer did not: it scanned my computer and prompted me with a list of hardware that was not supported within the kernel, and asked me whether or not I wanted to continue. I chose "no." Perhaps this is because the Solaris kernel is way behind the Linux kernel in terms of support, but the fact remains that unless we are discussing Linux veterans who built their systems from the ground up, blaming users for such issues helps absolutely nobody.


There are plenty of hardware Windows does not detect correctly, I can list my sound card, hp printer, hp scanner and graphic card, for all of those I needed the hardware vendors to give me a driver CD. Windows does not detect my hardware thus under some people logic it is "not ready for desktop" You see, Linux developers are supposed to make 5 times the work of MS developers, because they also got to make drivers for any random piece of hardware that is ever created else Linux is blamed to not be ready for the desktop.

That's well known, but it doesn't fix the hardware issues Ubuntu community members are currently struggling with.


I must say, if windows 3.11 was ready for the desktop, Ubuntu was ready for the desktop years ago.

The more likely answer would be that neither is ready. :-k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(edit: I'm still new here, and I don't know whether I've crossed the line of permissible stridency or not. I don't think that calling a statement "absurd" or asking people not to omit portions of my statements in a dishonest manner counts as a personal attack, but I don't make the rules here.)

[swoll1980]

[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury;2924445]they installed the OS on their machine expecting it to work. I didn't expect Ubuntu to be like Windows or like Mac, in fact I didn't know what to expect, but I did expect the basic functions of a computer to work.[/

You have never done a Microsoft install. It's obvious by your it just works attitude. IF you say you have your telling lies. Your contradicting yourself by calling us all "computer geeks" and then acting like you know what your talking about, thinking were going to believe you. The reason were arguing about it in the first place is because all of us "computer geeks" have done xp installs and know that you don't get any magic drivers that run all your hardware out of the box. With a xp install. I could not even get on the internet because my very popular broadcom integrated adapter had no driver for it. Wich I don't even care. If you feel like bashing linux it's your loss. I'm just afraid someone that might be thinking of freeing them selfs from the $150 a year trap microsoft has them in. Might think you actually know what your talking about.

[swoll1980]

It is better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to speak and remove all doubt

[Sweet Mercury]

You have never done a Microsoft install. It's obvious by your it just works attitude. IF you say you have your telling lies. Your contradicting yourself by calling us all "computer geeks" and then acting like you know what your talking about, thinking were going to believe you.

I've done at least a hundred, actually. Besides that fact that I'm a Windows user, as I indicate in my post-bit, I am responsible for about 50 Windows workstations in my office. That includes updating Windows as well as installations on new machines when they come in.

You're free to point out at what point I said "Microsoft just works." If you can't, which I suspect will be the case, you can retract your accusation of me being a liar. I don't appreciate it.

What I did say was not that Microsoft just works—I know from dreadful experience that this is not the case—was that the user, the person installing the software, expects it to work, expects it to do what it claims it will do. This is true of any OS, and any software.

While were at it, feel free to point out when and where I called anyone a "geek." I don't recall doing so, and if I did, it would have been tongue in cheek including myself among the throng (believe me, I fit the description of a geek in every respect. I was in marching band).


The reason were arguing about it in the first place is because all of us "computer geeks" have done xp installs and know that you don't get any magic drivers that run all your hardware out of the box. With a xp install. I could not even get on the internet because my very popular broadcom integrated adapter had no driver for it. Wich I don't even care.

Interesting I've had similar issues with my BCM4306 wireless in Ubuntu, shall I write off Linux for that? I haven't, and don't plan on it. I've done XP installs that had zero hardware issues, and I've done XP installs which were a several day fiasco.

Such problems will exist in pretty much all systems which aren't designed and strictly controlled from the ground up like Macs and I believe some Sun systems are. I'll reiterate my earlier though, most people aren't designing their systems from the ground up, checking each piece of hardware for compatibility with their chosen OS. They're dealing with whatever computer they happen to have gotten their hands on, and assuming that the OS they install, Windows or Linux, will work.

The question is whether or not the intention of Ubuntu is to be an inclusive or exclusive OS. If it is to be inclusive, than the end-user shouldn't have to think about these things any more than the end user of a car should have to know how replace a head-gasket in order to use the car.

(The best solution for this, btw, are the ground-up systems being offered by Dell, using all compatible hardware and open-source drivers.)


If you feel like bashing linux it's your loss. I'm just afraid someone that might be thinking of freeing them selfs from the $150 a year trap microsoft has them in. Might think you actually know what your talking about.

I'm not "bashing" Linux. As a semi-knowledgeable user, I'm applying a critical eye to the system in the hopes of improving the final product. I think that's what we're all doing. You might apply these same concerns to the "Is Ubuntu For You" tutorial which tells new users that if it's incompatible with more than two pieces of hardware, than Ubuntu might not be the OS for them to use.


It is better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to speak and remove all doubt

"If its the thought that counts, why are there fingers?" - Winnie the Pooh

[juxtaposed]

Linux needs to become an OS that will just install and run with a minimum of fuss.

Linux installs with less fuss then windows does for me. Much less fuss, and the windows install requires many many many more restarts to get a useable system. Linux needs... None, actually. Installing a new kernel is optional, and if you don't understand what a new kernel is, it doesn't really matter to you anyway.


It needs better hardware support and better gui configuration tools.

Install Windows and Linux on a computer and see which one supports more of the hardware. For me it was linux; Everything worked perfectly, except I had to install something extra to get 3d acceleration.



Lets not play the "emperors new clothes" and delude ourselves that this OS is superior... not yet anyway...

From my experience, Linux is much much superior to windows in almost every way. The only way I can think of is it can't run windows software as well as windows... But who can beat windows at that?


Computers are supposed to be a tool aren't they?

The effort to install linux pails in comparison to maintaining windows, atleast for me.

You have to do nearly zero maintenance on linux. The same can't be said for windows.

[steveneddy]

IMO your not ready for linux. Sorry. Use what works for you.

Agreed. Linux isn't for everybody. Especially users that think that Linux is going to be a total replacement for Windows down to the "click and install" feature (?) of Windows.

You may be ready some day, but most Linux users are willing to ride the learning curve until they get what they want. Linux isn't easy for those who choose not to learn.

When you are ready, you may find yourself returning. Maybe a a different distro would be more to your liking.

I know this falls on deaf ears.

Just give me a bean.

[Sweet Mercury]

Linux installs with less fuss then windows does for me. Much less fuss, and the windows install requires many many many more restarts to get a useable system. Linux needs... None, actually. Installing a new kernel is optional, and if you don't understand what a new kernel is, it doesn't really matter to you anyway.

I think there might be a confusion of terms here. If we're talking about a straight installation of the OS onto the computer, then Linux, for me was a breeze. Much more so than the reinstallation of XP from the OEM disk that came with the laptop, that was a nightmare.

But I think a lot of people are talking about the useablity of a system directly after it's installed, and for such people, if facing an array of non-supported hardware problems, then the "installation" will not be easy for them.


The effort to install linux pails in comparison to maintaining windows, atleast for me.

You have to do nearly zero maintenance on linux. The same can't be said for windows.

This is true.

I have often argued with my parents, after trying to fix their disease riddled Windows computer, that they need to keep up with the updates, run the anti-virus software, run the anti-spyware software, not go to such and such "dangerous" websight, etc.

My mom looked at me and asked, "why should I have to do all of that?"

I didn't have a good answer for her.

[swoll1980]

but I did expect the basic functions of a computer to work.
)

Why would you expect linux to just work on any pc right out of the box. You siad your self that you have done 100 microsoft installs and that they don't work out of the box.

I'm not bashing microsoft for not working out of the box I'm merley stating the fact that it doesn't.I'm realistic I don't expect it to. You were saying how you expect linux to just work and that the install problems some people have make it "not ready for the main stream" make it inferior r. It does not matter what os you use some people are going to have compatibility issues. there is no one driver fits all magic OS'

[Gary.M]

C'mon guys, you're not telling it straight...

Now I want to like Linux, and I intend to try real hard to stay here... but .... I have Kubuntu installed and I need WinXP inside of virtualbox to support a critical work related app. That virtual OS install was painless... it all worked right off. I installed my apps and that has been rock solid. On the other hand yesterday my Kubuntu install got its trash protocol screwed overnight while the machine was off... I mean it worked one day, and at boot the next it didn't. I had to go down a convoluted path of installing the ubuntu desktop, fussing with the delete / trash in there (the error was a Kde one) and then reverting to Kubuntu desktop after which the problem was fixed. During this time I couldn't work. But my virtual XP machine went along without a glitch... I lost a morning's work for no aparent reason due to this Linux glitch.

Today I wanted to backup a DVD.... gee, read the forums. K9copy did it in the end, but not before it got wrongly configured and then began barfing at each launch. I had to trawl the forums looking for how to fix the problem. Right now I'm writing from the WinXP side of my system while Ripit4Me and DVD Decryptor do their job in a way that isn't possible in the linux world, yet.

I will persist, but I'm not one eyed. I can see strengths on both sides... I'd like to see the Linux one improve though, and it does have a way to go...

And there's no need to trade counter stories. I'm sure there are plenty of them.. this thread has served its pupose, and now just risks devolving into a flame war...

Live and let live eh?

[Sweet Mercury]

Why would you expect linux to just work on any pc right out of the box. You siad your self that you have done 100 microsoft installs and that they don't work out of the box.

Because at the time I knew absolutely zero about Linux. I didn't know what a distro was, or how to get Linux to install it on my computer. A friend, a Mac devotee, interestingly, recommended Ubuntu. There has always been a lot of hype regarding Linux and how fantastically it works, so I did expect it to work on the install. I know now, through experience, that there is a chance of some of the same pitfalls that mar the Windows installation experience. And it's because of my experience with Windows that I didn't reel back in horror when I encountered some problems—I handled them the same way I would have in Windows, by trying to educate myself about what was wrong and exploring the system.

What I am still saying is that the average user—the one who doesn't know why his or her CD-ROM player doesn't play DVDs, who doesn't know what that little blue "e" means other than it brings up his home page when double-clicked, that user—expects the computer to work after it's been paid for for the same reason they expect any other tool to work "out of the box." I dealt just fine, most people will not.


I'm not bashing microsoft for not working out of the box I'm merley stating the fact that it doesn't.I'm realistic I don't expect it to. You were saying how you expect linux to just work and that the install problems some people have make it "not ready for the main stream" make it inferior r. It does not matter what os you use some people are going to have compatibility issues. there is no one driver fits all magic OS'

I don't expect Linux to "just work." It would have been nice, but now that I'm aware of my hardware compatibility issues I know what to expect.

[tgbrowning]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

Windows works with my printer/scanner etc..
With Ubuntu nothing works..

My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..

When I install applications on windows I just double click a download..
When I install software on Ubuntu I have to hope it is in the repository or do without it..

When I upgrade windows it just works..
When I try to upgrade Ubuntu it either can't find 101 dependencies or it overwrites grub and stops my dual boot working..

When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

I can now fix most problems that occur with win98/XP/Vista..
After months of casual Linux use I still struggle to get anything useful done..

Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

I would suggest that perhaps you, personally, should do two things--stick with Windows for the simple reason that you seem to have absolutely no problem with it and therefore, no need to run another OS. Second, you ought to publish an inventory of what exactly you have on your computer so others can enjoy the same trouble free life.

You don't seem to have any problems with Microsoft's business prectices, either, which happen to bother me a great deal. I detest the manner in which Microsoft dictates all sorts of things, ranging from DRM to the extremely unpleasant way one is constantly shivvied by Microsoft to accept what really amounts to spyware loaded by Microsoft into one's computer.

I mean no disresept to you, btw. Really. It's just that your experiences with Windows seem, to me, to be abnormal in the extreme and somewhat hard to really believe.

Browning>>>

[randomnote1]

I think it's funny that my Aunt who can barely navigate her way around the internet has not had any issues with Ubuntu.

[karellen]

it doesn't really matters why and whatfor...the fact is hardware makers choose to support windows because of its market share (virtual monopoly). that's the cold fact. and I as a home user choose to take fully advantage of the hardware I buy. it's simpe. it doesn't matter which os has more drivers included by default. what matters is that for any piece of hardware I buy I get the cd with the original drivers for that product made by the manufecturer. I install them (on a crappy/stable/fast/slow/secure/insecure/user-friendly - everybody is entitled to an opinion) and my desired device works at full capacity...
sad but true
insignificant market share means that hardware manufecturers have no real need or wish to release drivers for Linux

[moljac024]

Because at the time I knew absolutely zero about Linux. I didn't know what a distro was, or how to get Linux to install it on my computer. A friend, a Mac devotee, interestingly, recommended Ubuntu. There has always been a lot of hype regarding Linux and how fantastically it works, so I did expect it to work on the install. I know now, through experience, that there is a chance of some of the same pitfalls that mar the Windows installation experience. And it's because of my experience with Windows that I didn't reel back in horror when I encountered some problems—I handled them the same way I would have in Windows, by trying to educate myself about what was wrong and exploring the system.

What I am still saying is that the average user—the one who doesn't know why his or her CD-ROM player doesn't play DVDs, who doesn't know what that little blue "e" means other than it brings up his home page when double-clicked, that user—expects the computer to work after it's been paid for for the same reason they expect any other tool to work "out of the box." I dealt just fine, most people will not.



I don't expect Linux to "just work." It would have been nice, but now that I'm aware of my hardware compatibility issues I know what to expect.

Man, i don't understand what the heck you are saying ?

The average user would have the same amount of trouble setting up windows as setting up linux so there is no difference here.

( Although, you can argue all you want but linux is still easier because:

- You get to install from the same desktop you will have when you're done
- You can browse the net while installing
- While in windows you sit and watch at a text based installer...
- More stuff will work out-of-the box because the latest ubuntu is a 2007 year made OS while windows is a 2001 year made OS.)


The average user you're talking about would actually have trouble installing ANY OS or program for that matter. Someone would have to set it up for them, right ? So, why is a pre-configured windows better than a pre-configured linux for the average joe than ??! Please, do tell....

[nocturn]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

Windows works with my printer/scanner etc..
With Ubuntu nothing works..

My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..

When I install applications on windows I just double click a download..
When I install software on Ubuntu I have to hope it is in the repository or do without it..

When I upgrade windows it just works..
When I try to upgrade Ubuntu it either can't find 101 dependencies or it overwrites grub and stops my dual boot working..

When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

I can now fix most problems that occur with win98/XP/Vista..
After months of casual Linux use I still struggle to get anything useful done..

Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

A plain vanilla windows install on my systems is much the same. Most hardware is not functioning and I need several CD's that came with that hardware to get it working.

Ubuntu on the other hand did everything out of the box except my wireless.

Your experience was different because your hardware is different. You also forget all the years of windows experience you built up that help you cope while Linux is new (and is not like windows in most repects).

[super breadfish]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

Windows works with my printer/scanner etc..
With Ubuntu nothing works..

My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..

You have bad hardware. That's not the fault of Linux. Linux can't support every piece of hardware under the sun, especially as much of it proprietary and not documented, just like Windows does not support all hardware, and OS X does not support all hardware. Are you using the right graphics card drivers?


When I install applications on windows I just double click a download..
When I install software on Ubuntu I have to hope it is in the repository or do without it..

Which software? The only things I have to regularly install from outside the repositories are FFmpeg, which is in the repos, just not configured in a way I like, and certain codecs. It is no use complaining "I can't get my software", if you don't say what software that is how can anyone help?


When I upgrade windows it just works..
When I try to upgrade Ubuntu it either can't find 101 dependencies or it overwrites grub and stops my dual boot working..

Well in my opinion upgrading any OS is a risk. if you want to be safe, back up your documents and do a clean reinstall with the new version. It helps to keep to junk down as well, which is especially important in Windows.


When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

That I can agree with. I'm seen plenty of times people asking for help and getting a box full of commands and little else. The typical answer to this is "you have to experiment with it" but for the computer-illiterate who have always had a wizard to hold their hand or someone to it for them that's not much help.
It's a bit like giving an Englishman a newspaper from France and telling him to learn French with it.
I was lucky enough to grow up with computers so I'm not afraid to push buttons and break things, but not everyone has that same confidence.

But hey, this support is free, out of the good of the communities heart. You can't expect it on a silver platter all the time.


I can now fix most problems that occur with win98/XP/Vista..
After months of casual Linux use I still struggle to get anything useful done..

Like anything, you won't master Linux all at once. Linux is very different from Windows (which is good and bad depending on how you look at it) so there are going to be things that will take time getting used too.

If you give up though, you will never master Linux.

[Sunforge]

I love the smell of flame bait in the morning.

Linux does have issues with hardware but since it's us consumers that purchase the hardware we do have a choice about what we do (and don't buy). We may be a small community but we can bump the manufacturers who do support Linux by buying their kit. There are times though, when there isn't a Linux friendly choice and times when the alternatives to the mainstream don't suit people's pockets which is a shame.

One of the main reasons for me leaving windows as my primary OS (it still hangs around) was an issue where the NVIDIA driver broke XP completely. I went back to an older NVIDIA driver version to fix the problem but c'mon - breaking windows completely - BSOD with all the trimmings? You can't fix that with a swift config file change.

Downloading .exe's and searching repositories amounts to the same thing. I have to google for the .exe in the first place, which is about the same as searching synaptic. I have from time to time had to grab a .deb file or use alien to convert and RPM which is something that's unfamiliar to most non-Linux users and quite a surprise the first time you have to do it.

Dual booting is a pain in the a**. It would be lovely if such a thing as a univeral boot management protocol was adhered to so that you could run and install any number of OS's on your hard drive but in the main, out of 1 billion computers on the planet how many really boot more than 1 OS? I know I do but I wouldn't say that it was normal for most people, although it may be the norm for Linux users.

The Linux command line is a mystery to many. The first time I came across it I was as mystified as the next person as I had no idea how to do anything. The nice thing about the command line is you can just cut and paste from a how to if you don't want (or don't have) the time to understand what each command does. That's how most of us started, excepting the few geniuses who appear to understand Linux command lines by a process of osmosis.

The Linux community is a large and multi-hued herd of cats. Sometimes you'll agree with them and sometimes, well, it's best to walk away with a smile on your face. The nice thing about the community is that there's always someone who you've got something in common with. I would have to say that there is a vocal minority that treats Linux as a religion rather than just another operating system but hey Mac users have been like that for years (I used to be like that with my Mac, then I got a PC, now I have a Mac, a PC, Windows, linux and a few very strange devices that bleep at me when they want attention). Why so many computers? Well you collect them after a while when you get new hardware to replace the old stuff.

I don't want Ubuntu to be Windows as Windows already does it's thing very well. For me the place Ubuntu takes me to is one where there is control over everything if I want that control. If I don't - well there's Automatix and a host of other tools that make things happen automagically.

Long answer /ramble off.

[davecambs]

it's woth remembering that Windows has issues too ..

http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp

[tgbrowning]

I'm going to jump back in here with something I forgot to mention.

I bought a Sony back in Feb. running Vista and had one problem after another with the sucker. Finally about a month ago, things were so shaky I decided to do a factory restore, haulted out the DVDs I'd made and ran into a stone wall.

Vista told me that I coulldn't do a factory restory and wasn't very specific about why. A little digging around and I discovered that the Home edition of Vista Does NOT support a factory restore. There was no hint about that in the docs or literature about the damn computer.

No, if I wanted to have it restored to the factory restore point, I had to buy the Windows Vista Enterprise edition

Gee, thanks Microsoft. Thanks for sucking another hundred and sixty bucks out of me.

Browning>>>

[TeeJR]

This is an interesting topic.

I understand the OPs frustration. The question of what OSes people use and eventually adopt is of economics. In this case the OP is likely curious about what Ubuntu has to offer. Who knows, but what the OP was not expecting from a modern OS was a difficult time installing it.

When presented with a choice the OP is going to pick the OS that offers the best opportunity cost. To him and to everybody else in the world, it's simply what is the cost of the next best alternative. To some users of Linux the cost of spending time vs money to get a working system is the trade off. This same principle applies to the OP. He/She would like to use the OS now (trading time) with a smaller regard towards the monetary cost. In the end the OP values the time more than the money they are willing to spend to have the satisfaction of having a product they can use.

The OP is trying to point out that the makers of Ubuntu are making an investment in their distribution. In order for that distribution to be successful they need to have as many users as possible because that will likely lead to more business on the service end of things. They don't make money on the product, they make money supporting it and selling their services. Reputation is the most important thing to any business. Microsoft has a good reputation with 90+% of users because it just works out of the box 90+% of the time. (Don't give me Win95 BSOD posts because that's BS and 12 years ago.) The OP is simply stating that the reputation of Ubuntu needs to improve to compete. Until all Linux Distros install flawlessly they will not gain market share and any hopes of knocking the king off of the hill are lost.

People that don't have a vested interest in a product will simply be dismissive and say things like, use it or don't use it because I don't care. That's because a lot of Linux users will trade time spent fixing things for not spending money. Time is one of the many resources that we have on this planet. Some people hold it in high value, and rightfully so since it is our most limited of resources; after all we're only here for a short time. What do you want to be doing when your time is up? Trying to get your wireless adapter working or downloading pictures of Anna Kournikova?

Throw the OP a bone.

[davecambs]

if you paid bottom dollar for your hardware from a high street shop then I it will be bundled with Windows pre-installed, most hardware built 'on-board' and a proprietry drivers disk included, plus a whole ton of software that will never get used.

These are designed to be used by Windows alone with cheap components and keep prices to a minimum. Upgrading these systems is not easy so when the next windows OS release comes out you have to buy a new system.

It's not too difficult to order or build a customised computer with upgradable options for the future and 'proper' hardware that will work with most OS.

But even Windows users have problems (mostly caused by user error or fear of breaking something)..

http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp

[vexorian]

When presented with a choice the OP is going to pick the OS that offers the best opportunity cost. To him and to everybody else in the world, it's simply what is the cost of the next best alternative. To some users of Linux the cost of spending time vs money to get a working system is the trade off. This same principle applies to the OP. He/She would like to use the OS now (trading time) with a smaller regard towards the monetary cost. In the end the OP values the time more than the money they are willing to spend to have the satisfaction of having a product they can use.Sorry but i think your post is senseless considering that Ubuntu takes much less time to install than windows.

[NewJack]

Part of my problem with posts like this made by the OP and others of the like, are that it is apparent by the number of posts made in these forums by said "users" that they haven't given themselves enough time to learn the OS. Not flaming, just pointing out my own personal observations on posts/threads like this......

Case in point, the OP has 13 posts in these forums to date- 4 of them are in this thread alone, 4 are from another thread he created regarding a problem with monitor resolution (from 09/2006), which appears to have been resolved and 2 asking about upgrading to Feisty which only got one reply and no response after from the OP.

So my question to the OP is what other problems have you had with Ubuntu that led you to make your original post for this thread???? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I have not had any problems with Ubuntu at all. That is certainly not the case. Every issue that I have had so far has been resolved through posts I've made here and the power of Google. It is obvious that most people that make these posts have NEVER done an install of windows from scratch.

Also a point made a few posts back, don't tell me that everything works out of the box with Win, cause it doesn't. You need disks (or download) with drivers to get your hardware to work. Just because you have to search Synaptic to find drivers makes it no different.

My overall point being, unless you have something constructive regarding specifically why you are ditching the OS, then just don't make a thread about it. Most of the OP's that start threads like this are uninformed or just refused to learn about a new OS that they had no idea about. If you don't like the OS, just leave and be on your way and good luck to you with whatever OS you decide to stick with. Just don't throw crap on the wall while you do it.

/rant finished

[TeeJR]

Sorry but i think your post is senseless considering that Ubuntu takes much less time to install than windows.

I'm sorry, but my point is not senseless. If someone has to spend additional time reading through these forums and google'ing solutions to try to get their OS working, then my point is perfectly valid. That is all time spent performing work to get your computer working.

My whole point was built around the fact, that from an economics standpoint, Linux is still very immature and until there are more organized resources dedicated to supporting the multitudes of hardware, or companies finally find Linux to be a profitable solution, then drivers will trickle out like the currently do. This is free market economics and the choice is very simple to make for companies. Make drivers for someone who will pay for them or make drivers for a lot people who just want a free ride.

Example:

I installed Ubuntu on my new Toshiba P205-S6267. It's a fairly new laptop. It came with a piece of junk OS called Vista. Right out of the gate, my sound did not work nor did the wireless adapter. I spent about 4 hours scouring these forums and the web for answers. I solved the audio problem after trying the multitude of solutions that were posted. The final solution for the sound problem was to add a single line to some alsa-something file. So yeah the install of Ubuntu was 10 minutes or so, but to have a partially functional system took an addition 4 hours and I still don't have wireless working for more than 2-3 minutes at a time.

The install, while very fast, is incomplete too much of the time. Windows, while maybe not everyones favorite OS, for whatever your complaint is (too much money, DRM, Bill Gates cheesy smile) , installs on a huge variety of computers much easier.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go download a new version of ndiswrapper and spend time building it and figuring out how to install it myself and finally if I can make my wireless adapter go.

I appreciate all the help that these forums provide, but the information is highly disorganized, All the time spent posting this useless crap we probably could have all published a How to get all your stuff working with Ubuntu book. Instead of having ******* matches about which OS sucks more/less.

[Sweet Mercury]

I'm going to jump back in here with something I forgot to mention.

I bought a Sony back in Feb. running Vista and had one problem after another with the sucker. Finally about a month ago, things were so shaky I decided to do a factory restore, haulted out the DVDs I'd made and ran into a stone wall.

Vista told me that I coulldn't do a factory restory and wasn't very specific about why. A little digging around and I discovered that the Home edition of Vista Does NOT support a factory restore. There was no hint about that in the docs or literature about the damn computer.

No, if I wanted to have it restored to the factory restore point, I had to buy the Windows Vista Enterprise edition

Gee, thanks Microsoft. Thanks for sucking another hundred and sixty bucks out of me.

Browning>>>

And this is probably one of the main reasons I'm switching. I don't want Microsoft twisting my arm at every possible juncture like this. I haven't experienced those types of issues with XP, and I would have continue to use it.

[Sweet Mercury]

The average user you're talking about would actually have trouble installing ANY OS or program for that matter. Someone would have to set it up for them, right ? So, why is a pre-configured windows better than a pre-configured linux for the average joe than ??! Please, do tell....

This is becoming tiresome.

How many times to I have to explain that I'm NOT here proclaiming the Gospel of Gates?

What I am saying, all I am saying, is that the average user doesn't know anything about hardware. They see the computer as a tool to complete a desired task. The fact that any OS would slap them in the face when they tried to install does not indicate a good state of affairs, and because Windows is often a pain to install this should not give the Ubuntu promoters/developers a pass to say "look it's ok that our system has problems because that other one has problems too!"

The onus is on the software developers, (and promoters) to see that their software is easy for the end-user to use. This is true regardless of whether or not you are developing something as complex as complete OS or as simple as a calculator. The user wants the products to work with as little headache as possible—and they don't want excuses, and they don't want to be blamed for not having knowledge they didn't know they needed. Since Windows is such a pain, shouldn't the Linux community, instead of making excuses for it's own holes and pointing at MS as an example, try to, I don't know, be better than MS to attract more users?

So I'll say this for anyone who might still feel the need to ask me why "I think Windows is better" when I in fact think the exact opposite: I don't care what how crappy Windows is, at all. If Windows went and jumped off a bridge would Ubuntu do it too? Ubuntu is it's own thing. It has some hardware issues that give new users a bad deal, and it needs to be fixed in a way that doesn't include pointing out the faults of other OSs as an excuse.

[TeeJR]

This is becoming tiresome.

How many times to I have to explain that I'm NOT here proclaiming the Gospel of Gates?

What I am saying, all I am saying, is that the average user doesn't know anything about hardware. They see the computer as a tool to complete a desired task. The fact that any OS would slap them in the face when they tried to install does not indicate a good state of affairs, and because Windows is often a pain to install this should not give the Ubuntu promoters/developers a pass to say "look it's ok that our system has problems because that other one has problems too!"

The onus is on the software developers, (and promoters) to see that their software is easy for the end-user to use. This is true regardless of whether or not you are developing something as complex as complete OS or as simple as a calculator. The user wants the products to work with as little headache as possible—and they don't want excuses, and they don't want to be blamed for not having knowledge they didn't know they needed. Since Windows is such a pain, shouldn't the Linux community, instead of making excuses for it's own holes and pointing at MS as an example, try to, I don't know, be better than MS to attract more users?

So I'll say this for anyone who might still feel the need to ask me why "I think Windows is better" when I in fact think the exact opposite: I don't care what how crappy Windows is, at all. If Windows went and jumped off a bridge would Ubuntu do it too? Ubuntu is it's own thing. It has some hardware issues that give new users a bad deal, and it needs to be fixed in a way that doesn't include pointing out the faults of other OSs as an excuse.

That was very well stated.

[lavinog]

My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..


Can someone tell me if this is a good example of irony?

My Microsoft Wireless pcmcia card is not recognized by WinXp, nor does microsoft offer the driver for it anymore. The page that the driver should be redirects me to a page explaining microsoft's policy of providing support for products for only 10 years. (The cards mfg date was 4 years old at the time)

When I first started with linux (ubuntu) on my obsolete (as defined by m$) laptop I had a difficult time with using a linksys wireless device. Out of desperation I pulled that microsoft card out of my parts bin and plugged it in and was amazed that it worked with no effort at all.

[TeeJR]

Can someone tell me if this is a good example of irony?

My Microsoft Wireless pcmcia card is not recognized by WinXp, nor does microsoft offer the driver for it anymore. The page that the driver should be redirects me to a page explaining microsoft's policy of providing support for products for only 10 years. (The cards mfg date was 4 years old at the time)

When I first started with linux (ubuntu) on my obsolete (as defined by m$) laptop I had a difficult time with using a linksys wireless device. Out of desperation I pulled that microsoft card out of my parts bin and plugged it in and was amazed that it worked with no effort at all.

You're a genious, I bet if I pulled my "old" PCMCIA wireless adapter out of the drawer I would have a working wireless connection until Intel release a driver for my built in adapter.

Lavinog, if you were here I would buy you a beer.

Thanks,

[Sweet Mercury]

You're a genious, I bet if I pulled my "old" PCMCIA wireless adapter out of the drawer I would have a working wireless connection until Intel release a driver for my built in adapter.

Lavinog, if you were here I would buy you a beer.

Thanks,

That's the avenue I am thinking of going down to get my wireless functional on my laptop. Though, I'll have to buy a new one for 40 bux (not too bad, really), and I now have the advantage of checking beforehand the compatibility with Ubuntu.

I'd be interested to know how the PCMCIA card works out for you though.

[tgbrowning]

And this is probably one of the main reasons I'm switching. I don't want Microsoft twisting my arm at every possible juncture like this. I haven't experienced those types of issues with XP, and I would have continue to use it.

Essentially, it's a bait and switch tactic, which I might point out is illegal in most states of the United States.

Oh, wait. Remember Gates' muttering comparisons between computers :-\"and the automobile industry? Now it makes perfect sense!

Browning>>>

[NewJack]

This is becoming tiresome.

Agreed


What I am saying, all I am saying, is that the average user doesn't know anything about hardware. They see the computer as a tool to complete a desired task. The fact that any OS would slap them in the face when they tried to install does not indicate a good state of affairs, and because Windows is often a pain to install this should not give the Ubuntu promoters/developers a pass to say "look it's ok that our system has problems because that other one has problems too!"

The onus is on the software developers, (and promoters) to see that their software is easy for the end-user to use. This is true regardless of whether or not you are developing something as complex as complete OS or as simple as a calculator. The user wants the products to work with as little headache as possible—and they don't want excuses, and they don't want to be blamed for not having knowledge they didn't know they needed. Since Windows is such a pain, shouldn't the Linux community, instead of making excuses for it's own holes and pointing at MS as an example, try to, I don't know, be better than MS to attract more users?

So I'll say this for anyone who might still feel the need to ask me why "I think Windows is better" when I in fact think the exact opposite: I don't care what how crappy Windows is, at all. If Windows went and jumped off a bridge would Ubuntu do it too? Ubuntu is it's own thing. It has some hardware issues that give new users a bad deal, and it needs to be fixed in a way that doesn't include pointing out the faults of other OSs as an excuse.

Mercury, I am not flaming you at all. Just the average people who like the OP, make these kinds of posts.

The problem is that when people bitch that they are dropping Ubuntu, they usually say that it's for MS and tend to compare them. So how do you not point out the problems with MS. I also don't think most people here would say that it is ok that Ubuntu has flaws. I think the point of those types of statements made by people here is just to show that MS isn't as mighty as they were led to believe (similar problems, without having to pay for it). I mean doesn't everyone want a trouble free OS, unfortunately that will never happen whether its MS or Linux.

Also, if someone is embarking on the task of installing an OS and has NEVER done so before, don't you think the responsibility of that person is to understand/learn what they are doing before just jumping in. I know when I was thinking of installing linux, I trolled different distros forums, did Google searches, etc before I even ended up with Ubuntu. Then I did some reading up on it before making the final leap. So, I would say the responsibility is 50-50.

As far as users just "wanting things to work", you are right. The problem is that there are ways to get them to work, its just that most average users don't want to be bothered. Again, not flaming you, but when was the last time everything in Windows "just worked". I haven't really added anything to my Win partition since using Ubuntu (just game updates), but I still end up with certain conflicts and problems from time to time (like print spool errors, browser crashes, freezes, etc.).

[Henry Rayker]

For the OP:

The monitor issue - Ubuntu blows at this. I was annoyed with this, but Fedora does it perfectly.

Wireless - Ubuntu blows at this. I was also annoyed with this, but Fedora does this too.

Printers/scanner - The printer/scanner manufacturers blow at this. Basically, without drivers or open documentation, your printer can't be supported. I looked through your posts and didn't see any mention of that (aside from this thread) so I assume you just didn't research before you bought it...

The software installation issue - not all Windows software is freely available on the internet. Also, it just randomly breaks...hooray for closed source! The repository idea is a great one and just about any software you could ever need is here. Have you ever tried to compile software in Windows? It sucks WORSE than under Linux because Windows isn't built for that kind of thing.

Upgrading - Ubuntu also sucks here, in my experience. I upgraded from the test version of Fedora 7 to the full version without a problem, so I think it's just an Ubuntu issue.

You have 13 posts...you obviously haven't been asking for much help. I'm sure if you ask someone to explain the commands they hand out, you'll get more instruction...also, man is your friend.
man [command_name] will give you a detailed description of the command you entered where [command_name] is.

I'm sure after the same amount of "casual use" time in Windows, you couldn't solve the types of problems you're trying to deal with in Ubuntu. This is a perspective issue and you're being very lopsided on it. Also, another thing to think about is that, when you learned Windows, you likely didn't have a choice.

Linux is great because it is open. Linux is great because it provides choice. I don't have to put up with an operating system that must be totally reinstalled every 6 months to a year. I have so much more possibility for modifying and enhancing my operating system with Linux. Windows didn't supply any of that.

If you're not willing to try or to actually ATTEMPT to get help understanding the commands you're given, you're a detriment to the community and should probably just return to your double-click virus farm.

As far as Ubuntu's shortcomings go, it really looked like we'd get the good laptop support (which I assumed meant wireless and screen resolution, because that's what I always heard it talked about with) but then Beryl and Compiz came around. Everything productive just stopped and eye-candy seems to be one of the driving forces behind the development.

[Adam_GUI]

The millions of Ubuntu users are clearly cheap, masochistic, or are computer nerds. You've convinced me. I'm off to buy Vista now.

Darn. That hit three out of three.......... :(

For those who want executable-type GUI installers (instead of letting synaptic sit and do it's thing)
perhaps PC-BSD and it's *.PBI file format installer support is more your speed.

Flash wasn't up to date when I was using it. But it's stable. There's plenty of documentation.
It uses KDE 3.5 (Last I checked). And the installers are pretty GUIs for you.

Printer support isn't any better than Linux. Though, personally, I've never had trouble getting a printer installed. I'm sure the Adobe Flash plugin should be fixed by now.

And the Make; Make Install through ports is some of the easiest installing ever.

Now, I like my GNOME. And I like my Ubuntu and it's hardware support.

But given my dithers, PC-BSD is highly regarded in my book as well.

Mind you, it's still not Windows.

If you want to play with a Windows clone. Give ReactOS a shot.
Hardware support is awful. And it crashes more than Windows 95 rev.1. But it is an alternative.

[steveneddy]

I have Kubuntu installed and I need WinXP inside of virtualbox to support a critical work related app.

This is a perfect reason why you should dual boot. If it is critical, it is probably important enough to either dedicate a separate machine to the Window's tasks (which I do) or dual boot your machine.

Best set up for dual booting?

3 hard drives. One for Windows, one for Ubuntu, and one for storage and swap. The swap partition on the third or separate drive will increase your speed a small amount, but make all three HD's work less and last longer.

You might as well put your /home partition there on the third drive also in case of a melt down.

[vexorian]

I think virtual machine is better for critical work (as long as it doesn't involve 3d acceleration). virtual machines are awesomely easy to backup...


Originally Posted by ThinkBuntu View Post
The millions of Ubuntu users are clearly cheap, masochistic, or are computer nerds. You've convinced me. I'm off to buy Vista now.
Darn. That hit three out of three..........

he was being sarcastic.

[Adam_GUI]

I think virtual machine is better for critical work (as long as it doesn't involve 3d acceleration). virtual machines are awesomely easy to backup...



he was being sarcastic.

I know that...:p

[Sunforge]

I'm stepping to one side of the debate about the function of open vs closed source to highlight the new Windows Vista licence agreement vs Ubuntu's "licence" (I'm sure you'd have to look at GPL2 et al for a complete picture of what a licence for open source actually constitutes.)

These are the Microsoft software licence terms for Windows Vista Home, Premium and Ultimate:
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf

This is what Canonical has to say about Ubuntu:
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/WhatIsUbuntu

If you've read both agreements does either statement make you think differently about the software that you're using? Would it change the way you used it or would you do things differently?

[TeeJR]

That's the avenue I am thinking of going down to get my wireless functional on my laptop. Though, I'll have to buy a new one for 40 bux (not too bad, really), and I now have the advantage of checking beforehand the compatibility with Ubuntu.

I'd be interested to know how the PCMCIA card works out for you though.

It didn't work Mercury, the big hole that looks like a PCMCIA port in my laptop is just a big hole. There's nothing inside. Why the heck would a manufacturer leave a big hole with an eject button and everything?

I'm almost back to square 1. I still have the problem where I can connect wirelessly for about 2-3 minutes and then wireless network is down for the count.

I think there is something severely wrong with dhcdbd. There are a bunch of errors in the log file like this dhcdbd: message_handler: message handler not found under /com/redhat/dhcp/wlan0. Not sure why the heck the thing is looking for redhat directories since this is Ubuntu. I'm off to spend more time reading posts and looking for answers. :-(

I suppose if I didn't have this problem I wouldn't get to spend countless hours reading these fine forums. ;-) If my hatred of Vista wasn't so powerful I also wouldn't be motivated to find the answer.

[Sweet Mercury]

It didn't work Mercury, the big hole that looks like a PCMCIA port in my laptop is just a big hole. There's nothing inside. Why the heck would a manufacturer leave a big hole with an eject button and everything?

Weird. I'll be sure to check inside mine with a flashlight to make sure I've got some circuitry.

My guess is that the hardware manufacturer uses the same "chassis" for multiple models, some with PCMCIA, some without.


I'm almost back to square 1. I still have the problem where I can connect wirelessly for about 2-3 minutes and then wireless network is down for the count.

I think there is something severely wrong with dhcdbd. There are a bunch of errors in the log file like this dhcdbd: message_handler: message handler not found under /com/redhat/dhcp/wlan0. Not sure why the heck the thing is looking for redhat directories since this is Ubuntu. I'm off to spend more time reading posts and looking for answers. :-(

I suppose if I didn't have this problem I wouldn't get to spend countless hours reading these fine forums. ;-) If my hatred of Vista wasn't so powerful I also wouldn't be motivated to find the answer.

Same here. My wireless has been a disaster for quite some time, but I keep messing with it. We'll see.

My friends often see me struggling to connect to the internet and they ask me, "why don't you just get Vista or a Macbook?" I have to tell them it's because I hate Vista, I don't want to be locked into Mac's proprietary everything (though I don't mind OS X), and most importantly, once you learn the "Linux way of doing things," you might just not want to go back!

[swoll1980]

You have bad hardware. That's not the fault of Linux. Linux can't support every piece of hardware under the sun.
It's not productive to tell some they have bad hardware because it's not supported by Ubuntu. Ubuntu compatibility has nothing to do with whether his hardware is good or bad. If the hardware works when it has the proper drivers then it's is good hardware. The word you should use is incompatable

[Sweet Mercury]

Mercury, I am not flaming you at all. Just the average people who like the OP, make these kinds of posts.

Oh, I don't feel like I'm being flamed, by you or anyone. I don't think that disagreement with a position I hold is a flame.

What I do feel like, and what is so frustrating, is that several different people have attributed positions to me which I never claimed, and asked me to defend statements I have not made. I never called anyone a "geek." I never said "Windows just works," and I never claimed that Windows is better than Ubuntu. People are either reading too much into something I'm saying and jumping the gun or just looking for disagreement to come down on.


The problem is that when people bitch that they are dropping Ubuntu, they usually say that it's for MS and tend to compare them. So how do you not point out the problems with MS. I also don't think most people here would say that it is ok that Ubuntu has flaws. I think the point of those types of statements made by people here is just to show that MS isn't as mighty as they were led to believe (similar problems, without having to pay for it). I mean doesn't everyone want a trouble free OS, unfortunately that will never happen whether its MS or Linux.

It's easy to not point out the problems with MS, because Ubuntu is not MS. There are two things to consider here: first, the kinds of people who would make those kinds of comparative arguments are probably novices at best. If you're not, and I presume you are not, then you don't need to go down that way. Second, there's a really good chance that Windows has been a nearly flawless operation for that particular user. While I've have problems at work, I've literally never had a single issue with XP on my home desktop, in 3 years. If I didn't know better, I might actually be convinced that this is the typical experience.

This goes back to the fact that people just want things to work. If they had a "just works" experience with Windows, and trouble with Ubuntu, they're just going to use what gives them the least amount of trouble.


Also, if someone is embarking on the task of installing an OS and has NEVER done so before, don't you think the responsibility of that person is to understand/learn what they are doing before just jumping in. I know when I was thinking of installing linux, I trolled different distros forums, did Google searches, etc before I even ended up with Ubuntu. Then I did some reading up on it before making the final leap. So, I would say the responsibility is 50-50.

Have you ever heard of Dunning-Kruger? It's not necessarily applicable here but I think the principle is the same. They wrote a paper called "Unskilled and Unaware Of It," and basic thesis is that the less you know about a topic, the less you know what knowledge is required to proceed in the topic, and the more you know on a topic, the more you realize how much is to be learned. The same is true here. Because we are experienced, we know the kind of steps and problems to expect when embarking on such a project, a novice, on the other hand, won't know, and therefore won't go through the necessary steps.

It's true that the responsibility is 50/50, but only the experienced will know that going in.


As far as users just "wanting things to work", you are right. The problem is that there are ways to get them to work, its just that most average users don't want to be bothered. Again, not flaming you, but when was the last time everything in Windows "just worked". I haven't really added anything to my Win partition since using Ubuntu (just game updates), but I still end up with certain conflicts and problems from time to time (like print spool errors, browser crashes, freezes, etc.).

As I said before, my home computer running XP has been flawless. I know this is atypical.

[lintoon]

I think you must be really unlucky. I say this because every time I have installed Ubuntu it just works.
I plugged my pcmcia wireless adapter in before starting the install to ensure it was found and installed for me (I'm lazy). Plus my resolution has always been ok. Well not always. I only got 640x480 on an old P3 Dell with built in graphics and 128Mb ram. Plus, I have no problems installing software from the repositories. Maybe you just have the 1 in a hundred pc's that is gonna have problems.

Don't give up on Ubuntu. You will be pleasantly surprised when you get it going.

Personally I use both XP and Ubuntu. I only keep XP for work otherwise i would make the switch because my system is a lot more stable on Ubuntu.

Good luck.

[Gary.M]

I don't know from which alternate dimension you come from

This is a personal attack, and reduces your argument... please try to be constructive. There is a whole pile of positioning going on in this thread...

[Gary.M]

It is better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to speak and remove all doubt

Now that is the biggest example of foot in mouth I've seen for a while!:D

[Gary.M]

You have to do nearly zero maintenance on linux. The same can't be said for windows.

Well I want hard to believe you. But seeing my Trash Protocol decide to start failing again, and I can't use the system because of that, and because it does this after being normally shut down and turned back on the next day, I have to say its looking like your argument is very shaky... now if anyone can point me to why the trash protocol should be likely to start failing for no reason, and where I should look to fix it, I'd be grateful. Its a good opportunity for those of you praising the ease of use and support of Linux to prove how easy in fact it is. All help is warmly welcomed...

[revertex]

looks like you are not unlucky, but too lazy to dig the docs before start asking for help.

My advice, RTFM!

[Gary.M]

looks like you are not unlucky, but too lazy to dig the docs before start asking for help.

My advice, RTFM!

You avoided the point I was making... My Linux install at least comes with required maintenance, which is contrary to what was claimed in the prior post.

I solved my trash protocol problem myself. Interesting that although I posted on it in a thread all of its own, no-one seemed to know anything about it... are you saying it is covered in "the manual" I would appreciate a link to that section if you have it handy.

[deepclutch]

Let us make the thing more clear:
take below link for future for Windows movers who get confused.



Problem #1: Linux isn't exactly the same as Windows.

Problem #2: Linux is too different from Windows
and i am quoting the 3rd here:
Problem #3: Culture shock

Subproblem #3a: There is a culture

Windows users are more or less in a customer-supplier relationship: They pay for software, for warranties, for support, and so on. They expect software to have a certain level of usability. They are therefore used to having rights with their software: They have paid for technical support and have every right to demand that they receive it. They are also used to dealing with entities rather than people: Their contracts are with a company, not with a person.
Linux users are in more of a community. They don't have to buy the software, they don't have to pay for technical support. They download software for free & use Instant Messaging and web-based forums to get help. They deal with people, not corporations.
A Windows user will not endear himself by bringing his habitual attitudes over to Linux, to put it mildly.
The biggest cause of friction tends to be in the online interactions: A "3a" user new to Linux asks for help with a problem he's having. When he doesn't get that help at what he considers an acceptable rate, he starts complaining and demanding more help. Because that's what he's used to doing with paid-for tech support. The problem is that this isn't paid-for support. This is a bunch of volunteers who are willing to help people with problems out of the goodness of their hearts. The new user has no right to demand anything from them, any more than somebody collecting for charity can demand larger donations from contributors.
In much the same way, a Windows user is used to using commercial software. Companies don't release software until it's reliable, functional, and user-friendly enough. So this is what a Windows user tends to expect from software: It starts at version 1.0. Linux software, however, tends to get released almost as soon as it's written: It starts at version 0.1. This way, people who really need the functionality can get it ASAP; interested developers can get involved in helping improve the code; and the community as a whole stays aware of what's going on.
If a "3a" user runs into trouble with Linux, he'll complain: The software hasn't met his standards, and he thinks he has a right to expect that standard. His mood won't be improved when he gets sarcastic replies like "I'd demand a refund if I were you"
So, to avoid problem #3a: Simply remember that you haven't paid the developer who wrote the software or the people online who provide the tech support. They don't owe you anything.

Subproblem #3b: New vs. Old

Linux pretty much started out life as a hacker's hobby. It grew as it attracted more hobbyist hackers. It was quite some time before anybody but a geek stood a chance of getting a useable Linux installation working easily. Linux started out "By geeks, for geeks." And even today, the majority of established Linux users are self-confessed geeks.
And that's a pretty good thing: If you've got a problem with hardware or software, having a large number of geeks available to work on the solution is a definite plus.
But Linux has grown up quite a bit since its early days. There are distros that almost anybody can install, even distros that live on CDs and detect all your hardware for you without any intervention. It's become attractive to non-hobbyist users who are just interested in it because it's virus-free and cheap to upgrade. It's not uncommon for there to be friction between the two camps. It's important to bear in mind, however, that there's no real malice on either side: It's lack of understanding that causes the problems.
Firstly, you get the hard-core geeks who still assume that everybody using Linux is a fellow geek. This means they expect a high level of knowledge, and often leads to accusations of arrogance, elitism, and rudeness. And in truth, sometimes that's what it is. But quite often, it's not: It's elitist to say "Everybody ought to know this". It's not elitist to say "Everybody knows this" - quite the opposite.
Secondly, you get the new users who're trying to make the switch after a lifetime of using commercial OSes. These users are used to software that anybody can sit down & use, out-of-the-box.
The issues arise because group 1 is made up of people who enjoy being able to tear their OS apart and rebuild it the way they like it, while group 2 tends to be indifferent to the way the OS works, so long as it does work.
A parallel situation that can emphasize the problems is Lego. Picture the following:
New: I wanted a new toy car, and everybody's raving about how great Lego cars can be. So I bought some Lego, but when I got home, I just had a load of bricks and cogs and stuff in the box. Where's my car??
Old: You have to build the car out of the bricks. That's the whole point of Lego.
New: What?? I don't know how to build a car. I'm not a mechanic. How am I supposed to know how to put it all together??
Old: There's a leaflet that came in the box. It tells you exactly how to put the bricks together to get a toy car. You don't need to know how, you just need to follow the instructions.
New: Okay, I found the instructions. It's going to take me hours! Why can't they just sell it as a toy car, instead of making you have to build it??
Old: Because not everybody wants to make a toy car with Lego. It can be made into anything we like. That's the whole point.
New: I still don't see why they can't supply it as a car so people who want a car have got one, and other people can take it apart if they want to. Anyway, I finally got it put together, but some bits come off occasionally. What do I do about this? Can I glue it?
Old: It's Lego. It's designed to come apart. That's the whole point. New: But I don't want it to come apart. I just want a toy car!
Old: Then why on Earth did you buy a box of Lego?? It's clear to just about anybody that Lego is not really aimed at people who just want a toy car. You don't get conversations like the above in real life. The whole point of Lego is that you have fun building it and you can make anything you like with it. If you've no interest in building anything, Lego's not for you. This is quite obvious.
As far as the long-time Linux user is concerned, the same holds true for Linux: It's an open-source, fully-customizeable set of software. That's the whole point. If you don't want to hack the components a bit, why bother to use it?
But there's been a lot of effort lately to make Linux more suitable for the non-hackers, a situation that's not a million miles away from selling pre-assembled Lego kits, in order to make it appeal to a wider audience. Hence you get conversations that aren't far away from the ones above: Newcomers complain about the existence of what the established users consider to be fundamental features, and resent having the read a manual to get something working. But complaining that there are too many distros; or that software has too many configuration options; or that it doesn't work perfectly out-of-the-box; is like complaining that Lego can be made into too many models, and not liking the fact that it can be broken down into bricks and built into many other things.
So, to avoid problem #3b: Just remember that what Linux seems to be now is not what Linux was in the past. The largest and most necessary part of the Linux community, the hackers and the developers, like Linux because they can fit it together the way they like; they don't like it in spite of having to do all the assembly before they can use


http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)

[revertex]

You avoided the point I was making... My Linux install at least comes with required maintenance, which is contrary to what was claimed in the prior post.

I solved my trash protocol problem myself. Interesting that although I posted on it in a thread all of its own, no-one seemed to know anything about it... are you saying it is covered in "the manual" I would appreciate a link to that section if you have it handy.

@Gary.M,

My bad, this is not for you, but to the thread owner, bikeman123 (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=168028).

Some people think these forums are a helpdesk, if you have a problem,just start new thread and someone will instantly post a magic answer.

Most part of these people even do a search before start a new thread, then complain that nobody help.

[Gary.M]

Let us make the thing more clear:
take below link for future for Windows movers who get confused.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)

Thats a pretty good read! And probably sums things up well. Increasingly though it looks like the geeks referred to in that piece are going to have to contend with the great unwashed... there seems to be the possibility of Linux having reached a critical mass and the real chance it will become a "true contender"... with that comes a change in its nature, and a lot of the arguments I see from the Linux "camp" seem to be fighting that. And yet I think they would rejoice if the OS really did go mainstream...

I reckon an OS, be it Windows or Linux or OSX, should be invisible to a great extent. It should be the platform on which we run our apps and its virtues should be measured by how successfully it keeps out of our way while remaining rock solid and dependable..

[Gary.M]

Just noticed this mammoth thread, which seems to be relevant to this discussion...

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=450676

Get in there and vote!

[wolfen69]

people keep saying linux needs to do this or that. or be like this or that to become a serious competitor. who says it has to be? linux is what it is, and i like it this way. so what if the average person doesnt want to get their "hands dirty". this isnt a race for linux to become the dominant OS, it's just an alternative for people to try. if you like it, stick around, if not, oh well.

i personally dont want linux to become "mainstream". i think it would start becoming commercialized, attacked, etc. i like being part of a special (small) group of people. when people say "why should i stay with linux?" it's obvious they dont really care. just use windows and be happy.

btw, i fix windows machines, and i can tell you from experience that most people dont know the first thing about how to fix anything in windows, and especially wouldnt know how to re-install it. so to say windows is easier is a gross miscalculation. it's only "easier" because the machine came pre-installed with windows. and that's what their used to. the minute it breaks, that's where i come in. ;)

if someone's first computer was linux, used it for years, then forced to use windows, you would see them complaining about everything. example: "why do i need anti-virus/spyware protection?" "what's this defragging thingy?" "why has my computer become slow/unresponive the last 6 months?" "the registry? forget about it." "it's too confusing, i want my linux back" etc.................

[revertex]

Interesting point wolfen69,

Take 2 ppl that never used computers before, give then 2 computers with windows an linux preinstalled, like a Dell computer, wich one will have a better experience?

at least in my country dell comes with windows and a trial AV preinstalled, nothing more, nothing less.

[3rdalbum]

Maybe not - but I am very experienced with windows so despite the impression given I should be able to get Ubunto going.

1. It's Ubuntu. It's a u on the end, not an o.

2. Linux is nothing like Windows, and Windows is nothing like Linux. Your knowledge is no good here - you will have to relearn many things. Judging by your claim that Windows came with drivers for your graphics card, I think you haven't really installed and set up an operating system before.

I've been using Linux for a year and a half... why then do I always find it difficult and alien to do system administration tasks on Windows? Because they are completely different operating systems. Windows and Mac OS are a lot like eachother. Linux and the BSDs are a lot like eachother. Linux is nothing like Windows and Mac OS X is nothing like FreeBSD. If you accept that you are a newbie, then you will achieve success in this world.

[3rdalbum]

No average user should have to touch the terminal or command shell, ever.

"Disk Defragmenter cannot defragment the G: drive. Run chkdsk \F and then reboot twice."

Don't tell me you've never run into that one!

[wolfen69]

ive had to some jobs where windows needed 7 or 8 different drivers before i could begin tweaking and installing. if that's not a pain in the butt,....forget about driver support from Gateway.
on older machines, the video driver supplied by windows will most likely be enough, but newer cards will definitely need a proper driver to function correctly.

[tgbrowning]

Has anyone beside me had mega-problems with Windows and printers? Every bloody printer I've had, has had to be very carefully installed under Windows -- no matter what the version. I can't say whether Vista is easier or not, because I've given up worrying about it and don't use a printer much any more.

Once I got Ubuntu Dapper up and running on this machine, I tried to install a Brother HL-1040 laser printer. Jeez.

You know what I had to do? What I had to go through? I had to plug the bloody printer in, wait for the system to recognize it and then answer two questions! My God! The humiliation!

I damn near had a coronary. I'm not used to such suprises.

Browning>>>

[wolfen69]

This is an interesting topic.

I understand the OPs frustration. The question of what OSes people use and eventually adopt is of economics. In this case the OP is likely curious about what Ubuntu has to offer. Who knows, but what the OP was not expecting from a modern OS was a difficult time installing it.

When presented with a choice the OP is going to pick the OS that offers the best opportunity cost. To him and to everybody else in the world, it's simply what is the cost of the next best alternative. To some users of Linux the cost of spending time vs money to get a working system is the trade off. This same principle applies to the OP. He/She would like to use the OS now (trading time) with a smaller regard towards the monetary cost. In the end the OP values the time more than the money they are willing to spend to have the satisfaction of having a product they can use.

The OP is trying to point out that the makers of Ubuntu are making an investment in their distribution. In order for that distribution to be successful they need to have as many users as possible because that will likely lead to more business on the service end of things. They don't make money on the product, they make money supporting it and selling their services. Reputation is the most important thing to any business. Microsoft has a good reputation with 90+% of users because it just works out of the box 90+% of the time. (Don't give me Win95 BSOD posts because that's BS and 12 years ago.) The OP is simply stating that the reputation of Ubuntu needs to improve to compete. Until all Linux Distros install flawlessly they will not gain market share and any hopes of knocking the king off of the hill are lost.

People that don't have a vested interest in a product will simply be dismissive and say things like, use it or don't use it because I don't care. That's because a lot of Linux users will trade time spent fixing things for not spending money. Time is one of the many resources that we have on this planet. Some people hold it in high value, and rightfully so since it is our most limited of resources; after all we're only here for a short time. What do you want to be doing when your time is up? Trying to get your wireless adapter working or downloading pictures of Anna Kournikova?

Throw the OP a bone.

it takes me an hour and a half to get a fully functional linux machine up and running. how is that a big investment in time? i dont even know linux 1/10 as good as most people here. it took me all of 2 days to learn the basics of ubuntu. because i WANTED to. notice the key word there?

give the average joe a blank hard drive and tell him to install windows on it. he'll look at you like your crazy. people keep saying windows is easier, it's not. it's just different.

[Gary.M]

This has degenerated to position taking and posturing now hasn't it?

[chris4585]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

Windows works with my printer/scanner etc..
With Ubuntu nothing works..

My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..

When I install applications on windows I just double click a download..
When I install software on Ubuntu I have to hope it is in the repository or do without it..

When I upgrade windows it just works..
When I try to upgrade Ubuntu it either can't find 101 dependencies or it overwrites grub and stops my dual boot working..

When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

I can now fix most problems that occur with win98/XP/Vista..
After months of casual Linux use I still struggle to get anything useful done..

Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

i know this is a very old post, but i have to say it depends alot on your hardware, what i mean is, i never had have a problem with resolution on my computers, on a friends first ubuntu booted into a ugly resolution, then it booted fine, i thought that was odd, oh well

you said your printer's scanner's didnt work with ubuntu, thats odd for me, i dont even have to configure *anything* my printer/scanner/copier just works with no configuration *at all*

About installing programs, i find synaptic and gdebi easier than on windows, i know there's probably a program out there for one i want, you still search either way, but whats cool about on ubuntu you can select programs to install, remove, reinstall, all at the same time, i love that feature

i dont have wireless so i have never had this problem, and i plan on sticking with my wires until the wireless issues are fixed and 100% easy to get to work

i think you should just stick with windows since it seems to be working, but for me i find ubuntu 100 times better since it does just work, i understand it, and i like it, also i can control it, unlike how vista likes to control my media

[Kabezon]

Well, I started using GNU/Linux around the date this thread was created... Bikeman123, I'm not trying to put you down, but all I can say is Ubuntu is not the problem, apparently you are :S


When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..
Resolution is easily fixed, just install the proper drivers and configure X; you can use Envy to get it done automatically and effectively.


Windows works with my printer/scanner etc..
With Ubuntu nothing works..
I had trouble with my printer as well, but it's because Canon is known not to support GNU/Linux very much... still I could get it to work, just google around a bit, and once 7.10 came out, it automatically recognized it.


When I install applications on windows I just double click a download..
When I install software on Ubuntu I have to hope it is in the repository or do without it..
Installing software does not work as you say it does. Repositories make things simple, they are a great thing, but if you can't find repos to a certain application, then just compile it yourself, it's not that hard, just read a howto about it and you'll get it. Do it two or three times and the fourth time you most likely won't need to go over the guide ever again.


When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..
True, but you can't expect for us to provide a new user's guide every time we explain how to do something, you should have read guides before trying to fix a problem that requires this kind of knowledge.


My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..
Did you manually look for its drivers? This surprised me, all the computers I installed Ubuntu on automatically recognized all its hardware... you are just unlucky I guess :S

Anyways, you should give Ubuntu or another distro a new chance, maybe it'll be different this time :P

[Midwest-Linux]

You will find more compatibility with Linux than with Vista, besides Linux runs faster and has less hardware requirements. I installed Linux Mint 4.0 in a higher end computer, it found the video drivers, sound drivers and network drivers with no problem. Everything worked great right after installing it.

[Redrazor39]

And is that my point - you dont care because you are not paying for Ubuntu.. Canonical are and they are not doing for love - they are doing it to establish a brand which they hope to make money from - either by selling the OS, lincencing or support.

Canonical need people like me who show an interest in their product because it is people like me who they hope to eventually sell it to.

It is people like you who they dont need because once their commercial model is defined it is you who will move onto the next free distro.

actually, that's incorrect. The Ubuntu OS philosophy includes that it should always be free of charge. They make their money from other things that directly depend on the OS and software, such as support.

[tashmooclam]

If you have wireless issues, see how difficult it is to change (upgrade) your wireless card. I believe that Broadcom wireless cards can cause headaches. The Intel cards are $25 on ebay, and work fine with Ubuntu 7.1 since Intel Linux drivers for the cards are inside 7.1
As far as other programs, it's definitely a bit of an ordeal downloading some. I can't remember how I downloaded Frostwire and Googleearth, but I was able to do it. Next time I'll take notes for myself.
My old canon scanner and old epson printer were recognized by 7.1, which I can't say was true with my XP laptop.
While it's much easier to download stuff for XP over the internet, what can it do to you? Ruin your life.
I put Ubuntu 7.1 on an old HP zt1000 laptop, and everything works fine and no slowdown from malware and viruses, no problems of any kind. The laptop cost me $200, and runs faster than my friend's new Vista laptop.

[itsjustarumour]

The millions of Ubuntu users are clearly cheap, masochistic, or are computer nerds. You've convinced me. I'm off to buy Vista now.

I couldn't agree with you more, the majority of Ubuntu users ARE cheap, masochistic computer nerds.

But thats no excuse to buy Vista!

(ducks) ;-)

[K.Mandla]

Moved to Recurring Discussions since the superiority of one OS over another is ... a discussion that recurs frequently around here.

[itsjustarumour]

Moved to Recurring Discussions since the superiority of one OS over another is ... a discussion that recurs frequently around here.

:lolflag:

Thanks for that K.Mandla.

[heartburnkid]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..

Windows works with my printer/scanner etc..
With Ubuntu nothing works..

My wireless card is recognised by windows..
On Ubuntu it isnt..

When I install applications on windows I just double click a download..
When I install software on Ubuntu I have to hope it is in the repository or do without it..

When I upgrade windows it just works..
When I try to upgrade Ubuntu it either can't find 101 dependencies or it overwrites grub and stops my dual boot working..

When I ask for help on windows I get an answer I can understand..
When I ask for help on Linux I get told a command line with no explanation and learn nothing..

I can now fix most problems that occur with win98/XP/Vista..
After months of casual Linux use I still struggle to get anything useful done..

Can someone remind me again what is so great about Ubuntu Linux.

Funny, my experience has been quite the opposite...

When I installed Windows, it defaulted to 640x480x256. I had to fight with nVidia's site to get the latest drivers to change to anything else. I'm sure it's because of the oh-so-very-obscure graphics card I'm using... a GeForce 6200.
When I installed Ubuntu, it automatically found the correct resolution for my widescreen monitor, and with a couple of clicks, I had full 3D acceleration.

On Windows, my printer worked fine, but the built-in scanner wouldn't work without a big, chunky program from HP that killed my network port somehow (I'm still trying to figure that one out). Once I managed to get both the all-in-one software and my network both working, I had about six months of trouble-free operation before the software crapped itself and I had to go through the whole thing all over again.
On Ubuntu, everything my all-in-one can do simply works.

When I install applications in Windows, I first have to find the maker's web site, then download a file, then double-click the download... then have to page through screen after screen of pointless options... and then hope the installer doesn't choke, which happens way too often.
When I install applications in Ubuntu, I go to the repository and have hundreds of apps at my fingertips. Each install is as simple as checking a box and clicking "Apply changes".

Can't say much about wireless since I use good old fashioned Ethernet.

When I upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows XP, my modem mysteriously stopped working. After going to the local library and spending hours searching Microsoft's site, I finally found a "known issue" that required turning off system file protection, deleting a system file, going into the registry and removing all references to said file, and then reinstalling. This is supposed to just work?
Haven't upgraded Ubuntu yet, so I have no idea how that'll go, but we'll see...

When I ask for Windows help via the web, I get ignored. When I ask for Windows help via the phone, I get slapped with a $35 charge.
When I ask for Linux help... well, I haven't even really had to ask about much yet, because a quick search of this very forum usually nets quick, concise instructions on how to solve the problem (yes, using the command line 1/2 the time, but I don't fear the command line. I am fearless with my computer, because every mistake is just a learning experience).

It seems to me that we're quick to write off Windows' foibles simply because we've been dealing with them so long. We're comfortable with the devil we know, and less so with the devil we don't... regardless, I've learned a lot in the mere week-and-a-half I've been doing the Linux thing, and I am looking forward to much more. I may not be at quite the comfort level I am with Windows yet... but to be fair, I've been using Windows since version 3.11, and I've been using Ubuntu for a week and a half. I'll get there.

[Steve Angelidis]

Have to agree with heartburn kid. I'm upgrading to Ubuntu from Vista Premium. Celebrating one month as a "Ubuntoid". Everything went just fine with my Ubuntu install: screen, wireless, printer, USB ... pretty much the works.

There are only a couple of very minor issues: Example my laptop continues to run even when the lid is closed. But then after one Vista "upgrade" my trackpad stopped working and would not revive no matter what "latest" driver I downloaded. (It came back to life after Ubuntu install.)

There have been trying times getting used to Linux and I have had the Vista recovery CDs ready to go once or twice. But I'm pretty sure that I'm past the point of no return now. Pleased as punch with Ubuntu.

[tigerplug]

When I installed windows it found drivers for my monitor..
Every release of Ubuntu gives me a monitor resolution of 480x600 and a problem to resolve..



Am I missing something here?...... Scratches Head

:confused:

[quinnten83]

Canonical - spend some of your marketing budget on getting your install working rather than keep sending out Ubuntu CDs that dont install properly.

What marketing budget?????

[cardinals_fan]

Is there a reason this thread was resurrected?

[spawnywhippet]

Hmmm.... well I am a recent "convert" and I am liking my Ubuntu experience. BUT I agree with the originator of this thread, Ubuntu is not ready for "prime-time".

Just because it has a community and the geeks find it fun to use doesn't make it a success. Linux needs to become an OS that will just install and run with a minimum of fuss. It needs better hardware support and better gui configuration tools. No average user should have to touch the terminal or command shell, ever. In a way the current Linux experience is like a cross between MS-DOS and Windows XP.... you're going to have to get your hands dirty... Again this is OK for the geeks, but not good for the world at large.

My thoughts in a nutshell. I have absolutely zero interest in compiling kernels and editing interface files just to get my networking to run. I would like an OS that I pop in the install CD, download some updates then its done - and Linux would really be my first choice now if these things could be resolved.
However, I haven't got the first clue how to install an updated driver for my WiFi card on Linux, after many frustrating hours of reading forums and documentation. The documentation that came with the driver may as well have been written in machine code, as it asks the user to compile drivers and wrappers and all kinds of things that a novice Linux user has no understanding of. I do not want to get to the command line just to install a driver or enable a wifi card.

I am finding Ubuntu not that well documented just yet, and after 3 days of struggling with a simple driver install, I have resorted to using an XP computer as I still haven't found out how to upgrade wireless drivers to connect to a WPA wlan.

I really want to make this whole thing work, so I'll give it a few more days to get the wireless working, but if still no success, sadly I'm afraid that will be it for me with *nix as secure wireless access is absolutely critical for me.

[martin saint martin]

jump in the deep end! unless you're too scared. i've found that the best way to do anything in life is to give it your all. for instance lets say that you have the choice between eating fast food all day and night or find out what gun metal tastes like after a shot has been fired. sure you might live a little longer on the taco hell diet but in the end you gain your knowledge though a very taxing way but if you had just "bit the bullet" things would have been much more ez'r, eh?

[Inferied]

Have to agree with heartburn kid. I'm upgrading to Ubuntu from Vista Premium. Celebrating one month as a "Ubuntoid". Everything went just fine with my Ubuntu install: screen, wireless, printer, USB ... pretty much the works.

There are only a couple of very minor issues: Example my laptop continues to run even when the lid is closed. But then after one Vista "upgrade" my trackpad stopped working and would not revive no matter what "latest" driver I downloaded. (It came back to life after Ubuntu install.)

There have been trying times getting used to Linux and I have had the Vista recovery CDs ready to go once or twice. But I'm pretty sure that I'm past the point of no return now. Pleased as punch with Ubuntu.
You have to go to System>Preferences>Power Management and change that... Takes about one minute, I guess.

[spawnywhippet]

After a lot of searching forums and re-installs, I finally got my laptop to connect to my WPA network and can start assessing Ubuntu properly as my potential new OS.

This thread on ndiswrapper helped me through it - my thanks to this forum.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=574501