Walt Mossberg

[ddrichardson]

Just read this post from Slashdot (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&from=rss).

When are people going to stop rabbiting on about the command line as if it is a flaw? Also how much easier does multimedia support need to get before columnists like him stop saying it's poor in Ubuntu?

If he's talking about "the average joe" being advised to avoid Linux then that's one thing but to suggest Ubuntu is not ready for mainstream users is ridiculous.

[starcraft.man]

Mossberg... do people still care what he says?

Anyway, isn't he in Apple's pocket? He seems to be very cushy with them and getting advanced products.

In the end, I don't really care what he writes. Just like I don't care what most mainstream media writes about tech, it's usually garbage.

[ddrichardson]

The kind of people many of the Ubuntu community are aiming and recommending the OS at listen to people like him. That's what bothers me.

[starcraft.man]

The kind of people many of the Ubuntu community are aiming and recommending the OS at listen to people like him. That's what bothers me.

Well what do you want to do about it? He's a so called "tech columnist", if nobody listened to him he wouldn't have a job...

I find most of the mainstream coverage of tech to be lacking/bad, so I don't listen to any of them. Am I not a person the OS is targeted at?

[t0p]

Ah, he's just a hired shill. Apple and Microsoft always have a few of them kicking round on the internet, spreading their FUD.

What you gotta do, is light up a cone of GM super-skunk and say "IDGAF!" ;)

No, the shills are a problem, because the people they're aiming their diatribes at don't know any better than to believe his skev. When he says "OMG you gotta use the command line to do XYZ, which is 1970s and uber-geek and impossible!" they all accept it coz they have never used a CLI.

The only remedy, I think, is slow, gradual progress. You gotta show these peeps how simple it often is to use the command line... how sometimes the command line is better than the GUI. And also, constantly call him on his lies - when he says "You gotta do this that and the other in a bash shell" and you know damn well the task is easily done in gnome, you gotta tell the people that he's a stinking liar.

A lot of people only know Windows, and if they actually dare to try Linux, and they have to do something that's different to what they're used to, a lot of people will instinctively recoil - and the shill is there, ready to pile it on: "See? That Linux is too hard for normal people!" You gotta be there ready too, to demonstrate that Linux isn't harder than Windows... it's just different... and very often, that difference means that Linux is actually better.

Counteracting the shills ain't easy - most of us have Real Lives as well as whatever we do on slashdot or wherever... most of us can't devote the time and attention that's needed to neutralize the constant shillery. I know I can't. But we just gotta do our best.

Or kick back, fire up the reefer and not care.

[ddrichardson]

Well what do you want to do about it? He's a so called "tech columnist", if nobody listened to him he wouldn't have a job...

I find most of the mainstream coverage of tech to be lacking/bad, so I don't listen to any of them. Am I not a person the OS is targeted at?

No need to get over excited ;-)

There are a huge number of people pushing Ubuntu as being ready for mainstream users. I mean the kind of person who buys a PC from ALDI and would never dream of using the command line in a million years.

[starcraft.man]

No need to get over excited ;-)

There are a huge number of people pushing Ubuntu as being ready for mainstream users. I mean the kind of person who buys a PC from ALDI and would never dream of using the command line in a million years.

What on earth is ALDI? Speak in Canadian darn it!!! :p

Oh and naw, I'm not excited... I'm just a bit curmudgeony.


Ah, he's just a hired shill. Apple and Microsoft always have a few of them kicking round on the internet, spreading their FUD.

What you gotta do, is light up a cone of GM super-skunk and say "IDGAF!" ;)

No, the shills are a problem, because the people they're aiming their diatribes at don't know any better than to believe his skev. When he says "OMG you gotta use the command line to do XYZ, which is 1970s and uber-geek and impossible!" they all accept it coz they have never used a CLI.

The only remedy, I think, is slow, gradual progress. You gotta show these peeps how simple it often is to use the command line... how sometimes the command line is better than the GUI. And also, constantly call him on his lies - when he says "You gotta do this that and the other in a bash shell" and you know damn well the task is easily done in gnome, you gotta tell the people that he's a stinking liar.

A lot of people only know Windows, and if they actually dare to try Linux, and they have to do something that's different to what they're used to, a lot of people will instinctively recoil - and the shill is there, ready to pile it on: "See? That Linux is too hard for normal people!" You gotta be there ready too, to demonstrate that Linux isn't harder than Windows... it's just different... and very often, that difference means that Linux is actually better.

Counteracting the shills ain't easy - most of us have Real Lives as well as whatever we do on slashdot or wherever... most of us can't devote the time and attention that's needed to neutralize the constant shillery. I know I can't. But we just gotta do our best.

Or kick back, fire up the reefer and not care.

Well least I'm not the only one that thinks the media is full of shills like Mossberg. Your right, gradual education of the technology user base is maybe the only solution (the media and companies certainly haven't been interested). Heck, I find it sad that millions of Windows users are oblivious to what a partition on the hard drive is. It isn't rocket science and it very much is applicable to all users...

[ddrichardson]

What on earth is ALDI?Its a supermarket in Europe - you could have found that using Google ;-) sorry that's http://www.google.ca

[starcraft.man]

Its a supermarket in Europe - you could have found that using Google ;-) sorry that's http://www.google.ca


LOL! I know, but I was having one of my grumpy lazy moments... was easier to just ask. Plus, if anyone else doesn't know (like other Canadians), then they see your post :).

[ddrichardson]

OK, ALDI = Super Market (and a cheap, tacky one at that). On the off chance that no one in Europe reads this site, I thought I'd make it clear ;-)

[Bothered]

I was warned that some of these codecs might be “bad” or “ugly.”

I think that sentence gives him away - he didn't realise the difference between a name (of a package) and a warning.

[t0p]

Heck, I find it sad that millions of Windows users are oblivious to what a partition on the hard drive is. It isn't rocket science and it very much is applicable to all users...

Yeah, it isn't rocket science - but to the majority of long-term Windows users it seems like rocket science, because the Windows Way has insulated them from any understanding of how computing actually works.

I know I had problems when I decided to try a *nix. I got myself a shell account on a machine running a BSD - all korn shell, no GUI - I found some stuff on the net, "beginners guide" kind of stuff, and one said "In UNIX, everything is a file." It took me quite a while to get my head round that.

With Linux, the transition isn't so harsh, cos there's a GUI, Windows-like. But at some point, if you want to use your box, you're going to have to get used to concepts that Windows has hidden from you.

[PS - when I'm quoting someone in this forum, how do I show who it is I'm quoting? I can't figure out which button to click/whatever]

[mostwanted]

OK, ALDI = Super Market (and a cheap, tacky one at that). On the off chance that no one in Europe reads this site, I thought I'd make it clear ;-)

Far off ;) half the users here are Europeans.

[ddrichardson]

Far off ;) half the users here are Europeans.

Sarcasm. I'm in Europe.

[starcraft.man]

Yeah, it isn't rocket science - but to the majority of long-term Windows users it seems like rocket science, because the Windows Way has insulated them from any understanding of how computing actually works.

I know I had problems when I decided to try a *nix. I got myself a shell account on a machine running a BSD - all korn shell, no GUI - I found some stuff on the net, "beginners guide" kind of stuff, and one said "In UNIX, everything is a file." It took me quite a while to get my head round that.

With Linux, the transition isn't so harsh, cos there's a GUI, Windows-like. But at some point, if you want to use your box, you're going to have to get used to concepts that Windows has hidden from you.

[PS - when I'm quoting someone in this forum, how do I show who it is I'm quoting? I can't figure out which button to click/whatever]

Easiest way to add it in after the fact is to do the following and insert =name after QUOTE. For example:


[QUOTE=t0p]
[PS - when I'm quoting someone in this forum, how do I show who it is I'm quoting? I can't figure out which button to click/whatever]

Your very correct though, Windows has insulated a lot of people from fundamental concepts that they do need to know. Thus we have to approach the problem from both angles, make better documentation to educate users and make GUIs and CLI easier but powerful for the average consumer.

As an extra note, if you notice after your name in the first quote in my post, you see a small triangle that links back to your post. That is denoted by the numeric forum tag (;3380756) after your name (quote this post to see it). Hope that helps :).

[t0p]

Easiest way to add it in after the fact is to do the following and insert =name after QUOTE.


Your very correct though, Windows has insulated a lot of people from fundamental concepts that they do need to know. Thus we have to approach the problem from both angles, make better documentation to educate users and make GUIs and CLI easier but powerful for the average consumer.

As an extra note, if you notice after your name in the first quote in my post, you see a small triangle that links back to your post. That is denoted by the numeric forum tag (;3380756) after your name (quote this post to see it). Hope that helps :).

I think I've got the quoting thing sorted now. Thanks! Now all I need to learn is how to deprogram all the brainwashed Windows fans!

[t0p]

I think that sentence gives him away - he didn't realise the difference between a name (of a package) and a warning.

I think he's being disingenuous there - he knows the difference between a name and a warning. But he's pretending that (he thought) it was a warning. It's cunning, in that it will fool people who unfortunately know no better. But ol' Walt ain't foolin' me!

[tbroderick]

If he's talking about "the average joe" being advised to avoid Linux then that's one thing but to suggest Ubuntu is not ready for mainstream users is ridiculous.

How about 'average mainstream nontechie computer user'?

[ddrichardson]

How about 'average mainstream nontechie computer user'?It depends on where you define mainstream non-techie.

If we're talking about someone who appreciates the difference between OSS and Proprietry - and not those who don't see a problem with pirate software on Windows, which isn't the same thing.

A mainstream non-techie user is going to (in all likelihood) be willing to learn how to accomplish things with thier PC - but articles such as this promote the image that Ubuntu is nothing but trouble, while ignoring all of its benefits.

There are however a lot of people out there who consider anything different to be wrong and assume that if it doesn't work like Windows then its wrong. These are the people that I could personally care less about. Come on we've all seen them - the ones who troll or post demands or complain that there cheap winmodem should be supported out of the box.

[Bothered]

I think he's being disingenuous there - he knows the difference between a name and a warning. But he's pretending that (he thought) it was a warning. It's cunning, in that it will fool people who unfortunately know no better. But ol' Walt ain't foolin' me!

I see now, you might be right. In that case I'm not convinced by his assumption that the average user would either: a) think it was a warning or b) if they would think it was a warning, that they would have paid any attention that part of the message in the first place! It seems a bit of a petty remark is all.

[ryno519]

GNU/Linux usability has gotten a lot better as of late. There are still a few places where it's a little rough around the edges, but all in all it's pretty good. A couple of things I'd like to see on the usability side of things though.

For instance, a nice feature in Ubuntu is if you try to open a media file yoiu don't have the codecs for in certain media players, it will inform you that you don't have that codec and offer to download and install it for you.

However, if you're on firefox and you browse to a site where you don't have the proper plugin it will tell you that you don't have it, what plugin you need, but on GNU/Linux it typically just gives you the manual installation link and that's that. That should be changed to use the Ubuntu repositories to download the proper plugin. flash-nonfree for flash, mplayer-mozilla for embedded video, sun-java-mozilla for java applets, etc. I think that would be a good addition.

Multimedia support is definately one of the larger annoyances when setting up a new system, but it's getting better. The other annoyance can be video drivers, but that's not really something Ubuntu can take care of, that's up to the hardware manufacturers and even that's starting to get better.

[tbroderick]

A mainstream non-techie user is going to (in all likelihood) be willing to learn how to accomplish things with thier PC - but articles such as this promote the image that Ubuntu is nothing but trouble, while ignoring all of its benefits.

I disagree completely. I think it's pretty clear that when he says, 'average mainstream nontechie user', that he's talking about the proverbial grandma or average joe. And he didn't ignore the benefits of Ubuntu. He's not a member of the FSF. He explained a few benefits of Ubuntu, cost, free of virsus/spyware and the open source development model. And in his opinion, the average mainstream nontechie user is better off using an Apple or Windows. Hell, even Mark Shuttleworth told him, "it would be reasonable to say that this is not ready for the mass market".

[starcraft.man]

I disagree completely. I think it's pretty clear that when he says, 'average mainstream nontechie user', that he's talking about the proverbial grandma or average joe.

Don't be quick to judge the average or elderly. There are plenty who have installed Linux and followed my guide (in Blue) on their own to get themselves working with Linux autonomously. I know because quite a few of them (i.e. seniors/non-tech) PMed me and thanked me on the doc :D.

Point being, don't be so quick to judge average masses. When they will themselves to do something, they often get it done when resources are available. Often it seems to me it's the media/companies that treat end users as stupid, not the other way around.

[tbroderick]

Don't be quick to judge the average or elderly. There are plenty who have installed Linux and followed my guide (in Blue) on their own to get themselves working with Linux autonomously. I know because quite a few of them (i.e. seniors/non-tech) PMed me and thanked me on the doc :D.

I wouldn't call those users 'average'.

[FrankQuist]

Some people in this thread kind of smell of the "it's the users' fault" sentiment. This is probably not just limited to here, but I feel like ranting it out in my first post. Could help me see how things work here. I'm probably going majorly wrong here. If only because I think I'm sounding kind of like the common "oh, here is what people should do for linux to become great" thing. Just try and ignore that :p


Ah, he's just a hired shill. Apple and Microsoft always have a few of them kicking round on the internet, spreading their FUD.
Do you have any evidence of such a fact? So, maybe he gets pre-releases, does that make him a hired shill? That assumes he's not being honest and I do not see how you can prove that so easily.

Apparently, any problems some mentioned columnists and non-techy users face is because they're too stupid/unwilling to adapt themselves to a computer. On the contrary, it is because computers/their interfaces are not designed well enough. Users should not have to spend time to make their computer actually work, as far as that is possible. Any time anyone invests into improving the user experience saves dozens that amount of time for others. That's why people make distributions, I'd think? If you mind, there's always Gentoo.

Instead of going all "FUD FUD FUD" you should concentrate on people's concerns, document where these are invalid when they are, and otherwise spend your valuable time (if you even care) on identifying on how to improve them.


The only remedy, I think, is slow, gradual progress. You gotta show these peeps how simple it often is to use the command line... how sometimes the command line is better than the GUI.

Why should people change for the computer's benefit, instead of the other way around? Sure, there's lots of market for tech-savvy users that could probably easily adjust to Linux distros, but there's lots of not-so-tech-savvy people out there. There's the elderly, people with an education level that might make it harder, just non-savvy people, and most of all people who would not want (and who would blame them) to invest time just to make their system work. The new generations will probably have an easier time, but even then people just have different talents. I have very tech-savvy friends, but also know people at which you could throw 10 linux books and they wouldn't learn. This is not their fault, that's just reality and if you want to make the freedom available to a broad group of people those concerns are good to address instead of just saying "just learn it, idiots".

Maybe it's simple for them to use the CLI, but more often than not the problems those darn columnists highlight are actually things that shouldn't require the CLI - because the rest of the functions they use are in the frontend.

This will be remedied by the nice new Xorg version, but how would you explain Ubuntu / Gnome, for example, having a resolution setting frontend that's often limited to basic resolutions that are not the ones people need? You could say, "this is easily remedied using CLI", but if you go in that direction, there should be no GUI resolution frontend, and the current frontend is withholding neccessary information on how to adjust your resolution (the presence of only basic resolutions in the config applet gives the appearance that these are the only ones really supported).

In this case, it's not the user's "fault", but the GUI's in need of more work (which is obviously happening with almost any issue that is raised).


And also, constantly call him on his lies - when he says "You gotta do this that and the other in a bash shell" and you know damn well the task is easily done in gnome, you gotta tell the people that he's a stinking liar.
This leaves us with two options:

1. Mossberg/other columnists saw that it is easy to remedy but are lying and any mainstream/non-tech-savvy user would find it with ease.
2. The option was not obvious enough and herein lies improvement.

I dare it's a safe bet that 2 is more often the case than 1, and is easier to remedy than 1. Any work on 2 also improves 1.



Counteracting the shills ain't easy - most of us have Real Lives as well as whatever we do on slashdot or wherever... most of us can't devote the time and attention that's needed to neutralize the constant shillery. I know I can't. But we just gotta do our best.Most of the problems Mossberg posted (touch pad, crashing volume control, bad video playback etc) are things that appear to be bugs. How are these invalid concerns?


A mainstream non-techie user is going to (in all likelihood) be willing to learn how to accomplish things with thier PC - but articles such as this promote the image that Ubuntu is nothing but trouble, while ignoring all of its benefits.
A mainstream non-techie wouldn't care less about partitions or bash or GRUB. And shouldn't. When we drive cars, most of us don't care to study how engines work. Why should we? A mainstream non-techie user is probably attracted to computers as a tool to achieve mainstream things. They will want to read their mail, surf the internet, listen to their music and write documents. If something doesn't enable them to and wants them to invest lots of time instead, why should they bother with it?

Disclaimer: I don't know who Walt Mossberg is and I couldn't care less at defending him if he did anything wrong. I use Ubuntu full-time.

[ddrichardson]

I disagree completely. I think it's pretty clear that when he says, 'average mainstream nontechie user', that he's talking about the proverbial grandma or average joe. And he didn't ignore the benefits of Ubuntu. He's not a member of the FSF. He explained a few benefits of Ubuntu, cost, free of virsus/spyware and the open source development model. And in his opinion, the average mainstream nontechie user is better off using an Apple or Windows. Hell, even Mark Shuttleworth told him, "it would be reasonable to say that this is not ready for the mass market".

As I've stated before (http://blog.lynxworks.eu/?p=4) I don't view the average user as anyone from granny up to but not including experienced windows users - I think that people fall broadly into two categories - those who are prepared to learn and those who are not.

I'm referring to those who have, for example tried Linux in the past but have not for a while. To read this article suggests that nothing's changed. Lets face it these are the same arguments from the late ninties.

[ddrichardson]

A mainstream non-techie wouldn't care less about partitions or bash or GRUB. And shouldn't. When we drive cars, most of us don't care to study how engines work. Why should we? A mainstream non-techie user is probably attracted to computers as a tool to achieve mainstream things. They will want to read their mail, surf the internet, listen to their music and write documents. If something doesn't enable them to and wants them to invest lots of time instead, why should they bother with it?

This is an old argument and a totally mute analogy - I don't study how the the engine in my car works, but I would be an idiot to let it run out of oil, petrol or water. And if I am spending a huge amount of money on a car then I would be an idiot not to consider the options before I buy.

Read through some more of my posts and you'll see we're singing off the same songsheet. I am not and never have been one of the evangelical promote Ubuntu at all costs set - I believe its about the right tool for the job.

[FrankQuist]

I would compare that to knowing how to plug in your computer, start it up, and making sure the battery doesn't run out while working on it. Basic knowledge of applications you need to use and how to utilize the hardware, some security/privacy knowledge, etc. If possible, any further knowledge which doesn't really bring anyone any life improvement should be minimized. I prefer techies specialize on their field and make sure others have more time to specialize in theirs. Which is why the "just learn the CLI or stop FUDDING" sentiments bother me. You seem to agree - good and apologies for assuming otherwise.

[tbroderick]

I'm referring to those who have, for example tried Linux in the past but have not for a while. To read this article suggests that nothing's changed. Lets face it these are the same arguments from the late ninties.

I have no idea where you get that from the review.

[Spike-X]

How about 'average mainstream nontechie computer user'?

I would suggest that Windows isn't ready for them yet, either. How often has one of "us" been called upon to bail out one of "them"?

[ddrichardson]

I would suggest that Windows isn't ready for them yet, either. How often has one of "us" been called upon to bail out one of "them"?
+1 Funny

[tbroderick]

I would suggest that Windows isn't ready for them yet, either. How often has one of "us" been called upon to bail out one of "them"?

I think you would have to bail them out if they were using Ubuntu too.

[ddrichardson]

I have no idea where you get that from the review.

The article begins by saying "I don't recommend Linux because its too technical" and finishes by saying Ubuntu is no different.

Its classic FUD cleverly disguised - hinting that media codecs are "bad" or "ugly" but not saying easy to install. Suggesting hardware support is poor for USB (Kodak camera and iPod). Suggesting there is no quality control (even though there is a great deal of effort put into what is included in each release). And not least - saying that you have to wade through forums and help files, which for the vast majority of tasks is not true and in any case the support provided by the forum - which is free rather than paid (such as most proprietry programs is), is actually of a very high standard.

[tbroderick]

The article begins by saying "I don't recommend Linux because its too technical" and finishes by saying Ubuntu is no different.

Not exactly. For average mainstream nontechie users it's not recommended, but the title of the article, Linux’s Free System Is Now Easier to Use, But Not for Everyone, implies that Ubuntu and Linux has improved.


hinting that media codecs are "bad" or "ugly" but not saying easy to install.

He said it was an extra step and that Windows and OSX support mp3 out of the box.


Suggesting hardware support is poor for USB (Kodak camera and iPod).

He didn't suggest USB support is poor. He said had to reboot several time to get his camera and his ipod to be recognized. And when his ipod was recognized, he couldn't sync to it. Lots of people own ipods and might run into the same problems.


Suggesting there is no quality control (even though there is a great deal of effort put into what is included in each release).

It could be better.


And not least - saying that you have to wade through forums and help files, which for the vast majority of tasks is not true and in any case the support provided by the forum - which is free rather than paid (such as most proprietry programs is), is actually of a very high standard.

He said, "Average Ubuntu users are likely to have to wade through online forums, often written in technical language, to get help". He didn't say all users or all tasks.

You forgot the part about flickering and freezing video, no commercial dvd installed player by default, or the volume player crashing when awaking form hibernation. That's FUD too, right?

[Scarlett]

I saw that earlier today and an honest assessment of his review leads me to only one major objection. After a list of some flaws, which admittedly, is some constructive criticism that Canonical and Dell should work together to fix if they expect this to really take off on a commercial level, he states, "But for now, I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users to avoid Linux." He's obviously coming at this from an ease-of-use perspective, and it's arguable that it's more than possible to experience similar headaches on any other operating system, but I think it's disingenuous to warn away any potential "mainstream and nontechnical" users solely on this basis.

I also found the comments on Slashdot and the article itself very interesting. He asserts that "open-source developers often have an imperfect feel for how average people use software." Based on the comments I saw I would expand that to include Linux users having an imperfect feel for what a new-user experience is like. Maybe some people have grown up on various distros or have been using Linux so long that it's all second nature. Maybe others just have a good foundational understanding of how computers work and it's not hard to swap out one OS for another.

Personally, I came from the "mainstream and nontechnical" world maybe a year or so ago. I can still distinctly remember the bruises on my forehead from all the *headdesking* I did trying to make it everything "just work". There are still some things I've conceded just will never (at least for now) work the way I want them to. Granted, a fresh OS install is always going to be a bit of a pain but I did my own XP install (first time) just a year previous and I promise you it did not incur as much frustration as Ubuntu did. But even for the average, mainstream nontechie user, buying this pre-installed, would they even know about Synaptic or the Forums or what's in the System menu? It's not even that it might take a little poking and tweaking, but would they even know how, much less care to take the time, to figure out how to find codecs, how to make sleep work properly with the volume control (which btw... big wtf there), and which peripherals could easily be supported and which ones took a little more effort?

That said, I think Mossberg's conclusion that Ubuntu isn't quite ready for primetime based on a few shortcomings is really selling it short. He quickly glossed over the part where it isn't susceptible to viruses and spyware like Windows is. I think if the average "mainstream nontechie" actually knew what was going on in their box once it was compromised, that would be a huge selling feature and the learning curve would be an acceptable cost. Talking to my non-techie friends and colleagues leads me to believe that none of them have ever heard of a key-stroke logger or a botnet and what it can do, much less that their own computer could be part of one. Most of them still think of viruses and malware as relatively benign little things that merely corrupt a few files or wipe out your hard drive, or at worst, make pop-up ads appear. (Yes, pop-ups are far worse, most of them have learned the value of a good back-up system by now.) He never even mentioned the freedom of not being locked in to any proprietary file formats, which I would think, would interest a lot of businesses to say the least. Unfortunately, you don't see much of a savings upon the initial purchase of a Dell, but when you consider the cost of upgrading when a new version comes out, and that Ubuntu does not require nearly the hardware specs that the lastest Microsoft "upgrade" does, it has a considerable cost savings.

A more honest assessment of Ubuntu would have included those points and while I agree the negative points he hit on should be addressed between Canonical and Dell, I wish he could have summed it up as "I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users, who don't want to learn anything new, to avoid Linux. Clearly, there are people who aren't adverse to learning new tricks because the benefits far outweigh the headaches. In the end, they'll be happier for the extra effort. I know I am.

[UI-Freak]

Just read this post from Slashdot (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&from=rss).

When are people going to stop rabbiting on about the command line as if it is a flaw?

The wonderful day it is finally obsolete and removed from our use of Linux.

One criticism, and tons of upset fanboys posting about how wrooooong this guy is. He may have a point. That point could be part of the explanation why Linux is still only used by advanced users and tech enthusiasts.

It doesn't matter at all what you guys post on forums and newspapers. Linux is not ready for the average user. Fact. Improve the product before running a campaign against everyone that disagrees with you. An inferior product is an inferior no matter how loud you shout.

Even Mark Shuttleworth says “it would be reasonable to say that this is not ready for the mass market. He is working on improving it until it is. Until then, don't embarrass yourselves by claiming to everyone that it is. People will notice that it isn't and never try again.

[K.Mandla]

The wonderful day it is finally obsolete and removed from our use of Linux.
That's the day I leave Linux.

[ddrichardson]

The wonderful day it is finally obsolete and removed from our use of Linux.

One criticism, and tons of upset fanboys posting about how wrooooong this guy is. He may have a point. That point could be part of the explanation why Linux is still only used by advanced users and tech enthusiasts.

It doesn't matter at all what you guys post on forums and newspapers. Linux is not ready for the average user. Fact. Improve the product before running a campaign against everyone that disagrees with you. An inferior product is an inferior no matter how loud you shout.

Glad you took the time to read my posts - I never said it wasand infact have stated on a number of occasions that I don't think it is.

Suggesting that something is an inferior product when it is free is like turning down a free Ford because you would prefer to buy a Porsche.


Even Mark Shuttleworth says “it would be reasonable to say that this is not ready for the mass market. He is working on improving it until it is. Until then, don't embarrass yourselves by claiming to everyone that it is. People will notice that it isn't and never try again.

Again thanks for taking the time to read my posts, where you would have found I'm in agreement with Mark.

If you feel like quantifying why Linux is an inferior product then I'll happily provide a list that discusses Windows/VMS/OS-X/BSD or any other OS's shortcomings.

The fact of the matter is that this is an Ubuntu forum and a very good place to discuss Ubuntu users opinions on a topical article.

[gimmy_bond]

Just read this post from Slashdot (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/153210&from=rss).

When are people going to stop rabbiting on about the command line as if it is a flaw? Also how much easier does multimedia support need to get before columnists like him stop saying it's poor in Ubuntu?

If he's talking about "the average joe" being advised to avoid Linux then that's one thing but to suggest Ubuntu is not ready for mainstream users is ridiculous.

No Mossberg's column is written for the same people whom the Linux and other open Source communities are trying to lure from Windows into Linux OS. Whether we admit it or not "main Stream users" are the 95% of desktop users who use MS Windows. An that translates into 500 Million users worldwide.

[ddrichardson]

We're going round in circles here. I don't see why there is an assumption that mainstream users are stupid or at least not even remotely tech savvy. It's not rocket science even by Mossberg's article - accepting a disclaimer before obtaining mp3 support, etc.

[Mr. T]

We're going round in circles here. I don't see why there is an assumption that mainstream users are stupid or at least not even remotely tech savvy. It's not rocket science even by Mossberg's article - accepting a disclaimer before obtaining mp3 support, etc.
I think the main issue with the codecs is less to do with having to install them yourselves (it's quite simple) - Walt pointed out the fact they're labelled "ugly" and "bad". Do we really need such labels for the codec packs? They're off-putting for a newbie; heck even I was concerned about whether to install codecs which are specifically stated as ugly/bad. Call them something else, but don't use such descriptions that put doubt into the user's mind whether to install them.

It's the little things that might seem trivial to experienced users, but Ubuntu's targeting the average computer user after all.

[ddrichardson]

Fair point. But the explanation that's posted before they're automatically obtained is fairly straight forward.

[aysiu]

When I did easy codec installation from double-clicking an MP3, I got Gstreamer extra plugins, not anything about bad or ugly.

See the screenshots here:
http://psychocats.net/ubuntu/mp3

That's a lame excuse, anyway, because many Linux distributions do provide proprietary codecs (Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Linspire, Mepis, Blag).

If there's anything confusing about language, it's the word non-free. I remember in April 2005 when I first started using Linux, I immediately feel in love with Synaptic and spent a bit of time exploring the categories. The one category I avoided at first was the non-free section, because I had no concept of proprietary v. free. I avoided it because non-free at the time meant to me you have to pay for it. Eventually, as I got to know Linux better, and as I started using Ubuntu, I realized that non-free had to do with the freedom defined by the software license, not the cost in money of the software.

I think a good word to put in would be proprietary instead of either bad, ugly, or non-free. That word is less confusing to new users.

[Mr. T]

When I did easy codec installation from double-clicking an MP3, I got Gstreamer extra plugins, not anything about bad or ugly.

See the screenshots here:
http://psychocats.net/ubuntu/mp3

That's a lame excuse, anyway, because many Linux distributions do provide proprietary codecs (Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Linspire, Mepis, Blag)
Ubuntu is currently the flagship of the mainstream Linux distros. It gets the most attention, it's the most likely to be tried out by a curious new user. Any attention for improving the codec system in Ubuntu itself is welcome, since most people trying Linux for the first time probably won't even be aware of the alternatives, they'll just try Ubuntu because it's likely to be the most often talked-about distro.


I think a good word to put in would be proprietary instead of either bad, ugly, or non-free. That word is less confusing to new users.
An excellent idea.

[ddrichardson]

I think a good word to put in would be proprietary instead of either bad, ugly, or non-free. That word is less confusing to new users.

And there's the difference - you make a suggestion. Most of the people complaining about Ubuntu just say "its not yet ready". ;-)

[aysiu]

And there's the difference - you make a suggestion. Most of the people complaining about Ubuntu just say "its not yet ready". ;-)
If you look at the Gutsy Idea Pool subforum (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=253), you'll see a lot of those threads were ones I started.

I do not idealize Ubuntu, but I also think most "constructive criticism" of it isn't very constructive at all. People (including Walt Mossberg, whoever he is) tend to misrepresent Ubuntu as being too difficult or too easy. The truth is that it's somewhere in between, and rather than writing it off completely or offering it as a panacea for everyone, people should describe exactly what computer using needs Ubuntu would fulfill.

It also makes no sense to make sweeping generalizations based on one example. Walt Mossberg took one example--the one laptop he got from Dell with Ubuntu preinstalled--and basically wrote off all desktop Linux for anyone who isn't a "geek." I would say if you use your computer for email, web browsing, light word processing, photo organization, and music listening, Ubuntu would be an excellent choice. If you need specialized Windows-only programs, have Lexmark printers and Broadcom wireless cards, then Windows is a good choice for you.

[tbroderick]

That's a lame excuse, anyway, because many Linux distributions do provide proprietary codecs (Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Linspire, Mepis, Blag).


Except he's not reviewing Mint, PCLinuxOS, Linspire, etc. It's a Dell with preloaded Ubuntu. Not Linux in general. And his point wasn't that mp3 codecs were hard to install or users are too stupid to install them (ddrichardson), it's that the most widely used audio format is not supported out of the box with Ubuntu.

[ddrichardson]

If you look at the Gutsy Idea Pool subforum (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=253), you'll see a lot of those threads were ones I started.

I think you misread me - that was my point, someone like you suggests change, someone like Mossberg complains its not ready.

[ddrichardson]

And his point wasn't that mp3 codecs were hard to install or users are too stupid to install them (ddrichardson), it's that the most widely used audio format is not supported out of the box with Ubuntu.

Yes, without any explanation of the perfectly reasonable notion for not doing so.

[aysiu]

Except he's not reviewing Mint, PCLinuxOS, Linspire, etc. It's a Dell with preloaded Ubuntu. Not Linux in general. Then why is his conclusion But for now, I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users to avoid Linux? Shouldn't his conclusion instead be But for now, I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users to avoid Ubuntu?

This is my major beef with "articles" like this--as I said before, making vast generalizations based on one experience.
And his point wasn't that mp3 codecs were hard to install or users are too stupid to install them (ddrichardson), it's that the most widely used audio format is not supported out of the box with Ubuntu. That's what you say. This is what Walt Mossberg says:
When I tried to play common audio and video files, such as MP3 songs, I was told I had to first download special files called codecs that are built into Windows and Mac computers. I was warned that some of these codecs might be “bad” or “ugly.” He didn't complain that they weren't supported out of the box. He complained about being told they were bad or ugly, which isn't the case, actually, as you can see from the screenshots in the link I posted previously.

This is exactly what it says when you try to play an MP3:
Search for suitable codec?
The required software to play this file is not installed. You need to install suitable codecs to play media files. Do you want to search for a codec that supports the selected file?

The search will also include software which is not officially supported by Ubuntu And when the search comes up, you see Gstreamer extra plugins, not anything about bad or ugly.

[Mr. T]

This is exactly what it says when you try to play an MP3: And when the search comes up, you see Gstreamer extra plugins, not anything about bad or ugly.
I'm pretty sure I've seen the terms "ugly" and "bad" used somewhere for the codecs in Ubuntu. Probably through Synaptic. Otherwise he saw the terms somehow. Are you saying he lied?

[tbroderick]

Then why is his conclusion But for now, I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users to avoid Linux? Shouldn't his conclusion instead be But for now, I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users to avoid Ubuntu?

Except it seems like people were telling him Ubuntu was the most polished, mainstream ready distro. And the Dell deal might enforce that notion.


That's what you say. This is what Walt Mossberg says: He didn't complain that they weren't supported out of the box. He complained about being told they were bad or ugly, which isn't the case, actually, as you can see from the screenshots in the link I posted previously.



I was told I had to first download special files called codecs that are built into Windows and Mac computers.


He also mentions mp3 'just play' in Windows and OSX in the video review.


This is exactly what it says when you try to play an MP3: And when the search comes up, you see Gstreamer extra plugins, not anything about bad or ugly.

Maybe he is confused with something else, but what the message says isn't the issue.

[Scarlett]

I think a good word to put in would be proprietary instead of either bad, ugly, or non-free. That word is less confusing to new users.

Huh. Is that what "bad" and "ugly" means? I had no idea. I first ran across that when trying to make embedded WMA and Flash files work with Mplayer. I think. Actually, I've been through so many acrobatics with those formats I'm not sure exactly what all I've done and how I've eventually made them work.

But I definitely remember pausing the first time I saw that terminology and then shrugging and figuring I could always reinstall if ugly and bad ended up breaking something. I just thought that meant maybe it wasn't coded very elegantly. (Don't laugh... I'm just a mainstream nontechie. :) )

[Bothered]

I'm pretty sure I've seen the terms "ugly" and "bad" used somewhere for the codecs in Ubuntu. Probably through Synaptic. Otherwise he saw the terms somehow. Are you saying he lied?

Absolutely not. The terms "gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad" and "gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly" are names of packages, I'm guessing in reference to their "free" status (as opposed to "gstreamer0.10-plugins-good"). I'm commenting on his reference to them as a warning - it's the name of the packages, not a warning.

[Nano Geek]

Huh. Is that what "bad" and "ugly" means? I had no idea. I first ran across that when trying to make embedded WMA and Flash files work with Mplayer. I think. Actually, I've been through so many acrobatics with those formats I'm not sure exactly what all I've done and how I've eventually made them work.

But I definitely remember pausing the first time I saw that terminology and then shrugging and figuring I could always reinstall if ugly and bad ended up breaking something. I just thought that meant maybe it wasn't coded very elegantly. (Don't laugh... I'm just a mainstream nontechie. :) )


Absolutely not. The terms "gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad" and "gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly" are names of packages, I'm guessing in reference to their "free" status (as opposed to "gstreamer0.10-plugins-good"). I'm commenting on his reference to them as a warning - it's the name of the packages, not a warning.The names are a take on the old western, The Good, The Bad, And the Ugly. :)

[eljoeb]

Wasn't there already a thread on this?

Anyway.

I really like my Ubuntu box (even if Gnome is crashing my computer every five minutes right now), but I think it highlights some issues with Dell's Ubuntu offerings. Those things need to work to justify paying for them. Many people here say that a lot of Linux's compatibility problems stem from it not being installed right off the bat. Now, with a large distributor selling Ubuntu computers, they have compatibility/driver issues. Why does this happen?

I think its important to look at it from the perspective of the writer's readers. He identifies them in the beginning of the article; he is looking at Ubuntu from the perspective of a user that wants their products to work as promised with little hassle.

That is simply not a characteristic of Linux/Ubuntu. Sure, the fixes are easy. But they take TIME. A lot of people are willing to learn but they don't have the time (The only reason I had the time to configure my computer was because I got my foot crushed by a fork lift and had to be immobile for a couple months). Of course the "Linux Way" of doing things (terminal tango, anyone?) is powerful, but not everyone wants to spend an hour searching the internet/forums looking for the commands to punch into the CLI.

He identifies some strengths of the platform, namely virus protection and he seems sympathetic to the open source concept. So while the article was negative, its important to consider the audience of the article. It also shows some of the (possibly mis-)conceptions people have about Linux/Ubuntu. These are areas to improve! The criticism doesn't have to be inflammatory; just reacting negatively to all criticism doesn't make the community look very mature. But that is clearly not what's going on here, I just don't like it when people treat stuff like this as flamebait.

[salsafyren]

Instead of going all "FUD FUD FUD" you should concentrate on people's concerns, document where these are invalid when they are, and otherwise spend your valuable time (if you even care) on identifying on how to improve them.

I completely agree.

There are lot of people in the linux world who don't know anything about usability and they excuse the terrible UI in linux "there is a more powerful method".

Linux needs constructive criticism and people working on the real problems. People shouting "FUD" in forums are wasting their time.

Honestly, the average PC is horrible in usability because there are too many things that can wrong. I think that is one of the reasons why people have so many problems.

[ddrichardson]

I completely agree.

There are lot of people in the linux world who don't know anything about usability and they excuse the terrible UI in linux "there is a more powerful method".

Linux needs constructive criticism and people working on the real problems. People shouting "FUD" in forums are wasting their time.

Honestly, the average PC is horrible in usability because there are too many things that can wrong. I think that is one of the reasons why people have so many problems.

The problems with UI extend far beyond a simple argument between CLI and GUI - the fact of the matter is that current design philosophy generally focuses on making the person work around the computer rather than the computer working how the user expects it to.

This is as true of Windows as it is of Linux, where there are just as few improvements. Look at the Start button, only just removed from Windows yet people have been saying for years that Start is not a natural place to look for Shutdown.

Linux GUI, generally, tend to take a different approach to design and I personally think that a lot of the complaints being levelled aren't neccesarily that the Windows way is better, just that the Linux way is different to Windows.

[debianchick]

The names are a take on the old western, The Good, The Bad, And the Ugly. :)


Absolutely not. The terms "gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad" and "gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly" are names of packages, I'm guessing in reference to their "free" status (as opposed to "gstreamer0.10-plugins-good"). I'm commenting on his reference to them as a warning - it's the name of the packages, not a warning.

Bothered, your close. The names have to with functionality and the type of license they fall under.

GStreamer Good a set of plug-ins that is consider to have good quality code, correct functionality, there preferred license (LGPL for the plug-in code, LGPL or LGPL-compatible for the supporting library).

GStreamer Ugly Plug-ins is a set of plug-ins that have good quality and correct functionality, but distributing them might pose problems. The license on either the plug-ins or the supporting libraries might not be how they like. The code might be widely known to present patent problems.

GStreamer Bad a set of plug-ins that aren't up to par compared to the rest. They might be close to being good quality, but they're missing something - be it a good code review, some documentation, a set of tests, a real live maintainer, or some actual wide use.