PDA

View Full Version : Legitimate complaints



uputer
September 24th, 2007, 01:44 AM
Here's an article that has constructive criticism for Ubuntu:

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/3700666

Someone might have posted that here already, I'm not sure.

I have already posted in the Testimonials about the sudo complaint but that article has a section that explains it quite well. I was told by others about the sudo critique but I couldn't find any suitable articles that went into depth about it. Well, they were brief mention of it but this author went into more detail.

The other complaint I have is although Ubuntu tries to simplify things, they still have problems in crucial areas, for e.g., wireless.

I'm only a beginner but there are those who use Linux who have had complaints about it so I would hope that people would stop accusing me of being 'unfair.'

scrooge_74
September 24th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Lets see:

1. Classical he went for Gutsy, which is not officially ready
2. How many new users have or even know what a DVORAK keyboard is
3. Partitioning options have always been a little not straight forward in my opinion
4. If a user wants to know what is going to be install he should be using Debian or at least the Alternate CD, but new users or normal Windows users have no clue what is been installed anyway
5. Humm, when was the last time XP will tell you what key to press to have boot options?
6. Don't know about the fonts, but I am happy as they are
7. What resolution is he talking about for the icons? you can always make the task bars a little bigger
8. Again complaining about software version
9. Package manager, why the complaint, if you know what you are doing you either use apt from the command line or synaptic. If you dont have a clue the use the ADD/REMOVE
10. If you want the root user you can always enable it, I doubt new users would use two different passwords, still sudo is better than just clicking like in VISTA.
11. If you are not listed in sudoers you can not do any admin task, the way the article handles this is misleading. If you dont have admin privileges as a user is for a reason. All new accounts you make come by default without admin privileges so I dont get what he is complaining about.
12. Oh, he likes Ubuntu, but trashes it at the end never the less by using dpkg-reconfigure for the Xserver. Is in the same place as in Debian! in the command line

I don't know why I bother readying this kind of articles

uputer
September 24th, 2007, 04:28 AM
Lets see:

1. Classical he went for Gutsy, which is not officially ready
2. How many new users have or even know what a DVORAK keyboard is
3. Partitioning options have always been a little not straight forward in my opinion
4. If a user wants to know what is going to be install he should be using Debian or at least the Alternate CD, but new users or normal Windows users have no clue what is been installed anyway
5. Humm, when was the last time XP will tell you what key to press to have boot options?
6. Don't know about the fonts, but I am happy as they are
7. What resolution is he talking about for the icons? you can always make the task bars a little bigger
8. Again complaining about software version
9. Package manager, why the complaint, if you know what you are doing you either use apt from the command line or synaptic. If you dont have a clue the use the ADD/REMOVE
10. If you want the root user you can always enable it, I doubt new users would use two different passwords, still sudo is better than just clicking like in VISTA.
11. If you are not listed in sudoers you can not do any admin task, the way the article handles this is misleading. If you dont have admin privileges as a user is for a reason. All new accounts you make come by default without admin privileges so I dont get what he is complaining about.
12. Oh, he likes Ubuntu, but trashes it at the end never the less by using dpkg-reconfigure for the Xserver. Is in the same place as in Debian! in the command line

I don't know why I bother readying this kind of articles

1. He criticized Ubuntu in general. It sounds like you didn't read the article.
2. Who cares?
3. He's saying the Debian way is better.
5. He's mostly comparing to other distros, why the obsession with ******* XP? Microsoft doesn't want you to boot up other operating systems.
10. Yeah, but why even have sudo? For how long has su been used again?
12. He trashes it because of all the 'changes' and most of them are not good nor helpful.

reyfer
September 24th, 2007, 04:44 AM
1. He criticized Ubuntu in general. It sounds like you didn't read the article.
2. Who cares?
3. He's saying the Debian way is better.
5. He's mostly comparing to other distros, why the obsession with ******* XP? Microsoft doesn't want you to boot up other operating systems.
10. Yeah, but why even have sudo? For how long has su been used again?
12. He trashes it because of all the 'changes' and most of them are not good nor helpful.

For a beginner (as you say on the first post), you sure make it clear you don't like the opinion of people that have a little more experience than you, unless they agree with your view.

some_random_noob
September 24th, 2007, 04:54 AM
I read most of that. He has some good points, but most of it I don't give a **** about. Ubuntu works perfectly on my computer and that's all I care.

southernman
September 24th, 2007, 06:06 AM
I don't really mean to bust your chops, but you've sorta laid the ground work. All of this reply isn't meant to be demeaning, but constructive.


1. He criticized Ubuntu in general. It sounds like you didn't read the article.
2. Who cares?
3. He's saying the Debian way is better.
5. He's mostly comparing to other distros, why the obsession with ******* XP? Microsoft doesn't want you to boot up other operating systems.
10. Yeah, but why even have sudo? For how long has su been used again?
12. He trashes it because of all the 'changes' and most of them are not good nor helpful.

1- pot > kettle > black - judging from a handful of randomly selected posts of yours, maybe you didn't read the manuals / howto's... or don't understand what you read. Otherwise your problems are solvable, with a bit more determination.

2- That's the spirit, if it doesn't matter to you, who the heck should it matter to... right?

3- Ubuntu = Debian (all be it in a different wrapper).

5- It's "Windows" not *******. Purposefully misspellling the word doesn't make you more 1337 (leet, cool, techno geeky, or intelligent), but does just the opposite.

10- If you haven't figured this out by now, no amount of explaining it to you will do any good. It's documented countless times by people far more "in the know" than you OR I.... even some less skilled than us just "get it." It isn't a really complicated thing to wrap your brain around. You have the option to enable the root account, login in to it, and use it all day long. Just like Windows, your free to side step additional layers of security if you so choose. Using sudo, takes so much time out of the day... doesn't it?

12- And your basing this personal assessment on the years of experience you have with *nix based systems... right?

You claim Ubuntu has problems in crucial areas. Ok, identify them! Or did you just want to come to the cafe, where a lot of savvy geeks hand out and try to poke them in the eye?

How many bug reports have you filed at launchpad, to bring light to the crucial problem areas? or is that to difficult to?

Here is an excerpt pulled from one of your threads:
taken from this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=537821)



I don't understand developers of Linux distros updating to a new (kernel) version (Ubuntu is now going for Tribe?!?) when the previous distro has so many problems and bugs. This is what Windows does (they don't care if there are bugs/issues in their most current OS as they want to introduce a new OS for more money). At least, the distros are free. But, the bugs I am talking about are not really complicated, elaborate problems.

Outlined in blue, probably best describes all the problems your having. Instead of brow-beating GNU/Linux, accept the fact it's not the developers fault you don't get it... and be proactive to learn it.

Outlined in red, is a bit confusing from the stance you've taken... if the problems aren't that complicated, then fix them and send the developers a patch... they'd at least be grateful to see someone put the effort into helping, than into busting their chops. Ultimately, it seems that the real issue at hand here is, it must be a Layer 8 issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_8).


Come'on dude/dudette... if Ubuntu doesn't work for you, find something that does. If your not willing to learn things necessary to solve the problems you have encountered or prepared to learn a new OS, then just move on and make space for those who do have the desire. It seems (at least IMO) if you spent as much time working towards a fix for the few problems you've had, as you have griping about it, you could be a much happier camper.

If you want / need help, then by all means... ask for it. Trolling the forums, regardless of which sub forum you post in, continuing what seems to be a dead issue for you is counterproductive for all concerned... just like I wasted my time on this post! :/

uputer
September 24th, 2007, 06:43 AM
You have NOTHING of substance to post then why post at all?

I posted an article that was critical of Ubuntu in parts. That is all I was illustrating. There are other articles critical of Linux in general but I didn't post all those. You went and grabbed bits and parts of my posts and then placed them beside your post for what reason? I did identify the problem areas. I said you have to go to great lengths to get certain hardware and software working. It often involves building modules, writing scripts and perhaps, even compiling. The learning curve is high and there are tons of misinformation and indifference held by many users, developers and others for newbies and I pointed that out as well.

You are going to nitpick at my usage of certain nicknames for Windows? Why? What for?

Why are we back at arguing? I already went through this. I just thought I'd provide an article that identifies some issues with Ubuntu.

blithen
September 24th, 2007, 07:14 AM
You are going to nitpick at my usage of certain nicknames for Windows? Why? What for?

He did this 'cause it's not cool to dis another operating system. As much as I hate to admit it Windows is good at what it does. Which is make an extremely user friendly environment, work with an insane amount of programs, and to make money. '*******', Window$, etc are just simply stupid.

southernman
September 24th, 2007, 08:07 AM
You have NOTHING of substance to post then why post at all?

I posted an article that was critical of Ubuntu in parts. That is all I was illustrating. There are other articles critical of Linux in general but I didn't post all those. You went and grabbed bits and parts of my posts and then placed them beside your post for what reason? I did identify the problem areas. I said you have to go to great lengths to get certain hardware and software working. It often involves building modules, writing scripts and perhaps, even compiling. The learning curve is high and there are tons of misinformation and indifference held by many users, developers and others for newbies and I pointed that out as well.

You are going to nitpick at my usage of certain nicknames for Windows? Why? What for?

Why are we back at arguing? I already went through this. I just thought I'd provide an article that identifies some issues with Ubuntu.

If it has no substance, why bother replying. You clearly looked over this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3416787&postcount=4), perhaps because it rang true.

You didn't illustrate anything. You only linked to an outside article written by someone that chose to use a development OS. You don't offer any of your own opinions in this thread.

I quoted that portion of an earlier post you made for clarity on the contradiction... one that continues.

Identify is about being specific... not generic.

On one hand you suggest that the problems aren't that great and that the developers should fix them, but now you say "you have to go to great lengths to get certain hardware and software working"... which is it?

Yes, I called you out (so to speak) on the misspelling. Contrary to what you may think, not all of us are Windows Haters. Dissing other OS's for whatever reason isn't something most Ubuntu(ers) want to waste their time with. A lot of GNU/Linux users may not use both platforms, but like myself, have to work on both platforms... Windows is a great source of income for a lot of us, for some obvious and not so obvious reasons. :p

I am not arguing. I am merely making a point - counterpoint reply to one of your post and asking you if it's that difficult to either seek help or try to find another OS better fitting of your needs / skill set. If you happen to be getting bothered by it, that is out of my control. If you are unwilling to discuss in a reasonable manner, that which you initiated... then shame on ya! ;)


All of this reply isn't meant to be demeaning, but constructive.What part of that, from my original reply, is confusing you?

Look as for your attempt to discredit Ubuntu, why bother? The developers don't sit on the forums waiting for people to cry about a problem... you have to go to them (aka launchpad or mailing list). What do you expect to gain from it... Pity? Help? Trolling experience?

I'll say it again, if Ubuntu doesn't work for you and you can't get past the PEBKAC problems... you have two options:

1- do as others before you have done and learn how to use the tools given to you for free.

2- move on

It's really just as simple as that.

Unfortunately, the problems in Ubuntu are only limited to a small percentage of hardware / people. However, that is fortunate for a very large number of people that with relatively little trouble have a fully operational system with a little tweaking. That goes for joe-blow-user all the way to the corporate / school / government levels. It is not limited to Linux mind you! The same holds true for all other platforms.

uputer
September 24th, 2007, 08:25 AM
If it has no substance, why bother replying. You clearly looked over this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3416787&postcount=4), perhaps because it rang true.

You didn't illustrate anything. You only linked to an outside article written by someone that chose to use a development OS. You don't offer any of your own opinions in this thread.

I quoted that portion of an earlier post you made for clarity on the contradiction... one that continues.

Identify is about being specific... not generic.

On one hand you suggest that the problems aren't that great and that the developers should fix them, but now you say "you have to go to great lengths to get certain hardware and software working"... which is it?


I'll say it again, if Ubuntu doesn't work for you and you can't get past the PEBKAC problems... you have two options:

1- do as others before you have done and learn how to use the tools given to you for free.

2- move on

It's really just as simple as that.

Unfortunately, the problems in Ubuntu are only limited to a small percentage of hardware / people. However, that is fortunate for a very large number of people that with relatively little trouble have a fully operational system with a little tweaking. That goes for joe-blow-user all the way to the corporate / school / government levels. It is not limited to Linux mind you! The same holds true for all other platforms.
I think you misunderstood my complaints. I said previously, that some of the issues are minor but the developers overlook them because they are not very interesting to work on. Such as small fonts, title bars or whatever. My main complaint was about major issues like networking, wireless, codecs, video, audio, hardware and some software programs. I already mentioned specifics in other posts.

Sure, I could move on. I guess I was frustrated to read about various people object to my complaints when even experts and users in the Linux community write articles which include a lot of the complaints I've outlined or similar sentiments.

***Unfortunately, the problems in Ubuntu are only limited to a small percentage of hardware / people. However, that is fortunate for a very large number of people that with relatively little trouble have a fully operational system with a little tweaking.***
You seriously believe that? The problems in Ubuntu and in most if not all distros is what prevents Linux from gaining even more ground in the computer field. The main reason to use it is that it's free as I doubt ease of use is up there in the list of reasons. If you just watch online videos or listen to mp3s or whatever, sure, it's a great alternative to Windows. But, going by the number of posts that start off like, 'how do you...?" and "....this X doesn't work....", I think I've made my point but no one wishes to concede. Ok. .

southernman
September 24th, 2007, 09:12 AM
For starters, codecs are only a problem for Ubuntu because they are closed source... no other reason. The others are related to YES, a small percentage of hardware / people. Mostly hardware vendors that don't open their drivers to be developed for GNU/Linux. Video, Audio, and software are usually a matter of the end user having to do a little tweaking, but rest assured.. for the vast majority of people their stuff just works. Hence the reason you see that type of comment so often. Do you think it's a conspiracy? ;) jk

I am not trying to run you off by any means, but (only speaking for myself, though others have said it time and time again) I get tired of hearing people whine about Ubuntu not being ready for the masses. If it wasn't Dell wouldn't be deploying it. Other OEM's are sure to fall under Mr. Shuttleworths spell sooner than later. Take that to the bank and draw intrest on it! ;)

Hardware vendors are starting to "have" to come around also. With Dell now on board with Ubuntu and negotiations with other OEM's, these OEM's are going to start demanding their hardware suppliers either open their drivers so the *nix devs can port them to *nix, or require them to do the porting themselves. It's happening, it's just not hit the fan yet! ATI and AMD are two that are making the move with recent announcements to this fact.

I don't just seriously believe that.. I know it to be fact! It's plastered all over the internet, but I am not going to dig up the proof. If you want to know it, you'll find the evidence for yourself... it's past my bedtime. I am only replying since you seem to have taken a milder approach.

Your last argument concerning the number of people you see needing help on the forums for a lot of problems... a lot are usually nothing more than not knowing how to do things or simple PEBKAC problems. A lot of those post are solved within a small number of helpful replies... more ofen than not.

I admit that some are also relating to bugs and whatnot... no denying that. However, what your apparently not taking into consideration is your only judging on a really small number of Ubuntu users out there. You have those that simply have the experience to fix the problems. You have those that don't bother with the forums as they like to do their own research and find solutions to their problems (self reliant), either by Google or searching this forum (most questions have been solved numerous times). And.. you have those that simply don't have problems. Rest assured, far more people fall into this category than you are willing to give Ubuntu credit for! All in all, the vast majority of people you see posting for help on the forums on a daily basis, is only a small sample of the number of people running Ubuntu. In essence, this argument doesn't hold water.

If you have hardware problems that can not be overcome, then when your ready to upgrade, be sure to vote for GNU/Linux with your dollars and buy hardware known to work with it.

uputer
September 24th, 2007, 04:37 PM
For starters, codecs are only a problem for Ubuntu because they are closed source... no other reason. The others are related to YES, a small percentage of hardware / people. Mostly hardware vendors that don't open their drivers to be developed for GNU/Linux. Video, Audio, and software are usually a matter of the end user having to do a little tweaking, but rest assured.. for the vast majority of people their stuff just works. Hence the reason you see that type of comment so often. Do you think it's a conspiracy? ;) jk

Yes, they're closed source? So? Does that change things any? It makes it even tougher to use, doesn't it? Which is just what my point is. I'm not saying there's not potential because there is, but the fact is, there are several obstacles and closed source hardware is only one of them. But, giving excuses doesn't change things. Why do so many 'fans' make excuses and expect the critics to automatically be wrong? I guess that is why I'm still posting. :-/


I am not trying to run you off by any means, but (only speaking for myself, though others have said it time and time again) I get tired of hearing people whine about Ubuntu not being ready for the masses. If it wasn't Dell wouldn't be deploying it. Other OEM's are sure to fall under Mr. Shuttleworths spell sooner than later. Take that to the bank and draw intrest on it! ;)

Hardware vendors are starting to "have" to come around also. With Dell now on board with Ubuntu and negotiations with other OEM's, these OEM's are going to start demanding their hardware suppliers either open their drivers so the *nix devs can port them to *nix, or require them to do the porting themselves. It's happening, it's just not hit the fan yet! ATI and AMD are two that are making the move with recent announcements to this fact.

I don't just seriously believe that.. I know it to be fact! It's plastered all over the internet, but I am not going to dig up the proof. If you want to know it, you'll find the evidence for yourself... it's past my bedtime. I am only replying since you seem to have taken a milder approach.

I try to keep up to date on this things. I know about the AMD/ATI situation. Intel is another company that seems to embrace open source ideas. But, I still assert Linux is not ready for the mainstream desktop or to grab big desktop market share numbers until various issues are ironed out.


I admit that some are also relating to bugs and whatnot... no denying that. However, what your apparently not taking into consideration is your only judging on a really small number of Ubuntu users out there. You have those that simply have the experience to fix the problems. You have those that don't bother with the forums as they like to do their own research and find solutions to their problems (self reliant), either by Google or searching this forum (most questions have been solved numerous times). And.. you have those that simply don't have problems. Rest assured, far more people fall into this category than you are willing to give Ubuntu credit for! All in all, the vast majority of people you see posting for help on the forums on a daily basis, is only a small sample of the number of people running Ubuntu. In essence, this argument doesn't hold water.
Nah, you're wrong. Why? For instance, there are recommended Linux-compatible lists but then when someone buys something off that list, you still notice posts saying 'this X isn't working.' I bought a wireless usb adapter that supposedly works 'out-of-the-box' but that is NOT my experience. Just because someone claims something *works*, that doesn't mean it automatically works in every case. Perhaps, it worked for a day or three days so the person thought, 'hey, this works!!!' After those few days, there are issues but the person never follows up. That happens often.

I only say to look at the forum posts because those are examples. There are probably tons of people who just gave up and never bothered to post.

Solutions in Linux are usually on the intermediate user column. I don't think beginners start right away compiling or building modules but many solutions involve extensive use of the command line. This is both good and bad, imho. It's good because the user gets to have his computer work how he wants it to. But, it's bad because that's no assurance that things will work and it can become complex for the newbie and time-consuming. Whenever I try to make this point, it seems I have groups of people reply with snide remarks and sarcasm while producing excuses simultaneously. I think that is telling right there. Btw, I'm not saying that is exclusive to this forum. I've noticed that on other distro forums as well.

southernman
September 24th, 2007, 05:12 PM
Yes, they're closed source? So? Does that change things any? It makes it even tougher to use, doesn't it?

That says it all! You have no idea what your talking about, or you would UNDERSTAND why you are just plain wrong! It's not excuses, it's the way it is

I'll prove my point with the codec example and then you can debate this crap until the cows come home... with yourself!

Codecs (closed source) are ONLY a problem for Ubuntu becuase it is illegal to distribute them without paying licensing fees. They are included in the repos, available to install, but it's up to the end user to determine if it's legal to do so in your country. How easy is it to install them, it's point and click and within 4-5 clicks *BAM* your done.

This isn't rocket science, but you need to posses the ability to comprehend that which you read.

I could go on, but you still wouldn't understand it, so....

Oh yeah, one more thing:

.........
..................
.....
..

Good day

p_quarles
September 24th, 2007, 05:18 PM
But, I still assert Linux is not ready for the mainstream desktop or to grab big desktop market share numbers until various issues are ironed out.
That is precisely what Mark Shuttleworth himself has said. No, Linux in its current state is not going to kill Windows.

<<yawn>>

Anything else to add?

silent1643
September 24th, 2007, 06:23 PM
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/6421/1/

interesting at the least

ssmithy
September 24th, 2007, 06:32 PM
If anything, it makes me want to try out Debian. The article is a little harsh, but I still thought it was an interesting read.

silent1643
September 24th, 2007, 06:36 PM
i agree with some things:
"Users cannot even choose the initial software to install."
"For all its many excellences, Ubuntu would be an even stronger distro if it tidied up some long-neglected corners and helped to develop users' knowledge in the same way that Debian does"
"By default, the GRUB menu does not appear, so users might easily miss the availability of a recover mode or memory test of an initial option. Nor do users have an option to display boot messages, although of course they can review the log file later."
"I have to wonder: does any distro really need three or four desktop applications for the same function? After all, apt-get serves the same purpose as all of them."

starcraft.man
September 24th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Not another one. We already had this discussion on whether Ubuntu being popular was good or not.

silent1643
September 24th, 2007, 06:46 PM
Not another one. We already had this discussion on whether Ubuntu being popular was good or not.

i doubt this article has been discussed before since it was just posted today - gesh

FuturePilot
September 24th, 2007, 06:59 PM
That was a very poorly written article. The points made were very weak.


For instance, in the keyboard selection step, the only way to know the differences between two U.S. English International layouts or the classical, left hand, or right hand versions of the Dvorak keyboard is to know them beforehand, to research them on another computer, or to try each systematically in the field provided for the purpose.
If you are using anything other than the keyboard that came with your computer (i.e. a Dvorak keyboard) you should definitely know exactly what it is. If you don't, well, then, how did it get there in the first place?


Users cannot even choose the initial software to install. This lack is not only frustrating, but violates a main principle of security.
There's a good reason for this. And I fail to see how this relates to security.

p_quarles
September 24th, 2007, 07:06 PM
There's a good reason for this. And I fail to see how this relates to security.
Because Ubuntu automatically comes installed with a telnet server, username=telnet and password=guest, and the account has full sudo privileges.

Err, wait . . . #-o

conehead77
September 24th, 2007, 07:36 PM
i agree with some things:
"Users cannot even choose the initial software to install."
When i installed Ubuntu a few months ago, i had no clue what software exists on Ubuntu and what piese of software would be useful for my needs. i was happy there was a bunch of programs i could work with.



"For all its many excellences, Ubuntu would be an even stronger distro if it tidied up some long-neglected corners and helped to develop users' knowledge in the same way that Debian does"
I think it already does. Sometimes i ask myself "Why cant i do this or that?" Then i look at the forums and i get a answer. Most people will never try to understand a OS, it should just work. If you want to learn more you can always switch to other distros.



"By default, the GRUB menu does not appear, so users might easily miss the availability of a recover mode or memory test of an initial option. Nor do users have an option to display boot messages, although of course they can review the log file later."
I installed Ubuntu on the laptop of my girlfriend and GRUB was displayed because of dual boot. She thought she had broken her box....
Theres really no need to show the GRUB menu until its needed. And when this happens, a "normal" user wont fix stuff himself, but call a friend anyways. Its like this on windows and its the same on linux



"I have to wonder: does any distro really need three or four desktop applications for the same function? After all, apt-get serves the same purpose as all of them."
3 or 4 desktop applications? After a few months i only know 2: Easy mode for the beginners (add/remove) and synaptic for the advanced user.
Again, when i first was told to type "sudo apt-get install" into the terminal i thought like: WTF? I just want to install sthg!
Its easy if you know, just saying...


I think a experienced Ubuntu user may agree with the article to a point, but for new users this isnt true. To fix bug #1 Ubuntu has the right philosophy imo. Those who think Ubuntu is too simple/limited should move on to other distros. After all its all linux.

Nano Geek
September 24th, 2007, 07:46 PM
i doubt this article has been discussed before since it was just posted today - geshThis site is just copying from another page.
Here's the original. (http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/3700666)

NJC
September 24th, 2007, 07:48 PM
An underwhelming article - one that misses the point as to the mechanics of desktop OS acceptance.


For instance, if you enter dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg at the command line in Debian (or in Ubuntu, where it is still buried, if often unused), you have three options for setting your monitor's resolution.

The following is my unscientific opinion ... but I suspect most computer users just want their system to WORK. There are enough hassles and problems and things to configure and worry about without trying to remember dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg.

an93l
September 24th, 2007, 07:51 PM
just to add i don't think any of the developers actually intended Linux to replace windows it was ment as a free alternitive avaliable to anyone who wants it mostly themselves for their own systems. anyone can develop for it and this is just so they can use their own systems better and if it works to give it back to the comunity to see if it works on theirs as well repeat infunatum. this whole argument that linux is not ready for the mainstream or the desktop is redundent. ok there are problems with the OS but point to one that doesn't.

reidbold
September 24th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Not very informative there. An opinion piece whining about how ubuntu has balanced basic usability and advanced use. Seems to conclude that people should be learning the hard way, instead of letting the system take care of itself.

Also seems to ignore the fact that advanced users edit xorg.conf by hand, not x86config (which is a PITA that I don't miss). What a joke of an example.

scrooge_74
September 24th, 2007, 09:25 PM
1. He criticized Ubuntu in general. It sounds like you didn't read the article.
2. Who cares?
3. He's saying the Debian way is better.
5. He's mostly comparing to other distros, why the obsession with ******* XP? Microsoft doesn't want you to boot up other operating systems.
10. Yeah, but why even have sudo? For how long has su been used again?
12. He trashes it because of all the 'changes' and most of them are not good nor helpful.

I did read it, how else would I make that worthless list?
Correct who cares?
Debian is better for some things but not for extra new users
In the end everybody when new to Linux compares it to XP
I has confuse at the begining by not having a root account
I dont think the changes are bad by themself, the important thing is not to get stuck on something which does not work

mikewhatever
September 24th, 2007, 09:26 PM
Hi uputer,

First, to address your arguments about codecs and drivers or any other restricted stuff, please review Ubuntu Philosophy/Licensing (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing). The issue seems to be two fold: some codecs are illegal to distribute in certain countries, others are simply closed source. If you disagree, which I suspect to be the case, you'd avoid much frustration by choosing a different linux distro, especially one with K.I.S.S philosophy (Sabayon, Mint etc.).

Legitimate as your criticism may be, expressing it on the forum only vents emotions, solving nothing functionality wise. Understand, that no single operating system can work on all hardware configurations, not even Windows XP. If you do not believe me, find an XP help and support forum. There are not less issues with hardware there then here. If you do think there are issues in Ubuntu that must be addressed, do so.Remember, Ubuntu is open source, and trying to fix things is undoubtedly more constructive then criticism. If you are not a programmer, try filing a bug report at launchpad.net.

In my own experience, Ubuntu did work out of the box. I've had several 'no X' issues while playing with nvidia driver, but having backed up xorg file was never in any danger. I am very happy with file permissions and sudo in Ubuntu and do not see the advantage of enabling the root account. The article you provided was its authors opinion, but I think the criticism it provided was petty and was simply intended to fill space.

Lastly, if Ubuntu is not the distro for new users, lots of them will go to another distro and Ubuntu will lose popularity, so there is nothing to worry about.

NJC
September 24th, 2007, 09:32 PM
This article was previous posted (in this forum) and is currently being bashed about here. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=558311)

bapoumba
September 24th, 2007, 09:41 PM
Thread merged.

t0p
September 24th, 2007, 10:32 PM
Byfield's article is unfair and, I think, dishonest in parts.

To begin with, what's he up to, reviewing Gutsy as if it's been released? You download a beta, you can expect to have problems. He's an experienced IT man, he knows this - hence my accusation of unfairness and dishonesty.

His criticism of the package download systems is also disingenuous. He writes:


And, for all the care given to the layout of Synaptic, the updater, and Add/Remove applications, I have to wonder: does any distro really need three or four desktop applications for the same function? After all, apt-get serves the same purpose as all of them. For some reason, the thinking of Ubuntu's planners seems uncharacteristically muddy here.


As Byfield well knows, apt-get is a CLI system, whereas Add/Remove and Synaptic are for the GUI. Imagine that you had a disaster in your box and need to reinstall the X-windowing system. How you gonna do it? With apt-get of course. And anyway, more experienced users often feel more comfortable on the command line. Other people prefer to use the graphic interface. What's wrong in serving both groups of users?

At the base of it all, it strikes me that Byfield's main problem with Gutsy isn't Debian-like enough for him. Well, if you like Debian, there's one OS that will suit you just fine: Debian. Ubuntu is aimed at a different group of users, I think. Some users who are new to Linux, and need a nice GUI and a bit of hand-holding; and some experienced users, who like the Debian way of doing stuff, but who nevertheless want something different. Byfield makes out that Ubuntu has been too dumbed-down to allow experienced users to do anything complex. I haven't tried Gutsy, but I suspect this is BS. Is there a terminal? Can you still get different ttys by pressing Ctrl-Alt-F1-6? If you can, all the freedom and complexity offered by bash is there for you.

I don't get Byfield's motives here. He says he's an Ubuntu fan - that he's usually running it on one of this boxes - so why's he dissing it on points that have always been there? I mean, for the goddess' sake, he even brings up the "sudo vs root" complaint!

Gah! I'm gonna fire up Alien Arena, and pretend one of those Martians is really Byfield. Eat rocket-propelled grenade, ya geek! Grrr!!!:mad:

uputer
September 25th, 2007, 03:59 AM
Top, the author did criticize Ubuntu in general so you guys can stop saying it's restricted to only Gutsy. The problem is you're distorting what he said in the article and that's dishonest. I have read about three or four posts of people doing the same thing.

Sef
September 25th, 2007, 04:58 AM
Locked. Thread is going in circles.