PDA

View Full Version : A long way to go? Has he even used Ubuntu?



Blue_Lander
October 22nd, 2007, 09:31 PM
I was reading an article found here (http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/59923.html) and i couldn't help but get infuriated beyond rational thought.

I work as a PC Technician and every single day I hear about everything Windows does wrong, so i may very much just have a biased opinion of the OS i see destroying peoples computers everyday through vulnerabilities and lack of official support to problems. So feel free to disagree with me (I encourage it, maybe then I'll be less angry), but this guy is a hack.

1) Lack of drivers for brand new hardware: Yes this Is an ongoing problem, and one thats hard to remedy because constant adaptation of new hardware not initially supported to be compatible with Linux would pull away from the community's efforts to better the OS as a whole as oppose to just it's device repertoire. But, on the other hand, Vista doesn't guarantee support on any software or hardware released longer that ten months ago. So take your pick: get the OS that won't support most people's current devices, or get the OS that won't support the graphics card that comes out tomorrow.

2) Lack of Microsoft Office compatible applications: Excuse me? I do believe OpenOffice can save text documents and spreadsheets in more Microsoft Office formats from previous and current releases of Office than even Office 2007 can. And as far as the lack of iTunes? With programs like Songbird, Amarok, and even the built in Rhythmbox, even I (yes, I unabashedly love my iPod) don't miss iTunes.

I switched from Windows just recently, actually. And especially with the Gutsy release I'm so impressed with Ubuntu I'm not sure I could ever go back. Heck, even at work I use remote desktop so I'm never too far from Linux in a Microsoft environment. Or maybe I'm just over defensive of an OS I've come to love so quickly...

Ireclan
October 22nd, 2007, 09:46 PM
This guy voices valid complaints, but they are hardly fair. He seems to think that Linux is a Microsoft replacement; it's not. While Ubuntu may fancy itself as such, I see this as so much delusion, for now. The simple fact is, Linux DOESN'T have support for the "latest and greatest" hardware, nor does it have 100 percent compatibility with Microsoft products. But neither of these are the fault of Linux. So, to be frank, yes, I think you're acting a bit biased.

But I also think this guy's off his rocker if he fancies Mac OS X a "Windows replacement". Sure, it's as easy as Windows, but it won't allow what freedom in the hardware sector that Windows allowed in its early years, which is critical for weening the market off Windows and on to a more ADVANCED OS. I see Apple as a step backward, not forwards.

derekr44
October 22nd, 2007, 09:54 PM
So, to be frank, yes, I think you're acting a bit biased.

Agreed.


But I also think this guy's off his rocker if he fancies Mac OS X a "Windows replacement". Sure, it's as easy as Windows, but it won't allow what freedom in the hardware sector that Windows allowed in its early years, which is critical for weening the market off Windows and on to a more ADVANCED OS. I see Apple as a step backward, not forwards.

From a tech perspective, I agree. But you also have to realize that your typical (and I use the word lightly) person with a computer merely uses it as a glorified appliance. One reason the PC market does so well is that people are willing to shell out the bucks for a brand new computer rather than get something replaced on it. That's why Best Buy has the Geek Squad. :)

I can replace the transistors on a broken motherboard, but why bother if I can just go get a new one?

Griffiss
October 22nd, 2007, 10:03 PM
from the article:


Take a look, for example, at the Dell offering. When it was first announced, I asked company officials whether it was a mainstream product with full support. No, they said. The Linux machines were meant for enthusiasts who wanted a "no Windows" option. Users would still have to pay for the operating system -- about $50 less than Windows, which was hardly a major savings -- and significant features would be missing because of a lack of driver support.

whatssiss? how come Dell are charging for Ubuntu?

Blue_Lander
October 22nd, 2007, 10:03 PM
But you also have to realize that your typical (and I use the word lightly) person with a computer merely uses it as a glorified appliance.

Very true. I probably heard about fifteen customers yesterday come in with broken computers they've had for about a month say "I paid x amount of dollars for this, and i shouldn't have to do anything to it to fix it" Like it was a refrigerator.

I usually try to compare computers to cars, makes more sense to the average customer. You wouldn't drive your new Ferrari out of the dealership into the back of a truck and expect them to give you a new one.

igknighted
October 22nd, 2007, 10:08 PM
from the article:



whatssiss? how come Dell are charging for Ubuntu?

Anyone can charge for Ubuntu. It's free as in freedom, not necessarily free as in beer. Ubuntu may give you the disk for free, but if you buy a dell it will come with Ubuntu pre-installed and with devices you know will work. That costs Dell money to do that, and they need to make it back.

So the code is free, but you quite often have to pay for implementations because of the work that went in... after all, it's someone's salary that you are paying.

Griffiss
October 22nd, 2007, 10:21 PM
Anyone can charge for Ubuntu. It's free as in freedom, not necessarily free as in beer. Ubuntu may give you the disk for free, but if you buy a dell it will come with Ubuntu pre-installed and with devices you know will work. That costs Dell money to do that, and they need to make it back.

So the code is free, but you quite often have to pay for implementations because of the work that went in... after all, it's someone's salary that you are paying.

Right sure, you pay for the labour of someone putting the OS on the system, but the article suggested that the OS itself was being charged for.

I take your point though - there may be ubuntu-specific charges because of compatibility issues etc. plus it's nice to make a profit if you can squeeze it out of people!

igknighted
October 22nd, 2007, 10:26 PM
Right sure, you pay for the labour of someone putting the OS on the system, but the article suggested that the OS itself was being charged for.

I take your point though - there may be ubuntu-specific charges because of compatibility issues etc. plus it's nice to make a profit if you can squeeze it out of people!

The article was merely poorly worded. I doubt you pay $50 for the windows install that Dell sells you, so you actually make out very well. Not only do you get the money for the OS back, but you get a little extra discount as well. I am actually really surprised that the cost is that much lower. If I had to guess, I would think that it would cost about the same as a windows box when you take everything into consideration.

nonewmsgs
October 22nd, 2007, 11:08 PM
i always get confused by all the mr. joe sixpack things. does joe buy the latest version of office or is he still kicking it with office97? did he buy vista or is he still using xp because it came with his computer? is he a "gamer"? does he download his music legally or know how to rip a cd? a dvd?

in my experience, p2p downloading of music because they dont know how to rip their own music, aim, and a couple games, and maybe open office. gtkpod works just as well if not better than itunes.

ticopelp
October 22nd, 2007, 11:14 PM
I've seen this article syndicated in a couple of places. It's basically garbage. The author is probably a paid Microsoft shill.

osxcapades
October 22nd, 2007, 11:16 PM
I was reading an article found here (http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/59923.html) and i couldn't help but get infuriated beyond rational thought.

This is your first problem. Getting angry over someone else's opinion won't do any good. If someone doesn't like Ubuntu and feels the need to whine about it, let them. Not everyone will like Ubuntu, for the same reasons that not everyone will like Windows or OS X.

-grubby
October 22nd, 2007, 11:23 PM
Applications do not represent how good an OS is. I don't need MIcrosoft Office, I don't need Itunes, I will NEVER need any of these applications

nonewmsgs
October 22nd, 2007, 11:50 PM
Applications do not represent how good an OS is. I don't need MIcrosoft Office, I don't need Itunes, I will NEVER need any of these applications

i respectfully disagree. yes the linux kernal is great but just sitting there at a blank cursor at a prompt knowing how stable it is, i will feel like something's missing. software is what makes a computer/OS.

Blue_Lander
October 23rd, 2007, 01:26 AM
This is your first problem. Getting angry over someone else's opinion won't do any good. If someone doesn't like Ubuntu and feels the need to whine about it, let them. Not everyone will like Ubuntu, for the same reasons that not everyone will like Windows or OS X.

I understand letting others have their own opinions, but this is a case of someone stating the facts wrong. I understand that some people hate Ubuntu, and they're entitled to that. But someone discrediting something with misstated or embellished facts is, at least to me, a very reasonable thing to get angry about.

-grubby
October 23rd, 2007, 01:28 AM
i respectfully disagree. yes the linux kernal is great but just sitting there at a blank cursor at a prompt knowing how stable it is, i will feel like something's missing. software is what makes a computer/OS.

I suppose your right...but, just because say one piece of software sucks, that doesn't mean the whole OS does

ticopelp
October 23rd, 2007, 03:15 AM
I suppose your right...but, just because say one piece of software sucks, that doesn't mean the whole OS does

Or, in the case of this article, saying because a particular application is missing, the OS must be useless. If we're to believe the author, iTunes is the only media player available for any operating system, which, of course, is demonstrably false.