PDA

View Full Version : Ready Out Of The Box?



mstlyevil
October 28th, 2005, 04:23 AM
I keep reading a recurrent theme that Ubuntu or Linux is not ready for the desktop. These post usually say something like everything does not work out of the box like Windows. Where do these people get that everything in Windows works out of the box? Then they try to compare Apple OSX with Ubuntu. Are these people just flamers or are they that ignorant that they truly believe Windows works out of the box or that OSX is a fair comparison?

1.OSX can not be compared to Ubuntu because Apple developed it to run on their machines with their hardware. If you tried to run it on all the different hardware configurations available in a IBM clone you would have more hardware trouble than Windows or Ubuntu.

2.Windows is preinstalled on new computers by the manufactuer and all the drivers and media software is already configured by the manufactuer and not by Windows. The reinstall disk is just a system restore disk developed by the manufactuer to make reinstallation a easy process for the average computer user.

3.If you install Windows on a blank slate computer that you built yourself Windows does not automatically configure your Ethernet,sound,video or memory controlers. You have to use third party software just to get basic functions to work properly.

4.Now for the codecs. Windows has limited mp3 support out of the box. You have to purchase and install dvd playing software to play your dvd's. There is no Xvid or Divx codecs and if you want to play realplayer or quicktime formats,you have to install those respective players or their clones.

5.Lets not forget all the countless hours you have to spend configuring and tweaking your Windows install to get it to work properly. Also you have to install third a party firewall and antivirus plus defrag constantly to keep Windows clean and efficient.

Using the same criteria on Windows that many on this forum apply to Ubuntu you can see that Windows is not ready for the desktop either. Do any of you have anything else to add that I may have forgot or is there some one that wants to take issue with my logic and prove me wrong. I am open to Ideas and I just want to hear from you because this has been bugging me.

aysiu
October 28th, 2005, 06:59 AM
To sum up your points:

Installing an OS on a random computer always risks difficulty and a lot of configuration and tweaking. This is true for Windows and Linux distros.

However, I do believe that people who are afraid of the command-line and must have a GUI for things and want multimedia codecs out-of-the-box are better off with Mepis, Blag, or Linspire than Ubuntu. They may come to Ubuntu eventually, but if those are the most important things to people (not good community support, not a solid distro, not total freedom and free cost), then Ubuntu is not the Linux distro for them.

For more on my thoughts regarding this matter, read Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux troll (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58017), What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741) and Is Ubuntu for You? (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=63315)

Anecdotal support: I've had nightmare installations the two times I've installed Windows from scratch on blank slate computers. The worst "nightmare" I've had with a Linux install was Libranet 2.8.1 not recognizing my mouse or Ubuntu not getting my screen resolution. The second was an easy fix after some Google searching. The Windows installations weren't easy fixes at all. Fixing those yellow question marks is not so easy as downloading a driver. You have to know what driver to download and where to get it. Windows also doesn't come with a very good partitioning tool (I was trying to consolidate partitions into one partition) or any DVD-decoding codecs.

autonomy
October 28th, 2005, 07:53 AM
Installing multimedia codecs was easy once I finally looked in the FAQ and saw that maybe installing codecs was something that I needed to do, and the command line isn't that daunting. I hardly ever use it, and it's always been fairly painless.

mstlyevil
October 28th, 2005, 03:58 PM
To sum up your points:

Installing an OS on a random computer always risks difficulty and a lot of configuration and tweaking. This is true for Windows and Linux distros.

However, I do believe that people who are afraid of the command-line and must have a GUI for things and want multimedia codecs out-of-the-box are better off with Mepis, Blag, or Linspire than Ubuntu. They may come to Ubuntu eventually, but if those are the most important things to people (not good community support, not a solid distro, not total freedom and free cost), then Ubuntu is not the Linux distro for them.

For more on my thoughts regarding this matter, read Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux troll (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58017), What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741) and Is Ubuntu for You? (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=63315)

Anecdotal support: I've had nightmare installations the two times I've installed Windows from scratch on blank slate computers. The worst "nightmare" I've had with a Linux install was Libranet 2.8.1 not recognizing my mouse or Ubuntu not getting my screen resolution. The second was an easy fix after some Google searching. The Windows installations weren't easy fixes at all. Fixing those yellow question marks is not so easy as downloading a driver. You have to know what driver to download and where to get it. Windows also doesn't come with a very good partitioning tool (I was trying to consolidate partitions into one partition) or any DVD-decoding codecs.

That is a good summary of what I posted. I started on Ubuntu and found it no less a hassle than Windows to install. In fact ubuntu worked better on initial install than windows did. It found my ethernet card and configured my network also my sound and memory controller worked upon install. Ubuntu was more ready to use than Windows at install.

The first computer I built I could not get XP to install. I had to install 98 first for the computer to accept a Windows XP install. Then I kept getting the BSOD everytime I tried to play my games until better drivers came out for my mother board. It took months and several F-Disk to get it to work properly.

xmastree
October 28th, 2005, 04:13 PM
3.If you install Windows on a blank slate computer that you built yourself Windows does not automatically configure your EthernetThat's one of the things which amazed me about ubuntu. Before it was even installed, it had discovered and configured the ethernet controller.

BWF89
October 28th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Linux is actually more useable out of the box. Does Windows include Microsoft Office? Does windows include an IM client? It has a better image editing program right out of the box GIMP > Paint. And the list goes on.

jeremy
October 28th, 2005, 04:38 PM
The only thing that Linux does not have is the BSOD!