In your opinion is Ubuntu a serious rival for OSX and the upcoming Windows Vista?

[ThirdWorld]

Most Mac OSX and Windows XP users that i know dismiss Ubuntu as a "nice little distro" not a serious contender for windows.
What do you think? Can it compete with these operating systems?

[etc]

Right now I can't say. For most users the Vista GUI will win them over with the eyecandy (worked with me with WinXP :( ). The fact all of their windows apps will work with the new windows and not with Ubuntu is a huge factor.
The only people who will actually think of switching are the ones who are already wary of their current windows systems, or the techy people who think that Vista will be a bust, or are looking for a change.

[quietglow]

I maintain a whole slew of OSX laptops and desktops at work, have the last TP G4 desktops in my office, and have been a macolyte for years. I prefer Ubuntu myself and recently sold all my mac hardware. I suppose the "why" of it all ought to be another thread, but lets just say I still use a Newton and the guy who axed the program is still in charge and doin' stuff that gets on my nerves. Course he is the CEO and all...

[xequence]

OSX will be good as always, and so will ubuntu.

Vista will be the same old thing, with a changed taskbar colour, and a load of DRM. Simply put, when people find they wont be able to do alot of things because of DRM theyll look around at OSX. Theyll google for "free OSX" and forget the X, and linux will come up. They'll go to a linux forum and see someone say ubuntu is good, download it, try it, like it, and live a DRM free life. The end.

[BWF89]

Ubuntu is a rival for Windows Vista but I don't see it as directly competeing with Apple's OS10.

The people that use Macintosh computers are the people that want to have something easy to use and productive. They like the idea that the programs are specially designed to run on 1 type of hardware. So while I see as it competeing with Windows Vista I dont see it in the same market as Mac.

[endersshadow]

With the continued and growing support of Breezy for everything, and Automatix by arnieboy, which, in my opinion, should be loaded by default in Ubuntu because it is an amazing little script for so many people, Ubuntu is a serious contender. The fact that it just works "out of the box" is great for many users. However, people are afraid of Linux, and it still has a "geek" reputation, so it won't have any real dent in the market in the foreseeable future. But, is it as good or better of an OS for an average user than Mac OSX and Windows Vista? I'd say yes.

[az]

Out of those three, Ubuntu is the only non-proprietary one.

[jessecurry]

I don't think that Ubuntu is a serious competitor with Mac OS, nor do I think that it will be for quite some time.
I do, however, think that Ubuntu is a better distribution that Windows Vista, or at least what I've seen of it. I think that Windows is hopelessly behind, in order for MS to catch up they'd have to start right now with a totally new OS and not use any old code... at least none of their old code, their software development practices have crippled their OS until they totally start fresh.

[xequence]

Out of those three, Ubuntu is the only non-proprietary one.

But that doesent matter to most people. To most people, if it comes with their computer and lets them go on the internet and use IM its fine for them.

Yes, open source makes for much more efficient developing, though it really doesent matter to windows users.

[qalimas]

I answer with a new question. Do you think OSX and the upcoming windows Vista are good enough to compete with Ubuntu? ;)

[quietglow]

I answer with a new question. Do you think OSX and the upcoming windows Vista are good enough to compete with Ubuntu? ;)

If I had a quarter for each time I typed "sudo apt-get" in a terminal in OSX and then thought "oh crap." :)

[nrwilk]

not right now. I am possitive that proprietary forms of software development will eventually become obsolete. But, we (especially Americans) aren't ready for that yet. I can say that the amount of computer users switching to Linux grows every year.

When Linux does pull out on top, will it be Ubuntu that holds the most user-base? Who knows? Maybe, matbe not.

Will ubuntu have a hand in building the distribution that DOES pull out on top? definitely. all distributions will probably contribute their best features to make better and better distributions of linux.

Or, I could be wrong.

[qalimas]

If I had a quarter for each time I typed "sudo apt-get" in a terminal in OSX and then thought "oh crap." :)

I've done much worse XD I remember last year we had to demonstrate we knew how to install programs on Windows XP in computer class, and I felt real stupid when Start > Run > 'synaptic' didn't work :rolleyes: :D

[aysiu]

Does this question assume that the rivalry starts with a blank hard drive? It appears Mac and Windows have head starts, since they start off preinstalled and preconfigured on most people's computers.

I don't know anyone (personally--of course they exist) who buys Linux preinstalled computers. How do you rival an OS that's already there?

Don't kid yourself that people will use Windows Vista because it's easier or better--it's just there.

[TecnoVM64]

Ubuntu is just amazing, there's a lot of people using it around the world, and I wouldn't doubt that it has the power to get better than Windows Vista.

[Malphas]

Firstly, I can't see Vista replacing XP anytime soon. Considering there are still a significant amount of people using ME and 9x, I'd imagine it'll be years before Vista overtakes XP in terms of market penetration.

Ubuntu (and GNU/Linux in general) isn't a particularly effective rival in the home desktop OS market in my opinion. I don't think eye candy and security are the most important issues here, rather the fact that almost all current Windows users will be using some application or have other special need that Linux can't fulfil, this isn't the fault of the OS per se, rather the lack of third party software in the same abundance as there is for Windows - particularly professional software such as Photoshop, Flash MX, Dreamweaver, Reason, etc.

[aysiu]

almost all current Windows users will be using some application or have other special need that Linux can't fulfil, this isn't the fault of the OS itself per se, rather the lack of third party software in the same abundance as there is for Windows - particularly professional software such as Photoshop, Flash MX, Dreamweaver, etc. Almost all current Windows users do not use special applications that won't run on Linux. Almost all current Windows users are perfect for Linux, actually--email, web browsing, word processing, organizing photos and music. That's about it.

The people you're talking about who have special needs (accounting software, commercial games, graphic design) are actually the minority of Windows users, believe it or not.

[Malphas]

Almost all current Windows users do not use special applications that won't run on Linux. Almost all current Windows users are perfect for Linux, actually--email, web browsing, word processing, organizing photos and music. That's about it.

The people you're talking about who have special needs (accounting software, commercial games, graphic design) are actually the minority of Windows users, believe it or not.
I don't believe you. I think almost every household PC will have a couple commercial games on it or at least one specialised application of some sort. I agree that Ubuntu is perfect for the stereotypical "grandma's PC", but on the whole I think the average family or individual are using their computers for more than you're giving them credit for.

[aysiu]

It's possible you're right. I just haven't seen it in my experience. Maybe I know too many "grandmas." I don't know. I just have anecdotal "evidence."

[tseliot]

In your opinion is Ubuntu a serious rival for OSX and the upcoming Windows Vista?

Yes, at least for Windows Vista (I think OSX is more stable and it hasn't problems with viruses, etc.). And I'm trying to convert as many people as possible to Ubuntu. Moreover Dapper will be even better than Breezy. Microsoft and its resource hog Vista should be afraid of Ubuntu.

[Cyfr]

The only possible sticking point I can find amoungst my circle of friends (mainly 16-18 years old) is the fact that they wouldn't be able to 1) Play a lot of their football games (out of the box) and 2) Msn + webcam is vital for a lot of people :D

I personaly don't have Ubuntu installed on my main pc simply because there isn't a decent client that has webcam support for msn, although if GAIM merge v-v in the near future that might well all change *prays* ;)

[Sirin]

Most Mac OSX and Windows XP users that i know dismiss Ubuntu as a "nice little distro" not a serious contender for windows.
What do you think? Can it compete with these operating systems?

Both Mac OS X and Linux are variants of Unix. Linux was designed to be a GNU-type Unix. It will be hard to compare the two as they have the same parent OS and uses it's ups and downs. Let's see... in terms of financial reasons, Linux owns the ball game. If you're talking about stability, performance, and ease of use, Mac gets the touchdown on this one.

[jc87]

1) Vista will demand a bunch of hardware resources to run properly , besides most new resources will be avaiable at XP.

2)OS X WILL NOT go for the desktop market , will continue to be a OS for a closed hardware arquiquecture , if Apple would try to sell it to normal pc´s would sufffer the same problem than gnu/linux at the moment , so what can happen is some OS X users start using ubuntu or any other distro .

3)Everyday there are news about an increasing support to gnu/linux , drivers , multi-plataform software , games , etc... is just a matter of time ( some years) before there is a good support level.

In my opinion , what will happen is that ubuntu (as the others distros) , will slowly gain market and support over the years , and when the next version of windows that will released after Vista comes (dont tell anyone , but a contact that i have in m$ told me it would be called BSD SOFTWARE 100% RIPOFF ) gonna be a huge failure in market share:smile:

[quietglow]

Interesting no one has yet blatantly mentioned relevant costs. I deal daily with students who can't afford the computers they need for their (teacher education) classes. By can't afford I mean 1. They can't afford Mac hardware 2. They can't afford another PC or repair costs to replace the one they bought 6 months ago but has ground to a halt cause its so loaded up with malware. They guys always perk up when I talk openoffice and an install disc of ubuntu. If they could buy that $399 PC with ubuntu installed, all the better, right?

Do you know how "Buy this computer and you won't have to worry about spyware and viruses anymore" sounds to your non-tech person? Even Apple execs admit that this brings as many people over to macs as does the accursed (!) ipods. I know its BS, but right now its true that you're not likely to get your machine hosed if youre using a *nix.

For the record, I know not all mac hardware is expensive (one of my 8 zillion macs over time was a mini (which sucked IMHO)) and that its not impossible (or even all that difficult) to keep a WIndows box from being infected. I'm talking about the situation from the stand point of these students.

I'm spending the afternoon putting Breezy and the Edubuntu packages (why don't they have a build for ppc?!) on my daughter's g4 ibook!

[public_void]

The only possible sticking point I can find amoungst my circle of friends (mainly 16-18 years old) is the fact that they wouldn't be able to 1) Play a lot of their football games (out of the box) and 2) Msn + webcam is vital for a lot of people

I'd like to see more games for Linux. Only one of my games runs on Linux (It has Tux on the back so I think so) is UT2004. Ubuntu seem stable and won't get in a tissy which stuff goes wrong, something XP likes to do sometimes. I think if game developer started to include Linux as a platform supported then they would promote Linux in some way, and possibly create more interest in it.

[adam.tropics]

Let's not forget that not too long ago Linux was considered way too complex for the home user, and way too tough for those people here reffered to as 'grandmas'!

The acquisition of many linux distros by purely profit concerned entities is both a concern and perhaps a sign that it is beginning to be taken seriously.
As to who will come out on top. Who knows, what I will say is that Ubuntu seems to have taken some of the geek thing away, therefore negating much of the fear that many people have had in the past with regards to Linux. Plus in my limited experience, the support, if only on the forums, is fantastic, so let's wait and see.
I think the sign will be when the hardware manufacturers begin to take supporting linux more of a priority. (ATI--the support for mac is far superior than that for linux...don't really understand that one, if they can manage one linux based os, then why the difficulties with another!)

Just been looking on some theme and customisation sites.....how come people insist on slating xp, and then run off and make a bunch of themes to mimic it!!

Think I am missing the point somewhere!!

[nsa_767]

No, Ubuntu will unfortunately not be a Vista-killer. Main reason will be the lack of commercial games and the fact that Windows comes preinstalled on whatever PC you buy.

Also, in response to Aysiu's comment:


Almost all current Windows users do not use special applications that won't run on Linux. Almost all current Windows users are perfect for Linux, actually--email, web browsing, word processing, organizing photos and music. That's about it.

The people you're talking about who have special needs (accounting software, commercial games, graphic design) are actually the minority of Windows users, believe it or not.

I know someone else already said this, but I believe you are mistaken here.

I am of the opinion that there are two main groups of computer users, business users and home users.

Business users need specialised accounting packages, as few are so small that they can do all their accounting via spreadsheets. More importantly, in many countries, taxation laws make accounting quite difficult, thus it is necessary for firms to make use accountants (if only to check the books periodically). Hence, it is often desirable to have the same accounting package as your accountant. Most of these packages are not available for Linux (with the possible exception of very sophisticated packages for large corporations).

Home users are unfortunately a little harder to classify, but my experience indicates that the typical family computer will be used for games. Though it might not be the primary purpose of home-computing, chances are that there will be an under-21 male who will want to try out some commercial games.

[Kvark]

Does this question assume that the rivalry starts with a blank hard drive? It appears Mac and Windows have head starts, since they start off preinstalled and preconfigured on most people's computers.

I don't know anyone (personally--of course they exist) who buys Linux preinstalled computers. How do you rival an OS that's already there?

Don't kid yourself that people will use Windows Vista because it's easier or better--it's just there.
Yep, it doesn't matter which OS is better. Whichever OS comes preinstalled will be used in most cases.

But if you actually get users to try Ubuntu then I think there is a serious chance they'll switch as long as they don't have some hardware that doesn't work OOTB with Ubuntu or some program that they can't find a linux alternative to.

[MetalMusicAddict]

I think it will depend on the DE people.

As far as I can tell KDE is striving to provide awesome GUI effects (with KDE4) while Gnomes focus is more usabillity. At least eye-candy seem to not be a big priority with Gnome.

[quietglow]

I very respectfully disagree with the claim that people won't switch OSs. I think the rising success of OSX is the counter-example. If switching to OSX was something that didn't also involve buying new hardware I'd guess that even more would switch.

I do think switching OSs is tough and not done lightly. I also recognize that the numbers leaving windows, though increasing, are still small. I also think the pressures of malware and the associated problems with Vista will continue to increase the numbers.

[aysiu]

I very respectfully disagree with the claim that people won't switch OSs. I think the rising success of OSX is the counter-example. If switching to OSX was something that didn't also involve buying new hardware I'd guess that even more would switch. Most people don't want to bother installing a new operating system (and all the headaches that come along with it). They switch to OS X because it (like Windows) is preinstalled with the new computer.

[ThirdWorld]

Let's not forget that not too long ago Linux was considered way too complex for the home user, and way too tough for those people here reffered to as 'grandmas'!

The acquisition of many linux distros by purely profit concerned entities is both a concern and perhaps a sign that it is beginning to be taken seriously.
As to who will come out on top. Who knows, what I will say is that Ubuntu seems to have taken some of the geek thing away, therefore negating much of the fear that many people have had in the past with regards to Linux. Plus in my limited experience, the support, if only on the forums, is fantastic, so let's wait and see.
I think the sign will be when the hardware manufacturers begin to take supporting linux more of a priority. (ATI--the support for mac is far superior than that for linux...don't really understand that one, if they can manage one linux based os, then why the difficulties with another!)

Just been looking on some theme and customisation sites.....how come people insist on slating xp, and then run off and make a bunch of themes to mimic it!!

Think I am missing the point somewhere!!


Is OSX based on Unix and not on Linux?

[GeneralZod]

Is OSX based on Unix and not on Linux?

The first part of the question is fairly tricky to answer; this Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X) link should be of help.

The second part is dead easy, though - OS X is most definitely not based on Linux :)

[ThirdWorld]

Thank you Gerald, that wiki was really informative... :D

[adam.tropics]

Just curious, does anyone happen to have, or know where can be found, some realistic numbers as to current OS ditribution. Interested as to how close the mac gurus and linux actually are??

Also, world domination plan b) (!) how about if MS continues to come pre-installed, but our friend Mr shuttleworth includes with all the starter discs out of the box, a copy of Ubuntu, and a note explaining that from here on in it would be free! Software, support, the lot!

Convert the manufacturers, users will follow!

[ThirdWorld]

Hey Adam intersting strategy... distribute millions of copies of ubuntu to new pc users with free brochures explaining how to install Ubuntu... iteresting.... hope Dell, Gateway, Acer, Emachines and HP do something like it someday...

[Kvark]

Why not just pre-install a dual boot if you ship it with two OSes anyway?

[Stormy Eyes]

What do you think? Can it compete with these operating systems?

I think that what matters is that Ubuntu exists, and is freely available. Whether or not it "dethrones" Windows or OSX is irrelevant. What users of Windows and OSX think of Ubuntu is also irrelevant. Why worry about what other people think? You've got Ubuntu, and other people can get it if they want it. Relax, or you'll be dead before you've had a chance to enjoy living.

[xequence]

I think that what matters is that Ubuntu exists, and is freely available. Whether or not it "dethrones" Windows or OSX is irrelevant. What users of Windows and OSX think of Ubuntu is also irrelevant. Why worry about what other people think? You've got Ubuntu, and other people can get it if they want it. Relax, or you'll be dead before you've had a chance to enjoy living.

The question, to me, was more of about "is ubuntu as good as osx or vista" then "will ubuntu take 90% of the OS marketshare".

Certainly noone here thinks ubuntu will have more marketshare then windows anytime soon. Its a reachable goal (in my opinion) for linux as a whole to have more then OSX within 5 years, but I doubt windows is coming down anytime soon. That would take something very drastic on the part of someone else, like if all the computer companies offered ubuntu as a default, or if the price of windows went up alot.

[Stormy Eyes]

The question, to me, was more of about "is ubuntu as good as osx or vista" then "will ubuntu take 90% of the OS marketshare".

If that's the question, then I will say, "Ubuntu isn't as good as OSX and Vista; it's better". Anybody who disagrees can discuss their objections with my cat Mordred; he's better at politely ignoring people than I am.

[Malphas]

Actually xequence, I think the original question "is Ubuntu a serious rival for OS X and Vista" doesn't necessarily ask whether you think GNU/Linux is an as-good-as or superior operating system. Personally I think Ubuntu is the superior OS but still isn't a serious rival to either.

[yesplease]

I understand that OEM installation software will be developed, and I think that may provide pre-installed Ubuntu on budget computers whose main feature is value for money. The Dapper Drake release will also help to haul in companies that sell computers because it gets support for five years.

Still, things like games are very important for many users.

I have been searching for the estimated number of Ubuntu users, how many are there and how fast is that number growing?

[ThirdWorld]

I think that what matters is that Ubuntu exists, and is freely available. Whether or not it "dethrones" Windows or OSX is irrelevant. What users of Windows and OSX think of Ubuntu is also irrelevant. Why worry about what other people think? You've got Ubuntu, and other people can get it if they want it. Relax, or you'll be dead before you've had a chance to enjoy living.


first of all dude, i dont think the subject is irrelevant. if you think it is irrelevant then just dont post a thread, second Im totally cool and relax, is not that i post this because I care what Windows or OSX users think, I posted it to know what my fellow ubuntu users think about it. And third if you have the "im too smart for you guys" attitude then why dont you install other distro and leave the poor newies alone???

[adam.tropics]

I think that alot of the problem here is that as people have become more and more at home with technology, for some reason,companies such as MS have assumed we know less! User friendly is good, but after a point has too many limitations.

With a little effort, (herin lies the problem!), I honestly think that Ubuntu, or pretty much any linux distro, can be considered better, as it can be almost completely tailored the the specific user's needs. With 'the other' OS's, we are all clumped into groups, gamers, internet, etc etc, for many of us, it's just not that simple. What we really need is a better compromise, which can't be found in offerings such as windows.

I read on one of these threads somewhere, that Mr Gates should take a step back and start from scratch, rather than simply upgrading what is left. I think perhaps I agree....

[Stormy Eyes]

first of all dude, i dont think the subject is irrelevant.

*sigh* I did not say the subject was irrelevant. I said that whether or not Ubuntu overtakes Windows/OSX is irrelevant. I also said that it does not really matter what Windows users think of Ubuntu. Let them think it's "just" a nice little distro. What matters is that Ubuntu is out there, and that those who want it can get it.

[Qrk]

Thirdworld, I'd listen to stormyeyes.

You can't hold the "Linux vs Windows vs OSX" attitude for very long without becoming somewhat depressed. While I've found Ubuntu to be much better than either OSX or XP (I've never tried Vista, but now it seems like the NT ME) it won't have either's market share for a very long time. (Linux may have over taken OSX, but Ubuntu sure hasn't)

For now, I just smile smuggly when someone gets a virus, or gloat when they need to reformat. Then I give them a shipit CD and help them install it. Thats all we can do. But if I were in a board room in Redmond I wouldn't sell my stock options yet.

[ThirdWorld]

Thirdworld, I'd listen to stormyeyes.

You can't hold the "Linux vs Windows vs OSX" attitude for very long without becoming somewhat depressed. While I've found Ubuntu to be much better than either OSX or XP (I've never tried Vista, but now it seems like the NT ME) it won't have either's market share for a very long time. (Linux may have over taken OSX, but Ubuntu sure hasn't)

For now, I just smile smuggly when someone gets a virus, or gloat when they need to reformat. Then I give them a shipit CD and help them install it. Thats all we can do. But if I were in a board room in Redmond I wouldn't sell my stock options yet.


I agree with you, rigth now Ubuntu (Linux) users in general are a small percentage of total Pc users. However, the implications for linux to conquer sections of the stablished market are huge, for example a wider 3rd party support, specialized or pro software will be available so big corporations can switch. Rigth now for example one of my closest friends is the network administrator for a major newspaper, the only reason why they dont dumped Windows and OsX is because they need a pro application not available for linux and because openoffice is not as profesional as MS office. So the newspaper is migrating all their clients to crappy windows Xp even thougth the board of directors are worry about security issues and they pay BIG money for crappy Windows vs Red hat.

[apjone]

neva used mac , ,windows vista beta is as **** as xp , so yeah ubuntu is a seriuos rival.

[kelsey23]

No. I don't think Ubuntu GNU/Linux will be any threat to Windows and Mac OS X. What I think will be a threat to Windows and Mac OS X is desktop GNU/Linux, not just Ubuntu. There are a lot more GNU/Linux distrobutions, out there, and just one isn't going to take over. Now if this poll had been "Do you think desktop GNU/Linux is a serious rival for Apple's Mac OS X and Microsoft's upcoming Windows Vista", then I would have voted yes. But Ubuntu alone, no.

[joflow]

I'd like to see more games for Linux. Only one of my games runs on Linux (It has Tux on the back so I think so) is UT2004. Ubuntu seem stable and won't get in a tissy which stuff goes wrong, something XP likes to do sometimes. I think if game developer started to include Linux as a platform supported then they would promote Linux in some way, and possibly create more interest in it.

Alot of PC games use DirectX, which is the main hurdle since its Microsoft's API. Direct X is very good and most modern video cards are designed to take advantage of its features. Alot of PC game developers don't include support for openGL. I imagine that doing so would increase the development cost and time.

Luckily, alot of developers are licensing game engines instead of building their own and Doom III is built for openGL (doesn't use DirectX at all) and I believe Unreal 3 engine will have openGL support as well. So there is hope that alot of the Doom III engine and Unreal 3 engine games will support linux.

[professor_chaos]

Ubuntu/Linux will only compete when there is sufficient third party support. For that to happen there needs to be enough users using Linux. So, it will be a slow process. I hope in my lifetime this will happen, but I think it will some day, just not today.

[adam.tropics]

Just thought this was amusing!

Google:

Windows Xp : 165,000,000 results
Windows :(hardly fair given the population of double glazing salesmen!)906,000,000 results
Linux: 462,000,000 results
Ubuntu: 10,700,000 results
Red Hat: 69,700,000 results
Suse: 27,100,000 results

Bill Gates: 38,900,000 results
Steve Jobs: 55,300,000 results
Linus Torvalds: 6,580,000.....Nice one Steve!!!!

Anyway, the point being, Linux may not be ahead in terms of users, but the message is certainly well and truly out there to stay.

[infinitelink]

Not at all. Does anyone here know what MS did with Vista? They used all the formats like XML, XSLT, XAML, RSS, SOAP, LINQ, AJAX and more, built-in unix-like features such as having to enter username and password to make important system changes (unfortunately, though, it's possible for the user to disable this, however, they'll have to put-in their username and password to do so), AND kept the usability. Ubuntu still isn't very useable. Sure to nerds and geeks (no offense), but if you have to go into "nano" and type tons of commands just to add partitions, if you can't just navigate to folders (which you basically can't) or type their locations into an address bar and get their (none in Ubuntu) etc. etc. it sucks. Sure, I like Ubuntu better than other distros, and I like that I haven't had one error, but Nerds programming an OS and targeting end-users with no knowledge about computers isn't a good idea. I met the president of MBS home (Managed Business Solutions) and he told me they hire regular people, with some good knowledge of computers, but nothing really geeky, "just to tell the nerds NO, do THIS," to make things useful for normal people. Pretty sad, but true. "They're brilliant, but lack the sense for that." I'm sure Ubuntu will improve, but its file system needs to be as easy to navigate through as Windows, have back/forward buttons, an "address bar," etc. etc. etc.. Furthermore, people moving from Windows won't know what the Hell /temp whatever is. In Windows you type in "My Documents," or "Documents," or "My Music" or ... and you go there. I have some suggestions for Ubuntu to make it all useable and I'd bet if they were followed it could be adopted better. I'll look around and see if I can get them to the Ubuntu team somehow. Anyways, adios.

[GreyFox503]

If you meant "Is Ubuntu a rival.." for me personally, then yes it is, because I already use it and will continue to do so.

However, I took this question to mean for the general population of computer users. I answered no.

I'd like to be realistic here. I don't think the that any OS dominance change will happen very quickly, nor do I believe that GNU/Linux is able to do that now anyways (if ever). To put it another way: I don't think that MS and Apple view Linux as a whole to be very threatening in the desktop market.

In the corporate world, maybe free operating systems can win more fans. I hope, anyways...

[BoyOfDestiny]

"In your opinion is Ubuntu a serious rival for OSX and the upcoming Windows Vista?"

Yes. Absolutely.

For the geeks, who are used to building/buying parts and slapping together a PC (or adding something in) I'm assuming are mostly windows or linux. From my observation (take it as opinion), mac users send in their boxes when they have trouble. For the geek folks like this I don't think OSX is on the radar except as an alternative to windows.

For users that just "use" their pc's I think Ubuntu is ready. A few things need to be addressed that aren't out of the box, but once setup I'm 100% sure they can use it, and won't have it swimming in spyware within a week. You gotta remember for most windows users, it came pre-installed with extra goodies. They missed the joy of the text install and hunting for that elusive driver disk (well if u have crappy software raid anyway ;) )

Even after mac moves to intel chips, with their "drm'ed" special boxes that are required to run mac osx might not appeal to the enthusiast, if they don't have extra cash handy. (Am I implying that mac intels will cost more than an amd box with similar specs... YES I AM)

I will say however that even though OSX is proprietary, I think the more alternative OS's out there, the better. I've seen many apps work with windows, linux, osx, bsd, qnx, etc etc.

I like portability. For me it encouraged me to take the plunge to Linux. My favorite windows applications also have a linux native version (many run under 64-bit as well). A quick list of my favorite apps: firefox, thunderbird, dosbox, zsnes, open office, gimp, videolan,... and the list goes on. As wine improves and can run more windows apps (for those "very special proprietary no longer supported never going to ported" apps :) ) it will encourage people to ditch their old windows box.

Anyway, I'd like to pose a question, does anyone have somewhat accurate %'s of linux/apple/windows users?

I'd guess there are more linux folk than osx folk out there. Is gnu linux the #2 in terms of OS? I've heard windows has over 90%, but I'm wondering which version of windows...

Thanks

[fuscia]

i don't know. will driving a stick ever compete with automatic transmission?

[Drakx]

I dont think Ubuntu will rival Visa, or any other windows till the day that there are more 3rd party hardware support and most of all software support ie vb, office etc etc. Yea i know there are alternatives but thats not the point people buy these apps/games and hardware with all the things they need to run them people also become a custom to how to use then and in some case's make things with them. lets not forget that windows is already installed and configured for the new computers they buy (like my laptop) i had to flatten then install Ubuntu on my laptop which is more than the avarage computer user wants to do...

As far as os x goes i also have a mac with tiger running, i dont use it much just sat there serving my mail how ever i was speaking to my cusion who's also a os x user and he seems to think that in 5 - 10 years it will be a fight between apple and linux for the desktop more so since the move to intel! and after listening to him i can see why he says that. I mean like its already been posted every day people "try" linux find it hard then go back to win but while there trying linux they use the tools that linux comes with as standard then look at windows and think well why dont this come with that and so also why do i getting virus etc etc when the linux and mac os x users dont and before they know it there back installing linux and keep using it (i know as this was the proccess for me). A lot of people need to use windows for work this is a sad fact again i have to keep xp on my laptop as my job requires windows only apps. i would like nothing better than to have our company use linux as standard but they dont and will not as it would mean traning the people who need to use computers to use linux which will cost a lot of time and money :(. While there are the odd one or two who do use linux in our company you ask the rest what linux is and they say "Whats linux i thought there was only windows" and some dont know about os x too!.

So like some else said till the day you can buy a pc with linux installed like you can with windows its going to be a long fight. but who knows what the future will hold maybe one day we shall see the day that you can go into any computer shop a buy a linux pc/laptop.

As for Ubuntu for me this is perfect for my desktops :) dont think i need to say any more than that!;)

Thats just my thoughts.

[aysiu]

i don't know. will driving a stick ever compete with automatic transmission? It does just about everywhere except the US.

[emperor]

Yes, but not for the brain-impaired masses! The majority will continue to use M$. Computer vendors will need to install linux and sell machines with Linux pre-installed before the poor-masses will even consider linux.

[mstlyevil]

Yes, but not for the brain-impaired masses! The majority will continue to use M$. Computer vendors will need to install linux and sell machines with Linux pre-installed before the poor-masses will even consider linux.

Insulting people who decide to use Windows because it is preconfigured is just going to drive them further away from Linux. Most of these people are not brain impaired, they just have a life besides their computer and do not have the time or the paitience to be constantly configuring their computer just to work.

I would love to see Dell or another major computer seller sell a preconfigured Linux computer on an equal par to Windows. If the computer manufactuers spent the time they spend on Microsoft products on a Linux distrobution I believe that more people would buy a Linux computer. It does not matter what the product is, if it is not marketed to the masses it will not make a impact no matter how good it is.

Windows has the advantage because the computer manufactuers tweak it and configure it to perform the basic task that the general public has come to expect. If the buying public had to go and configure Windows like they do with linux, Windows would not have as big a market share they do now. One example is codecs and DVD playback capabilities. Windows does not have them out of the box but the computer manufactuers add them before the buying public recieves their computer. That is why most people believe that Windows just works right out of the box. Until Linux can get that kind of preferential treatment by Dell and others it will always just be a niche market.

[aysiu]

Nobody took comic books seriously until Borders and Barnes and Noble started selling them. When Dell and HP start selling the Linux-preloaded high-end computers (not obscure student-only computers and only in France), people will start buying them.

The average consumer has no idea what an operating system is. They just know what a computer is and that Mac is not a PC (even though technically it is a type of PC).

[Malphas]

Didn't Walmart start selling computers pre-installed with Linspire (or was it still Lindows at the time?) sometime last year? Have they discontinued that now? Regardless, I think we'll definitely start seeing more PC vendors selling entry-level machines with Linux distributions pre-installed over the next few years.

[ThirdWorld]

Windows has the advantage because the computer manufactuers tweak it and configure it to perform the basic task that the general public has come to expect. If the buying public had to go and configure Windows like they do with linux, Windows would not have as big a market share they do now. One example is codecs and DVD playback capabilities. Windows does not have them out of the box but the computer manufactuers add them before the buying public recieves their computer. That is why most people believe that Windows just works right out of the box. Until Linux can get that kind of preferential treatment by Dell and others it will always just be a niche market.

i have installed winodws xp several times in different boxes for friends and to study for my certifications, when you install real player it automatically download codecs, same thing with apple Quicktime, windows codecs come preloaded. Firefox will play embeded video without a tweek. There are no issues with codecs in windows neither in OSX. Linux is the only one suffering from that.

[aysiu]

Didn't Walmart start selling computers pre-installed with Linspire (or was it still Lindows at the time?) sometime last year? Have they discontinued that now? No, they're still doing it. They also have a couple of Xandros-preloaded computers, too. Unfortunately...

1. Most people--at least the ones I know--do not buy computers at Wal-Mart. They go to Best Buy, Dell, Apple Store, or whatever.
2. The computers Wal-Mart sells with Linux preloaded are low-end computers (128 MB... maybe missing a hard drive).


Regardless, I think we'll definitely start seeing more PC vendors selling entry-level machines with Linux distributions pre-installed over the next few years. Really? Doesn't that screw up their deals with Microsoft?

[ThirdWorld]

Didn't Walmart start selling computers pre-installed with Linspire (or was it still Lindows at the time?) sometime last year? Have they discontinued that now? Regardless, I think we'll definitely start seeing more PC vendors selling entry-level machines with Linux distributions pre-installed over the next few years.

yes they sell them http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3504708
However, this machines are lower end of the lower end in the computer world. What i want to see is low end as well as high end laptops and desktops preinstalled with Linux. I will love to see the ubuntu logo on them. :p

[kelsey23]

Look, Ubuntu GNU/Linux will never take over Mac OS X or Windows, all by itself! Desktop GNU/Linux has a very good chance of taking over Mac OS X or Windows, with maybe a few major distrobutions, but just one distro will never have that much market share!

[aysiu]

i have installed winodws xp several times in different boxes for friends and to study for my certifications, when you install real player it automatically download codecs, same thing with apple Quicktime, windows codecs come preloaded. Firefox will play embeded video without a tweek. There are no issues with codecs in windows neither in OSX. Linux is the only one suffering from that. No issues? I think the specific examples you're talking about may not generally have issues, but I've had issues with Flash and other plugins for the new release of Firefox in both Windows and OS X. And try playing a commercial DVD on Windows without the proper codecs.

[ThirdWorld]

No issues? I think the specific examples you're talking about may not generally have issues, but I've had issues with Flash and other plugins for the new release of Firefox in both Windows and OS X. And try playing a commercial DVD on Windows without the proper codecs.

Yes, DVDs dont work out of the box, and you have to install drivers manually wich is a pain in the ars.... (ubuntu is superior managing this issues) but if you install a dvd player application it will work, if you install flash palyer for your browser it will work. im not saying that it always work, all that im saying is that most of this applications work after installation. in order to compete Linux have to have the same aproach with applications. Tehy have improve a great deal, but need more polish. im confident with Daper Drake all this issues, or the majority of them will be resolved.

[mstlyevil]

i have installed winodws xp several times in different boxes for friends and to study for my certifications, when you install real player it automatically download codecs, same thing with apple Quicktime, windows codecs come preloaded. Firefox will play embeded video without a tweek. There are no issues with codecs in windows neither in OSX. Linux is the only one suffering from that.

Most new computer users do not know that all they have to do is download quicktime and realplayer to get most codecs. Many computer manufactuers already have those players installed upon purchase. WMP,RP and QTP do not have divx and other codecs either. Also most prebuilt computers come with a DVD player out of the box. As far as embedded video goes all you have to do is use synaptic in Linux to get it. It is no harder than downloading FF in windows and installing it. If the computer manufactuer already had that done for you out of the box along with DVD playback and most other popular codecs and applications, people would see it as no different than Windows since most people never actually install it themselves as you or I do.

[poptones]

With what is linux competing? If you install decss then you can play dvds pretty much ootb. You can play them in xine or mplayer or totem or whatever you want - windows is exactly the same way. I don't know about you, but when I used windows I did a lot of work on multimedia software and I don't know anyone who seriously used windows for that stuff who also used windows media player - because it sucked.

MP7/8/9/10 just get more bloated and still don't do the stuff they do as well as more dedicated and specialized apps because Microsoft designs their media player for developers (as does Apple) so movie producers can bundle "themes" with their trailers and give that "immersive experience" that makes you want to go out and spend money on their product (hopefully, that is, if everything goes well and it doesn't crash, stutter, or otherwise act up).

Linux doesn't need to compete with this. I'm not even sure I'd be using it today if that were in any manner the goal of linux. if you want to put something like that together you can and if you do your job well it will be at least as reliable as the equivalent "experience" in windows - but so what? If I want to see a movie or tv show the first place I go is bittorrent or usenet, not Apple.

Microsoft provides a service to the community that is different than the service provided by linux. One doesn't have to compete with the other, nor should we even want them to. Microsoft provides a well established platform with wide commercial appeal upon which vendors (people with money) can bundle sponsored content. Linux isn't about that and I doubt any of us really want it to be.

there's a lot of hating going on toward MS. I don't like their software because it looks ugly and it feels like a prison, but I wish them all the success in the world - because that is the platform upon which cheap computers are built. You don't think all that crap bundled on the desktop when you buy a new Dell or Gateway or e-machine is free, do you? Gateway has to support that crap when they include it - you can bet the games companies pay a nice fee to have their "demo reels" bundled on those desktops. Same thing with the Photoshop-lites, the MovieMaker 30 day trials, the DVD player crippleware trials and so forth.

However much MS charges for Windows you can bet those vendors make double that back in sponsorship deals. This is the service Windows provides to the community - the massive volumes of hardware sold because of that platform keeps costs down for all of us.

I don't want linux to compete with that. I don't want to have to cull megabytes of easter eggs from sources before compiling my OS or deal with flash applets screaming at me from the "new and improved Evolution Experience bar" because some developers worked out sponsorship deals with Sony and Paramount and Virgin.

[andrewpmk]

If Wal-Mart would sell good computers with Ubuntu installed, they would make loads of money. They would have to be identical to their competitors' except for the operating system and price tag. Selling games for Ubuntu wouldn't hurt.

How about Best Buy, anyone?

[poptones]

If Wal-Mart would sell good computers with Ubuntu installed, they would make loads of money.

How? They would end up being MORE expensive than windows machines and would have fewer features. You cannot bundle Photoshop with ubuntu at any price - there is no photoshop for linux. Joe Beer doesn't know or care what the gimp does, but he knows what Photoshop does. You cannot bundle demos of those fps games for ubuntu that do not exist...

[poofyhairguy]

Is Ubuntu a serious rival to OSX or Vista? What does that mean?

A rival on the servers of the world? Sure, Ubuntu wins and will continue to.

I bet thats not what you mean. You mean:

"A rival on the desktop?" The answer is maybe.

For people with modern Apple hardware or a top spec x86 machine the better choice might be Vista and OSX. Linux's Xserver is primitive compared to OSX's (like comparing a horse and cart to a sports car) and Vista will have better driver support and better eye candy for the first year or two till Linux catches up.

But that group is small. Most of the computer in the world can't run OSX and won't be able to run Vista worth a damn (needs a LOT of RAM and a DIRECTx9! card to work well), there Ubuntu can is the only option for a modern OS. Think of all those people still using Windows 2000. When they get cut off for support, that will be Linux's big chance. When Vista comes out and everyone will low end brand new hardware today hears from their local nerd that their box won't run it (or worse- tries it and fails), there is the chance.

[MetalMusicAddict]

Think of all those people still using Windows 2000. When they get cut off for support, that will be Linux's big chance. When Vista comes out and everyone will (did you mean "with"?) low end brand new hardware today hears from their local nerd that their box won't run it (or worse- tries it and fails), there is the chance.
I agree mostly with ya sir but I think people who still run 2k will stick with it till the machine no longer suits them no matter support or not. Then, when the day comes, they will buy a new pc with Vista pre-installed.

Sad but I think thats most of our computing world.

[Pi rules]

Sorry, but I truly don't think so. I know I'll get Vista when it comes out, but I'll also get the next Ubuntu when it comes out. Microsoft is more well-known. I ordered several Ubuntu CDs to give away to help spread Ubuntu, but that little bit won't help much.

[aysiu]

I know I'll get Vista when it comes out, but I'll also get the next Ubuntu when it comes out. I'm probably not your typical Windows user (any more... I was seven months ago), but I never plan to get Vista or any Windows operating system ever again. I'll keep my dual-boot of XP as long as I can, and keep using Linux. If I need to buy another computer, I'll either get one with FreeDOS or Linux preinstalled. I see no reason to buy Vista.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I'm probably not your typical Windows user (any more... I was seven months ago), but I never plan to get Vista or any Windows operating system ever again. I'll keep my dual-boot of XP as long as I can, and keep using Linux. If I need to buy another computer, I'll either get one with FreeDOS or Linux preinstalled. I see no reason to buy Vista.

What bugs me (if history is any indication), after people's current windows boxes experience so much "OS decay" that they think it's "broken"...
Will go out and buy a new pc...
Guess what OS is going to come with it. I think a lot of people will move to Vista in this way...
I don't see people lining up outside to get it, then take it home and find they need more ram, new cpu, a new hard drive, and possibly a new monitor ... It may have happened for windows95, but I hope we have all learned our lessons. :)

[xequence]

How? They would end up being MORE expensive than windows machines and would have fewer features. You cannot bundle Photoshop with ubuntu at any price - there is no photoshop for linux. Joe Beer doesn't know or care what the gimp does, but he knows what Photoshop does. You cannot bundle demos of those fps games for ubuntu that do not exist...

Ubuntu is free, nothing can be cheaper.

And yes, you could bundle FPS demos. Unreal tornament, Doom 3, and Quake 4 all have native linux versions.

[LuxoDave]

I may be wrong, but I think PC manufacturers have to pay a licence fee to Microsoft for each computer they ship, even if it doesn't have Windows on it, if they want to continue to be able to continue to sell computers with Windows preinstalled. I think this is how they squeezed out the other OS venders (OS2 Warp)..?

If so, Windows will always have the semi-interested computer users. And that is most people who would rather watch a bad sitcom on TV than install and tinker with different Operating Systems.

Mac OSX will not catch up until there hardware becomes cheaper.

On the other hand, I have been using Ubuuntu for one week and am loving it. I have not had this much fun with my computer since I got my very first one.

[poptones]

Ubuntu is free, nothing can be cheaper.

Wrong. Profit is "cheaper" than "free." if I pay forty bucks a seat for windows but am able to sell $50 worth of desktop real estate in the form of bundled "demos" then I have subsidized the cost of the hardware. I can use that toward more profit or toward competing with the others selling systems.

Do you get it? Bundling a system with windows means there are thousands of applications you can bundle with it. Those bundles do not have to be purchased - people will actually pay you (if you are large enough, like Dell or Gateway or emachines) because it is "advertising." You don't think Gateway pays for the "opportunity" to bundle McAfee antivirus "30 day free trial" and AOL "free trial" and Power DVD "free trial" and even the "Google toolbar," do you?

How many opportunities to do this with linux?

And yes, you could bundle FPS demos. Unreal tornament, Doom 3, and Quake 4 all have native linux versions.

Two of those require purchase of the Windows version... hardly a compelling endorsement of linux to the average user.

So... we have exactly one bundling opportunity in linux. Not exactly a lot of room for profit in that... the first support call blows any chance of profit on the entire sale.

There's no money in selling bundled desktop linux systems, and if it ever gets to that point it will mean the desktop has "evolved" into just another capitalist toy of exploit.

[ThirdWorld]

Ubuntu is free, nothing can be cheaper.

Wrong. Profit is "cheaper" than "free." if I pay forty bucks a seat for windows but am able to sell $50 worth of desktop real estate in the form of bundled "demos" then I have subsidized the cost of the hardware. I can use that toward more profit or toward competing with the others selling systems.

Do you get it? Bundling a system with windows means there are thousands of applications you can bundle with it. Those bundles do not have to be purchased - people will actually pay you (if you are large enough, like Dell or Gateway or emachines) because it is "advertising." You don't think Gateway pays for the "opportunity" to bundle McAfee antivirus "30 day free trial" and AOL "free trial" and Power DVD "free trial" and even the "Google toolbar," do you?

How many opportunities to do this with linux?

And yes, you could bundle FPS demos. Unreal tornament, Doom 3, and Quake 4 all have native linux versions.

Two of those require purchase of the Windows version... hardly a compelling endorsement of linux to the average user.

So... we have exactly one bundling opportunity in linux. Not exactly a lot of room for profit in that... the first support call blows any chance of profit on the entire sale.

There's no money in selling bundled desktop linux systems, and if it ever gets to that point it will mean the desktop has "evolved" into just another capitalist toy of exploit.

I dont agree with you. There is a myriad of ways to make lots of profit selling a system bunbdled with ubuntu. You can bundled video games trials, or other trials like propietary software like antivirus or productivity suites, integrate corporate services, even create an online music store and your own "ilife suite" posiblities are endless .. but the most important thing you have to understand is that this companies make money offering support and selling hardware. They dont care what OS is bundled with their systems as long as it works, they only want to sell their computers to consumers.

[Iandefor]

I don't think so. Ubuntu is a really great project and I'm glad it exists, but in terms of public awareness, it really hasn't captured the attention necessary to threaten OSX or Vista's market share.

[poptones]

You can bundled video games trials...

You mean all those free games out there? Not much profit in that. or do you mean the one linux based for-profit videogame that doesn't also require the user to buy the windows version?

..or other trials like propietary software like antivirus or productivity suites,

Sun's going to pay vendors to install Star Office when Open Office is pretty much the same thing and is "free?" Antivirus software companies are going to pay for placement on some mom and pop linux desktop when there is a market ten thousand times larger waiting at Dell or Gateway? Can you even name one of these companies developing linux desktop antivirus software? I mean that protects linux systems from linux virii, not protects windows systems connected to them... that's the market, after all.

integrate corporate services...

Not much need for that at Joe Beer's house.

even create an online music store and your own "ilife suite" posiblities are endless .. but the most important thing you have to understand is that this companies make money offering support and selling hardware.

Umm... actually I do understand this stuff because I worked for one of the largest training support staff. The margins on hardware are slim, that's why you sell the bundled packages. They make their money selling warranties and support, but they lose money when you actually use that stuff.

They dont care what OS is bundled with their systems as long as it works, they only want to sell their computers to consumers.

No, they want to sell the computers and the support packages. The only profitable hardware-only company is Apple - any of the others would utterly fail were it not for software and bundling deals because the margins on hardware are so terribly slim. It is the present software "ecology" that subsidizes low cost hardware. They want you to call back when something goes wrong not because they are nice people, but because it gives them another chance to sell you even more.

There isn't anything in the linux community to sell except service, and actually providing service is expensive. This can work well for indivudals at the micro economic level, but corporations don't deal well with sub-macro economics - they're all about the big picture. And in the big picture there's just no way for linux to compete with Windows... thank the gods.

[Malphas]

Really? Doesn't that screw up their deals with Microsoft?
Probably, but there's only so long that Microsoft can keep getting away with that kind of ****. Dell also took some flak from the media over the whole "open-source PC" thing.

[ThirdWorld]

You can bundled video games trials...

You mean all those free games out there? Not much profit in that. or do you mean the one linux based for-profit videogame that doesn't also require the user to buy the windows version?

..or other trials like propietary software like antivirus or productivity suites,

Sun's going to pay vendors to install Star Office when Open Office is pretty much the same thing and is "free?" Antivirus software companies are going to pay for placement on some mom and pop linux desktop when there is a market ten thousand times larger waiting at Dell or Gateway? Can you even name one of these companies developing linux desktop antivirus software? I mean that protects linux systems from linux virii, not protects windows systems connected to them... that's the market, after all.

integrate corporate services...

Not much need for that at Joe Beer's house.

even create an online music store and your own "ilife suite" posiblities are endless .. but the most important thing you have to understand is that this companies make money offering support and selling hardware.

Umm... actually I do understand this stuff because I worked for one of the largest training support staff. The margins on hardware are slim, that's why you sell the bundled packages. They make their money selling warranties and support, but they lose money when you actually use that stuff.

They dont care what OS is bundled with their systems as long as it works, they only want to sell their computers to consumers.

No, they want to sell the computers and the support packages. The only profitable hardware-only company is Apple - any of the others would utterly fail were it not for software and bundling deals because the margins on hardware are so terribly slim. It is the present software "ecology" that subsidizes low cost hardware. They want you to call back when something goes wrong not because they are nice people, but because it gives them another chance to sell you even more.

There isn't anything in the linux community to sell except service, and actually providing service is expensive. This can work well for indivudals at the micro economic level, but corporations don't deal well with sub-macro economics - they're all about the big picture. And in the big picture there's just no way for linux to compete with Windows... thank the gods.


This thread remind me of the movie "pirates of the silicon valley" actually the part where the xerox researchers are triying to explain to the borad of directors about their operating system and the use of the mouse and one of the corporate guys said "i dont see why xerox will be interested in something call a mouse" and everybody laughs...

Well looks like everyone today is using one of this little creatures....

[thenoobest1]

ive only been running ubuntu for a couple days now, im still trying to get used to it. not having any problems as of yet except the software. theres still no comparison for dreamweaver, flash 8, or photoshop... at least not that ive found. in my opinion ubuntu blows M$ away except the "eye candy" that was mentioned earlier. good work guys!

[hyg53]

As said previously, when they ear "Linux", people are afraid. No media ever said this idea is false.

Secondly, windows is easy to use because it's already installed when they buy their computer. So would also be Ubuntu in the same case.

As long as Dell, HP and other seller won't support and install any Unix OS, Linux will remain a small spread OS. You can do everything you want, it'll not change anything.

People like when you tell them what they should do.

Actually, I should not say that, but I think that if everybody in the world tried Ubuntu right now, it don't think they would change their OS to Ubuntu. I can't really imagine all the peolpe in the world spending the time I spent to make a webcam, a Wifi device or simply firefox with its plugins work.

Sorry for that, but we should be honnest. Ubuntu isn't ready to compete with M$ OS because it is not supported by hardware developper(except by IBM ok)

[ferentix]

in order for MS to catch up they'd have to start right now with a totally new OS and not use any old code

I'd swear I read an article somewhere stating that there had been something of an upheaval in MS, and one of their lead technical guys managed to get the company to rewrite the codebase entirely for Vista? Bill Gates was quoted as saying that he "wished they had done it earlier on" (doesn't everyone ;)?)Anyway, whether that's true or not...

I don't think Ubuntu will be a genuinely serious contender as such, simply because not enough people know about Linux, or know what it is, or want to switch to unfamiliar environments... so unless a Linux distro (maybe Ubuntu, who knows?) becomes really friendly to new users coming straight from Windows but retains all the advantages and control of Linux, it won't be. And that may never happen. I've never used a Mac for any length of time, (though a good friend of mine swears by them) so can't really comment on it against OSX.

[Chayak]

OS X is a good OS, easy to use, productive and looks nice. Vista will have some new eye candy and tell the user that fair use is bad and not let them do it. Ubuntu will be free, DRM free, and hopefully pick up the slack as Vista users get sick of their new shiny OS.

[nascent16]

I don't think Linux is a serious rival from the standpoint of a Desktop operating system, which is what Ubuntu tries to be. The reasons its not have mostly all been stated here: lack of hardware/application support, lack of OEM support, difficulty in configuration, and even performance. I also don't think this matters too much. There are many different markets for Operating systems out there, and its important that they are all served. The average desktop user is not going to want an operating system that doesn't run any of the applications they use and doesn't come with their computer. Business users need something that is compatible with their entire network so they can work seamlessly with everybody else. IT professionals need machines that are easy to monitor and mantain. Then there are some people that want an operating system to perform exactly as they desire. Windows, for the most part, fulfills all of these rolls except the last one. I feel that Mac OS X fulfills goals of the average home user far better than Ubuntu or Windows. Ubuntu has its place with the last group.

This doesn't mean Ubuntu should just stay where it is and leave Windows alone. Windows has the edge in many professional markets, but it doesn't play well with others and that's not too cool. People should have the choice to use the operating system that is best for them. It's not Microsoft's domination of the market that should bother us, it's the fact that they want Ubuntu out of it. We need to continue to mold Ubuntu and other Linux distributions to the needs of their users, something Microsoft has only done when they feel it fits their goals as well. Microsoft is not going to change for us, so we need to mold around them. If Linux can talk seamlessly with Windows, then suddenly Linux based distributions are a viable option in businesses. If I don't have to touch a text file to get my ATI graphics card to work well, then suddenly linux is an option for my little sister. If I sit down at a machine and don't need to think about what kernel it might be running or what applications it supports, then Linux has a chance.

The world doesn't care about operating systems. They just need something that works, and works all the time with everything they want to do. When Linux has achieved this and achieved the ability to live alongside a Windows machine, then it will compete. It will compete not necessarily because it's better, but because it's finally an option in the minds of the people that don't care about anything but the end product. This is also the reason that Linux will succeed in the end. Linux was built on the idea of choice, there are hundreds of distributions out there now that all target slightly different people. If these operating systems can all work together flawlessly, then we will have choice and then the best operating system will win (Theoretically of course). Sometimes it will be Windows, sometimes it will be Mac, and sometimes it will be one of the hundreds of other *nix distributions. Whatever you choose, that's ok with me; just get us to the point where we can all talk.

Sorry for the essay, I just sometimes feel that the Ubuntu community loses focus on its goals when it bickers about superiority.

[prizrak]

Ubuntu will not be able to compete with Windows (I will get to OSX in a second) mostly because it doesn't have to. It is largely too complicated for an average desktop user. Case in point, power management. I use a Toshiba laptop and when in Windows I had a great little Toshiba provided power manager with a bunch of profiles to suit different tasks and optimize power consumption for them (there were a plethora of options and all easy to get to) I have not found anything as simple and as robut as that on Ubuntu. It took me a while to get my monitor not to turn off after a certain period of time and for that I actually had to modify an ACPI script. Now there needs to be an easy to use robust and secure OS that can rival Windows and there is one, we call it OS X. I am not a Mac person in the least but I believe that for a majority of users it would be a great alternative. It needs to have better hardware support and gaming and it can take over.
Now the future of Linux is I believe to be in the corporate world. It is secure, light on resources and highly customizeable. By the corporate world I don't just mean the servers, I mean the entire corporate infrastructure including the desktops and laptops that are used by everyone in the organization which could solve the problem of people not doing work by locking down the OS. So no Ubuntu (Linux) is no threat to Windows or OS X but it doesn't have to be, it has it's own market that it needs to focuse on instead of fighting with MS.

[adam.tropics]

You're right in that it doesn't need to really compete with xp. The average Ubuntu user is simply not looking for the same thing as the average xp user. More importantly, whilst I don't really see evidence of Ubuntu or Linux threatening Windows, of any version, I don't really see windows as a threat to Linux or Ubuntu either. Neither is in a position to provide what the other can.

What I find interesting is that people still talk of linux in tems of competing with OS X. I am no doubt gonna be told I am mistaken, but it appears to me that mac users have been brought closer and closer to Linux users over recent times, in particular projects such as kde. and now it is to be hardware related too. Now, would I be mistaken, but won't that encourage a flurry of linux compatible drivers being commercially produced??
For example, Apple seem keen on ATI video cards, which can at present be a royal pain the a*** on Linux. But if OS X is Linux based, on Intel hardware, ....well you see where this is heading?

[migo]

If Ubuntu can improve as quickly as Vista will by the time it's released, then it could be a viable rival, but I don't think it has either Apple or Microsoft worried. Linux might be ready for the next run around (2010?) but right now it's probably more trouble to switch than to stay for most users.

[fog]

3 years windows user, 4 years dual-boot user (windows-varius distros),
half a year Ubuntu and Mac OS X user.
That matters to me, is that with linux the only limit is my knowledge, nothing else.
So, with Ubuntu, there is no limit, because I like learning. ;)

[adam.tropics]

Good point well put.

[kakashi]

hey windows will be ahead in terms of market pentration as long it come preinstalled on computer. if ubuntu were to come installed ppl would use it. easy.
as far as performance, reliacbility, cost (can't beat free, right) even usability if you want to do anything more than email and web (even web if easier cuz i never have to worry aobut virruses and spyware) are concerned linux (not just ubunut even fedora and gentoo, debian and madrake as well) is ahead and will always be.

[kakashi]

i tohugh of wnother point.
do you relaise how powerfull ca computer it takes to install xp. now imagin how powerfull a computer is needed to install vista.
ps. i am kind of glad that every joe blog is not using linux. that gives it a techy feel that i for one really enjoy. i love it that i am among the only 2 ppl who use linux in school. whenever me and my freiand talk about ubuntu (we both use it) everyone kind of shuts up or goes away or inturupts with a stupid remark cuz they don't understand a word. it so much FUN watching the faces.

[Brunellus]

i tohugh of wnother point.
do you relaise how powerfull ca computer it takes to install xp. now imagin how powerfull a computer is needed to install vista.
ps. i am kind of glad that every joe blog is not using linux. that gives it a techy feel that i for one really enjoy. i love it that i am among the only 2 ppl who use linux in school. whenever me and my freiand talk about ubuntu (we both use it) everyone kind of shuts up or goes away or inturupts with a stupid remark cuz they don't understand a word. it so much FUN watching the faces.
If you want to be elitist, go run Debian or Slackware and watch as even most Ubuntu users make their polite excuses and go away.

Or if you really like being alone, run GNU/HURD.

I'm all for greater market penetration through OEM preinstallation. Every average joe will then have Linux, and the insufferably elitist pseudo-1337 will migrate to another obscure platform.

[Stormy Eyes]

Every average joe will then have Linux, and the insufferably elitist pseudo-1337 will migrate to another obscure platform.

All the real elitists use Gentoo or a BSD anyway. :)

[Malphas]

If you want to be elitist, go run Debian or Slackware and watch as even most Ubuntu users make their polite excuses and go away.
Yeah, having an outdated pseudo-elitist attitude and then using Ubuntu just makes you look silly.

[kakashi]

oh man ijust got the back end of sharp anti-elitist spear.
i did not mean that. i love it when more ppl use ubuntu. i am currently distributing ubuntu cds at school and everyday answer quite a few linux realated questions. i just meant that i enjoy seeing my freinf faces when they are al confused. sorry to anger anyoone. also linux is really not for joe bloogs. linux has qiute a sharp learning curve coming from windows. especially cuz the dos coomand line was so bad everyone is scared of using linux command line.

[adam.tropics]

also linux is really not for joe bloogs. linux has qiute a sharp learning curve coming from windows. especially cuz the dos coomand line was so bad everyone is scared of using linux command line.

..which is why it should be distributed pre-installed. That way over time, much time probably, the learning curve will diminish. As someone earlier pointed out, not sure if it was this thread, half the battle is that we're having to 'retrain' people after they have gotten used to microsoft products. Pre-installation would mean that we could finally start to see users whose first computer experience is say, Ubuntu.

I don't really think, if learning from scratch that is, that linux is that much harder. Give Joe Bloggs a tad more credit fella.!

[Cyril]

Function wise ubuntu is definately a serious competitor. In terms of eye candy I'd say ubuntu is significantly behind OSX and in my opinion, XP as well. In terms of user friendliness I'd say ubuntu has a lot of catching up to do. It has been mentioned many times that ubuntu is perfect for most lay ppl who wanna do stuff like send email, browse the web etc. But I feel that these are the people who would be very put off he they had to do anything whatsoever in a command line interface and it seems to me in ubuntu this is unavoidable. I for one for could couldn't get ubuntu to start after installation without going to recovery mode. Nonetheless I think ubuntu has made tremendous progress and if this progress should continue I say ubuntu will become a serious rival before long.

[psyguy92]

Yes/No/Maybe

Yes because no malware, free (gratis), and basic computing (sans games) is what I see most people do, and Linux does fairly well with this.

But I had to answer no...
I just demoed my Dell laptop with Ubuntu to a friend. It has some nice eyecandy installed (transparent autohide bars, OSX-like launcher, etc). She was impressed - people like eyecandy. She liked The GIMP, loved amaroK, and the idea of Synaptic. She was even getting into the blackjack program:) She was blown away by both the libre and gratis frees. She wants Linux when she gets a new computer.

Ok, so a new Linux convert? Success? Do I win a toaster?

I'm afraid that there will be a hardware issue - that she will have a winmodem, or a WiFi card that bytes. Will GNUCash be good enough? What happens when 'odd things' happen and we need to drop to command line and edit scripts or update the apt sources file, or a repo goes off line? 'Normal' (sorry for the word) users don't want to see a terminal window. They don't want to know that a terminal window is called that (or worse, a shell).
I'm afraid that I'll set it up, and I won't be able to fix some wierd thing. If I can't, then to her, no one can. I'm the most tech-geek person all my friends know, but I know my 'real' knowledge is just a little bit beyond what most people think of as a 'power user'. And if I'm not there to help out, I can just point her to the forums here. 'Oh, just drop to a shell and write `wierd command -ten options | somewhere` Eh?? Don't get me wrong... I am NOT bashing the forums at all, but sometimes Very Bad (TM) problems go unsolved here. I still have an issue (windows stop opening) that requires me to kill gdm at least twice a day, loosing my place completely. Ok, I'm ranting now - sorry.

Basically, I'm afraid that after winning a new convert in all of ten minutes, the newbie will go back to XP. This is a newbie that liked some apps and actually gives a sh*t about the FOSS concept.

A sad no.

[Brunellus]

linux has qiute a sharp learning curve coming from windows. especially cuz the dos coomand line was so bad everyone is scared of using linux command line.

You weren't paying attention.

Linux will come to Joe Bloggs because the cheap computer he gets has it pre-installed, and has a reasonable helpdesk phone number....same as windows.

Windows isn't dominant because it's easier: windows is dominant through a number of historical accidents. The key moment is that MS-DOS became the cheapest of the three available operating systems on the original IBM Personal Computer. That made sense to a lot of CFOs, and they bought IBMs by the truckload...loaded with MS-DOS.

Of course there were superior offerings at the time. Apple's Macintosh and Commodore's Amiga were technically miles ahead of their IBM-compatible contemporaries; but technical superiority counts for very little when CFOs are concerned. The bean counters won, and the PC and MS-DOS dominated first the business, then the computer markets.

When the PC and its x86 successors dominated the hardware market, MS-DOS grew with them; there was a definite 'network effect.'--one pc running MS-DOS is useful, two even more so, and a thousand even more so. By the time Microsoft got around to releasing Windows (the initial versions of which were *awful*), they had such a commanding dominance of the market that the underlying quality of their product was not really relevant. To run a computer that talked to everyone else's computer, you *had* to run Windows.

The opening for Linux on the desktop will be in the same way; probably in large organizations, possibly in government.

[adam.tropics]

The opening for Linux on the desktop will be in the same way; probably in large organizations, possibly in government.


Dead right......Our humble city is a small one, but from small acorns..... (http://www.oracle.com/customers/profiles/PROFILE11456.HTML)

[poofyhairguy]

I don't believe you. I think almost every household PC will have a couple commercial games on it or at least one specialised application of some sort. I agree that Ubuntu is perfect for the stereotypical "grandma's PC", but on the whole I think the average family or individual are using their computers for more than you're giving them credit for.

The home market is not where Linux Desktop growth will be seen in the next five years. That growth will mostly come from the corporate arena. The lure of not paying licencing fees plus being able to use old hardware (dumb terminal style) will increase Linux desktop usage more than anything.

With that said, MS is a little scared. They are not MS of old, confident as always. They have started a new advertising campaign for XP:

http://www.windows.com/Passion/index_enu.html

And I have seen the ads in many places- for an old OS! That shows they must fear something (whats sad is that MS probably spends more advertising XP this year than Ubuntu will spend developing itself for the next ten years). Plus the Vista hype:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.mspx

Is not even close to the hype before XP or the hype before Windows 95. MS is no longer "cool" and it shows. They are the boring part of the landscape that everyone takes for granted.

In the end, as long as Ubuntu is here for us nerds to use it serves a good purpose. As long as poor school districts don't have to buy new copies of Office for their donated computer lab equipment than Openoffice serves it purpose. As long as Firefox forces MS to pick up IE development again, it serves its purpose.

The Free Software Movement has gotten popular because it adds competition to markets that need it. Its a check or a balance. It does not matter if a single piece of software that is part of the movement is better or more popular than its closed competition. It matters that each piece of closed popular software IS GIVEN competition.

A healthy computer market is the best we can hope for.

[Chayak]

Linux as it is now will remain an option for the more technically apt users or the basic user who just wants word processing, email, and web. My development workstation at work is now running ubuntu, though it's the only one at the moment. Some of my coworkers are looking at it more closely as they've had to reboot their machines numerous times and mine hasn't been rebooted since I installed it over a month ago. The best example is for cars, an automatic sedan that's easy to drive for the average person then you'll have the sports cars and pro racing that want more control over their car. It's unfortunate but until you can make a dummed down enviorment for some people you'll never get them to use it.

[poofyhairguy]

"Suppliers offering Linux are looking to satisfy users with needs dedicated to certain purposes like Internet access or personal productivity--low-end use," he said.



Linux currently has a 2.5 percent share of the operating system market, based on shipments, according to IDC's research. While IDC predicts that figure will to rise to 9 percent by 2008, the Windows operating system will still dominate the market.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,123501,00.asp

[Malphas]

The home market is not where Linux Desktop growth will be seen in the next five years. That growth will mostly come from the corporate arena. The lure of not paying licencing fees plus being able to use old hardware (dumb terminal style) will increase Linux desktop usage more than anything.
I agree. I think I've already explicitly stated that I'm referring to the home desktop market. Cost isn't really an issue with home users as most will get Windows bundled with their PCs; or if not, chances are they'll be able to charge the purchase to an expenses account of acquire a pirate version. Those in the corporate arena however could make massive savings by switching to Linux, this is what will push third party development and make Linux a more viable solution for desktop users. We're already seeing this with movie and animation studies switching to Linux and the likes of CinePaint comming about as a result. People keep saying that Ubuntu (and Linux in general) is more suited to technically proficient users; I really don't think this is the case anymore - distibutions like Ubuntu and Linspire are really no more complex to use than Windows as far as I can tell, and far less complex if you include installing from scratch.

[poofyhairguy]

I agree. I think I've already explicitly stated that I'm referring to the home desktop market. Cost isn't really an issue with home users as most will get Windows bundled with their PCs; or if not, chances are they'll be able to charge the purchase to an expenses account of acquire a pirate version. Those in the corporate arena however could make massive savings by switching to Linux, this is what will push third party development and make Linux a more viable solution for desktop users. We're already seeing this with movie and animation studies switching to Linux and the likes of CinePaint comming about as a result.

When I saw Harry Potter in the movie theater yesterday, there was at least three previews for computer animated movies involving small animals. I told my girlfriend "see, thats where Linux is having an impact- it allows those studios to make cheaper render farms to make all of those movies."



People keep saying that Ubuntu is more suited to technically proficient users; I really don't buy this - Ubuntu is no more complex to use than Windows as far as I can tell, and far less complex if you include installing from scratch.

I don't know if I agree with that. Sure, a new Windows box will get owned in less than a minute if it is left unprotected on a large network, but at least with Windows at some level every piece of hardware you can buy off the shelf will work in some way. I think the lack of third party support (which leads to ugly hacks like ndiswrapper) is what makes it more suited to technical users.

But I will admit that once its set up its actually easier for new users than Windows (if that user has never seen a PC before and just wants to do some email/song playing/ googling).

[prizrak]

Like I said earlier I do not believe Ubuntu (and Linux in general) to need to go after home users I believe that this OS would best serve corporate/educational/governmental organizations as the desktop OS. Dapper will not be a competitor in the field of home users and here is why I say this.
Problems with Linux and therefore Dapper:
- It is still not as easy as Windows, you need to use command line for some things
- There are many distributions which brings issues with third party support (i.e. .dpkg, .rpm, .bin, CVS, Soure Compiles, Portage)
- Third party support - some programs/drivers come as .bins some come as .dpkg some need to be compiled on the spot which is not always successful (example: compiling VPN client on Ubuntu, can't create some file while otherwise everything is fine)
- Installation issues, outside of Synaptics installation of programs isn't "easy" and by easy I mean you can't double click it, also not all programs show up in your menus (even with Synaptics) so you need a certain level of knowledge to find them

These are just of the top of my head, Linux is a difficult system for a home user as well as third party developers. It provides alot of choice which makes it very difficult to support. Even in Ubuntu we have Gnome (Ubuntu) and KDE (Kubuntu) which run different programs have different interfaces, and uses different engines GTK vs what KDE uses (don't remember what it is). Which already means that not all programs are compatible even within a single distribution (I know Gnome can run KDE stuff but it would require alot of disk space waste with KDE package installation). As someone mentioned for us to have third party support Linux (Ubuntu) needs to be run in organizations then developers will be forced to release Linux versions of apps/drivers.

P.S. I didn't ask for help on the VPN install issue because while still not resolved I don't need VPN anymore :)

[kakashi]

well stated. linux in not for the average user.
honestly its too hard.
we all here (most ppl atleast) now find it easir cuz we are used to it but put jow blogg in front of a ubuntu and mention installing program requires opening a termial and watch him run.
about 1.5 years ago that was my condition. i had just got broad band and since i always wanted to try linux a installed suse (only distro i could find at first). it installed well and then showed me the desktop and honestly i tohught it is so much prettier than windows.
than i decided to install firefox. i went to the site and downloaded a copy. it came in .tar.gz format. i tried double clicking on ti numerous time but nothing came up. no installer nothing. i asked my freind at school and he mention something related to ./configure and make. i kept suse for a few days as dual boot then romoved it. and reinstalled windows to wipe out any traces.

hahaha. i laugh at that now.
**idea.

if any ubuntu developer reads this please listen to this advice.
with ubuntu install a couple of totally noob guides and set them to run at startup everytime untill a user disable its (kind of like in windows) . i would be happy to write a few if you can't find anything.

hey where can i post this advice

[IanLowe]

Firstly.... Hello! (first post)

For me, the biggest obstacles to further Linux use are a combination of some of the technical ones:

1) driver support - not the basic stuff, but anything even remotely unsual: I last tried Lycoris as a distro, and binned it because... Dual monitor support. I mean... come on - windows has had excellent dual monitor support for six years now.. and those of us who use dual monitors on XP are never going to be happy staring at one screen with the other one blank. In XP, this works so trivially across multiple cards, monitors, whatever... in any *nix I have tried, it's out with the chicken blood and candles.

2) The availability of software - specifically games. I use my PC for work, but also for fun: I play City of Heroes, Half Life 2, Unreal Tournament. it's getting there, but HL2 runs slow enough native - through cedega.. *shudder* (although, in fairness, the new build looks kinda interesting...)

3) the general usability of apps - inconsistent behaviour of the gui across apps for example, where the right click copy/paste context options work in some apps but not in others.

That being said - I don't think the biggest obstacles are the technical ones - it's the zealotry and attitude of many of the Linux community.

I had a read through this thread, and in response to perfectly valid problems, we have users being called lazy and stupid, we are told that PC gamers should "just go buy consoles", and on and on it goes.

Microsoft bashing is the easy solution... linux doesn't succeed because of the evil empire. It's also a really easy way to avoid the truth - Linux just isn't good enough yet. Look at firefox - it's not gaining share because of corporate support or a big marketing budget!! it's gaining share because it is *BETTER* than Internet Explorer.

Ubuntu is a massive leap forward in user experience.. I'm thrilled to use Evolution in particular, as it seems that the OSS community finally "gets" how important a part Outlook/Exchange plays in Microsoft's technical stranglehold.

it's a matter of time, imo. as linux improves, it will rival windows. it's already better in some respects, but overall... still needs some catching up.

Ian.

[ckempo]

At the moment (for me) Ubuntu is only that - a rival. I am forced to dual boot with XP as some things I need (a GOOD wyse60 emulator, and my wireless card to work!!!) are unavailable in Ubuntu.

Once these are resolved, it'll be rival nomore, I'm planning on switching completely.

[Brunellus]

Joe Bloggs never had to install Windows on his own, either. It came with his computer, thus it is easy. Ubuntu or Suse or pretty much any linux distribution is actually easier to install than Windows; but so few users actually install their own operating systems that this is really a fairly moot point.

[kakashi]

Joe Bloggs never had to install Windows on his own, either. It came with his computer, thus it is easy. Ubuntu or Suse or pretty much any linux distribution is actually easier to install than Windows; but so few users actually install their own operating systems that this is really a fairly moot point.
yes installing windows is harder but is installing prgrams, games is much easier.
in windows double click on icon press enter a few times program installes. only firefox offers that in linux.

[prizrak]

I think we everyone in this thread should read the link in Brunellus's signature the one entitled "Linux isn't Windows" (In case he changes the signature here is the link http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm) It has a lot of points on whether one would be a rival for the other and if not then why not.

[art]

Joe Bloggs never had to install Windows on his own, either. It came with his computer, thus it is easy. Ubuntu or Suse or pretty much any linux distribution is actually easier to install than Windows; but so few users actually install their own operating systems that this is really a fairly moot point.

Linux is easier to install?! I hear this the first time in my life...

[aysiu]

Linux is easier to install?! I hear this the first time in my life... Then you've probably never installed Windows from scratch before. It's not pretty.

[23meg]

Linux is easier to install?! I hear this the first time in my life...
You'll hear it many times more if you hang around here.

For everyone doing the "it's easier in Windows, you just double click a file and hit enter" talk: why don't you take into account the things that you do until that double clicking is possible, such as searching for the program's installer on the web, downloading it, extracting an archive (sometimes)? Does everything you'll ever need come double-clickable on your Windows desktop? In total, is it really more difficult than searching for a certain app in Synaptic, marking it for installation and hitting "Apply", which is the procedure Joe Bloggs will need for 99% of what he needs?

[aysiu]

That was the point I made in the second link in my sig.
There is a difference between installing software in an operating system and installing the operating system itself.
In both cases, Linux is usually easier. It all depends, of course.

[Malphas]

I think we everyone in this thread should read the link in Brunellus's signature the one entitled "Linux isn't Windows" (In case he changes the signature here is the link http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm) It has a lot of points on whether one would be a rival for the other and if not then why not.
I've read it already and I disagree with most of it.

[psyguy92]

Then you've probably never installed Windows from scratch before. It's not pretty.

Agreed! I pity the fool who tries to install Windows and doesn't have the driver disc for the motherboard! (Speaking from experience).

[BobSongs]

I guess it just depends on the user's level of profiency. I've installed Windows since version 3.0. I haven't really run across anything I would consider "difficult" in 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, Me, 2000, or XP. Just tedious, like setting up motherboards, video cards, etc.

Neither did I consider the Ubuntu installation "difficult". But then again I don't mind being asked for the PC's IP address. But I don't know if "grandma" would stop at that question and call her techie grandson for an answer.


In your opinion is Ubuntu a serious rival for OSX and the upcoming Windows Vista?

Ubuntu is fine for people of several catagories:

Lesser Geeks. These are folks like me who use Windows, who can repair Windows but feel the need for a bit of a challenge, or for something new, or are fed up with the direction proprietary software is heading. Ubuntu (Breezy Badger) is, to date, the best copy of Linux I've installed on my PC. This forum has been an immense help. I've gotten things installed, tweaked, etc.
Possible New Users.

PCs, for many users, are just an appliance... like a fridge or stove. They want it to get things done the way their ovens cook food and their refrigerators keep things cold.

I repair PCs. And I realise how little people understand their machines. When they're asked what Operating System they're using, they give you a blank stare. Refining the question further to what version of Windows they're using they respond with "Microsoft Word".

"WordBucket" users. Windows for them is the bucket that holds MS Word. Their original system is still installed; it's fragmented, infected, buggy, not backed up, and so forth. When asked if they'd like to try Linux they ask if it's compatible with Word. They're the types that will expect you to upgrade their cracked XP with Windows Vista and think the upgrade will fix everything. They did the same when they used Millennium and upgraded to XP.

They're used to the nice panels that come with their multi-function printers. They ask if their OCR program (which runs in Windows) will also run in Linux. I then answer that I'm not even sure I'll be able to get their printers working (like my Brother MFC 210c--sure, the printer may work, but I'm losing all the functionality that comes with the bundled Windows software.)

They point to stacks of CDs that have kids stuff on them: Pyjama Sam, Freddi Fish, language tutorials, Disney games, and so forth. "Will these will be compatible with Linux?" My body shudders when the voices of hardened Linux zealots yell in my mind: "Tell them to use Wine!!" These users are still tentative about clicking "Next" through the most basic Windows setup "wizards". Wine? Nuh uhh.

Linux doesn't make the PC a nice, comfortable appliance where a setup CD and a few clicks of "Next" makes DVD movies suddenly play. It may be Linux's future. Who knows. Apt-get is fun if you know exactly what you need; and Synaptic is cool if you don't mind wading through the weirdest software names. But Windows has eliminated the need for the command line. Standard low-tech users fear it or haven't even seen it (if they started using a PC around 1996 and on). For them it's a step backwards.

For me? Well, without a doubt it reminds me of when I worked in DOS with Windows 3.1. Oh, I'm not comparing the power of the Linux command line with DOS (I don't want to troll here). The "feeling" is comparable. And there's no end to the discoveries. But for the average home user where I show up to clean out yet another batch of malware and trojan horses... they're too tied to their old O/S and their old ways to consider such a leap.

I would say most new PC owners just use the basics: Email, photo sorting, music downloads :-\", instant messaging, and browsing ebay. But it's not long before they get tied to their newer software. And they don't want to lose this stuff. If they do switch... meh, it'll likely be to Vista.

[kakashi]

a lot of programs are not in synaptic. and even that is named so stupidly (no offence to the creatoe, mainter supporter of synaptic its name is just not intuitive otherwise its the main reason i still use linux (debian based) and not feodra or gentoo. in short i love it. ) that its impossible for a new user to tell what it does. i think if ubuntu truly wants to become the most userfreindly they should include compleltly noob guides for eg.
1.i aguide on the most common commands like cp mv cd.
2. a guide on how to use command line with tips like pressing tab to acces a list of commands.
3. ubuntuguide.org guide placed on desktop or set to run at startup unti disable.
3. a short list of what programs do what.

[ElfLord]

I have to take the stance of Linux will never become a competitor of Windows and OSX in general. It takes a different breed of people to use Linux; we like to tinker, to understand more than the normal computer user. It comes back to the Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance argument. Do you pay to have your bike fixed by a mechanic who get's paid and really doesn't care about your machine? Or do you learn about it, and do the repairs yourself knowing that you will care about your computer more than someone else’s.

[kakashi]

has anyone considered how powerfull a computer will be needed to run vista.
i doubt an older computer like mine will run it. so to me ubuntu has already won.

[Malphas]

It takes a different breed of people to use Linux; we like to tinker, to understand more than the normal computer user.
Thankfully, this is becoming less and less true.

[23meg]

a lot of programs are not in synaptic. and even that is named so stupidly (no offence to the creatoe, mainter supporter of synaptic its name is just not intuitive otherwise its the main reason i still use linux (debian based) and not feodra or gentoo. in short i love it. ) that its impossible for a new user to tell what it does. i think if ubuntu truly wants to become the most userfreindly they should include compleltly noob guides for eg.
1.i aguide on the most common commands like cp mv cd.
2. a guide on how to use command line with tips like pressing tab to acces a list of commands.
3. ubuntuguide.org guide placed on desktop or set to run at startup unti disable.
3. a short list of what programs do what.
Everything Joe Average will most likely need IS in the repositories, thus can be installed via Synaptic. And if you do a "Description and Name" search in Synaptic (which has been made default in Breezy) you don't have to know exact package names.

All the guides you demand can be found on the forums/wiki and the Ubuntu Starter Guide is now accessible via the Ubuntu help system by clicking System / About Ubuntu.

[poofyhairguy]

2. a guide on how to use command line with tips like pressing tab to acces a list of commands.

Neat



3. ubuntuguide.org guide placed on desktop or set to run at startup unti disable.


Actually, that help lifesaver thing on the top Gnome Panel by default has a guide in it.

[Brunellus]

And they don't want to lose this stuff. If they do switch... meh, it'll likely be to Vista.

Except that they won't, because their hardware would melt if you tried to run Vista on it. And that thing about needing hardware DRM on their monitors, too.

I've moved my mother from Windows to Ubuntu; she enjoys it. All she uses the computer for is e-mail, a bit of websurfing, and occasionally to type stuff in Abiword. No sweat.

My father hasn't made the full switch, as he needs access to several windows-only applications for work. He has however switched to openoffice without much fuss or excitement. He complains a bit about some formatting glitches, but it isn't enough to make him want to jump ship completely.

My youngest brother, ten years old, uses Ubuntu without much of a problem at all. Heck, when he deleted his gnome-panel by accident, he went ahead and made himself another one exactly how he wanted it--with no instruction from me.

My mother and brother were easy to switch, since they don't really have any proprietary windows software. My brother does all his games on consoles, so the lack of games on linux doesn't bug him in the slightest.

My mother was particularly pleased, becasue she got herself a computer for nearly no cost. For her, frugality has outweighed most other considerations.

[deNoobius]

As long as the Linux community keeps referring to GUIs as "eye candy," with all the disdain that implies, no flavor of Linux will ever compete with OSX or Windows. These are mature OSs, also written by people with a lot of computer knowledge, who made ease of use their goal. It's fine, of course, if Linux remains an "expert" operating system for the cognoscenti, but that is definitely where it tends. I can understand the attraction of it, but it's not going to be for the masses.

One has to realize that people like GU interfaces for a reason. For most people, vision is responsible for a huge majority of our understanding of the world--I think I've read about 70%. It is the visual element on the screen to which most people relate. There are many aspects of Ubuntu that could appeal to more people if they were visually oriented. While the development of desktops and the integration of Ubuntu have made progress in that area, just spend an hour with OSX and you will realize it still has a long way to go. Personally, I would like to see it packaged with a file finder such as Spotlight (but with a Linux flair, or course) and a more compelling metaphor for a program launcher than the current imitation of Windows. I'm sure others have other and even more advanced ideas--I'm a newbie, after all.

In addition, both Windows and OSX now integrate assistive elements for the visually impaired, including voice. I'm not sure where Ubuntu is on that aspect, but it has to be considered if Ubuntu is to become a more universal operating system.

[Brunellus]

there is a difference between functional graphical user interaction and "eye candy." Workplace switching is functional graphical user interaction. whizzbang effects are not functional.

The linux community wants more horsepower and less chrome and tailfins.

[Stormy Eyes]

The linux community wants more horsepower and less chrome and tailfins.

I won't speak for anybody else, but if I wanted chrome and tailfins I'd get a Mac.

[deNoobius]

there is a difference between functional graphical user interaction and "eye candy." Workplace switching is functional graphical user interaction. whizzbang effects are not functional.

The linux community wants more horsepower and less chrome and tailfins.

I don't think the items I mentioned are "chrome and tailfins." They are how people relate to their computers. If the Linux community wants to compete with Windows and OSX, that's where it has to go. If it doesn't want to go there, it will continue to do what it's doing: produce a fine (in many ways), potentially finer, and continually improving operating system, but one for a relative minority of users. Which is fine--it's a club I'd be happy to be part of. But it's a club.

[qalimas]

I don't think that a good GUI is what will drive Linux into the desktop market. Espcially in terms of the 'special effects'. If people were after that, everyone would own a Mac. I don't want special effects, they'd be nice, but not worth money, and not worth instability of Windows. GNOME provides a very nice, fully functional interface that everyone can use. That's what a business wants, so when more business places adopt Linux, more homes will, because people will want computers to be similar :D

Whether it gets desktop shares or not, it doesn't bother me, I'd honestly rather not everyone use it, then the community will be full of, sorry to be blunt, idiots. As we are now, all distros have a healthy community, only in it to be here, not to pester about how to illegally download music because they couldn't find Limewire in their menu :razz:

Ok, I'll stop ranting now:KS

[deNoobius]

Whether it gets desktop shares or not, it doesn't bother me, I'd honestly rather not everyone use it, then the community will be full of, sorry to be blunt, idiots. As we are now, all distros have a healthy community, only in it to be here, not to pester about how to illegally download music because they couldn't find Limewire in their menu :razz:


And that's a perfectly defensible viewpoint, much like the Apple faithful used to be before the iPod made more people aware of the Apple approach. There's nothing wrong with a club based on knowledge and ability, in fact, it is cool in many ways. But the opening question is whether Linux will compete with the mass-market OSs, and I think that paragraph contains the answer.

To clarify my views on what a nice GUI would be, I don't mean a lot special effects. I could care less about bouncing icons and all that. What I mean is, each tool that a user is likely to use should have a graphic interface. The terminal will be there for the cognoscenti, but it won't be necessary to learn it. I think if Ubuntu can get there it will have a lot more mass acceptance.

Oh, and I do REALLY like the different workspaces--being able to have my "clutter" (browser and email) on one, and the GIMP or Writer on another---definitely one reason to go Linux.

[poofyhairguy]

These are mature OSs, also written by people with a lot of computer knowledge, who made ease of use their goal.

AKA: They were designed from the ground up to be GUI based. Which is an easier thing to do when you have the development budgets of each of those two companies combined with their armies of artists. I think when it comes to GUIs, its a resource problem not an attitude problem.

[Brunellus]

AKA: They were designed from the ground up to be GUI based. Which is an easier thing to do when you have the development budgets of each of those two companies combined with their armies of artists. I think when it comes to GUIs, its a resource problem not an attitude problem.
OK, poofy, I'll run with this.

Say a large corporation--Novell, let's say, just because they were the first to come to mind--actually decides to go this way. It forks KDE or GNOME, designs a GUI-based, linux-kerneled, OS.

What do you think the odds are of that happening?

[kline]

Ubuntu must straighten out some things, for example, getting Helix realplayer and mplayer-plugin to work seamlessly. Make over-the-net upgrades be as pushbutton as possible, and support the more popular desktops and other projects when possible. But over the next few years I see the Ubuntu growing by leaps, boundlessly. OSX is already UNIX under the covers: Free and NetBSD. If whatever Windows has lined up doesn't ape Apple's move, Microsoft is going to keep on slowing.

I'll stick with FBSD on my DNS server because I've used it for 10+ years; otherwise, as I add and replace my servers, Ubuntu is a safe bet.

gary kline

[prizrak]

AKA: They were designed from the ground up to be GUI based. Which is an easier thing to do when you have the development budgets of each of those two companies combined with their armies of artists. I think when it comes to GUIs, its a resource problem not an attitude problem.
You are wrong about one thing OS X was not designed from the ground up to be GUI based. It is actually based on BSD which means that Aqua is very much akin to Gnome. Artists and development bugdet is definetly an issue, however a simple GUI is not hard to make for just about anything that is frequently used. My one gripe with Ubuntu is the lack of a good power management interface.
Someone mentioned upgrading to Vista and how it's very hardware intensive so that many people will switch to Linux. Joe Bloggs isn't going to upgrade his OS ever, he will keep running w/e came with the machine. He will buy another one when the old one gets too old and it will come with Vista.
As someone mentioned before Ubuntu has to come preinstalled on a computer so that people will be "stuck" with it ;)

[23meg]

Ubuntu or another free / open source OS coming preinstalled on computers will shake Joe Bloggs' settled notion that Windows is the only operating system in the world. And that can lead to a change of mindsets which may in turn lead to mass adoption of Linux / BSD. Right now I feel this is the only area worth competing against Windows on a mass scale: get the OS into as many machines out of the factory as possible. This may indeed turn out to be the hardest area to compete in, since MS will not hesitate to employ their monopoly power and their dirty tricks immediately in any head-to-head situation.

[dubz]

Ubuntu is getting there. You would be amazed at the speed of development. i get 100+ messages a day in my inbox filled with fixes,ideas etc for ubuntu.its amazing.
6 months and they'll have something that rivals vista and Mac.

[LuxoDave]

Ubuntu is getting there. You would be amazed at the speed of development. i get 100+ messages a day in my inbox filled with fixes,ideas etc for ubuntu.its amazing.
6 months and they'll have something that rivals vista and Mac.

I hope you are right. I also think I want to change my screen name to Joe Bloggs after reading this thread.

[poofyhairguy]

You are wrong about one thing OS X was not designed from the ground up to be GUI based. It is actually based on BSD which means that Aqua is very much akin to Gnome.

Not at all. OSX != BSD. OSX has PARTS that are from BSD but it has some Mach and some new stuff in there too. Plus Aqua is NOT like Gnome, its like Gnome + Xorg (XGL) + Cairo + GTK all rolled into one package.

Read about the development of OSX. From the beginning it was designed to be a GUI OS. Early on decisions where made to create the operating system so that it would appear to have a more responsive GUI (aka no xdamage issues like Xorg has). OSX was always meant to be a GUI OS- parts of its kernel are tuned to suit a GUI over suiting.....say.....server tasks. Think what response you would get if you asked Linus to change this one thing about the Linux kernel to make it a better Desktop OS but the change would hurt server performance. You would be kicked off the mailing list before you finished your proposal. Thats because Linux was NOT built from the ground up to be a desktop OS. It has different goals.



Artists and development bugdet is definetly an issue, however a simple GUI is not hard to make for just about anything that is frequently used.

Maybe. But the problem is that SOOOO many little small GUIs are needed to have a complete desktop experiance that does not require ANY command line use. Each new Ubuntu release seems to have 3 or four new GUIs and we STILL have a long time before most tasks can be done with a GUI. Lots of small work adding up to big projects that need resources.



My one gripe with Ubuntu is the lack of a good power management interface.

I want a GUI Xorg.conf tool. Another person might want a GUI tool that configure the buttons on their mice. Another person wants a GUI tool that searches for wireless networks. Etc.

Making an Linux become a GUI only experiance is a LOT harder work than many people will admit.

[poofyhairguy]

OK, poofy, I'll run with this.

Say a large corporation--Novell, let's say, just because they were the first to come to mind--actually decides to go this way. It forks KDE or GNOME, designs a GUI-based, linux-kerneled, OS.

What do you think the odds are of that happening?

Thats kinda whats happening at Sun with their Looking Glass Desktop. They didn't fork KDE or Gnome, but that because they wanted to go beyond what both those DEs can do (plus they are trying to show off Java).

[art]

Then you've probably never installed Windows from scratch before. It's not pretty.
Well I actually have installed Windows from scratch many times, as well as many different Linux distros. But still I think the closest in ease, compared to Win, is RedHat/FC...

[UncleRage]

Interesting no one has yet blatantly mentioned relevant costs. I deal daily with students who can't afford the computers they need for their (teacher education) classes. By can't afford I mean 1. They can't afford Mac hardware 2. They can't afford another PC or repair costs to replace the one they bought 6 months ago but has ground to a halt cause its so loaded up with malware. They guys always perk up when I talk openoffice and an install disc of ubuntu. If they could buy that $399 PC with ubuntu installed, all the better, right?

Do you know how "Buy this computer and you won't have to worry about spyware and viruses anymore" sounds to your non-tech person? Even Apple execs admit that this brings as many people over to macs as does the accursed (!) ipods. I know its BS, but right now its true that you're not likely to get your machine hosed if youre using a *nix.


Agreed.

I sell the crap out of refurb Compaq Deskpro En's (SFF units). 1 GHz P3 w/ 512 Mb ram, 40 GB hd and a combo CD-RW/DVD Rom. Nothing special about the hardware. But what defines worth for the customer comes down to two things:

1. Cost (At $249 (the 20 GB/CD-Rom version) to $299 (for the forementioned version), that's a given.)

2. Quality to Price Ratio. No viruses, no spyware, no adware, loaded with useful software, ease of app installation and a comparable (to WinXP) update manager put a smile on customer faces.

Next week I'll be rolling out refurb IBM Netvista's (1.8 GHz P4's w/ similar add-ons for $349) and expect to see even happier customers. Biggest reason... Ubuntu makes selling low cost PC's very easy: a very simple installer CD that handles not only the OS install, but also most software needs as well.

In my eyes, Ubuntu (linux, in general) provides value, security and, more importantly, makes computers fun... like they used to be.

Going back to number 1 (cost) and going back to the thread topic (Ubuntu vs. Vista, or OS X) I'll say this:

The hardware requirements for Vista are going to turn people off -- and Microsoft has shot themselves in the foot (to a degree) w/ the Xbox 360. As far as I'm concerned, PC gaming (for the average, middle class American family) is over. The cost to maintain a modern rig is simply not justified when measured against the actual PC needs of the parents (or 'wallets' as my LAN gaming customers call them). And when you examine the potential of the next gen consoles... which should carry a shelf life of at least 4 years, it's a simple decision: Mid range hardware w/ a solid OS. That solid OS for me is Linux (and at this point the distro of choice for end users is Ubuntu). I'm anxious to play w/ OSXx86, but I don't see it as a real threat. IMHO, Linux is the natural evolution for desktop PC's.

That being said, as soon a good mod solution comes out for the 360, I'll be sliding one into each of my 8 LAN stations. No more upgrades... Won't my accountant be happy! :p

[carlosqueso]

One thing that bothered me:
No one here has addressed the average person's distrust of anything free, especially if they've been burned by adware. There is a strong worry that the program will install stuff without the users permission. Also, I've encountered a lot of the "you get what you pay for" resistance when I attempt to get people to turn to OpenOffice.org over their pirated versions of MS office or pre-installed MS works. People that actually pay attention to their OS are going to be very mistrustful of an entire OS that is free.

[Emerzen]

I break up computer user's into three categories:

1) Gamer's -- don't think Ubuntu can compete here but I'm not a gamer so I'll defer to their more informed opinion.

2) Multimedia mavens -- this is difficult...DRM free and customizability definately go to Ubuntu. Though ease and breadth of use go to Windows/Mac. I know I've not been able to do everything I need to do in this category w/ Ubuntu only.

3) Business/Academic -- this could/and should go to Ubuntu as their is considerable advantage and little disadvantage in this category.

4) Developer's -- I'm a novice here but it seems that Ubuntu is clearly head-and shoulders preferable to Windows/Mac in this category...free tools and customizability, modular platform and stable...etc... Distro differences are a drawback though.

[aysiu]

No one here has addressed the average person's distrust of anything free, especially if they've been burned by adware. There is a strong worry that the program will install stuff without the users permission. Also, I've encountered a lot of the "you get what you pay for" resistance when I attempt to get people to turn to OpenOffice.org over their pirated versions of MS office or pre-installed MS works. People that actually pay attention to their OS are going to be very mistrustful of an entire OS that is free. I wish there were more Windows users like that, actually. I know plenty of people who get burned by adware/spyware and just don't care. They keep downloading "free" stuff and infecting their computers all over again. They have no discernment whatsoever.

When you're talking about "the average person's distrust of anything free," you may be talking about the average Windows power user--a more likely person to even give Linux a shot than the real average user.

[UncleRage]

One thing that bothered me:
No one here has addressed the average person's distrust of anything free,

Well, we can fix that one real quick:

1. Mention Ubuntu, when they ask what it is... inform them (Consultation, 1 hr minimum * $85/hr).

2. When they decide that they might like to try it... install it for them (2 hr. bench job @ $45/hr - plus data backup and restore at flat fee of $50).

3. When they ask about support... offer them a low level one year support package ($100 for Mon - Fri business hour only phone call w/ 72 hour call back response time -- install-only error support).

Total it up and their Ubuntu install costs as much as a fresh copy of XP Pro.

Problem solved.

:grin:

[edit
Why'm I always showing 1 post?!?

Curious... but I think I might like it.
/edit]

[kennethb]

Eye candy, as in M$ Windows' catching eye-candy graphics is "just that" -- "eye candy". The Linux OS is stable and, most important, simple. That is why I have moved from Window$ to Mac O$X to Linux (the Ubuntu Disto)!

[Ubnuut]

It's all about advertising! Why is Coca Cola dominating the softdrink market?

Microsoft had spent more than half of its development budget for Windows XP on advertising when they first released it! It will be the same for Vista. More M$ dollars will go into advertising Vista than will go into developing Visa.

If we had the same multimillion $ advertising budget for Ubuntu, it will definately be a very serious contender!

[uberlinux]

Why is Coca Cola dominating the softdrink market?

Could it be the help from south american death squads keeping labor reliable in the south american plants?

[bored2k]

For use of the masses, I don't think it can rival OS X.

[BobSongs]

Post from Ubnuut:

It's all about advertising! Why is Coca Cola dominating the softdrink market?

Microsoft had spent more than half of its development budget for Windows XP on advertising when they first released it! It will be the same for Vista. More M$ dollars will go into advertising Vista than will go into developing Visa.

When Coca Cola advertises, their main focus isn't to try to sell a bottle of Coke. It's all about branding. This is geared to maintaining the customer base.

Same with MSFT. It's all about making people feel secure about what they've purchased and whatever MSFT will sell in future.

MSFT doesn't need to be splashy, wild or fun in their advertising now. What's important is branding. This explains TV commercials or magazine ads that don't seem to force the product but rather present something entertaining or humorus (speaking more than just MSFT now--can include Coke, McDonalds, etc.). The idea is: sell through making people feel good.

MSFT doesn't want its customers thinking about what's being purchased. Security holes, patches, more security holes; the advertising helps customers feel they've made the right choice. It has a greater hold on people than we imagine. This is partly why it's difficult to encourage folks to switch.

(Somewhat off topic: I loaded Edubuntu on a friend's PC. It's up, running and the word is they're pleased as punch. They find their PC is more robust that it was with W98SE. I installed Automatix and tweaked it, so they're happy with it.)

[carlosqueso]

Well, we can fix that one real quick:

1. Mention Ubuntu, when they ask what it is... inform them (Consultation, 1 hr minimum * $85/hr).

2. When they decide that they might like to try it... install it for them (2 hr. bench job @ $45/hr - plus data backup and restore at flat fee of $50).

3. When they ask about support... offer them a low level one year support package ($100 for Mon - Fri business hour only phone call w/ 72 hour call back response time -- install-only error support).

Total it up and their Ubuntu install costs as much as a fresh copy of XP Pro.

Problem solved.


Hmmm....that sounds like a plan.....spreading Ubuntu and buying new computer hardware for me! :D

[towsonu2003]

to me, no... it still needs serious development to compete with them. especially this: you have to have networking working in order to install new drivers for your networking to work :)

[Littleweseth]

[Disclaimer : not a long-term Ubuntu user yet. Am a long time OSX/XP user. I'm talking about Hoary, because my Breezy CD's are still en route.]

My opinion? Well, as far as I'm concerned, Ubuntu works pretty well out of the box, with a few exceptions. The example that bugs me most is mp3 playback, or the by-default absence of it. You and me might know that mp3 codecs can't be legally shipped with ubuntu, since Canonical doesn't pay $money to whoever it is (Thomson?). We have, or can find, the know-how to deal with this ourselves. However, since we're talking about rivalry with Windows - and thus competing with Jim and Jane Bloggs - this doesn't really work out well. The same could be said of anything that MS/Apple can do that Ubuntu can't due to its F/OSS nature.

Regarding graphics : Ubuntu's default theme looks at least as good as XP does today, probably better, though I might just be overexposed to Luna [personally? I run classic window skinning with a few colour adjstments]. It's also as pretty as Panther. However, nothing can compete with Aero right now, even though it's going to be the Resource Hog from Hell. Seeing as most people I know (non-nerd teenagers) tend to go for the 'ooh, puurdy' factor and don't give a fig about too much else...

Regarding Ubuntu's functionality, though, i think Vista is just catching up to Linux and OSX in general (did anyone see that 'Redmond, Start Your Photocopiers!' poster for Tiger?). Seriously, Nautilus even does thumbnails for fonts, and the Finder way of navigating using that 'three pane' concept is really great. Monad? Allow someone to introduce Microsoft to bash (no pun intended, I swear!). Bash (or any shell actually) has about twenty years of development and use behind it... i think MS has only been in existence for that long. Ubuntu wins here.

To summarise my long, rambling and incoherent post, Ubuntu (because of its free nature) has a few troubles being awesome right out of the box. OSX and Vista have no such problems. Visual appeal? Ubuntu is good, but not as good as Aero will be, even if GNOME is (relatively) spendthrift with resources in comparison. Ubuntu, however, wins out in terms of functionality (for me, at least, YMMV). It's a contender, sure, but since most peeps aren't really concerned with stability, functionality, or any of 'that geek stuff'... mental block, can't think of a dramatic conclusion.


If I had a quarter for each time I typed "sudo apt-get" in a terminal in OSX and then thought "oh crap." :)

If I had a quarter for every time i typed "sudo fink" into an Ubuntu terminal.... i'd have fifty cents :D

[sidenote : why American currency? As an Aussie, i'd like to see "If i had a twenty-cent piece for every time $something, then I'd be $something." On the other hand.... never mind.]

[william_nbg]

A hard question to answer!

I like Ubuntu much better than I ever liked Windows, but what the masses do is very hard to answer. I've personally intalled Ubuntu on 5 or 6 computers from friends and customers. Mostly beginners/ not heavy computer users. They have all been very happy with their switch. Word-of-mouth can be a very strong advertising, but money can buy the best spin doctors out there - they got Bush elected a second term, didn't they?

For all my computing needs Ubuntu is far better than windows - but for the masses - let's see??

[mstlyevil]

This is the second time posting in this thread. IMHO most computer users first impressions are what drive them to make a decision on an OS. The Mac Tiger and Windows Vista are very visualy appealing compared to Ubuntu. The slick eye candy is what will convince many novice computer users that Vista and Tiger are better. One example I can give you is when the Chrysler PT Cruiser came out. It is built on a Neon chassis and anybody that has driven a Neon will know what a POS it is. Yet the car was in such demand because of its sleek new/retro looks that it was selling for up to twice the sticker price in certain markets. It was nothing more that a cheap Neon but people assumed it was a better car because it looked slicker. That is how most people will judge their OS. If it looks slicker it must be better on the inside is the way many people think. I know this is not true for everyone but it is true for a large percentage of people.

[OneSeventeen]

As a small business owner, former tech support specialist, and current analyst/programmer, I would have to say: "it depends."

Have you met the people that look borderline repulsed when you offer to let them borrow a non-iPOD mp3 player? The ones that think iRiver (that plays tons more file formats than iPOD, including ogg) is a cheap iPOD ripoff?

I think those people will only be happy with the operating system they are currently using.

I also think the people that list "Microsoft Office" as a requirement from computing will stay away from any linux distro, including ubuntu.

Now I do feel that all of the users who say, "I need spreadsheet, word-processing, email, web browsing, reporting, and networked drives" as their requirement would be just as happy with Ubuntu as they are with Windows. Those are the users that say, "I need to nail a nail, do you have a hammer?" Instead of, "I need to nail a nail, do you have Stanley 20 oz Model 51-944?". Meaning, the people who view a function as a brand-name probably won't switch unless there is a brand name of equal marketing power.

As Ubuntu gets more popular in the non-geek world hopefully this will change.

For me, the updates to not only security patches but also all of my software, plus the reliability, ease of use, and ease of adding/removing applications makes it the smart choice. If I were a millionare, I'd definitely be pulling out an ad for ubuntu during the superbowl, I think it would make a huge difference since we seem to be a marketing driven society.

[kaaredyret]

Yes, but not for the brain-impaired masses! The majority will continue to use M$. Computer vendors will need to install linux and sell machines with Linux pre-installed before the poor-masses will even consider linux.

"Outside large enterprises, though, desktop Linux might not be as welcome. According to a Gartner report, in emerging markets like China, Russia and Latin America many locally assembled PCs Smart Buys from CDW. The Technology You Need When You Need It. are sold without an operating system or with Linux. On 90 to 95 percent of those PCs, Gartner estimated, a pirated copy of Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) Latest News about Microsoft Windows is installed on the units within a matter of days.

That's one reason why -- while Gartner is predicting desktop Linux will be in 7.5 percent of the computers shipped in 2008 -- only 3.5 percent of those boxes will end up operating under the OS."

Source: Macnewsworld.com (http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/35688.html)

[DigitalDuality]

Linux (not Ubuntu, but Linux) only makes up about 2% of the market.

Apple has maybe 10%

Windows composes the rest.

My answer is no. No matter how good it may be.

[BSDFreak]

I don't believe they are neccessarily aiming for the same market share.

For those who like Linux better, it's still going to be on their boxes, for those who like any other system better, it's what they will be running.

Personally i don't care.

[BSDFreak]

Linux (not Ubuntu, but Linux) only makes up about 2% of the market.

Apple has maybe 10%

Windows composes the rest.

My answer is no. No matter how good it may be.

YOU FORGOT POLAN.... I MEAN BSD!

And Solaris, AIX and the horde of other OSS out there. ;)

[nocturn]

On Eyecandy, Ubuntu looses out, but kubuntu can already offer more eyecandy then Vista can, but *today*

Functionally, there is nothing Ubuntu cannot do that Vista can. For 90% of the users, there are alternative programs for all their windows software.

Our biggest problem is marketing. I recently presented Linux (Ubuntu) at our LETS group (Local trading, non monetary). There was a lot of interest, but it was the first time anyone heard of Linux. I got such questions as "is it possible to remove windows from my computer?", or "So I need to buy a new computer with Linux on it."

[kaaredyret]

On Eyecandy, Ubuntu looses out, but kubuntu can already offer more eyecandy then Vista can, but *today*

Functionally, there is nothing Ubuntu cannot do that Vista can. For 90% of the users, there are alternative programs for all their windows software.

What are your sources? Where did you get "90%" from?

[abandoned_hussam]

Here's what I think. There are 5 kinds of computer users:
1. People who run windows for games. We all grow put of games eventually. Such people should have no problems switching to linux.
IMO, games are for kids and keeping a windows installation just for games is not an excuse for not switching to Linux.
2. People who use computers just for writing documents, reading mail, browsing the net, watching DVDs or listing to music. Such people should find linux better than windows. IMO, linux is better than windows for viewing media.
3. People who use computers for graphic design. There are a lot of graphics programs for Linux so such people may move to linux depending on whether they like linux or not.
4. People who work with serious engineering applications like me (structural, environmental, hydraulics, etc...). Since there WILL never be applications like this for linux, anybody like that will ever switch completely to linux.
5. People who have never heard of linux. There are a lot of places where people have never even heard of the word linux or unix. No offence to anyone but most windows users are dumb. I know a lot of windows xp users who don't even know what version of windows or office they are running. They buy PCs that come bundled with the wrong choice of applications. For example, instead of using a good and light anti-virus program, they uses stuff like Norton that render a PIV slower than a 486.
They aren't comfortable with installing and removing software. They don't know the concept of of newer software versions.

[greenway]

Didn't read the entire thread just yet, but I am just wondering (for those who voted yes)... How can two OS be rivals if there not aiming at the same end-users/market segment?

[Deaf_Head]

not until EVERY SINGLE hardware installation is automatic and it offers the generic features my mom is looking for.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Didn't read the entire thread just yet, but I am just wondering (for those who voted yes)... How can two OS be rivals if there not aiming at the same end-users/market segment?

They aren't aiming at the same users? Is OSX only for current mac users? Is windows only current windows users? Is Ubuntu a choice only for those who ran linux?

Ubuntu can run on x86, amd64, ppc.
Windows can run on x86 and amd64 (eventually with 64-bit code... not following anymore... so I'm not sure if win64 is out or when it will be released)
OSX can run on PPC and DRM'd x86 (not sure about 64-bit support, I'm sure it will come soon)

I see an overlap... Ubuntu can run desktop or server machines... I have a feeling these other OS's can do the same...

In terms of rivalry, I see nothing wrong with implementing features that make things "better". That's why I'm glad we have things like gnome, kde, and xfce... Some people seem to think it would be better to have just one, which I disagree (read miracle man month)...

In terms of competition, to paraphrase Linus, it's goal is not to destroy MS, it is just a consequence...

EDIT: Also, it's worth mentioning that one can run windows & linux together, osx and linux together, and perhaps soon, all 3 together...

[Vlammetje]

Didn't read the entire thread just yet, but I am just wondering (for those who voted yes)... How can two OS be rivals if there not aiming at the same end-users/market segment?

I do not really believe computer end users are necessarily heavily segmented in the first place. Sure, certain professions come with certain computing needs, but for the home user I do not think there is a heavy difference in computing needs, there may be in knowledge or computing skills though on a per case basis.

So if the market is 'Average Joe' wanting a home PC for email, internet, DVD en CD playback and burning and whatever else..... how would we segment this group? I can see gamers and non-gamers..... but that's about it imho?

[ardchoille]

In my opinion, Ubuntu is much better than the other two. In fact, the worst of Ubuntu (if there is such a thing) will always be better than the best of the other two.. that is until Windows is completely re-written from scratch, with full open source and security in mind, and Apple OS's are open source and free to download/install.

[BSDFreak]

Here's what I think. There are 5 kinds of computer users:
1. People who run windows for games. We all grow put of games eventually. Such people should have no problems switching to linux.
IMO, games are for kids and keeping a windows installation just for games is not an excuse for not switching to Linux.

That's silly, "not an excuse"? Does anyone NEED an excuse not to run Linux?

Let those who want to run Windows run Windows, if they really like Windows and have no real desire to learn Linux then they are going to complain about what every other ex windows Linux newbie complains about "it's not like Windows".

[greenway]

They aren't aiming at the same users? Is OSX only for current mac users? Is windows only current windows users? Is Ubuntu a choice only for those who ran linux?

Ubuntu can run on x86, amd64, ppc.
Windows can run on x86 and amd64 (eventually with 64-bit code... not following anymore... so I'm not sure if win64 is out or when it will be released)
OSX can run on PPC and DRM'd x86 (not sure about 64-bit support, I'm sure it will come soon)

I see an overlap... Ubuntu can run desktop or server machines... I have a feeling these other OS's can do the same...

In terms of rivalry, I see nothing wrong with implementing features that make things "better". That's why I'm glad we have things like gnome, kde, and xfce... Some people seem to think it would be better to have just one, which I disagree (read miracle man month)...

In terms of competition, to paraphrase Linus, it's goal is not to destroy MS, it is just a consequence...

EDIT: Also, it's worth mentioning that one can run windows & linux together, osx and linux together, and perhaps soon, all 3 together...

I never stated it being impossible for Windows users to switch to Ubuntu. However, Ubuntu is not aiming at migrating Windows users to Linux. The aim is to provide free, good software to people who are not in the able to use the propietary systems. Ubuntu is developing, doing amazing things but not for making it easier for Windows users to switch to Ubuntu but to build and develop a great OS.

In my opinion (based on my experience and those around) me, the average Windows user is not looking for a migrate to Linux and will probably not do so. But there are millions of (potential) end users out there who need a good OS but can't effort Windows or Mac OS X.

It's a common misassumption that Ubuntu (and other distro's for that matter) are out to take over the position as leading OS from windows. This might apply to some distro's but certainly not for all and certainly not for Ubuntu.

Linux is a great OS but as soon as developers will start to aim at (the average) Windows users, it will loose much of those aspects which makes it such a great OS in the first place...

[Solon]

Couple of things people forget, I haven't voted yet, I'm going to vote yes, but under conditions(I hate polls without them!). The yes answer actually depends on how hackable OSX will be on the x86 architecture. Actually, I feel that Apple is making the same tactical mistake they made with the restrictive Mac "Clones" of the mid 90s. If they could port OSX onto x86, already have, in fact you can download Darwin or OpenDarwin(OSX without Aqua, basically) for the x86 if you want. Then they can simply release it as an alternative to Windows, without DRM'd and restrictive hardware requirements and it would be bought up in droves. I could see Apple having about 30 to 40% of the PC market by year's end in that case. Since that is not the case, we know that soon enough, people will be hacking OSX to run on ANY x86 hardware, probably within months of release, if not weeks.

That is not the only factor, most people aren't going to hack OSX, it will be geeks(like me) who can see if they can do it.

One factor that seems to be missing is this, Ubuntu, and Linux in general will compete and are competing successfully, I might add, in specific and general markets where Windows will and does fail to deliver, mostly due to cost.

People seem to forget that similar to Linux and "Distributions" Windows does the same thing, and Windows Vista is rumored to come in 6 varieties itself(Excluding European Editions). So, accordingly, I'm going to show where the strengths and weaknesses lie by comparing the varied versions of Windows with Linux in general(pick best distro for market).
NOTE: I'm estimating on the price of Windows Vista Versions based, roughly on Windows XP counterparts where they exist.

Starter Edition: Similar to the failed Windows XP's counterpart, marketed for countries with emerging markets to limit Windows piracy. Severe limitations, max of 3 programs running at a time, no 64 bit support, etc. probably priced similarly to XP's version, around 30 USD. This is the weakest of the versions that MAY come out, also, I believe that Microsoft will get rid of the "Corporate Edition" loophole(no activation required) entirely in Windows Vista. This will make a severe dent in the availuability of burned CDs on streetcorners in many countries. Here is where Linux can really shine, especially Ubuntu, but also FC or other "Desktop-oriented" distros.

Home Basic Edition: Basically like the Home version of XP now, without "Media Center" applications like DVD authoring or HDTV support. This will most likely be marketed for budget PCs and people upgrading. Dapper Ubuntu should be able to compete with this edition easily enough, especially considering their are already decent open source programs out there for some of these features, especially in Kubuntu. It will probably be priced around 50-60 USD for upgrade, 100USD for full install.

Home Premium Edition: Basically Home with some bells and whistles included, most likely version to be included in pre-installed Dells, Gateways, etc. Hardest for Linux distros to compete with, but certainly possible, but only if Dell or whoever actually will pre-install it for marketing. 100 USD for Upgrade, 150 USD for full install.

NOTE: Differences in Home and Professional editions of Windows XP as far as Network capability(limit of five connections on Home), and lack of proper user managment I assume applies to Windows Vista as well.

Professional Edition: Same as Windows XP's Professional edition, with IIS(Apache competitor) included. Actually, this version is kinda like Linux with Apache set up, but with more holes in security, of course. Good place to compete, power users like this version, but may like Linux a LOT more. Especially for the price, this version is probably at least 150 USD for upgrade, most likely 200, and full install would be 250 at least.

Small Business Edition: Basically a Windows Edition with Anti-virus and MSoffice included. Another good place to compete, unlike Linux, this one will not have the tools to double as a server. Probably priced the same as Professional.

Enterprise Edition: Basically Professional with VirtualPC put into the mix, with multilingual support. Ubuntu already has these features, if you include Vmware or Bochs in repositories. Probably around 300USD or more for upgrades etc.

Ultimate Edition: Targeted for Media Professionals, Gamers and others, this includes the features of all of the above plus the kitchen sink. The "Best" version of Windows Vista, probably expensive as all hell to boot. High-End PC users only. This version I can see as being a "niche" version at best, simply because, while many gamers would LOVE to have the "Ultimate" edition for game tweaking, they may not see a need after already shelling out 500USD for the Xbox 360. Also, media professionals already either use Linux in render farms or OSX for professional media editing, I don't see a big market for this version. Will cost probably around 400-500 USD.

One last thing, these are rumored editions, may change at any moment and obviously the descriptions may not be accurate. However, given Microsoft's propensity for trying to sqeeze blood out of turnips, it should come as no surprise to people that MSFT's marketing department would think of something like this. Think of the fracturing that will go on here, and where Microsoft fractures itself, other alternatives have a chance of squeeking through.

So I would say that yes, even on the desktop, Linux, and Ubuntu in particular, can definately compete, within the various editions of course. One thing that really sticks out is that budget PCs and third world nations are going to be left out to dry when it comes to Windows OSes in the future, so this is one area where Ubuntu can make great strides in market penetration.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I never stated it being impossible for Windows users to switch to Ubuntu. However, Ubuntu is not aiming at migrating Windows users to Linux. The aim is to provide free, good software to people who are not in the able to use the propietary systems. Ubuntu is developing, doing amazing things but not for making it easier for Windows users to switch to Ubuntu but to build and develop a great OS.

In my opinion (based on my experience and those around) me, the average Windows user is not looking for a migrate to Linux and will probably not do so. But there are millions of (potential) end users out there who need a good OS but can't effort Windows or Mac OS X.

It's a common misassumption that Ubuntu (and other distro's for that matter) are out to take over the position as leading OS from windows. This might apply to some distro's but certainly not for all and certainly not for Ubuntu.

Linux is a great OS but as soon as developers will start to aim at (the average) Windows users, it will loose much of those aspects which makes it such a great OS in the first place...

Well, the aim of Ubuntu as far as I can tell, is to be for everyone. Not just those who can't afford it. I would not procure OS X or any copy of windows even if they were given for $0.00.

Regardless of the aim, it is possible that Linux will replace certain people's os x only boxes and windows only boxes.

It is in this that I attempted to answer your question. There is a rivalry between the OS's. They may get inspired by the different user interfaces, and even MS has a it's own little linux lab... I guess for X11, wanting to add eye candy to the desktop is an example of it...

As for linux aiming to be friendly and aid migration for windows users.... It's already been done. Things like Linspire and Xandros. It doesn't "diminish" what other distros do... It just plain doesn't matter. It's about freedom and choice.

FYI: If you target the average computer user, that user is using windows. No avoiding that for now.

[BSDFreak]

I never stated it being impossible for Windows users to switch to Ubuntu. However, Ubuntu is not aiming at migrating Windows users to Linux. The aim is to provide free, good software to people who are not in the able to use the propietary systems. Ubuntu is developing, doing amazing things but not for making it easier for Windows users to switch to Ubuntu but to build and develop a great OS.

At first glance i wanted to applaud this because it is true but then....


In my opinion (based on my experience and those around) me, the average Windows user is not looking for a migrate to Linux and will probably not do so. But there are millions of (potential) end users out there who need a good OS but can't effort Windows or Mac OS X.

i read this... And it seems you haven't understood anything about Linux's goals or why it's FOSS. It's FOSS because it's a superior development model, it's simply better for the userbase they are aiming for. It has nothing to do with not being able to afford Windows or Mac OSX, it's not free because it's supposed to be a replacement for something else for those who cannot afford CS OS's. It's free because it's a better way to develop software and those who use Linux (the overwhelming majority of them) don't do so because they cannot afford Windows, they do it because it's a better OS.


It's a common misassumption that Ubuntu (and other distro's for that matter) are out to take over the position as leading OS from windows. This might apply to some distro's but certainly not for all and certainly not for Ubuntu.

True, it's about providing the best possible OS that the dev's can put together, those who want to use it are free to do so, nobody cares if you do or don't.


Linux is a great OS but as soon as developers will start to aim at (the average) Windows users, it will loose much of those aspects which makes it such a great OS in the first place...

True, it's up to the user to make the transition if he want's to because nobody else than him really cares if he does or don't.

[BSDFreak]

Well, the aim of Ubuntu as far as I can tell, is to be for everyone. Not just those who can't afford it. I would not procure OS X or any copy of windows even if they were given for $0.00.

Regardless of the aim, it is possible that Linux will replace certain people's os x only boxes and windows only boxes.
Not in the near future, MS would have to fsck up royally for that to happen, the aim is to provide the best possible OS for the users that believe that it is a better OS. Unfortunantly it is NOT uncommon for users to say that "if Linux is going to have a chance it has to become ***********". The truth is, Linux won't become anything else than Linux, it's not aiming to attract users that feel that Windows is a great OS, it's aiming for a different user base, for those who believe that Linux is better.


It is in this that I attempted to answer your question. There is a rivalry between the OS's. They may get inspired by the different user interfaces, and even MS has a it's own little linux lab... I guess for X11, wanting to add eye candy to the desktop is an example of it...
No there isn't, that they look at eachothers ideas and implement some of them does not make them direct "competitors", nobody cares if Windows users keep using Windows, it's up to each and every user.


As for linux aiming to be friendly and aid migration for windows users.... It's already been done. Things like Linspire and Xandros. It doesn't "diminish" what other distros do... It just plain doesn't matter. It's about freedom and choice.
Ya, and Linspire won't exist in 3 years. Xandros isn't going for Windows look and feel, they are simply providing what they believe their userbase wants.


FYI: If you target the average computer user, that user is using windows. No avoiding that for now.
Nobody is targeting anyone, it's about CHOICE, not about who uses what. I've said it before and i'll say it again, IF Linux would aim for the Windows users it would end up as a bad copycat of Windows, the current userbase would migrate to *BSD or Opensolaris and the userbase they are aiming for will still use Windows because Windows is a helluvalot better than Linux at being Windows.

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

[fuscia]

i used to compare windows to cheap toilet paper, osx to wet wipes and thought using linux was like wiping your ass with a pine cone. after using linux for a while, i would compare using windows to be like driving an automatic and linux to using a stick. (along the same lines, using osx would be like driving a golf cart around a retirement community.) linux will never appeal to the sheep. i don't think it has to.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Not in the near future, MS would have to fsck up royally for that to happen, the aim is to provide the best possible OS for the users that believe that it is a better OS. Unfortunantly it is NOT uncommon for users to say that "if Linux is going to have a chance it has to become ***********". The truth is, Linux won't become anything else than Linux, it's not aiming to attract users that feel that Windows is a great OS, it's aiming for a different user base, for those who believe that Linux is better.


No there isn't, that they look at eachothers ideas and implement some of them does not make them direct "competitors", nobody cares if Windows users keep using Windows, it's up to each and every user.


Ya, and Linspire won't exist in 3 years. Xandros isn't going for Windows look and feel, they are simply providing what they believe their userbase wants.


Nobody is targeting anyone, it's about CHOICE, not about who uses what. I've said it before and i'll say it again, IF Linux would aim for the Windows users it would end up as a bad copycat of Windows, the current userbase would migrate to *BSD or Opensolaris and the userbase they are aiming for will still use Windows because Windows is a helluvalot better than Linux at being Windows.

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

Man, I don't feel like biting but I'll go along a little bit... I used to use windows. Now I only use Ubuntu. I think Linux is better, and I thought so even while I had windows still installed. There are others like me, even for the sake of argument let's say 1. I didn't claim large numbers. I said certain users.

As for targetting I know that, the poster I replied to brought it up. It doesn't have to target for someone to choose it.

As for Linspire and Xandros, I'm again replying to the other poster. Just because some Linux distro's try and mimic windows, it isn't hurting Ubuntu. I don't know how long they will exist, but I don't actually care.

I agree they are not in direct competition, but you can still be a rival

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rivaling

I define it with the 2nd definition:

to strive to equal or excel

I believe it aims to excel.

So when I say rival, this is what I mean.

That aside I'm in agreement. I'm not sure why the replies seem to spawn linux is not a windows clone and that it doesn't need to convert users to survive. I'm well aware, just spelling everything out this time.

[nocturn]

What are your sources? Where did you get "90%" from?

I do not quote any sources because there has been little to no research in this area that is not payed for by the commercial organisations.

Yet one can observe the needs of the average user and Ubuntu can offer those functions to them today. The only people who have a functional impairment to using Ubuntu have either a very specific need that has no Linux equivalent, or they are gamers.

Mind you, I'm not talking about OS installation which is something most people are not capable off anyway, which leads to the question how well Linux would do if it were offered by most stores/brands as an alternative.

[BSDFreak]

Man, I don't feel like biting but I'll go along a little bit... I used to use windows. Now I only use Ubuntu. I think Linux is better, and I thought so even while I had windows still installed. There are others like me, even for the sake of argument let's say 1. I didn't claim large numbers. I said certain users.

Good for you, i don't care, i've got XP installed on this computer and i'm posting from it right now, do you care?


As for targetting I know that, the poster I replied to brought it up. It doesn't have to target for someone to choose it.

But you completely misunderstood, the "target" isn't "computer users" no matter what system they currently run, the "target" is those who like what is produced, it's produced for those who like it, if Windows users don't like it, nobody cares.


As for Linspire and Xandros, I'm again replying to the other poster. Just because some Linux distro's try and mimic windows, it isn't hurting Ubuntu. I don't know how long they will exist, but I don't actually care.

I agree they are not in direct competition, but you can still be a rival

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rivaling

I define it with the 2nd definition:

to strive to equal or excel

I believe it aims to excel.

It doesn't, it doesn't strive to do anything that relates to anything else but itself, it's not produced to be better than Windows, it has absolutely no relation to Windows.


So when I say rival, this is what I mean.

That aside I'm in agreement. I'm not sure why the replies seem to spawn linux is not a windows clone and that it doesn't need to convert users to survive. I'm well aware, just spelling everything out this time.

It happens everytime competing with Windows, having a chance against windows, attracting windows users or something that resembles any of that is posted.

Did you read the link i posted, it's a great article.

[nocturn]

not until EVERY SINGLE hardware installation is automatic and it offers the generic features my mom is looking for.

What are her requirements?

[BoyOfDestiny]

Good for you, i don't care, i've got XP installed on this computer and i'm posting from it right now, do you care?



But you completely misunderstood, the "target" isn't "computer users" no matter what system they currently run, the "target" is those who like what is produced, it's produced for those who like it, if Windows users don't like it, nobody cares.



It doesn't, it doesn't strive to do anything that relates to anything else but itself, it's not produced to be better than Windows, it has absolutely no relation to Windows.



It happens everytime competing with Windows, having a chance against windows, attracting windows users or something that resembles any of that is posted.

Did you read the link i posted, it's a great article.

Okay, just read the link =). And no, doesn't matter to me what OS your posting this from... As for the other stuff I get it now (target wise).

I still want to hold on to the rival thing, but I realize now I was being too general. I mean in terms of window managers and various apps (i.e similar feature that os x or win has). Not Linux itself, that is it's own thing (apart from following POSIX standards etc)

[BSDFreak]

Okay, just read the link =). And no, doesn't matter to me what OS your posting this from... As for the other stuff I get it now (target wise).

I still want to hold on to the rival thing, but I realize now I was being too general. I mean in terms of window managers and various apps (i.e similar feature that os x or win has). Not Linux itself, that is it's own thing (apart from following POSIX standards etc)

Difference of opinion is only healty in a community so we'll probably have the opportunity to develop this discussion further in the future.

Until then, be well.

[BSDFreak]

not until EVERY SINGLE hardware installation is automatic and it offers the generic features my mom is looking for.

That would exclude both Windows and OSX or include Linux depending on what you mean by it.

Unsupported hardware isn't automatic in either of them, supported hardware is in all of them.

Generic features such as what? E-mail? Web browser? That's offered by all three in the default install, in one of them you get a whole office pack too in the default install.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Difference of opinion is only healty in a community so we'll probably have the opportunity to develop this discussion further in the future.

Until then, be well.

Yup,

Take care.

[kaaredyret]

i used to compare windows to cheap toilet paper, osx to wet wipes and thought using linux was like wiping your ass with a pine cone. after using linux for a while, i would compare using windows to be like driving an automatic and linux to using a stick.

Not just using the stick... Sometimes - and too often IMHO - the Linux user has to be his own mechanic. This is not what people that would buy XP or OS X would expect. The lack of high end software or games is also a major problem. An OS is just an environment.

[commodore]

I'm absolutely sure that Ubuntu is the best of those three, but it isn't a rival for Vista because peoples brains are fckd up by Bill. OSX users are living in a different world. I don't think they want to use Linux.

[tseliot]

...because Windows is a helluvalot better than Linux at being Windows.

That's absolutely right. If you want Windows, or a Windows without Window's problems, then Ubuntu is not for you (and the OS you want doesn't exist).

If you are not bound to specific software (and games) then Ubuntu might be for you.

In my case Windows and OSX are not valid alternatives to Ubuntu (and GNU/Linux in general) because, inverting BSD Freak's words, Ubuntu 'is a helluvalot better' than Windows at being Ubuntu..

If GNU/Linux didn't exist I would probably use FreeBSD.

But of course I'm far from representing the majority of computer users in the world.

[greenway]

Well, the aim of Ubuntu as far as I can tell, is to be for everyone. Not just those who can't afford it. I would not procure OS X or any copy of windows even if they were given for $0.00.

I agree, but in daily life this will just not apply. The masses of people out there using Windows don't give a hoot about the progress Ubuntu is making for Windows is what they know and what most of them will stick to. So, it comes down to the people who are not part of this group but who do need good software.


Regardless of the aim, it is possible that Linux will replace certain people's os x only boxes and windows only boxes.

Never stated it wouldn't.


It is in this that I attempted to answer your question. There is a rivalry between the OS's. They may get inspired by the different user interfaces, and even MS has a it's own little linux lab... I guess for X11, wanting to add eye candy to the desktop is an example of it...

There probably is, however this concerns such a minimum fraction of computer users that it's to be taken that serious. I am sticking to my point that Ubuntu and several other distro's are developing not to attract Windows or Mac users but to provide good software and operating systems. The majority of end users will not (atleast not for a long, long while) migrate to Linux.

In my opinion, most of the developers are well aware of this and improve there product with Linux users in mind, not Windows/Mac users.


As for linux aiming to be friendly and aid migration for windows users.... It's already been done. Things like Linspire and Xandros. It doesn't "diminish" what other distros do... It just plain doesn't matter. It's about freedom and choice.

Again, I never said there weren't any distro's out there who do persue this goal. However, Ubuntu is not one of them. And for this thread that does mather since it's about Ubuntu and not Linux in general.


FYI: If you target the average computer user, that user is using windows. No avoiding that for now.

At the current moment; yes, you're absolutely true. However, with upcoming IT awareness in other parts of the world, this statement will probably not hold in the coming years. Already now, less then 40% of newly sold boxes in Thailand come with Winows preinstalled, the others run Linux. The beauty about this is, that new computer users don't care about which OS they will have to learn, as long as it will save them 200 dollars on a box, they will go for it!

[greenway]

I do not really believe computer end users are necessarily heavily segmented in the first place. Sure, certain professions come with certain computing needs, but for the home user I do not think there is a heavy difference in computing needs, there may be in knowledge or computing skills though on a per case basis.

So if the market is 'Average Joe' wanting a home PC for email, internet, DVD en CD playback and burning and whatever else..... how would we segment this group? I can see gamers and non-gamers..... but that's about it imho?

I do not quite agree; in my opinion the market IS segmenten into Linux/BSD users, OSX users and Windows users.

[greenway]

i read this... And it seems you haven't understood anything about Linux's goals or why it's FOSS.

First of all I would like to say that this is a judgment made farely easy...


It's FOSS because it's a superior development model, it's simply better for the userbase they are aiming for. It has nothing to do with not being able to afford Windows or Mac OSX, it's not free because it's supposed to be a replacement for something else for those who cannot afford CS OS's. It's free because it's a better way to develop software and those who use Linux (the overwhelming majority of them) don't do so because they cannot afford Windows, they do it because it's a better OS.

It's FOSS because the developers decided it to be. Furthermore, the design model has nothing to do with the goal of marketing a product. Where, indeed, the aim behind Ubuntu is to provide good, free software and offer people who are not able to effort expensive licenses for propietary software a means of being able to get in the computing game as well. May I remind you that where talking about Ubuntu in specific and not about Linux in general.

[Lanrond]

Well, I think the question can be interpreted in different ways and so it can be answered in different ways.

What do you mean by serious rival?
Numbers of copies installed? Level of customer satisfaction? Market penetration? Technical achievements? Possibility of future developments?

I think all these interpretations implies different considerations.

First of all, how can you compare a free product with a commercial one? I think that in term of 'what can you do'/'how much it costs' Ubuntu is unbeatable for obvious reasons.

On the other hand I don't think M$ can be beaten (at least in the near future) in terms of number of copies installed, just for the fact that the vast majority of machines selled have W$ installed. Actually the cutomer is not really free to choose the OS he wants, because he/she is somehow induced to think that W$ is "built-in" the machine he/she is buying and a different choice would imply some work to do (often perceived as difficult and unecessary). Things would change if you could choose to buy a PC without being force to buy W$, but until then...

All this leads to think that any poll about customer satisfaction based only on rough numbers is misleading, just for tha fact that the vast majority of people is somehow forced to use W$ and have no idea of any touchstone. On the other hand, almost every people who decided to use Linux and/or MacOS tend to be enthusiastic, therefore not so trustworthy.

Finally, from a technical point of view, the point is moot.
In my opinion Ubuntu (and Linux in general) can benefit from the Open Source philosophy and the extreme flexibility and capability to react that comes with it. Maybe, on the long run, this could be the winning point.

[fuscia]

Not just using the stick... Sometimes - and too often IMHO - the Linux user has to be his own mechanic. This is not what people that would buy XP or OS X would expect. The lack of high end software or games is also a major problem. An OS is just an environment.

and, as with cars, most people would rather trust somebody else with their investment than see to it themselves.

[Virogenesis]

I do believe Ubuntu will be better than Vista.
The MS approach is going towards Mac like hardware, the copy protection users will not like, the power thats needed to run the system its very demanding
Users will not like the idea of being able to control the bios within windows.
Have a look at this you'll see exactly what I mean http://www.gamingforums.com/showthread.php?p=2193526 its highly amusing I know I'm glad I ain't using windows anymore.

On the other hand windows users will just say linux insn't windows.
Those not willing to put effort into trying to use a linux/GNU system won't infact they will hate the experience and complain they will not help the community at all.

For example I've shown my brother ubuntu hes impressed but hes one of these users who will ask questions like why aren't my mp3s playing or something like that.
Hes not bothered about opensource at all Vista will have eye candy but it will also be fairly resource heavy.

Linux/GNU: is perfect for a work place
Mac: good for multimedia
windows: good for those that do not wish to know how to operate a computer

Linux will never be perfect out of the box unless you pay for something with decent multimedia support out of the box

[blueskye]

Good morning ... this is my first post. I have answered yes, that Ubuntu is a serious rival because it already _is_ with me. Right now, my XP install is so messed up, I may have to reinstall the whole thing for the first time in 4 years. So, having heard so much about Linux being more secure than Windows, which is my main concern, I decided to wipe my second hard drive and give Linux a try.

After that decision was made, which distro do I pick? I have been doing research online, buying books (Linux for Dummies ... haha), and then checking out many different Linux offerings. I seriously considered 6 different Linux distributions. I read opinion posts on various distros and saw favorable comments and unfavorable comments on all of them. The unfavorable comments for Ubuntu mostly centered on the color brown. Well, I like brown. And dark orange. So I decided I had to see this brown desktop. I downloaded Ubuntu Live CD and Ubuntu Install CD.

Changed boot startup, loaded the Live CD and was amazed at how well it loaded. No problem at all. I was delighted to see that it had enumerated all my connected peripherals. The drivers (is that the right word for linux?) did not load but at least it could see them! (I have not been able to access System Information under my messed up Windows installation.) I was even able to add both of my printers under System-->Admin! That did it. This was going to work!

And I _liked_ the brown desktop. And dark orange. I sat here and smiled.

So, yes, ... Ubuntu _is_ a serious rival ... as soon as I learn enough about Linux and Ubuntu ... what all I need to have on hand during the install and what I might have to adjust ... I will summon up the courage to actually do the install!

I am already making the switch to Ubuntu ... the serious rivalry has _already_ begun. I may only be one person but I am sure I am not the only home user who is looking for better security out here in the wild and wooly web!

Looking forward to meeting and 'talking' with my new Ubuntu friends ...

blueskye (Sharon)

[airtonix]

sorry guy's, but unless people shed themselves of their consumeristic maxims i dont see any change in the demographics of ubuntu.

You have three major factors to consider for ubuntus strategic entry to dominance over the current two patriarchs...

hardware bias, current market dominators, old empire psychosis.

first is simple, micirsoft started the biggest consumer move to computers.
second is basically in front of us...every day we go elsewhere other than our homes.
third is the attitude of property and ownership and how it applies to the real progress of human kind.

[airtonix]

If more and more people like blueskye really have the right incentive to dislodge them from windows and give at least ubuntu a go then....it's a snowball effect and movement plus time travels thattaway. awesome

[TeeAhr1]

The fact all of their windows apps will work with the new windows and not with Ubuntu is a huge factor.
Actually, this may not be entirely true. I have heard (can anyone confirm?) that Vista is running an entirely new kernel, so I could see compatibility being an issue, much like it was when you upgraded from 95/98 to XP.

[chele]

Yes, because it is about freedom.
Yes, because my mom taught me that sharing is a good thing.
Yes, because there is more to quality of life then consuming.

Who's asking?

What do you mean by "serious"?
What does rivalry have to do with anything?

[TeeAhr1]

I'm sure Ubuntu will improve, but its file system needs to be as easy to navigate through as Windows, have back/forward buttons, an "address bar..."
Ctrl-L will bring up the "address bar."

[BarfBag]

Out of the box, I don't think Ubuntu is a serious rival to Mac OS X and Windows XP/Vista. Once multimedia compatibility is added, I think it will be in the game. I've noticed that Windows fan boys use that as an excuse to hate Linux. It's always, "Linux sucks! It can't even play a music file!"

Another thing they need to do is hire some developers to better integrate WINE into the operating system. Sort of like what Apple's doing with Rosette. Wouldn't it be nice to have out of the box compatibility with things like Microsoft Office, iTunes, Quicktime, etc? That would bring over some of the more open-minded Windows users since some of their old applications would work.

[xequence]

Actually, this may not be entirely true. I have heard (can anyone confirm?) that Vista is running an entirely new kernel, so I could see compatibility being an issue, much like it was when you upgraded from 95/98 to XP.

I doubt it is true.

I dont know, but why would the kernel matter? Isnt it all about a compatability layer or API or something?

The errors between 95/98 to 2000/XP were related to 95/98 being partially 16 bit and some programs were 16bit.

[spliterz]

Definitely a competitor to vista, less resource hungry by far, so especially good for people who haven't got the cash to fork out on a new PC. OSX is a tough one though, but will the intel switch turn out to be a bad move for Apple?

[GoA]

In addition to multimedia support, we need an easy way to mount iso,img, bin and so on files. Currently the only way mounting an iso file is done by command line and everytime I have to check that out from the internet. Then multimedia programs, we need one that works and looks good. The default xine can play every file I had but it cannot handle DVD menus and to change texting size you have to manually edit some file, for that I have to use VLc which looks just plain ugly. Then I have to use Mplayer to watch stream content. And it also looks ugly and it cannot resize wmv-files. Ain't that nice? If we had an easy way to mount files, one goodlooking and working media player, I would use ubuntu as my main system. Currently, windows XP does this faster and more easier. Then open office 2 just isn't good enough to everyday usage, it has bugs and sometimes annoying user interface. However, that isn't ubuntus fault.

[aysiu]

GoA, how do you mount .ISO and .img files in OS X and Windows?

[xequence]

GoA, how do you mount .ISO and .img files in OS X and Windows?

No idea about OSX, but in windows you use Daemon Tools or Alchohol 120%.

[butmunch]

I'll maintain that ubuntu is not a viable replacement until easier install methods are implemented, like autopackage, which I would love to see implemented officialy in ubuntu. Apt-get is good for system upgrades, and with the multitude of updates out there, it tramples over windows, and with autopackage it would provide the freedom and ease of use to match windows. It could be argued that the lack of programs autopackaged means it isn't implemented, but ubuntu has the weight behind it to make it a more useable standard.

I've also found that ubuntu performs poorly in comparison to Windows XP, and more efficient management tools could be used.

I personally love Linux, I love what it stands for, so I make this post entirely on a market share/economic point of view, ubuntu as it stands is miles off mac OSX and windows XP.

[xequence]

ubuntu is not a viable replacement

Not for you.

[aysiu]

Didn't know that. Thanks.
I really can't imagine that the inability to graphically mount .ISO and .img files is what's holding Ubuntu back from massive desktop adoption, though.

Most people I know don't even know what an .ISO or .img is.

[GoA]

In windows we have daemon tools, very usable and simple. OsX I don't know. However, us, the power user, need the ability to mount different disk images very often. ;) Waht I read from the forums, linux in generally doesn't support bin nrg or cue files very easily. Reason for this I don't know. :(

[poofyhairguy]

Another thing they need to do is hire some developers to better integrate WINE into the operating system. Sort of like what Apple's doing with Rosette. Wouldn't it be nice to have out of the box compatibility with things like Microsoft Office, iTunes, Quicktime, etc? That would bring over some of the more open-minded Windows users since some of their old applications would work.

That sounds nice, but when you look into it you find that such is the holy grail- it almost can never be done to a point where a distro should stake its repuation apon it.

No....we must find a way to move forward without bringing legacy applications with us...

[kisain]

competeing with os x or 10 shuden't be the problem...just competeing aghenst "pax microsoftia" is enough...i beleve that ubuntu is not only a rival for windows but if more awareness is taught to the community at large......might shift the tables abit....it's the first and only distro that i have used sence april of 05 and i woulden't trade my ubuntu for anything ^_^ besides who wants DRM on there computer no one except for the babies that started all this crap.\\:D/ \\:D/ \\:D/ \\:D/

[xequence]

In windows we have daemon tools, very usable and simple. OsX I don't know. However, us, the power user, need the ability to mount different disk images very often. ;) Waht I read from the forums, linux in generally doesn't support bin nrg or cue files very easily. Reason for this I don't know. :(


A cue is a little file that points to files in a bin... So say you had a bin and a cue and wanted to burn the bin. You would open up the cue, even though it is like 150 bytes.

[aysiu]

"Rival" and "compete" don't even come into play when...

1. Most people haven't even heard of Linux or Ubuntu.
2. Windows Vista and OS X Leopard will come preinstalled and preconfigured on most computer users' desktops/notebooks, and Ubuntu will not.
3. People are afraid of change.
4. ex-Windows power users think they can plop Ubuntu on any machine without doing research about hardware compatibility and think it will always work, and if it doesn't Ubuntu's a piece-of-crap software.

[kewl1uk]

Anything that's an alternative is a rival but whether Ubuntu or any Linux distro is a serious contender for OSX and Vista remains to be seen. But as has been said, if an OS comes with a computer and lets people get on the Internet and IM it's fine with them. I think the jury is still out on whether KMart's foray into Linux with Linspire computers will succeed or fail. If it succeeds we will probably see KMart's subsidiaries in other countries also selling Linspire computers. That will be a big boost for Linux since the resulting publicity will draw more people to Linux who will most likely go for a free distro first and the cream goes to the Linux distro that's most ready for the new expanding market.

[saubz]

until ubuntu or linux in general becomes completely point-and-click like xp and osx, people will not consider it as a serious competitor. people want instant gratification, not something else to learn.

[aysiu]

until ubuntu or linux in general becomes completely point-and-click like xp and osx, people will not consider it as a serious competitor. people want instant gratification, not something else to learn. Welcome to Mepis, Linspire, and PCLinuxOS.

[linbetwin]

Ubuntu is an alternative to Vista, but only for people who hear about Ubuntu, download, order or receive it, install it and see what it can do. It is an alternative for people who can't afford Windows and don't want to use pirated software, or for people who can't afford a new computer to go with their new Vista. But Ubuntu is not an alternative for people who never heard about Linux, or for those who only heard FUD about Linux, or are too lazy and complacent to try it. Neither is it an alternative for gamers, photoshop addicts, or other people who, for one reason or another, can't live without software that only works on Windows. It is that simple!

[handy]

At this stage I don't believe Ubuntu or any linux distro' is a serious rival to ******* (whatever version), or to OSX.

Most people do not want to go to the trouble to learn a new OS. They would rather put up with the devil that they know.

Apart from the fact that the huge majority of users have never even heard of linux, let alone Ubuntu...

Ubuntu, is still not friendly enough for the average Joe, who just wants to buy a printer, scanner or camera, put in the cd press setup, & use it & the dumbed down software that comes with it so they can make christmas cards...

Then there is the other software, be it accounting, retail/wholesale (in all their guises), desktop publishing, graphic design, CAD, legal firm specific, medical (again a huge catagory), musical - (sibelius, cubase, finale, band in a box...) & the list goes on & on. To get these professions to leave what they know, & what was often VERY expensive for them to get into, is incredibly difficult.

If you are a serious gamer, then games are a total pain on linux! Cedega is all but a nightmare, Wine is at least free - if it works, Crossover is just not built for games to start with. Yes, there are the native games, & some are as good as it gets in their specific area. But nowhere near enough, are native games.

For someone to leave the ******* apple nest, they need a good reason.

DRM, when it hits home in a couple of years time, will become a good reason for a lot of people. Whether that constitutes a serious threat to ******* & apple, only time will tell.

The good thing as far as Ubuntu is concerned, in my opinion, is that in a couple of years, it will be far easier for people to install printers, scanners etc, & to make software built for ******* run on their Ubuntu box. Let alone the never ending, ongoing creation, conversion & polishing, that goes on in the native software realm.

We know the wonderful feeling of being free of the greed driven software businesses. We know the ease & joy, of choosing to install something from the 15,000 + free programs in the repo's. Most of us don't run machines that are serving *******, so we don't have to worry about virus or firewalls.

We know about the Ubuntu community!! Something that ******* users (especially) would find impossible to find. Mac' still has that smattering of ego & money running through the Mac' forums (at least those that I have looked at).

Ubuntu is not completely free of the maladies that the alternative OS's suffer from!

This forum does give me hope!

[Edit:] I think that the most important factor in the future of Linux, will be DRM & gaming. If the young people decide to take to Linux, then the future of Linux is assured.

[emperor]

WGA alone is a good reason to switch to GNU/Linux. I really doesn't matter which distro either. Any distro is better than WGA and DRM from Big Brother M$!

[forrestcupp]

[Edit:] I think that the most important factor in the future of Linux, will be DRM & gaming. If the young people decide to take to Linux, then the future of Linux is assured.

I agree with this statement about gaming, although there are a lot of people who don't see support for gaming as important. That is a good statement about how the young people are the future. That is why I'm starting my 2 1/2 year old boy on gcompris and childsplay for linux. When he becomes an adult, he will already understand the linux system to use it for what some people consider as more important tasks.

I don't think any distro will be a good competitor for the consumer until they get a lot more bugs worked out of Xgl and Compiz. That is what makes Linux look sexy like Vista or OSx, but it just doesn't work good enough yet. I don't want to have to switch x-servers every time I need to use an intensive opengl app or game. I just want to be able to use my computer. And before everyone tries to help me, I've already tried all the workarounds, and booting 2 servers, and I know how "easy" it all is, but like I say, I just want to be able to use my computer.

[wpshooter]

until ubuntu or linux in general becomes completely point-and-click like xp and osx, people will not consider it as a serious competitor. people want instant gratification, not something else to learn.



Saubz:

I agree. That is - Linux developers must get away from the terminal mode/command line of doing things mindset (which it looks like they slowly are).

And THE other thing that must happen, which I have more concerns about happening (at least in the fairly short term), is having the motivation develop for major software applications that are currently only available for M/S windows operating systems to have offerings of their applications in native Linux formats.

And my concern here is, where is the motivation for major software applications to make offerings for Linux O/Ss is going to come from.

And this becomes a problem like the old which came first the chicken or the egg proverb. This motivation is going to have to come from the business sector of computer users and they are not going to switch to Linux until it is clearly demonstrated that the current software applications are available (and work properly) for Linux and the software application developers are not going to have any incentive to make offerings in Linux until the proper business market is in place - quite the conundrum.

This second problem I mention above is what really concerns me regarding Linux's future. I see all kind of enthusiam on the web and various other places about the development of this operating system BUT I am seeing very little talk about the development of Linux versions of major software applications (and yes, I am aware of Novell's efforts) but I am just concerned about how seriously any of the application software developers are taking any of this.

[B0rsuk]

I don't think Vista is a serious rival to Ubuntu.

[Engnome]

I don't think Vista is a serious rival to Ubuntu.

I don't think they are either. They don't really need to care... MS biggest rival is itself. XP is a good operating system for most people and the "it's good enough" attitude will make it hard to sell Vista in any other form than OEM.

[joe_lace]

I'm going to have to say no. Open source has been picking up speed for a long time but I don't think it is really having a huge affect on Windows or Mac marketing share. Lets face it, Windows and OSX while more expensive are easier to use.

[aysiu]

I'm going to have to say no. Open source has been picking up speed for a long time but I don't think it is really having a huge affect on Windows or Mac marketing share. Lets face it, Windows and OSX while more expensive are easier to use.
Translation: Windows and OS X come preinstalled.

[bruce89]

Translation: Windows and OS X come preinstalled.
I agree, (seen your sig.), but I think the main concern is the command line stuff, but not much needs it anymore. Also it is much more powerful. Actually my Advanced Higher computing says "A very popular operating system at the moment is Linux", mabye a bit of an exaduration. It goes on to says that command line interfaces are more powerful.

[aysiu]

Right now, there are only two things I can think of that demand command-line use and are popular enough to stop people: configuring X and mounting partitions.

[joe_lace]

We came to Linux for various reason, but I have never heard of anyone switching to Linux for ease of use. In fact, I hope that doesn't change. Part of Window's problem is that it does everything for you. They already thought of everything and if they haven't then you can't have it. But what I see as a problem, many people see as a positive. Most of us are here, working with Linux, because we like to get our hands dirty when we are working on computers.

[aysiu]

I still don't see how Linux is difficult to use once it's installed and configured. Can someone cite specific examples?

I know there's the whole clipboard contents disappearing when you close a window, but what else?

[bruce89]

Right now, there are only two things I can think of that demand command-line use and are popular enough to stop people: configuring X and mounting partitions.
Yes, I suppose you are right. We need GUI's to these and we are good to go. See - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDapperWhatStillNeedsAConsole

Most of us are here, working with Linux, because we like to get our hands dirty when we are working on computers.
Not true, I first used from the curiosity, but now I know it's techncally better.

[joe_lace]

Not true, I first used from the curiosity, but now I know it's techncally better.

I think you missed the word most in my previous post. The point is, if you didn't like being challenged to learn more when you work with computers you probably wouldn't have been curious enough to try Linux.

[aysiu]

I think you missed the word most in my previous post. The point is, if you didn't like being challenged to learn more when you work with computers you probably wouldn't have been curious enough to try Linux.
joe_lace is right. I don't like getting my hands dirty with working on computers, but I was shocked at how many people here preferred to build their own computers rather than buy one. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=152433)

[bruce89]

joe_lace is right. I don't like getting my hands dirty with working on computers, but I was shocked at how many people here preferred to build their own computers rather than buy one. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=152433)
I had this one built from components, and my last one too. I'd be tricky to get them to not install Windows, if it was an OEM.

[kinematic]

OSX will be good as always, and so will ubuntu.

Vista will be the same old thing, with a changed taskbar colour, and a load of DRM. Simply put, when people find they wont be able to do alot of things because of DRM theyll look around at OSX. Theyll google for "free OSX" and forget the X, and linux will come up. They'll go to a linux forum and see someone say ubuntu is good, download it, try it, like it, and live a DRM free life. The end.

last time i checked that drm stuff applies to the usa.
the usa isn't the center of the universe and the mpaa/riaa can't force us law on the rest of the world.....over here in europe we have our own set of laws you know.

[aysiu]

I don't foresee buying a Windows computer ever again.

My wife is an Apple nut now (and a graphic designer), so she'll buy only Apple computers.

If I get a "new" computer, it may, in fact, be an old computer that someone else thinks is "too old," but would be an ideal candidate for Xubuntu.

If I get a really new computer, it'll probably be a System 76 Ubuntu-preloaded one.

[facefur]

From a technical standpoint, Ubuntu is already is rieuqal to or better than both OSX and Vista. It does not require either proprietary or massive hardware to run, and provides most of the same functionality.

That said, as long as Ubuntu/Linux lies principally in the techie/developer world, it will never rival either OS. Apple has a marketing strategy that makes users of Apple hardware think they are clever, artistic and "kewl." Windows has already captured the great majority of desktops despite its increasing cost and "weight." As Microsoft has demonstrated time and time again, you don't have to be good to be popular.

[aysiu]

Of course you don't have to be good to be popular. You don't even have to be "easy to use." You just have to be preinstalled, which both Windows and Mac are.

[bruce89]

I would consider buing a computer with Ubuntu preloaded, but there are no places here in Scotland that do that AFAIK. Mind you, Komplett build computers (with options (including no OS)).

[Carrots171]

In my opinion, Ubuntu is as good as OSX/Windows XP. But it can't rival Windows XP. Why? Because on the vast majority of PC's, Windows is pre-loaded, and Ubuntu is not.

[aysiu]

In my opinion, Ubuntu is as good as OSX/Windows XP. But it can't rival Windows XP. Why? Because on the vast majority of PC's, Windows is pre-loaded, and Ubuntu is not.
The word rival assumes they're competing in the same game.

If I say I'm a better actor than Steven Segal, what does it matter? Do I even get to audition for the roles he gets (however sad they are)?

Ubuntu doesn't get a fair shake, so it's kind of irrelevant how good an operating system it is.

[reyfer]

Well, I have not tried Vista, but I can tell that Ubuntu (actually Kubuntu, that's what I'm using) works better for me than Windows XP, and I don't see myself turning to Windows never again

[vayde]

Unfortunately it isnt quality that sells. Its mediocrity.

Look at any field, the 'popular' product or person is rarely the best, and often not even particularly good. This applies to software, music, you name it. It's crap that sells.

While I think Ubuntu is a better product than windows, and one that is more reliable and easier to use, and probably a better choice for your average user, the fact remains that people will line up to purchase the mediocre product so long as it is percieved as 'popular'.

[aysiu]

There's a saying (I forget the exact phrasing) about advertising essentially existing to convince you to buy stuff you don't want.

There's another part of it, too, which is advertising simply making you aware a product even exists. Say "Ubuntu" to the average American on the street (I would assume it's the same for many other countries, too), and the response would most likely be "You what to...?"