Ubuntu is still too complicated

[aysiu]

System76, etc., buy OEM hardware, then install and tweak Ubuntu. While they obviously look to buy compatible hardware, they can't influence the development of hardware and they aren't the people developing the code.

This.

[GSF1200S]

This is not a rant, I am true to my OS of choise. But, I wanted to vent a little and ask an honest question. I realize that Canonical is a business with a business model and so forth. But, why is it that after all this time of Linux evolving... we still can't do simple tasks like watching a DVD or play a popular game without having to spend 12 hours researching how to tweek this or that.

I am not ranting, but I am venting a little. I realize that a lot of "Linux users" are adept at coding and doing what they need to manipulate the OS, or software, to do whatever it is they need to do... but there is still a larger population of users that (like myself) lack that higher level of knowledge. So, my question is... is the reason that companies like Canonical or "whoever" has yet to make an OS that can actually do what the average user wants "out of the box" an issue of licensing? Or just being completely out of touch?

I would PAY money (and I realize that's completely opposite of the Linux ideal), but I would pay for a version of Ubuntu that I didnt have to spend 15 freaking hours trying to "adjust it" just to watch a freaking DVD.

Ok, flame away... but I needed to vent. I just spent a hour trying to.... never mind.

Let me approach this using The Arch Way...

Of course, this is Ubuntu and it has a different objective than Arch does. However, there are important things to consider.

Computers are complicated. There are many different approaches to producing a hardware item which does the same function- different chipsets, different internal electronics which make the device function, and therefore different software (or "drivers") needed to do the job. Windows has all the hardware manufacturers design the drivers; if a company wishes to sell hardware, they had better well be able to have that hardware function on the world's most popular operating system. Apple takes a different approach; while they have to code the drivers and programs largely on their own, they control the hardware that OS X is installed on.

Linux does not have this benefit. It has to work on ALL hardware, or at least try to do so. This means that there is an inevitable lag between hardware release and function in the Linux ecosystem.

So on to the Arch way. The idea is that if you dont understand the internals of the system, you cannot ever hope to understand what has gone wrong with it. You cannot hope to fix problems, or even understand how to convey to others what is at the core of the problem, if everything is a giant question mark to you.

Arch is extreme in this sense and requires that a user either be willing to learn or already have accumulated knowledge through years of experience. Ubuntu TRIES to hide the system from you AS MUCH AS IS POSSIBLE, while focusing on an infrastructure that lessens the chances of problems (instead of focusing on vanilla and bleeding edge like Arch). This is a blessing and a curse; it will necessarily make the barrier of entrance lower to those without knowledge of Linux, but it will also encourage (though not mandate) an attitude of informational complacency which results in the user hardly progressing with knowledge that would greatly reduce the issues you describe.

Any Linux user is going to have to step up and learn some- it is necessary when you are trying to use a system in which its greatest strength is how flexible it is. The more you understand, the more that flexibility comes to your aid and allows you to address problems you have, install esoteric configurations of software, etc.

Just IMO...