Slashdot Mirror
Is Ubuntu a Serious Desktop Contender?
Exter-C asks: "2006 was the year that a large amount of people started to talk Ubuntu as a possible contender for the Enterprise Linux desktop. There are several key issues that have to be raised: Is Ubuntu/Canonical really capable of maintaining Dapper Drake (6.06 LTS) for 5 years? I know this is not a new question but the evidence after 6 months seems to be negative. A case in point is the 4-5+ day delay for critical updates to packages like Firefox. Given that such a large percentage of people use their desktop systems on the web critical, browser vulnerabilities seem to be one of the core pieces of a secure desktop environment (user stupidity excluded). Can Ubuntu/Canonical really compete with the likes of Red Hat, who had patches available (RHSA-2006:0758) the day that the updates came out?"
I gave Ubuntu 6 a shot as my exclusive desktop for about a month and a half, but switched back to Windows XP Home a day or two ago for a variety of reasons, all of them desktop related.
.NET hobbyist like is simply not there.
1) I got sick to death of having to run CD burning software with sudo.
2) A lot of software I as a
3) I hate to say it, but Windows XP actually runs consistently faster under load on my laptop than Ubuntu. The GUI in particular is more responsive under load than GNOME or KDE.
4) Things like easily configuring wireless connections really do work out of the box better on Windows XP than they do in Linux.
5) Windows has far more good software options.
For me the final straw was when I tried playing the high def trailer of Halo 3 in VLC on Linux, and it sucked. Choppy as hell. MPlayer handled it better, but then it was using a minimal GUI and actual Windows codecs. VLC on Windows can handle that stuff with no problem on the same machine.
It's a light weight contender at this point. I would recommend it to geek and nerd friends who will understand its limitations, but not a normal user who uses their machine for anything other than things like office functions and web browsing.
While I am forced to use Windows in my work envirionment, while at home Ubuntu is my chosen desktop. I have never been one to insist on instant updates, so a few days delay in a patch does not concern me much.
Ubuntu (with some necessary updates and enhancements) is a perfectly capable operating system, and the Gnome2 desktop serves my needs just fine. I can do everything (and more) that my windows box can do, plus I get to use my choice of scripting languages to customize my experience.
Nothing is hidden away from me in cryptic registries, and I run only those things that make sense to me. On my Windows box, there are several programs that have installed themselves over the years, and seemingly cannot be uninstalled. I keep most of them disabled and beaten down, but can't seem to eradicate them entirely. Even tools from my huge international IT industry company don't seem to be able to keep the buggers off of my Windows machine. Number of virii or malware programs on my Ubuntu box? Zero.
So, yes, Ubuntu can be an effective and pleasing desktop.
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
I've realised after all these years linux on the desktop for the masses probably will happen last. While some people have seen this as a goal to de-throne microsoft's desktop, others have been sneaking linux into our daily lives. This is the important frontier for linux. Everything but the desktop. Servers, embedded devices, control systems, etc, etc. There are MUCH more of these sorts of devies than there are desktops. The desktop goal has been important to many people because it's what they see everyday, but these sneaky devices are a much more important.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
I have wondered this for a while and this article highlights it. With all the distributions out there, why so much hype this year for Ubuntu? I downloaded both the Drake and the current, and I have neither time been impressed with it. I don't understand what makes people think its better than Debian, which by the way always seems to work better and with more success. I'm sure there has to be a contender better, anyone would be better. The distributions that get the most exposure (preloads, etc) are not the ones that are getting recognition d(remember we are talking desktop usage). I used Caldera Linux (ack I know) all the way back in 1997 and it was better than the current flock of Desktop OS's. I wonder why someone couldn't bring it back, limit the crap in the install, but make it available (you dont need emacs or vi, you need Write or a notepad). Keep many common services that people may just want on their pc like httpd, ftp, ssh, but get rid of SQL servers and the like for advanced users. Give a good browser (firefox with alot of preinstalled extensions) with a good starting page. Links to office apps, browser, drives, on the desktop. DONT SLACK ON THE NETWORKING (more IM's, browsers, clients, etc). DONT GIVE ME 5 MEDIA PLAYERS, just one really well maintained one would be great (vlc if the comment above werent true). And for gods sake, drop all the extra games, apps, etc. If someone needs anything in particular for a desktop os, they WILL download it. I mean come on who of us uses linux for a desktop that doesnt have access to updates?
*rant mode off*
This reply should have been a ASK Slashdot, but we all know we miss actual articles. So I wont put us through it.
Ben
Keep in mind that Ubuntu is Free Software.
And Free Software is not always about being better, it's about being Free.
After a few years of using only Linux (various distros, Ubuntu for past year) I would never install a proprietary system on my computer.
Just look where proprietary software is leading - DRM, spyware, adware... It's much easier to hide these "features" in closed-source software.
Ok, Windows supports all the hardware, Linux does not - oh well, I just check hardware for Linux compatibility before I buy it.
I just believe that Free Software is the only way we should go. Things like DRM just hurt customers, they simply haven't realized that yet.
Exactly no much doubt about the average reply here on slashdot. Probably the same level of objectivity as asking the same question on MSDN.
Some other insightful questions for the next 'Ask Slashdot':
"Is Microsoft evil?"
"Is OSX beter than Vista?"
"IE7 or Firefox on Mom's PC?"
For fuck's sake, this is not a Windows/Linux article. Please at least read the first sentence of the posted article in future, before taking the opportunity to vent your Windows vs Linux obsession.
Now, does anyone have anything to say about the Enterprise Linux desktop?
Ubuntu is a fairly good Linux distribution, with a pretty good set up. The Firefox update issue is probably not a fair consideration, since it's not actually Canonical, it's a function of Debian's issues with Mozilla.
The problem I have with Ubuntu's push is that it isn't really being pushed as a desktop for business so much as it is a desktop for the average user, to replace Windows or Mac. Unfortunately, it isn't ready for that, and it may actually be hurting itself because of it. If you're saying to people "Just download the CD's, and install it, it'll work with no problems.", you're asking for trouble. The people that are willing to give it a try are not expecting a Windows/Mac clone, but they do have certain expectations! Principally, that they're not going to spend the next three months learning how to debug, compile, edit configurations, and spend hours searching through various wikis, FAQ's, and web sites to actually use their computer for something.
These are the "first adopters", and the more unpleasant their experience, the harder is to get Linux out of the server/geek realm and into the home. It's been my experience that server OS's tend to make mediocre desktop OS's. That's been true whether it's Linux or Windows or (fill in the blank). The things you need to do on a server are different from what you need on most desktops. There's also a difference in needs between a business desktop and a home desktop. I think Linux is (mostly) ready to be a serious contender on the business desktop. Unfortunately, it isn't ready to be one on the home desktop. I think it could be one, but the community needs to listen and to look at what the average user actually is running into.
Here's a quote I found about Linux on the desktop on one of the other boards I frequent, that really helps summarize what needs to happen: "Come on nerds, would it really be such a terrible thing to spend $180 for a Linux will full hardware drivers and software codecs plus telephone support or even to pay $50 for a CD that gives you everything in the way of proprietary drivers and codecs ready to go for all your hardware and multimedia as opposed to spending hours and hours and hours downloading just bits and pieces of the solutions from all over the place and fighting to get them working? It's not like people who really want to couldn't still do that, but a simple, truly easy, less expensive alternative to the $400 Vista for the average Joe is what it is going to take to get the average Joe to come over from the dark side--and no one is ever going to have a prayer of winning the fight for open standards as long as all those ordinary Joe's are still living on the dark side."
#1. People who are already using Ubuntu (like me) as their desktop.
#2. People who are using some other Linux distribution as their desktop.
#3. People who are using a Mac or *BSD or whatever.
#4. People who are using Windows because of reasons A, B, C and/or D.
Whether X is a "serious desktop contender" really depends upon what YOU consider to be the requirements for a "serious desktop contender".
Do people ask the same question in other areas of their life? Do they go to a pizza place and question when pineapple and Canadian bacon pizza is "suitable" for dinner?
Do they go to a Ford dealership and ask whether a Ford is "suitable" for driving?
And so forth.
My first ever non-Windows system was Ubuntu, and I haven't looked back since. I'll admit that I was never an amateur in the computing world, but the system was clearly very easy to use, cleanly coded, fast and well designed. It's few drawbacks, such as the obvious "no Microsoft software" and such are outweighed by the immense support offered by the community and the huge number of powerful applications available for free and easily using the package manager.
If any Linux environment is going to gain serious market share away from the Windows-only non-experts of the world, it's going to be a free and easy-to-use system like Ubuntu.
Student Manager - Take control of your education!
Kubuntu is much MUCH less poopy looking.
/lib directory. If I were a total newbie, how the hell would I be able to fix that?
/lib/modules/`uname -r`/volatile/ so that it doesn't try loading the wrong thing. Again, no newbie is going to be able to figure that out and they will capitulate and go back to windows. I realize this isn't necessarily Kunubtu's fault (although the NVIDIA installer complains that pkg-config isn't working right) but it needs to be addressed (I understand they're trying to deal with this topic in the next release, Feisty Fawn or whatever it's called).
To contribute to the main topic: no. I use Kubuntu at both home and work. At home I have a AMD Barton 3000+ w/ 2GB RAM, at work I have an Intel Core Duo laptop. Both with NVIDIA cards, thank god. With Kubuntu 6.10, the laptop has what I would consider a serious showstopper bug in the wireless driver where it would halt the CPU during boot with an informative message: "BUG: Soft lockup detected on CPU#0" about 70% of the time. The fix was to install a patch, but I couldn't be bothered to deal with it so I just deleted the module from the
Also, installing updates to the proprietary NVIDIA kernel module in Kubuntu doesn't work quite right for me. I have to manually remove the module from
I also managed to get one of my coworkers to move from Windows to Kubuntu, and let me just say that ATI can go to hell. That driver is so amazingly bad and complicated to install, that I will never recommend that someone install any distro of linux on a modern machine with an ATI card. Yeah the open source radeon driver 'works' but you don't get any acceleration. While that may not be a showstopper for many, it is impeding desktop acceptance.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
The registry is a piece of shit compared to plain text config files, there are several reasons for this, but two of the big ones are:
1) Comments, you can actually add comments to text config files.
2) You can use a normal text editor, normal version control (ever tried putting the registry in subversion?) and other well-honed text tools to work with text based config files.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
For the love of whatever you hold holy, just shut up already. Is there a webpage that has messages like yours on it so you can just copy and paste it to a slashdot thread about Linux????
There are just as many Slashdot users out there saying "Linux users need to realize that if they want their OS to survive blah blah blah" like you. Could you muster up an original thought? I've seen your post thousands of times on Slashdot. Funny that you are reading a LINUX thread and you are bitching about Slashdot's Linux users always talking about how amazing Linux is. Perhaps it's because you are READING A LINUX THREAD...
If you don't like Linux that's fine, but don't assume you know what Linux needs to survive. You're obviously retarded if you can't figure out how to click on "Applications" instead of a "Start" button, so why are you assuming you know what Linux needs to survive.
This article is stupid none-the-less because it's basically flamebait in itself. There are many people who have been using Ubuntu as their desktop OS for at least a year. It does everything I want it to do, so YES it's definitely ready for MY desktop. If it's not ready for yours, fine....don't use it. Stop pretending you know something that no one has thought of or said before though. Linux users don't need to realize anything. You need to realize something. We don't care if you use Linux or not. We aren't going to make a dime off it if you decide to use it. We like it. We've got the right to say we like it. You have the right to say you hate it, but realize that the things you may want from a desktop OS is not exactly what everyone else wants. For some people, Linux has been ready for the desktop for years. For some of us it's the perfect OS. Why would we want to change it so it's perfect for you. You already have your perfect OS that you love. Should we make Linux more like what you want? Blah this flamewar has been going back and forth for years. Just get over yourself and realize that You don't realize what Linux needs to survive. You know what your OS needs to survive. So just STFU, and read something other than a thread completely about Linux.
Beer! It's what's for breakfast!
Pay attention to that.
Most of the computer users are using Windows. Therefore, that caricature is about a Windows support person and Windows users.
And "most people" are not going to try Linux because "most people" use whatever OS was installed when they purchased the computer from Dell or HP or such.
Very few people will even try Linux. Those few are (aside from the trolls) the few who understand how the system works (hardware / OS / apps / etc).
The trolls simply want Microsoft Windows
Phone support for Linux is available to those who need it. Red Hat provides it. Canonical provides it. The reason you don't hear about it that much is because the people who use it are usually supporting corporate servers, not home desktops. The people who run Linux on their home desktop already know how to use the Internet to find the answers they need.
Phone support for home users of Linux will be necessary when Linux is pre-installed on machines sold to home users by Dell and HP and so forth. And when that happens, Dell and HP and the others will provide the phone support.
But that is a long ways away. Look for Linux to gain in the corporate/government desktop market first. And the phone support for those will be the same as it is today. They will have their own IT staff trained on Linux and the specific apps that they use.
Ubuntu on the desktop is ready, today, for those people who have requirements that are met by Ubuntu.
Other people have different requirements. It's as simple as that.
I tend to hand out on the Ubuntu channel and I don't see that.
No. Linux is free (as in speech, as in beer).
Accomplishing a specific task in Linux takes effort, the same as it does in Windows or any other system.
But most people have already invested the time to learn how to accomplish that task in Windows and they no longer remember the effort it took.
I've taught people who have never used a computer before. I know the effort it takes for them to learn. My best example was a woman who could not double click with a mouse. She had to hold it still with one hand and click the buttons with her other hand.
A week of playing solitaire and she had mastered the double click and fine mouse control.
Compare apples to apples, okay?
Again, those are the ones who already know how their systems work and how to do research online. Those are the ones who switch to Linux and stay there.
Well, that's a pretty good example of what I was saying. Linux is a kernel. Even a whole distribution is just an OS.
Who would hype it (and who would believe that hype) to the same level as "the second coming of Christ"?
What is inaccurate?
That most people use Windows? Nope, the facts contradict you.
That most computer support people are Windows support people? Nope, the facts contradict you.
Therefore, the caricature is of a Windows support person. Whether you want to accept that fact or not.
Nick Burns isn't supporting their Linux boxes. He's supporting their Windows boxes.
No. If he was doing Linux support he would be a lot less amusing because far fewer people would have experienced that type of Linux support.
Which is the reason you don't see "Nick Burns, jet engine mechanic" as a comedy routine. It wouldn't be funny because very few people would have any experience with that situation.
Nick Burns is funny to so many people because so many people have had similar experiences with Windows support personel.
Not with Linux. With Windows.
Trolls complain about Linux simply because it is different from Windows and they don't want to re-learn their "computer skills". But the reality is that they don't have "computer skills". All they have is "Windows skills".