Slashdot Mirror
30 Days With Ubuntu Linux
jkwdoc writes "Vexed by Vista's hardware requirements and product activation issues, many have claimed on various boards that they plan to 'switch to Linux.' [H] Consumer spent 30 days using nothing but Ubuntu Linux to find out if this is truly a viable alternative for the consumer. Linux has indeed become much more than the 'Programmer's OS.'"
Are the configuration files in either a text format, or a well documented format?
Does have a normal UNIX shell environment?
Then it's got all the control you need.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
It seems to me that often people who build their own computers and worry about overclocking are doing so to get the most bang for their buck for gaming purposes. This would not be necessarily be a target audience for Linux.
Building a computer today is easier than 10 years ago? O RLY?
Maybe you don't recall IRQ conflicts or undocumented jumpers. Perhaps you don't recall 'Plug and Pray'. To say nothing of cases wherein their manufacturers believed human hands were made of some steely, unbreakable substance and by no means needed protection from sharp metal.
I can slap a computer today very nearly by accident in comparison to the annoying foibles of yester-year-- saying it has become more difficult simply smacks of an unwillingness to become familiar with new technologies. That doesn't really play well in this community, sir.
So I don't see where the challenge is for these people.
The challenge is in the purpose. AFAIK, people don't just got into the guts of their system to crank everything up for the joy of theoretical numbers to throw around. Generally, they're after the biggest, baddest box for a reason. A big reason for a lot of people is gaming, after all...it's what consumes the most horsepower. And gaming is currently where Linux falls short. I think if more games (that people want to play) were available with native Linux support, more people would be willing to switch.
Distro's like Ubuntu are great for non-technical users to have a solution to hop on the Internet, check email, do word processing, that sort of thing. In short, all the stuff that a non-technical user is likely to do with a computer anyway.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
What's really needed is some 'professional' IT organisation to sell a definitive Linux solution for a whole workplace. And support it. And point out that actually it a) costs less to support and b) is way cheaper.
Personally, I think it's viable, and I can see IBM gradually moving that way, and perhaps Sun too. But they'll have a lot of work to do to overcome the 'No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft' attitude that's ingrained into most of the workplaces in the world. (I'm still somewhat stunned at the complete lack of understanding of the mere existance of Unix that I see in my current, IT company).
*shrug* I look forward to a day when every business desktop runs Linux. I think there's a lot of people who's talents are wasted being support monkeys for cranky windows bogosity. But at the same time, I can't see it happening, simply because it'll put a lot of people out of work.
"Frankly, I'm perplexed that anyone would pass on the opportunity to try out a free (as in beer) OS. "
Changing OS is too complicated for most people, and there's not enough payback. If it works, why break it? If you can send email, and look at the web, and write a letter, and it took a lot of pain to get that far, why change the system you use and have to learn all over again, maybe losing your old files? That's how most people see it.
Changing OS may cost nothing financially, but for many people, their time isn't free. The time required to install the new software, get up to speed using the new tools and assuring yourself that you can access your old files and all your other hardware (printer, digital camera, internet connection, etc) is either lost business time (=costs money) or lost personal time (=time away from more pleasant use of leisure time). It's only "free" if you were going to spend that time messing around with a computer anyway. For many people that's not the case.
When one invests their time in platform dependant skills, one has to live with the fact they will be forever tied to that platform. I'm pretty sure that what you want is not yet legally possible.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
IRQ conflicts were 15 years ago. 10 years ago was about the easiest it has ever been. Buy an ATX power supply and case, any of the hundreds of Intel BX boards, whatever the fastest Slot 1 you could afford was, a hard drive, a cd drive, (it was all the same bus then) and if you really had mad cash maybe a Geforce 1 or Voodoo3. All cards were PCI w. AGP video. Everything was PC100 memory, and it was pretty cheap for the time.
Now, you have 5 differant processor sockets, 8 differant chipsets, 3 differant memories all in multiple speeds, differant power supply sockets, PCIx, PCI, and AGP, etc... Plus, it is harder to tell which parts are the fastest or best value now that everyone says their chip all their chips are equivallent to 4 GHz. The chance of being able to upgrade to current equipment is much less than it used to be. Replacing a processor now almost always means memory, power supply, motherboard, and heat sink.
All of this is hard enough building a windows machine, but now couple on getting Linux compatibility, and I say no thanks. I have built dozens of machines for family and friends, but I no longer do. I tell them to go to Dell, buy the cheapest thing, upgrade the memory. I don't have support or warranty issues. Im not returning parts that are wrong, etc...
My best solution to this problem was that when my super tricked out brand new system got stolen, I bought a mac, and it was one of my best computing moves. I paid a rediculous amount, but 3 years later, I haven't felt the need to upgrade it once.
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
Putting your own computer together these days with all the options, choices to make, etc. is getting harder than it was 10 years ago.
I call bullshit on that one (and yes, I was putting together my own PCs ten years ago).
Then: A dozen different video card manufacturers, twice that many chipsets, equal variety of drivers.
Now: Two major manufacturers, two unified drivers.
Then: IDE=slow. Master? Slave? Cable? WTF is this?
Now: SATA - plug and go.
Then: Set up your modem to connect to your ISP and hope you don't get any incoming calls. Firewall? What's that?
Now: ADSL. Wireless routers. Built-in firewalls.
Then: Scanner? SCSI (and don't forget your terminators). Printer? Parallel. Video in? Forget it.
Now: USB and Firewire.
Then: Steel case weighing 20kg, built out of razor blades.
Now: Complete kit with rounded internal edges, fans in the box, you name it.
OK, I'll try.
/home branch of the filesystem. So if your user account name was "cpnabend", your home directory is probably /home/cpnabend
You know how Windows has "My Documents", right? And that's the default place for downloaded files to go?
The analogous concept in Linux is the "home directory". It's called that because each user account on the system has one, and that user has complete power to do whatever they want there, unlike most of the system which requires admin privileges to make changes.
The home directories, logically enough, are all stored in the
The home directory is where the system is going to store lots of stuff -- configuration files for applications, downloaded files, you can even install applications in there (if you're the only user who needs them). In this way the "home directory" concept is more expansive than the "My Documents" concept, which is only for document files (your configs are in the Registry, your apps are in Program Files). It's also why the home directory is more useful than My Documents -- if you regularly backup your home directory, you will have nearly everything you need to bring your Linux box back from the dead in case of emergency.
Read my blog.
The advantages you mention were covered in my original post. I specifically said that you get the better warranty and support when buying from Dell, but that you could get off cheaper if all you wanted was a cheap computer. You challenge that statement, and when proved wrong, you try to retort with points that I originally made.
My original point still remains exactly the same despite your completely irrelevant comments: building your own system *can* be done cheaper than Dell (even on the low end - the price savings increases as you approach the high end), but if you want the extra warranty or support, you can buy from them.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I'd rather spend a few hours installing windows than spend weeks uninstalling the Dell shovelware. I'd be pretty surprised if you bought a Dell and jumped for joy at the "fun" extras.
Linux used to be a hobby for me. For a few years linux was on the fence and one could fall off quite easily. Today though Linux has really matured. The biggest problem still exists--the linux zealot. They kill Linux, they harm the community, and the completely stifle growth on the desktop. The Linux community should shun them hard. They are like an outdated car. They are more broken than they are worth. It's best to move past them instead of trying to fix them. You can't appease a Linux zealot--they are harmful just by their very existence. I think the BSD community needs them now, and they should relent to the desktop.
You know in reality this fanaticism toward total open source is just ridiculous. On the one hand you see everyone saying Linux is only good if you are true open source while the majority say that they want quality commerical games and apps running under it. You can't have both. No one is going to release a commercial application or game as open source. So just consider the OS open source and get the applications/games running so the market share can grow.
I see the zealots holding everyone in a catch 22 with their false logic. We need development and yes that means comemrcial apps. Linux is just an OS. The applications and games are just applications and games. What benefits the users is more important then even open source. Never relinquish the open source product to the commercial venue but realize that the OS is just that, the OS. It is meant to be installed and forgotten. The users don't interact with the OS they interact with the applications and games. If you can get that through those zealot's thick skulls we'll have growth in the market. But that also means a real stand-alone universal distro applications installer.
It's about the USER not about the OS. Never has. These zealots have the same disease that Microsoft has -- OSitis. We, the users are the king. It is us that make or break you. It isn't about the OS. Your OS should provide the services to the apps and games so that we the users can benefit the greatest in the smallest amount of time.
All in all, I use Linux as my main box. My favorite game (Enemy-Territory) plays just fine on it. If I want to get any of my other games installed I can. Not that I can get them all but through Cedega or Wine I can. Keep in mind that there are quality commercial games out there such as Doom 3, Neverwinter Nights, Quake 3, UT2003/2004.
The problem here is DX9 and 10. It is a closed environment which requires a sizeable investment to learn and develop for. With Vista discontinuing support for OpenGL (even though OpenGL is still a widely competent and quality product) it makes it hard for developers to choose to target OpenGL even as a secondary target audience. These are efforts of a Monopoly power using tactics to close down its competition, clearly.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I ask that instead of automatically going "OMG he went with Microsoft he must be stupid / evil / a troll / whatever" - you think seriously and constructively about the pros and cons of each platform and why the MS route was more suitable for me. And perhaps, how Linux can cater to my type in future.
:)
I've been interested in Linux for a long time, but as yet I haven't found it suitable to be a *complete replacement* for Windows; and unfortunately because it's so inconvenient switching back and forth, I might as well use the platform which works for me. I find myself facing Compromises quite a lot with Linux, and this is fine for a secondary machine but not a primary one. The compromises are fully understandable - most of the software is written by unpaid volunteers in their small amounts of free time, there are patent/DMCA issues holding back certain areas and many hardware and software manufacturers simply refuse to develop for Linux. However the fact remains that there are still compromises to be made - and ones which I'm not willing to make when I can pay £67 and do everything and never have any compatibility problems, compromises or headaches.
I have a long log of my experience with Ubuntu somewhere, but basically it boils down to this:
- Installation itself was ridiculously easy - on par with Vista. It was after installation that things went downhill...
- It didn't recognise my 1Gb network port (Asus P5B) so I had to use the 100Mb one until I *recompiled the kernel with patches* (messy, and getting the bits together for compiling it was a bitch)
- I never got wireless networking going, it would see the access points and connect to them but not get any data through and signal quality read '0'. I knew what I was doing and it was clearly a bug. Even ndiswrapper with the win98 drivers didn't work. There were endless other people encountering exactly the same problem in the Ubuntu Forums (network section) but nobody coming up with working answers. I am not willing to accept "well you have a wire connection, use that" as an answer.
- I got bluetooth kind-of working, although it was flaky to say the least (to be fair, the same usually applies in Windows. I only know of Macs and other non-PCs that have decent, reliable bluetooth support)
- Getting something other than 60Hz on my monitor, required hacking xorg.conf manually... I can do this so it's not a problem, but really I shouldn't have had to. A flaw with Ubuntu rather than Linux itself (and a long standing flaw as I had the same problem with early versions) as other distros handle monitor detection and configuration perfectly.
- Getting things like java, flash, etc were a ballache, as ever, due to all the licensing/patent issues.
- World of Warcraft didn't work in WINE or Crossover when I tried it. I didn't get around to messing with it much, to be fair, but I expected the latter to work as it's advertised as one of their primary supported products.
- I'm a keen photographer, and photography in Linux is "pants", to say the least. The only decent, configurable RAW converter (not dcraw, which only does the basics) was the commercial Bibble, and even then - due to it not using Canon's SDK - it's not a patch on Breezebrowser Pro or Canon's own DPP in Windows when the results are put side by side. Photography was essentially the deal-killer with me: there are many things I'm willing to compromise on or 'live with' - but I am not willing to compromise on my photos, otherwise I wouldn't have bought a 30D.
- What with all the other bits of software and games for Windows which are not ported to Linux or supported in WINE, and the sheer amounts of time you *still* have to invest in getting anything out-of-the-ordinary working (not nice after a hard day at work when all you want to do is spend the few available hours having fun) I'm afraid I went with the horned devil. £67 (Home Premium OEM) seems like a very reasonable amount to pay after all the wrestling with Ubuntu