Slashdot Mirror
Ulteo, The New 'World's Easiest Linux'
ggarron writes "Gael Duval, the creator of Mandrake and now fired from Mandriva, has created a new Linux distro, based on Ubuntu, and it claims to be the easiest Linux, and that it will redefine the Desktop philosophy."
it claims to be the easiest Linux
No, the easiest Linux is Tivo.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
It doesn't matter if it lives up to its claim or not, as long as it helps the average user get into Linux. Any 'easy' distro is welcome to join the fray. Welcome aboard.
How can it claim to redefine ANY philosophy if its aim is merely a rehash of the tired Windows 95 interface? Come on, a "start" menu?!
I understand the need to make switchers feel at home, and that's great for an "easy Linux" standpoint, but don't try to shove some "revolution" bullshit down our throats at the same time.
Looking at ulteo's home page (check out screenshot here), it looks like ulteo's going for something rather different to linspire (or ubuntu for that matter): Fragmentation++
A free market always fragments. Deal with it.
The article summary is slightly incorrect: Ulteo is based on Kubuntu, not on Ubuntu. This means that it used KDE instead of GNOME as its default desktop environment.
This is not a surprise, considering that Gael Duval is a big fan of KDE and started Mandrake by adding KDE packages to a base Red Hat distribution. But this announcement of a new Linux distribution started as a fork of an existing one sounds a bit like an ego fight. Also, I have serious doubts about using KDE for the "World's Easiest Linux". Either Gael Duval plans to dumb down KDE and hide most of its options, or his definition of "easiest" is rather biased (maybe "easiest for those with a solid experience of Windows"?). Neither seems to be obvious by looking at the Ulteo web site.
Also, the only screenshot available so far does not look like something that would be really easy to use. Compared to a default KDE 3.5 installation, this screenshot looks a bit closer to the default Windows XP interface, so maybe he does really think that "easiest" means "easiest for experienced Windows users". However, Firefox looks rather standard (it is interesting to note that he does not use Konq for browsing) and there does not seem to be anything special about the Konqueror window either.
So after looking at the various articles on the Ulteo web site claiming that it started with a study of "users with limited knowledge in computers", I am still wondering what is so special about this new fork of an existing distribution, and what it really means by "easiest".
I guess it doesn't really matter too much which distro you choose these days. They're all easy.
;-}
What it not easy, as I've just rediscovered over the last two days, is Windows XP. I had the thankless task of ridding the boss's wife's computer of all the bugware/spyware/malware her offspring had managed to install, and in my cocky wisdom I decided to wipe everything and reinstall from scratch.
Two days later, after pulling out hard drives to partition and format them one at a time (no sir, XP decided it didn't like disks it had just formatted), I was swearing in frustration at this dumbass OS that goes so far out of its way to make life difficult for the user.
Contrast with a standard Slackware install, which is simply done with and usable in an hour. Makes me want to take the next moron who says Linux isn't ready for the desktop and shove his teeth so far down his throat he'll have to stick his toothbrush up his ass...
Grrrr.
Before anyone tears into me -- I freely admit there is room for improvement. And yes, completely inexperienced users sometimes do take a moment to get the exact purpose of, or difference between quick launcher, taskbar and system tray. But still, all in all, it's a pretty solid interface. Personally, I've never been convinced by attempts to redesign the interface. I don't like the Gnome interface because it spreads things that ought to be in one place all over the screen without serious gains in usability, and keeps me from just flicking my cursor to the upper right and clicking if I want to close a window, which is a small detail, but annoying to me. I don't like the OSX interface too much, either -- again, it spreads out stuff that might just as well be in one place, letting every window keep its menu bar to itself makes more sense to me*, and putting open and closed programmes next to each other as big colourful icons might look nice, but also feels seriously cluttered and a lot less structured to me. I admit I don't use Macs much these days, so maybe I'm overlooking something, but from what I have seen, I'm not terribly impressed.
Most attempts at redesigning the desktop interface that I've seen may have a lower learning curve than the Windows 95 one, but they also seem to limit the user more once he gets beyond the level of an absolute beginner. And a computer just isn't a typewriter. No matter how simplified the interface is, you *are* going to have to put at least a little effort into learning how to use it. That's a basic fact that we might as well accept.
If someone can come up with a better interface without losing functionality, I'm up for it. But why should an interface be "tired" and need to be re-designed completely just because it's been around for a long time?
---
* Yes, I know that Apple's menu bar at the top came before Windows style menu bars. I learned to use computers on an old Macintosh SE with Mac OS 6.0.7.
Basilisk Digital
On the other hand, the insane amount of fragmentation we've seen in the "screw you guys, I'm starting my own distro" space has nothing to do with market forces and everything to do with geek egos.
Or possibly with disenchantment with the direction that the current players are taking. I know I'm in that boat, and there's no OS vendor that currently offers precisely what I'm looking for. Not MS, having used their products for many years and still having to deal with the cruft; not Apple, as a former Mac user; not Sun, although I still work with Solaris; none of the BSDs, nor any one of the myriad operating systems and distributions I've used over the past 20 years.
I started running Mandrake years ago based on the direction that Gael had taken a Redhat fork several years ago, since that seemed to be the only Linux distro at the time that was moving toward what I was looking for right out of the box (simple, scriptable installs, well supported KDE desktop, automated dependency resolution, totally Free-as-in-speech core, user-centric approach, good security tools, decent compatibility with most other systems). Ubuntu is sort of there, but I'm not interested in a Gnome distribution. It just doesn't feel right to me, YMMV of course. Unfortunately, Mandriva hasn't exactly continued along the path of a smooth user experience. Update servers glitch and so do the updates sometimes. Their forums don't seem very customer-centric these days, and getting involved with development is surprisingly chaotic.
I say good luck to Gael and his new team. Hopefully they will take the seemingly half-hearted Kubuntu core and get it right. This might be my next distro, assuming everything pulls together.
GPL: Free as in will
I find marketing Linux as "easy" to be nothing short of reprehensible. Hiding essential functionality behind a faux-Windows desktop not only makes Linux look like a cheap crappy Windows knock-off, but it de-emphasizes many of the reasons why Linux is better than Windows -- reasons why some people want to leave Windows in the first place. Nobody who really values easiness is going to install a new operating system. If anything they're going to buy a Mac. Linux is sophisticated and powerful, and IMHO the community would be best served by marketing it as such.
and what do you propose?
to install any OS from the CD you'll need to setup the BIOS to boot from it. if the distribution is any good, then magazines will start to include it on their CD/DVDs and then downloading/burning the image won't be needed either.
of course, you could always..do...this
What's your GCNSEQNO?
Go on, try to quickly navigate the submenus of their site here.
Make me feel bitter about their "easiest linux ever" statement, especially the part about "easiest".
Hahaha I don't know if you are serious about this or not but if you are man you are seriously out of touch with non-geek users.
There's no way people are going to put up with going through "command line exercizes" so that they can learn how to use it. To most folks a computer is a tool to get things done on, not a hobby to work on itself. The command line isn't better for anyone who is NOT a geek. For non-geeks the graphical user interface with its drag and drop abilities rules the roost. But seriously, good luck with that cause you're going to need it.
Seriously what is it with geeks assuming that the CLI is superior to the GUI for everyone? Can you not see from Distrowatch alone that the most popular distros are the ones that are the easist to use? You don't see Slackware or Gentoo in the #1 spot do you? No. You see Ubuntu. I know you are all a bunch of smart guys so why is this so hard to understand for you?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
"Contrast with a standard Slackware install, which is simply done with and usable in an hour. Makes me want to take the next moron who says Linux isn't ready for the desktop and shove his teeth so far down his throat he'll have to stick his toothbrush up his ass..."
Do you think maybe this has a bit to do with familiarity?
As a pc tech, I was used to reinstalling Windows on hosed computers. I was SO used to it that every install took less than an hour and had no issues. The first time I tried to install Slackware (having previous installed Debian with several issues), it didn't take a single hour. In fact, the third and fourth install didn't take only an hour, either.
From a user-only standpoint, Windows is just as easy to install as Linux, and vice-versa. Drivers are harder to find on Linux, but most of them 'just work', so it's kind of a push. Quite a few other issues are the same way. In fact, from a user-only standpoint, both are a freaking nightmare.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
The first time I tried to install Slackware (having previous installed Debian with several issues), it didn't take a single hour. In fact, the third and fourth install didn't take only an hour, either.
Something tells me you didn't read this or this.
If you just expect things to be set up right, you can't just install and be happy. In fact, the tendency to do that with Windows leads to the hosing of said Windows systems you write about.
The opposite of progress is congress
Just what the world needs - another Linux distro. Maybe if a few good folks could set their egos aside, and rather than create Yet Another Linux Distro, actually contribute to an existing community, we might converge on a manageable set of improved distros. This fragmentation is destroying, rather improving, the outlook for Linux. We are rapidly building a Tower of Linux Babel.