Slashdot Mirror
After Ubuntu, Windows Looks Increasingly Bad
mrcgran writes "Sys-Con has a look at some advantages of using Ubuntu over Windows. 'My recent switch to a single-boot Ubuntu setup on my Thinkpad T60 simply floors me on a regular basis. Most recently it's had to do with the experience of maintaining the software. Fresh from a very long Windows 2000 experience and a four-month Windows XP experience along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu. Three prior attempts over the years at using Linux as my daily desktop OS had me primed for failure. Well, Ubuntu takes Linux where I've long hoped it would go — easy to use, reliable, dependable, great applications too but more on that later. It has some elegance to it — bet you never heard that about a Linux desktop before.'"
I've been using it at work for the past several months, it accomplishes everything I need. I miss Trillian, Gaim is a mediocre substitute IMHO. I've been very impressed with how good the experience has been, I have yet to find myself thinking "Damn, I wish I had my windows box back."
Now, I'm looking forward to UbuntuDupe's post about how Ubuntu sucks because nobody helped with his troubles using Ubuntu, despite his tantrum on the forums.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
"Fresh from a very long Windows 2000 experience and a four-month Windows XP experience along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu."
TFA reads less like a comparison of two OS's than an Ubuntu sales pitch. Granted, I use and love Ubuntu, but I like my side-by-sides with a little less bias from the get-go.
I've used KDE as my primary work desktop for 5 years. Sometimes there were limitations, but those were easily overcome. Things got even simpler when we switched to terminal services for some of our corporate desktops. E-mail was always an issue with an exchange backend, but Kontact has filled that void since we migrated to Exchange 2000. OpenOffice handled all the spreadsheets, and the applications that I could not run via wine were first handled by an old box using VNC, then remote desktop once that was rolled out.
There were some things that I couldn't do, but there was a lot more that I could do to offset that. With the extra flexibility that linux gave, and the ability to show off an alternate desktop, I would not go back.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"...along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu"
I find sys admins often don't make the best user-friendly assessments of desktop software and OSs, especially from average Joe's point of view. No offense to the author, who makes many valid points, but I'd rather see a comparison of Ubuntu, Vista, and OS X from a school teacher or small business owner.
- For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
...long with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu. Right. Can you imagine the response had someone said "As a long time Windows server admin, I'm in a great position to assess Vista". Seriously, how many more articles about long time linux users "discovering" they love this or that distro are we in for?Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here
I will get bashed since slashdot is linux fanboy heaven but this is my experience. Ubuntu will not become mainstream until most isntals work with no command line needed what so ever. i have tried ubuntu on my laptop and on a p3 450 hp comp and both required command line help to get the basic system working.
For system admins linux might be good but if 30 min of fiddling with the command line to just get the system working is needed then it will not become mainstream.
Also on that hp comp ubuntu takes n15 min to boot up. I am not lying. Xp on the same machine is much faster.I tried getting help on some linux boards and all I got were nasty replies.
So there is a lot of things that have to be done before linux becomes mainstream and really fights microsoft.
Go ahead and bash me all you want butthis is true.
FTFA:
"2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries."
I call bullshit on the author being a Linux admin. I'm not trolling and this certainly isn't flamebait, only truth: "It's Linux - no worries" is a load of crap and everyone here knows it.
From TFA:
That's FANTASTIC! Who is this guy and what's his IP?
Yes, MS sucks, Windows sucks, bugs galore and all that, but all nontrivial software is going to have bugs, and some of those bugs will lead to vulnerabilities, and some of those vulnerabilities will lead to viruses, attacks and so on. The reason that there aren't a lot of Linux viruses/attacks prawling around the net is because the Windows population is orders of magnitude larger than than the Linux population, making the choice obvious for any would-be parasite. Maybe Ubuntu is way better software than Windows in any number of ways - ehm, I mean, of course it is, but if it were to sweep Windows clean off the face of the Earth and take its place, you'd be installing Symantec for Ubuntu and worrying about script kiddies, trojans and the like. If Ubuntu is better then it'll be harder to exploit, but exploits will happen - the perceived calm right now exists because too few people are trying to attack the platform.
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries.
3) Thanks to #1 and #2, I'm free from products like Symantec and Norton and the dollar expense, the complexity of administering them (those pop-ups are annoying and a productivity hit), and wondering when they expire next. Wow, I wonder where I've heard this before. Sheesh. Yes, Linux has a better security model than the typical "make everyone administrator" model used on Windows systems, but this does not make Linux magically bullet proof. As for not needing anti-virus or anti-spyware software for Linux.. you don't need them for Mac either. Why is that? Cause no-one could be bothered writing a virus or some spyware for such a minuscule amount of the market.
But look at what happened with Firefox. Initially, just like Linux or Mac, no-one bothered trying to break the security. There was no hacks to get around popup blockers, etc. Now Firefox is just a little more popular and the threat landscape has changed.
This isn't to say that Linux can't be made more resilient to viruses if and when they finally show up. It can, and, more importantly, it probably will. Just don't go around saying that Linux is immune to viruses and spyware. Especially, don't go around claiming that this stuff is impossible, because that's exactly the kind of challenge that blackhats go for.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
And this, people, is why Linux will *never* own significant acrege in the desktop market: The people who drive most Linux development *are not* interested in desktop usability and *user* experience. This is not a troll / flamebait / cut, it's simply the truth, the definition of "usability" is very different from Linux developer to "average Joe User".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Are you sure? The article mentions Symantec more often than Microsoft. I don't doubt the moral of the story--the advantages of Ubuntu over XP--but the body of the article if FUD.
He makes it sound like Symantec AV is a) absolutely 100% required to run Windows, yet at the same time, b) makes Windows 100% unusable. In fact, neither is true. Okay, there is some evidence for point b, but point a is crap. There are plenty of other options for Windows anti-virus. Many are not resource hogs, and some are even free (as in doughnuts).
When he's not complaining about Symantec, he mostly addresses ease of installation. Yes, Windows is pain to install, even before you get to applications, with the patches and security updates and reboots, etc. But that should be a minor point of comparison. Ubuntu beats Windows on day 1, but what about day 2 until day [get new computer/decide to wipe system and reinstall everything]? It's worth my while to put in a few extra hours on day 1 if that effort will save me a few minutes a day for the next few hundred days.
So aside from Symantec and OS installation, what about a comparison of everyday computer use? He addresses several issues that have nothing to with Ubuntu vs. Windows. Backups? Okay, you can use the same backup procedure for your desktop and servers with Ubuntu because your servers are linux. If my servers are Windows, doesn't that same point become an advantage to running Windows on the desktop? And printing from the internet, what does this have to do with desktop OS?
I do not doubt the point he is trying to make--Ubuntu is a good desktop OS and has many advantages over MS Windows--I just don't see much of a valid argument made here to support that point.
okay shootout time somebody needs to get a pair of real live Amish Farmers and 2 identical boxes one with Windows Vista and one with KUbuntu 7.04 on it
rate the 2 on
1 office stuff (write letters print stuff maybe whip up a spreadsheet )
2 Online stuff (email and surfing)
3 Multimedia (cds and DVDs)
4 General Look and Feel
5 System stuff (getting around the filesystem organizing stuff ect)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Nobody said Windows was a bad desktop. It certainly has a great interface. It's just a bad OS. The difference is drawn there.
has it already been 12 hours since the last "Ubuntu is great!" article?
Just um, how often do we need to see these, anyway?
I'm pretty certain it was late 2001.
And this guy has only been using XP for four months?
Call me unimpressed with his "great position" to evaluate software.
I don't want this to come off as a flame but it may or at least it may come off as a troll but here goes.
As a unix\linux\windows admin who spent a great deal of time in a windows\linux environment, I find windows to be more difficult to secure. Unix and linux have certain things layered well for my way of thinking.
Common driver locations , common binary locations , no registry that people can bury crap into to auto load stuff. Having to assume everybody who uses the ms machine is an idiot and lock them down in the Ad profile versus the user being told basically your stupid and you can't mess up this system without a major effort. The one thing I usually don't like is not every program loads the config files to a specific folder. I would love to see that but it probably wouldn't happen.
Windows admins are a dime a dozen for a reason , it's easy to find some people who claim to know what they are doing. Not so easy in the unix or linux worlds.But I do believe in using the right OS for the job that needs to be done , and usually that MS for the desktop and Solaris or linux for the servers.
This package Does Not Contain a Winner
Firefox+Adblock Plus+Noscript+Privoxy. One of them got it.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
OK. The desktop metaphor; you work with documents, files, folders. That isn't what happens on Windows. On windows, you deal with menus and applications then you have to go search for your documents and folders. I can see why it happens, each application needs to make itself the centre of your attention so that you remember to go buy it again when it's time to upgrade. It's job is to make itself far more important than all of the other applications. So it hides your files and documents away and you have to access them through the file->open menu within the application and it sticks an application icon on your desktop... Doesn't make any sense within the desktop metaphor. That's why Windows sucks as a desktop. You can change it of course, and I have, it makes it more usable but it's a pain.
Ubuntu gets it more right than Windows. The applications themselves are less important, partly because they're mostly free, they get out of the way. Then you have the folders right there on the desktop so you can access the documents themselves directly. The application becomes just a tool to work on the information, which is what it's supposed to be. Ubuntu is actually easier to use than Windows. The metaphor makes sense.
Deleted
Can I say it? Windows has the worst desktop in all of computing. Start buttons, taskbars, a work paradigm that encourages monolithic apps and maximized windows, a desktop that gets abusively filled with every program shortcut known to man, a defective clipboard model (crtl-C!?), sloppy filename/type handling (annakournikova.jpg.exe), annoying alerts and confirmation dialogs, application-centric workflow, the list goes on and on.
It was "good enough" on 14-inch monitors in 1995, I'll grant you, and I'm no big fan of the Gnome/KDE attempts to replace it. But there are a few of us out there who think it's a pretty sorry excuse for a desktop in this day and age.
Well, if nobody said it yet, I will be the first then. Windows has horrible interface, I simply cannot stand it. The top 10 reasons Windows will not make it on (my) desktop are:
.exe files, double click on each of them and click through bunch of totally useless installation "wizards". They usually give you stupid advice, such as "close all other programs" (why?) and "reboot your computer when you are done" (again, why?).
10. stability: I must say windows improved a lot since 95, it very rarely crashes on me, but I still get considerably more problems from my windows box in my office than from any of my linux boxes at home, and I use it much less.
9. security: again, MS improved a lot, these days it is actually possible to secure a windows desktop computer pretty well, and if you avoid using IE, outlook and office, put your computer behind a good firewall and have good full time IT staff handling security patches and maintaining the firewall, you are actually pretty safe.
8. cost: again, that does not bother me too much, as it is my employer who is paying for it, but I wouldn't buy windows for my home computer, I have better ways to use the money.
7. lack of software: this used to be a big one. Again, these days most applications I use have been ported to windows, so the situation is not as bad as it used to be.
6. software installation: this is still a big problem. There is no good way on windows to install software. As I wrote above, there are good applications for windows, but to get them, one has to go all over the web, download bunch of
5. upgrading: There is no way on windows to keep your software up to date. If you want to have an up to date desktop, you have to watch bunch of websites for new releases, and manually upgrade every application you are using.
4. file system organization: the way the files are organized is just a mess. There is no logical organization, and finding where your files are can be a nightmare. And what's with the drive letters?
3. system integration: even though there are now good applications running on windows, most of them do not integrate well with the system, nor with each other. One of them expects unix type paths, another windows type paths. One works with "focus follow mouse", another doesn't. They keep their data files at different places, problem closely connected with the file system organization problem mentioned above.
2. User interface (window manager): There is so much that's wrong with windows user interface that it occupies the top two reasons. The window manager itself is horrible, even worse than metacity. Only one desktop. No window shading. Hardcoded unintuitive keyboard shotcuts, if there are shortcuts at all.
1. the rest of the user interface: You cannot cut and paste with mouse, at least not in an easy way. Not only there is number of demented modal dialog windows, but there are modal dialog windows from which you have to open another modal dialog window. If you do that, the first window stops responding, and you cannot even move it or iconify it, until you close the top dialog. If that window obscures something that you need to see in order to use the top most dialog box, too bad. The way the programs menu is (not) organized is just impossible. I really don't understand how somebody can call that a good user interface.
AccountKiller
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
a defective clipboard model (crtl-C!?)
What do you mean? Is that a bad keystroke to assign to "copy"? IMHO Windows' clipboard is one of its best features. I can copy/paste with confidence distinct types of data between programs and it still hasn't given me an unexpected result.
The filename/type thing *is* a screwup, I agree.
No sig
Yes, Ubuntu won't let us use all the other shit we've been locked into by distasteful business practices, so let's keep our blinders on and pretend that anything different is bad, because it's not what we already have...
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I can say that I do have issues with ubuntu but not in regard to usability. If anything, I hope the project I'm involved with can get that good.
Most adults can do many tasks on a computer if they have a real reason to try. My mother managed to install Java so she could play Yahoo games. My cousin put together a bare bones laptop because it was the only way his father would allow him to buy a computer. (he had to build it himself) He was 13 at the time with no prior experience upgrading or building systems. The difference between an adult and a 3 year old is curiosity and willingness to learn new things.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
I read it. It wasn't bad. When the popup came I was simply disappointed that a Linux based site would have that. I have long become accustomed to simply laying a beat on the "close this" button/link on stuff like that. Whatever content was listed didn't even register.
It was nice to read an article that stated that his Linux experience overcame many of the incredulous defects being purposefully incorported. I do not like the fact that the monopolist is forcing these sorts of things down the throat of consumers due to their monopoly. It is always best to have competition. Linux is now a better OS than Windows is and only great things are coming up. It is the great OS that Linux is that has been causing Microsoft to grunt and growl with muted voices at IP in Linux. Now they just need to sue us so we can get this stuff out in the open and end this farce thus ending the claims of IP infringement.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I wouldn't consider myself an expert on any OS. However, the author is implying that Vista is insecure and Linux is not. Just a few of Vista's security features are:
- Windows Resource Protection
- Windows Integrity Control
- User Interface Process Isolation
- User Interface Privilege Isolation
- User Account Control
- Patch Guard
- Mandatory Integrity Controls
- Filter Manager
- File System Filter
- Address Space Layout Randomization
Yes some people complain about too many UAC prompts. People need to realize that this is very much a new operating system that has been designed to be backward compatible with as many applications as possible. It was also designed for security. Applications that are specifically designed for Vista should have little or no UAC prompts.
The main problem with Vista is driver and codec support. This happens to be the same problem with Linux, though it has gotten better over the years. His experiences with 2000 and XP are irrelevant. I'm not an M$ fanboy, but I do try to stay informed. Verifiable facts are very important to me. I'm dubious as to his experiences with Vista.
Coming from a unix background, I find ctrl+c a strange keybinding. It's rather anying to have to use a either a binding or a menu to copy and paste. When I do use Windows, I am always mildly frustrated by this decision.
Thank you for commenting on the actual article!
Lol, he might be a troll but he has a point. Perhaps we need stories that are a little less along the lines of "obvious". Please Eds? Thanks
>> but I don't suppose you'll be getting around to that until about 2011.
Makes perfect sense to me as Vista is a bloated piece of crap.
Windows has the worst desktop in all of computing.
The windows desktop isn't all bad. There are some good usable elements to it.
Start buttons,
While the layout of what's in the start menu is more of an issue, the actual concept of a start menu isn't really bad. The start menu gives you a single point that is always available on the screen to access almost everything on the computer. Pretty good usability decision in my opinion. Unlike way before when you always had to keep going back to the desktop or "program manager" to get to programs you can leave what you're working with and start up another application or open another document. Also, unlike toolbars and docks, it doesn't take up additional screen real estate.
taskbars,
What's wrong with the taskbar? It's a great idea that could be implemented a little better. It shows me all of my applications that are running regardless of if I can see the window or not. Sure, it looks cluttered when there are too many windows but that's find because I always have full visibility of what applications are running or open. We're even seeing the concept reused as something called "tabs."
a work paradigm that encourages monolithic apps and maximized windows,
Ok, this is more of the fault of the developers of applications and not necessarily the desktop. But with all of the applications I work with, I have sometimes felt that working maximized was better while other times working with multiple windows is better. Windows is great because it allows you to do both. For example, when I just need to sit in front of the text editor to really just finish writing a module, I maximize the window because I know I won't be using other windows much if ever. Now when I move over to testing and debugging, having the other windows open like the shell alongside the text editor help and that's when I "un-maximize" the text editor window so I can see both. On the mac desktop you always see people resizing windows especially when they really just want to work with one application. I find that clumsy compared to windows where if you really just want to work with one application, you maximize. When you "un-maximize" (restore down) it returns the window to the original size. I find this saves me a lot of time since I don't have to spend that much time resizing windows.
Another trick is that if you double click the title bar for any window, it is the same thing as clicking the maximize button. If the window is already maximized, it "un-maximizes" the window. Since the window title bar (while in the maximized state) is flush against the top of the screen, it's actually very fast to un-maximize the window with the mouse.
a desktop that gets abusively filled with every program shortcut known to man,
Again, this is more of the fault of the application developers than the desktop. The Windows desktop actually was going in the right direction by removing things from the desktop except the trash bin. I find that every application has the stupid "install icon to desktop" option checked by default when it really should be left off. I no longer start things from the desktop and my desktop space is more of a temporary space with a bunch of junk on it. Everything I actually need to save is kept in a place away from the desktop. That's because with the way I work, I treat anything on the desktop as one-time use that will probably be trashed later. But if it wasn't right there in front of my face, it would just get lost somewhere and I would never clean it up.
a defective clipboard model (crtl-C!?),
The actual windows clipboard is far from defective and actually works the best out of any platform I've used. Now, the key-binding could be better and so could other things like drag and drop. But if there's anything windows has done well, it's gotten developers to stick to some standards like this. On other systems (linux comes to mind) there's so many d
All I can say is try it :)
:)
NX is fast and responsive over dial-up, and usable over GPRS.
NX is fast enough that you may want to consider setting up an NX server in your server farm, and proxy your RDP connections through it. It does an excellent job of this.
The difference between NX and plain X is incredible, and having used both, I prefer working with NX over RDP.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell