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.
"...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.
has it already been 12 hours since the last "Ubuntu is great!" article?
Just um, how often do we need to see these, anyway?
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.
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 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.
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