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.'"
...or the user?
"...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."
If a Linux sysadmin can't use Linux on the desktop, it must be a terrible desktop OS! Right? Right? *looks around frantically*
Come on, man. There are plenty of people who have been using Linux as their daily desktop. That would be why there have been so many "desktop" versions of Linux over the years.
Reliable. Locked down by default. Runs all the apps, games and multimedia Linux may never have. MS's first good OS deliverable.
I guess they may have compared 2003, but I guess he is just finding out about XP, so he is a little behind the times.
I switched one of my computers to Ubunutu after my Windows 2000 got yet another set of spyware/virus files that could not easily be removed. For the basic mundane stuff I love it, web browsing especially. I can't tell you how nice it is to know that the probability of getting some spyware or virus or whatever is virtually zero. Will this change as Ubuntu becomes more popular, who knows, but for now, I use Ubuntu for 90% of my web browsing, even on my dual-boot laptop.
I recently switched my home box from dual-partition to Kubuntu only, so I'm genuinely curious what applications are holding you back. In my experience, there were a few troubling cases, and their resolution:
Lack of applications used to be a problem with linux, but with modern applications like Amarok, a wonderfully complete (and always getting better) WINE project, and the polished experience and integration of suites like KDE... well, I just don't buy the "my apps aren't there!" anti-Linux argument.
This statement is solely an opinion. Kindly take it as such in all cases.
huh?
/have/ to pay for Windows, but you don't have to pay for Linux (you can if you want!), and there's probably more commercial software (but not much less free software) for Windows.
1) buy all the thing
Yeah, I bough all my hardware, theft is usually frowned upon, even if you are using FOSS...
Or were you talking about software?
*Looks at The Gimp icon on his desktop*
*Looks at the Open Office Icons*
Yep, paid *so* much for those! They cost me all of $0.00, I'm gonna go broke!
Seriously, finding free software for Windows is trivial.
2) install them ( each app in another way )
Yep, I have to install stuff to use it. Darn. Whoda thunk.
Oh wait, I install stuff if I use it in Linux. Sometimes by the package fetcher, sometimes by a downloaded package + manager, sometimes by source. Oh, looks there's lots of different ways there too.
In Windows it usually just involves wisards with extremely similar interfaces, where if you want you can put in the CD and keep clicking "next" until done, only having to agree to a EULA. But like Linux, there are the oddballs where you have to go outside of the norm.
3) update them, after paying for the possibilty of update Windows
Yes, because if you have Linux installed, with Xorg 6.9, you will *never* have to upgrade to 7.x to use version 7.x! It's *magical*
Seriously, every complaint in your rant is *just* as applicable to Linux as it is to Windows. The only caveat is that you
Some people find that Windows and some of that commercial software over the free alternatives. I know, having had a lot of experience with both, I prefer Windows to Linux, Corel Photopaint to The Gimp, etc.
It's all a matter of what you use, how you use it, and you method of looking at and solving problems.
Also, there are some games that will run in windows but not Wine, that's another reason some people use Windows...
People won't always agree with you, get over it.
(And if you try to counter me with that one - I never once said people shouldn't use Linux, I simply said that there are reasons not to use it, which may be valid for some users).
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
"Cause no-one could be bothered writing a virus or some spyware for such a minuscule amount of the market."
Myth.
It assumes that all three OSs are designed developed and written the same way. they are not.
The person that writes an in the wild virus for OSX will get a lot of notoriety. Probably enough to get funding for their own anti-virus for the Mac company; which could include a multi-million dollar exit strategy when one of the big names buys the company.
Linux and OSX are inherently more secure due to their architecture design.
Are they bullet proof? not likely, but your statement is based on a logical fallacy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think he's getting at "Features are less important than ease of use is."
I worked at a software company that made this product that could do a lot of things, and it did them fairly well. However, the software was a beast to navigate and understand... in the year that I was there, there were entire sections of it that I didn't have a clue how to use, despite repeatedly trying to figure them out. Now, if a potential client asked "can your software do X?" the answer would be "yes", but in reality, making it do what you wanted was a heavy task.
Let's compare Gmail to Yahoo mail- Yahoo has cool drag and drop, you can use it pretty much like a desktop email program... but for the most part, who needs that stuff? Google's approach, while lacking in all the features, is a much nicer experience (in my opinion).
THAT is where software is heading- things that are easy to use over having bells and whistles- making an application that does one thing really well, instead of one that does all kinds of things.
You're right. When 99% of computer users out there hit a snag with Windows they have their local Linux user come over and fix it for them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
After our warranty ran out on our ThinkPad T40, I decided to give Ubuntu a try, and am so far very pleased with it. The install was pretty straightforward, configuration was smooth, and we had no hardware/driver issues to speak of. Connecting up with our wireless router was a breeze, and really the only glitch has to do with our CUPS-enabled printer.
Frankly I was glad to find Ubuntu this easy to install and use because I thought our laptop was done for. Like the author, we had a corrupt Windows partition, and had to start from scratch. After we got everything installed and configured (less than an hour), I was on the deck working on docs and getting things done.
Anyone with a T40 or similar should give some serious thought to at least trying out Ubuntu. While it won't do everything a Linux admin would want, it's more than enough to keep users productive.
- Jack
Upon visiting this site, firefox started attempting to visit 255.255.255.255 on UDP 67 (BOOTPS).
I wonder of one of their ad providers actually infected me with something. Worst site ever.