Slashdot Mirror
Walt Mossberg Reviews Ubuntu
sciurus0 writes "Mainstream technology journalist Walt Mossberg recently reviewed an Inspiron 1420N with Ubuntu installed by Dell. Citing problems such as an oversensitive touchpad and poor multimedia support, he suggests that 'from the point of view of an average user, someone who wouldn't want to enter text commands, hunt the Web for drivers and enabling software, or learn a whole new user interface' Ubuntu isn't a good choice compared to Windows or OS X."
Linux (Xorg, really) does configure touchpads to be too sensitive and some things still can't be configured graphically, but the fact that Dell is willing to sell a computer with Linux is a big step. It isn't perfect, but it is getting there. Frankly, reviews like his are what Linux really needs. Linux isn't deficient, but when people point out these things, it tells us "oh, maybe we can set more user-friendly defaults for touchpads in the xorg.conf - or create a small front end to edit them".
These reviews will only make Linux stronger.
Mossberg isn't just dumping on Linux or open source. He generally likes the idea of OSS:
Rather, he notes some average-user-level problems with Ubuntu (simple things like video, audio, and mouse issues). He's talking about usability by people who don't read Slashdot and are not related to (or dating) someone who DOES read Slashdot.
Of course, he still thinks that "the Apple iMac as the best consumer desktop computer on the market." And we all know the iMac is horrible to use and support!
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
He may be a Windows user, but he's also a much respected reviewer. Let's stop the attack and look carefully at his points and address them if necessary. How about a 'Getting Started' tutorial for new users to learn the UI and differences between Windows and Gnome?
I'd say for hardware support Ubuntu is way ahead of where Win2k was in 2000 or 2001.
That's great, but it's 2007 now.
I don't respond to AC's.
The hardcore Linux proponents can deny it all they want, the simple fact of the matter is that when the average user sits down with a Linux box, there are still numerous shortcomings that may make it unacceptable.
I've said it elsewhere, I've said it here; licensing MP3 would be a good start for Ubuntu. They can certainly afford it, and the US MP3 patents are only valid until 2012, so it'd cost at most $250,000 to essentially get permanent MP3 support.
I think his point is that he shouldn't have had to.
Anything not working is a legitimate complaint. Period.
It doesn't matter if the issues are legal or technological; if something doesn't work, it's an issue.
I would love the average user to be technically savvy enough to install and use Linux, any distro. It would eliminate a lot of problems we all face. The technically savvy user would be able to keep their equipment cleaner from mal-ware and would be a lot more vocal about quality control of software products.
These kind of articles are what the Linux community needs. We need to have non-enthusiasts evaluate the distro, and then correct the problems. It's amazingly easy to get into the habit of understanding that an issue, or a kludge exists, work around it, and have it become so ubiquitous that we forget it's even there.
On the other hand, if we want to remain the elite minority, it's easy. Flame these kinds of articles and ignore the wants and needs of the non-elite majority. We'll stay Elite, holier than them, and a minority.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
#3. Playing mp3's - learn the legal issues, we've been harping on that for YEARS.
You're missing the point. Average users shouldn't have to go to law school to figure out why their software doesn't work. Legal issues concerning codecs are irrelevant to users. Either the product works, or it doesn't. In this aspect, the product does not work.
I don't respond to AC's.
Mark Shuttleworth, the South African-born founder of the Ubuntu project, told me this week that "it would be reasonable to say that this is not ready for the mass market." And Dell's Web site for its Ubuntu computers warns that these machines are for "for advanced users and tech enthusiasts."
Armed with that knowledge, he goes out to write a column about:
So, what do I mean when I say Ubuntu is too rough around the edges for average users?
Apparently, though it is "too rough" it is not rough enough to keep the uninitiated away despite warnings precisely to that effect, which is a damned sight more interesting by itself than the litany of peeves he enumerates.
None of which typically applied to a brand-new out of the box computer with Windows Pre-installed. What Walt was reviewing was a laptop provided by Dell with Ubuntu pre-installed by Dell. All of us Linux fans have been saying that the only fair comparison between Windows and Linux would be on machines with the OS pre-installed. We now have that situation, and Walt has some very valid criticism. Although I don't think the need to download new CODECs is all that severe, the poor video performance, problems with the touchpad and the crashing volume control applet are absolutely unacceptable for a pre-install.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
I tried Linux in several distros back in 2000 and was amused but not pleased. Driver support was crazy, the simple matter of changing screen resolutions was terrible, and useful applications (beyond games) made Linux a poor choice for the basics.
Times change, however. Contrary to Mossburg, who, much of the time, is a very even-handed and well-informed tech columnist that really knows the ins and outs of Windows and OS X, I'd have to disagree with him here.
I've installed Ubuntu client in my Parallels virtual environment on my OS X system. I like it over the past Linux distros for several key reasons:
(1) Ubuntu (actually, GNOME) has greatly simplified its interface, "stealing" good elements from both OS X and Windows. From the Mac, a fixed menu bar at the top of the screen, and only four menus at that. Finding things is easy. From Windows, the notion of menu-launching key applications a'la the Start menu button (rather than mere commands found in OS X menus).
(2) Ubuntu has very good hardware support, but always there will be a system that doesn't like it as well. This is because of the same problem that Windows has (although Microsoft has more money and clout to throw at this problem): Hardware quality and variations in the computer world are astronomically huge. Expecting any operating system to support the myriad of PC hardware variations is just near-impossible. Ubuntu does much better, in my experience in using it, than say another GNOME interfaced-Linux, Fedora. (In fact, Fedora is pretty awful in client form.)
(3) Ubuntu has EVERYTHING that the average Joe Offthestreet needs for basic internet and home needs: A web browser (Firefox, arguably best in the biz), an office suite (OpenOffice, always trying to be something that MS Office thinks it is), a mail client (Thunderbird, a client so nice I've moved from Apple Mail to it on my OS X system) and lots of games and the like.
Software update processes are now less crazy and propellerhead, again taking the ideas from the commercial camps. Security is as good as any Unix/Linux client, and since its not Windows, spyware and viruses are not generally present here.
Ubuntu loses only in the specialized "gimme-gimme" internet needs of the youth and industry, like iTunes (doesn't exist, but good MP3 players and support for them are, although iTunes Music Store reins supreme, IMO), some specialty web features for audio or video, professional-level graphic and audio tools, and enterprise support (this problem is shared with OS X, despite my own personal and professional efforts to the opposite).
Installing further applications outside of the bundled, however, needs work. GNOME needs to expand further with, say, Apple's "package" concept of a single app in a double-clickable folder that contains all the binaries and libraries for the app. For now, Ubuntu works like many Linux clients, so third-party apps are hellish to do for the average Joe Whodoesntdo-cmdlines.
If I had a friend or family member that needed a computer (PC) but didn't want to fight the antiquation battles that MS wants to give its consumers, AND if my friend only needed to do web, email, and general office stuff, Ubuntu is a hands-down favorite.
Mossburg and others, unfortunately, may have had too much exposure to other operating systems to see things more simply. Not everyone needs an enterprise-level operating system...just one that works for them for what they need, at home.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
So he has TWO legitimate complaints and one minor problem. He's an idiot.
Is this a fancy way of saying he's an average user? Your average user isn't going to know anything about the legal issues surrounding codecs on Linux. All they know is that on Windows and OSX their media files play fine right after installing the OS. The habit of calling new users idiots and blowing them off saying "RTFM" is one of the things that's stunted Linux adoption on the desktop.
By his "logic", Windows is not ready for anyone. Try getting an iPod to work on it without installing software.
An iPod comes with software and instructions that make it ready and easy to install on Windows/OSX. I certainly doubt there are any instructions in an iPod box that deal with installing it on your favorite Linux distro. Which means of course that you end up online searching Google for how to use your iPod with Linux. This is one of his (legitimate) gripes. In fairness it's not a gripe with Linux so much as it is with the lack of manufacturer support, but for users this is one in the same.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
The problem that Linux has is that it's written by wildly disparate groups of people with different ideas about how an OS should work from a user perspective. The strength of Linux is that it's written by wildly disparate groups of people with different ideas about how an OS should work from a technical perspective.
It's perfectly possible to make a UNIX OS be usable by the masses -- Apple's done that with OS X. The difference is that Apple "cheats" -- they only support a certain range of hardware, all of which is a known quantity to them. They're not dealing with the issues of a Frankencomputer made from whatever bits of hardware happen to show up.
The only way to get Linux as a mass-use OS is to user test the living hell out of it. That means a continual process of refactoring so that the user never has to view the command line unless they really want to. That means making sure that every application follows a consistent HIG. That means that the first person who says something along the lines of "RTFA" gets canned.
What matters isn't technical excellence, but a culture of usability. The Linux subculture is still based around the hacker ethics -- and that's why Linux remains an OS primarily for people who enjoy compiling programs and manipulating settings. That has to change. The culture needs to be one of taking a critical look at every stage in the process and presenting the user with a set of simple and consistent choices that let people use their computers rather than worrying about getting their machine in a usable state. Ubuntu's leaning in that direction, but they still have a long way to go.
The problem is that changing a culture is a hell of a lot harder than just writing software. A culture in which people are expected to navigate the Internet looking for answers will keep Linux marginalized. A culture that says "this problem is too complicated and needs to be simplified so that the average user gets it" is a culture that can take Linux to the mainstream. Not only that, but it encourages technical development as well -- a good number of the reasons for unnecessary complexity is because there are unnecessary complications in the way a piece of code works. At the end of the day, a solution that's simple for the user is often simple at the code level as well.
I've been using Linux for a decade now, and Ubuntu is a great distro -- but it still isn't enough. The only way that Linux will get mainstream acceptance is when Linux developers start consciously thinking about the overall user experience. It isn't the code that's the problem, it's the culture, and looking for technological solutions to cultural problems doesn't work -- just look at what Microsoft is trying to do with its current strategy.
I'm not suggesting that the rank-and-file support the uninitiated, but perhaps Linux vendors can take these types of things as fielding notes to help them build a better product.
Unless Linux geeks don't actually *want* Windows users to switch... :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Everyone with any sense knows that Linux isn't a great choice compared to Windows or OS X for those that don't want to learn a new UI
/.), CDE, KDE, and Gnome, and I guess a few other Windowing environments for *NIX, and sure they are usable, but none of them are great.
OK, I'm going to be a little hard on Linux/*NIX here, but I'm not trolling. I love linux, I'm typing this from a Linux box, so here we go.
All *NIX GUI is pretty bad (with the exception of OS X). From my opinion, there is no real difference between Gnome and KDE, and both are pretty much a combo of 80s and 90s UNIX X window managers with a strong Microsoft Windows influence. My favorite GUI environment from the late 90s was WindowMaker, which was a ripoff of NextStep.
Linux is cool from the perspective of its openness and it being based on *NIX philosopies and style. But Even Linus will tell you that Linux is nothing new, and I believe that it would take something like a startup and a bunch of cash and forethought to make a good GUI for Linux or any other *NIX (again besides OS X).
I've used FVWM, TWM, OL(V)WM, WindowMaker, Afterstep (which is how I found
It drives me up a wall that copy and paste is so inconsistant. I have to think, is it control-v, right click and use menu, middle click, shift-insert, and its common for me to get it wrong. Oh, to do page up/down, should I use page up or down keys, or shift and page up/down, or will page up and down even work? What about drag and drop? Will it work? Will it work between apps? What about a consistant Widget look and feel?
These are common GUI things from the mid 80s, but as a rank ordering from best to worst, you have OS X, Windows, and others. Windows is not that great either. The look and feel has become about as segmented as *NIX. And OS X is not perfect, but it seems clear that they have spent more time and effort with attention to these design features than anybody else.
See, that's still a problem. He doesn't care that it's Free or not, just that it doesn't work as it should out of the box. Much in the way that democracy (or communism, or whatever) is both a political ideology and a form of government, Linux is both a social movement and a family of Operating System products. The thing is, he's taking the position not of the marching, banner-waving revolutionary in the street, but of the average citizen who doesn't care what that ruckus is, just that the busses run and his water's on. It's a sad fact, but that's all the vast, vast majority of people want.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Walt is right, Dell's Ubuntu offering is not ready for the masses. However, I see this largely as Dell's fuckup.
Dell is shipping vanilla Ubuntu on these things. No media codecs, no accelerated drivers for nvidia cards, not even a properly configured X server. Can you imagine them doing the same with Windows? It would be a disaster.
what is Dell supposed to do?
Pay for the codecs. There are legal options.
Why? Are licenses for the codecs going to cost Dell more for a Linux machine than a Windows one?
Somebody (meaning you) still has to pay for the license in that copy of PowerDVD after all. Windows machines don't support a lot of standard codecs out-of-the-box either. Just try playing a XviD movie on a stock PC with Windows Media Player. Oh, yeah, I remember, Windows tells me it needs to find the codec, then it fails to do so. And this is easier for a novice user because....?
I've bought a lot of Dell hardware in my career, and in general I'm pretty happy with Dell. But I agree with others here who say they just haven't done the job with their new Linux lines. Why GNOME and not KDE, a much more Windows-like desktop? Why no codecs and other multimedia support? Why no fine-tuning of the touchpad driver if that's an issue? You don't think Dell ignores issues like that when they configure their standard XP or Vista images, do you?
And, yes, if they're going to sell Linux machines then they damn well need to support them. Does that mean they may not make as much on Linux machines in the short term? Perhaps, since they'll need to build a support staff. In the longer run, they'll discover they're getting a lot fewer support calls per Linux machine than they do for Windows.
I'm not saying it'll be easy to sell Linux machines to a mass audience, but it's not impossible. It does require that the OEM put a little effort into it. If Walt there is having troubles with his trackpad, whose fault is that? Hint, it's not Canonical's.
Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to bundle Firefox, Thunderbird, and OpenOffice on those Windows machines you sell either, Mr. Dell.
I take your points, and to me it just seems as if nobody knows how to make a great GUI, or at least, nobody is making a great GUI. If there really was a great GUI out there, I might use it, but as far as I can tell there simply isn't.
I also think it's important to point out that it's completely possible to have a user friendly command line. I think command line interfaces get an unjustified reputation for new users. One of the most commonly used types of apps in the World -- the web search engine -- is based around command lines. Users type what they want, and the search engine tries to give it to them... often quite accurately. The Google command line is a great example of this. It's straightforward for new users to use quite effectively, and advanced users can customise their searches in lots of ways. It's not the type of precisely specified command line that would be associated with something like a bash session, but it's a well designed system appropriate for the task, intended to be quick to learn and easier to use.
Getting back to your comments about GUIs, I have to admit that one of the main reasons I prefer Linux as a desktop OS (and I fully agree this isn't for anyone) is that in a world where no GUI is that great, it provides an excellent command line. I primarily use the GUI these days to do regular things like open a web browser or edit a spreadsheet. But when I get sick of trying to interact with the GUI for a slightly complex operation such as moving files around in a certain way, I can switch to a command line and do things very easily.
Windows has a horrible command line as far as I've experienced. There are few consistent standards for how Windows command line tools should work together, and many Windows tools I've tried to use through a command line have been a secondary effort to an equivalent GUI tool. Often it's impossible to do simple things without invoking the GUI. The Windows Powershell stuff is quite nice for scipting functionality, but Windows still presents it through an awful interface for typing in.
Just my thoughts, anyway.