Slashdot Mirror
Windows vs. Ubuntu — Dell's Verdict
Barence writes "Remember how Dell put up a website declaring Ubuntu was safer than Windows, only to later change its mind? Well, the company has gotten right back into the Windows vs. Ubuntu debate with a highly sophisticated website arguing the pros and cons of each OS. People should choose Windows, argues Dell, if: they are already using Windows, are familiar with Windows, or are new to computers. People should choose Ubuntu if they're interested in open-source programming. Brilliant."
I'm a Mac user, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to recommend Ubuntu to someone new to using computers. It really is as simple to use as Windows, and repositories are huge win for usability and security.
I set my parents up with an Ubuntu machine. On the desktop are icons for: Solitaire, Google, and Yahoo! Mail. They have not had a problem since I moved them to this setup.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
For most users *any* platform will do. Be it, Windows, Linux or OS X.
Most users will use the computer for Facebook, Twitter, MSN messenger and such. Unless you are a gamer or absolutely need to run a Windows-Only application, ANY OS will be able to get the job done, Windows being the less secure of them for non-techies.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
The extent of the instructions I give guests is, "This is not Windows, it's Linux, but it works pretty much the same. Here's the Firefox icon up here." Family and friends ranging in age from 10 to 70 have used it with no problems. Those who need to are able to work on business documents that they brought on a USB drive and can print to the inkjet and laser printers on our home office network just fine.
I think I detect a little arm twisting on the part of MS here, but nobody is surprised at that.
When Dell came out with their pre-installed Ubuntu machines a few years back, I bought an E520N the day they became available so as to vote with my wallet that this was a very good idea for Dell.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Must a man seek alternatives with a reason other than a head full of curiosity?
In soviet Russia, God creates you!
Nope your wrong.
I use Open Office but it really isn't all that much like the current version of Word.
Calc has real issues compared to Excel.
For the Price OO is really very good but it isn't Office.
Also some people don't want to have to "figure it out" they just want to get the job done.
So, no you are wrong.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
On his blog, Ken Rockwell decried the lack of serious photographic hobbyists who actually take pictures. Most of them just buy equipment and geek out over it. He referred to photography as just something that, to paraphrase, "guys do on their computers in between porn sessions."
True that.
How many guys go looking for porn from time to time? A *very* high percentage. And does the search for porn lead to the dangerous back alleys of the 'net? Yep. The relatively lower number of viruses and other malware targeted at all flavors of Linux is a *major* selling point.
If I were setting up a computer for someone who even occasionally looks for porn online, I'd choose Ubuntu over Windows in a heartbeat.
Now, seriously, what percentage of the population do you think falls into that "occasionally looks for porn" demographic? Linux should have at least that big a market share.
I'm a pretty tech savvy user and even I had trouble with Linux when I converted one of my machines over to Ubuntu a while back (I finally just gave up). The documentation is absolutely horrid. Without a good understanding of how Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular does things, it seems like a real chore to do even the simplest thing (I never could get it to recognize dual monitors or get the right screen resolution). And one of the worst things for me was dealing with all the distros and UI's out there and even trying to decide if a given piece of Linux software would work for me. I'm still not clear on some of it. Will KDE software run on gnome? Will gnome software run on KDE? Is the difference just cosmetic? Will a given piece of software run on all distros, or only some? Is the installation different for each distro?
I get headaches even remembering it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You and I both know that Ubuntu is a far superior operating system on so many levels. It's more secure, it's way faster, it runs on more platforms, you can modify it entirely to your liking, it comes with 'real' software, it's free and it's evolving 2x per year.
For the average user, however, the reality is that many are petrified of their computers. All they know is that it's really bad to screw up and that they will never figure out how to make them run right if they do. They never open manuals or read help files. That is the reality out there - lets' get used to it.
With that said, Lucid Lynx is, arguably, the most user-friendly operating system I have ever used. Coupled with incredible speed, lighting installation and simple interface, it truly stands out for its polish. There's more: getting apps, for the 'newbie' is just a click, a search and a one-click install. Try doing that with a licenced Microsoft Product. You'll be futzing with licence keys and compatibility issues for hours.
Obviously, Linux Mint and others are very polished too, while also taking a run at combining proprietary software with non-proprietary software.
In short, Dell's right: if you're new to computing, install Ubuntu. If you have legacy MS apps, bend over!!
*** Don't be dull.***
I don't know how you can honestly say that with a straight face if you've actually used Linux on the desktop since 1996.
We've come a LONG way in terms of the desktop since then. The first "usable" Linux desktop I used was Caldera's Looking Glass Desktop (I think that was the name of it) back in 98-99. And I put usable in quotes for a reason: It was absolutely laughable compared to either current Gnome or KDE desktops of today. I can't speak for KDE's stability - I settled on Gnome quite a while ago, but it's every bit as stable as any current Windows or OSX desktop I've recently used.
Out of curiosity, what huge leaps in security are missing in Linux that are present in either OSX or Windows? I'm asking honestly.