Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04
Barence writes "PC Pro has performed a comprehensive test of Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 10.04. They've tested and scored the two operating systems on a number of criteria, including usability, bundled apps, performance, compatibility and business. The final result is much closer than you might expect. 'Ubuntu is clearly an operating system on the rise,' PC Pro concludes. 'If we repeat this feature in a year's time, will it have closed the gap? We wouldn't bet against it.'"
Because when it comes to software for most home users, well, the games won't work on Unbuntu without trying to use Wine, etc, etc.
And your typical home user won't want it.
Nothing to see here.
I have Windows 7 on our gaming boxes just to keep things simple...but I run Ubuntu on our laptops, for size and speed considerations. We also run Ubuntu on our HTPC.
They have their purposes...I couldn't imagine exclusively using only one or the other.
Living With a Nerd
Keep marketing linux as a "replacement" for windows and you guarantee to always fail. Market it for what it is - better for many types of situations, but definitely not a rsimple eplacement for windows any more than osx is.
Otherwise you're fighting the battle on the other side's home turf - and they're bigger and more entrenched.
And when people try ubuntu and realize that it is not necessarily a matter of it being a replacement os, they tar all linux distros with the same fail.
At this point, most devices have been updated to at least officially support Vista (and, by proxy, 7)...how old is your Cannon stuff?
I wouldn't use your experience as a condemnation of Windows 7 so much as a reason why, in your case, ubuntu is a better choice. Still, how old is your Cannon hardware?
Living With a Nerd
Even among PC Pro’s technically literate readership, only 4% are running a Linux OS[...]
[...]then venture into Ubuntu’s equivalent of the command line – dubbed Terminal – and enter a couple of lines of code to start the installation. Hardly a user-friendly experience, and an unwanted throwback to the days of Windows 3.1.
Yeah...technical literacy at its finest...
Then you have to start doing things like enterprise management and integration. Many Linux types like to hate on Active Directory but it turns out when you've actually worked with it in a big enterprise setup, and all MS's other enterprise tools, you see that it is really well done, in particular compared to many alternatives. We had a hell of a time designing a cross platform authentication system where I work because the senior UNIX guy would not accept any system that used Windows as the back end. He fought with Open LDAP for a long time before admitting defeat on that front. Sun's Directory Services and ID sync proved to work in the end, after many months of testing, customization, and fighting.
I think Linux is pretty well on par when it comes to a basic, net terminal kind of system. If you have a stand along computer and just need e-mail, web, that kind of thing Linux is pretty easy to get installed and running in most cases, so long as you aren't talking brand new hardware. However when you start looking at larger markets problems quickly develop. True, not all of them are Linux's fault, things like lacking app compatibility isn't Linux's fault, but it doesn't matter because it is a very real issue. You can't just gloss over it.
Even in that regard, there are some things that ARE the fault of Linux designs. One thing that is needed for better app support is a good installer and install system. On Windows you can download or buy an app and have a very high degree of confidence that all you need to do to install it is run setup. An installer, generally using Windows' own internal install service, then guides you through the rest handling everything such as installing libraries needed, adding the program to things like the start menu and so on. On Linux, that only happens if you use the distro's package system. Great if the software you want is free and happens to be in there, but not useful otherwise. For commercial software, it is a non-starter.
So something like that really needs to be developed and standardized to help with apps on the platform. Telling someone "Oh just compile from source," and "When there's s dependency issue just apt-get what you need," and "Modify this configuration to add it to your programs list," is not legit for normal users. The answer needs to be "Click this program, it'll take care of the rest."
That's only in recent versions of Windows. More than 50% of Windows users still has Windows XP, which does not have the feature you mentioned. Also, unlike Windows, Linux is much better at the other kind of search: searching for occurances of plain text inside any file, without caring about extension (Windows supports something they claim to be similar to that, but it only works for files which happen to have a certain extension in their filename that is copied somewhere in the registry). And finally, desktops like KDE have had the ability to get a launch application utility that pops up your application while you type part of the name for ages already.
At this point, most devices have been updated to at least officially support Vista (and, by proxy, 7)
In general, yes that is true. However, printer and scanner manufacturers have been notorious with their lack of legacy support for Windows 7/Vista, let alone 64 bit versions. Sure, their new scanners and printers have full support and work fine, but if your printer is more than a few years old (released before Vista) you're very lucky if you 32 bit drivers which enable even half the functionality.
I wonder if this is a conscious decision by the manufacturers, who think you'll blame the OS for your problems, and that you're more likely to buy a new printer than convert to an entirely new OS. After all, the printer worked fine until you got a new computer! Honestly, that doesn't seem so far fetched to me.
Under windows, downloading and installing software, even using the built-in installer, is a confusing nightmare.
More to the point, when was the last time you had an application on a Linux/Unix box modify the operating system and break other applications? And that's not counting the number of times I've uninstalled a Windows app and had that break something. Yes, I know, Microsoft finally addressed their self-inflicted DLL hell by allowing side-loading and adding support for manifests as of XP SP2, but there are still a ton of applications out there that do things the old way.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I have a small recording studio in which I run a 16-channel simultaneous recording firewire mixer. I use Adobe Audition 3 for my sessions. I can't really move to another platform because I already have so many recording sessions in this format (although, I don't really want to move, either -- I'm happy with Audition).
I recently purchased an i7 with Windows 7 64-bit. I tell you, it does everything I've ever asked it to do, and it handles the incoming 16-channels flawlessly.
I don't think I would trust this set up on Ubuntu. For one, my firewire mixer simply would not work with Ubuntu (natively). And if it could work in WINE, I don't see how it is better than what I have now. Isn't it just likely to introduce hiccups?
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
I also have to deal with a confusing variety of distros
You really only have to deal with the distro you choose.
poor documentation
There's man pages, info pages, --help, and if you need your hand held just google it.
asking how to do something in Linux that you could do in Windows
Try asking on a Windows forum about something you can do trivially in Linux sometime.
And downloading and installing software, even using the built-in installer, is a confusing nightmare.
Ok, now you're just trolling. There's a pretty GUI app installer for every distro.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The vast majority of computer users would never notice. Most PC users don't need the games you are worried about, or want them. They want web, email, and pictures of kittens. They should be using Macs, linux is a good second best. In the meantime they use windows, and their children and neighbors stop over to remove malware and reboot the box every few months. But if assuming that your own perspective is the only one that's important works for you, then go with it I suppose.
"An Ubuntu test-drive by a Windows user" would have been a better title for the article.
There is a complaint that it doesn't work like Windows does (he's actually wrong). And also that it doesn't support some features that Windows does (again, he's wrong about pinning apps to the taskbar/panel). But *this* was the best quote of all: "Ubuntu’s equivalent of the command line – dubbed Terminal". Aha ha!
I stopped reading at "Usbility"...
What am I supposed to expect?
That's because the HP LaserJet 4 was built during a time when the art of using standards such as PostScript and PCL had still not been forgotten. Anything from the past 20 years will work with that printer...
The only way Windows could possibly be considered "cohesive" is when it's the only OS you know. In Ubuntu, you have one menu for your desktop preferences and one menu for system settings. In Windows, these things are scattered around the OS. Sure, the Control Panel groups a lot of things together but finding the exact setting you want is always a challenge when you don't already know where to look.
If you've been following Ubuntu at all, you'd know that pretty much the only thing they strive for is usability. Some ideas have been hit and miss (notifications behavior, window decorations, the hideous default orange-and-brown color schemes) but you have to give them credit for trying new ideas once in awhile. The basic Windows UI hasn't changed substantially (other than the window decorations) in 15 years and OS X hasn't really changed in around 10.
No, they took the parts that they liked best. And there's nothing at all wrong with that nor is it anything new. Microsoft copied many MacOS features and MacOS copied many Xerox-developed features.
One great usability feature that all Linux distributions have that neither Windows or OS X never will is decent package management. If you need some software, all you have to do is open up the package manager, search for what you want, and install it right then and there. No licenses, no DRM, no downloading, no CDs.
As long as Ubuntu can't use iTunes (and no, not some other content mall that doesn't have all that iTunes has), Ubuntu can't compete with Windows for the home user market, or probably the school market, or even for a lot of the business market.
Yes, Apple's content monopoly is the key to protecting Windows' OS monopoly. The world is as strange as it is round.
--
make install -not war