Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Will Soon Ship On 5% of New PCs
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from Phoronix: "Chris Kenyon, the VP of sales and business development for Canonical, just spoke this afternoon at the Ubuntu 12.10 Developer Summit about what Canonical does with OEMs and ODMs. He also tossed out some rather interesting numbers about the adoption of Ubuntu Linux. Namely, Ubuntu will ship on 5% of worldwide PC sales with a number of 18 million units annually."
All i can say is "about time". It's nice to see this happening just before the UEFI change-over as well to help ensure than Microsoft doesn't lock out other OS options, or at least there's a token commercial opposition. I'm not a fan of Canonical's Unity desktop, but I know some people are, and it definitely looks (and acts) better than 'Metro''. Overall, Canonical's timing could have been a bit better, but it could have been worse. Just before the change-over to a questionable version of Windows, and after a couple of fairly major OS X scares is a decent time to get some advertising in place.
...isn't that a preconfigured OS is installed on the computer. It's that a computer is sold with all of its hardware functional in Linux, so when one buys one of these, one can wipe the vanilla install off, if one chooses, and install one's own favorite distribution and know everything will work.
The other obvious benefit is no Microsoft tax. Even if Ubuntu gets some money, as opposed to the OS being truly fiscally free, at least that money goes to an entity that has a vested interest in improving Linux.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Can I get my money back if I install another better operating system such as Windows 7?
This is the whole article without side-notes, Braced comments and not in the summary:
- Eight to ten million units shipped last year world-wide.
- Canonical will be opening their first Beijing office this year.
- Last year Ubuntu shipped on 7.5 billion dollars worth of hardware.
When they're brought home.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
I have no clue, though I , and everyone else here, knows, gamemaker sucks ass
Please click on the flag in the lower right of parent comment and report abuse.
How is that sad? Would you rather use Windows than Linux with Gnome Shell? KDE? XFCE? LXDE? IceWM? OpenBox? If so, well, there's the other 95% that you're welcome to buy! I am happy with Unity, and even happier that I don't have to use it if I don't want to. I hope you're happy with Metro. Good Riddance, and please stop whining about not liking something that you don't have to use.
This is actually totally believable. I have encountered more random people running Ubuntu than anything else. Random non-geek people. Seriously. In fact, I've never encountered non-geek people running any other distribution.
It isn't a huge number, but it's not insignificant. 5% is very believable.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Most people will not know how to change the desktop manager. They'll be stuck with a piece of shit UI that is a hindrance to productivity and workflow. I am also sad that you have no discernment in the matters of UI.
Unity takes away a user's freedom. Why do Unity and GNOME3 developers hate their users so much?
Do you buy your car based on the chassis rather than the internals?
Changing the DE/WM is extremely easy. Anyone could do it.
--
Most people wouldn't know a desktop manager if it came up and bit them in the ass. They would not have any idea that they could be more or less productive. It's not on their radar..
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Ah, a Unity developer speaks his mind
You can, and many of us do, run a variety of UIs on the same machine and load whatever we like.
Try that with Windows and let us know how it works out.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yes, it is a shame that Ubuntu users are locked into Unity with absolutely no way around it.
Oh, wait...
/* No Comment */
They surely won't! But the difference is people can be shown how to do something that is possible, whereas Metro users will have a choice of Metro or...um...Metro. Don't like it? Too bad. As for your condemnation of the UI, it's kind of egocentric to think that your workflow is the same as everyone else's. What's really important to me is that I can get the things done that I need to do, and I do them using Unity. I'm sorry for you that not everyone wants to stick with your Windows 3.1 era idea of UI perfection, but that's just the way it is. Can you tell me the specific UI blunders that Unity has done wrong? I'm assuming that you are a UI professional, with credentials that you're willing to share, right?
Side Note #2: Kenyon didn't comment on what percentage of these Ubuntu-loaded PC sales still have users where they run Ubuntu, or namely the actual Ubuntu user count globally. The OEM/ODM count also obviously doesn't count those that install Ubuntu manually or obtain Ubuntu installations via other means. On the down side, when I talk with OEMs and others about Linux pre-loads, I commonly here a "significant percentage" of these Linux pre-loaded systems usually get wiped by their customers and replaced with pirated copies of Windows -- especially in the Asian markets, where customers are just going after the Linux PCs due to the lower sales cost.
On one hand I'm glad that there are other choices, but I wonder what the actual number of purchases just to wipe and install the latest pirated version of Windows is.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
Does it run Linux?
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
"Gamemaker can do anything!"
fine go make me a full 3D space shooter MMORPG
Good for the author (Michael Larabel) for highlighting the issue being seen in the Asian markets where these machines are being wiped and installed with pirated Windows as soon as they arrive at the customer. I am willing to bet as many as 4.9% of these PCs are wiped for Windows by the customer.
That is all.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Sounds like a bunch of 12-year-olds have invaded from 4chan or similar...
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Alright, maybe that last comment was unnecessary, since it was already established above that most users aren't even going to realize that it's possible to change the UI. Or care...
Sounds like a bunch of 12-year-olds have invaded from 4chan or similar...
So, in other words, same old Slashdot as always...
While I have issues running the 12.04 distribution, most people don't seem to have any problem. From what I've seen of it, the UI has been substantially cleaned up and a lot of configurability has been implemented. From a performance standpoint, I saw up to a 30% improvement in the runtimes of some key utilities I tested over the course of a weekend compared to 10.04.1, with absolutely no investment in hardware upgrades what so ever.
I didn't do enough testing before nuking the partition to determine if the improvements carried over to other key software I use (suggesting kernel-level and library implementation improvements) or application-specific.
But it's the initial LTS release -- it's not surprising third-party products don't run on it until around the .1 release anyhow. Third-party products I tried to install all had issues with installation, configuration, or startup. Nothing I actually need that wasn't baked into the distro would work except Oracle's Java 7 implementation.
Hopefully the updated version of Fedora/KDE 16 fares better when I have time to try installing the third party products. Hardware replacement is not an option at this time, and that's the last distro I'm even going to try to install with.
As happy as I've been with 10.04.1, I may have to switch back to Windows 7 just to keep this hardware useful. It's long in the tooth, but it works, so I'm loathe to just toss it once 10.04.1 support expires.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
hey surely won't! But the difference is people can be shown how to do something that is possible, whereas Metro users will have a choice of Metro or...um...Metro.
It's Metro or classic Win7-style desktop (sans Start button), actually.
And you can still use a different shell, same as always - so e.g. Blackbox for Windows still works on Win8 if desired.
I've been living in Thailand for 5 years now. Here, when you buy a new PC through a retail store, their brochures will list them as coming with either A) Linpus Linux (a distro I'd never heard of, even as a person fairly interested in Linux) or B) FreeDOS. This is to avoid the "Microsoft Tax", and includes PCs from manufacturers that are popular in the US: HP, Sony, Compaq, Acer, Samsung, Gateway etc.
Once you pick out the hardware that you want, the retail store will then usually "try" to talk you into getting a legitimate Windows license with it. Say one word of resistance -- "nah" -- and they will immediately fall back to installing their in-house new-PC image with a pirated/activated Windows 7, Office, etc. along with random bits of crapware. I've known very few people that actually got talked into getting a legit Windows install, and several of those people actually discovered later that the shop put on a pirated copy anyway (but happily let them pay extra for the 'legit' Windows).
When I buy a new PC, I always just tell the shop to leave the drive bare and I will handle the software myself. I instruct my friends (Western or Thai) to do the same. Usually the PC will arrive with Linpus or FreeDOS active as shown in the brochure, but sometimes the shop will have already imaged the machine. In either case, I will do a fresh format and Windows 7 install with activator, plus whatever other software is desired. When the shop handles it, you'll always get bloatware and stuff you didn't ask for, and frequently their fresh install images even have a virus or malware straight out of the gate. I've probably done the initial install on 50+ PCs over the course of 5 years.
I guess my point is that while this may seem like a big step forward for Canonical/Ubuntu/Linux/OSS, remember that it will be mitigated because said 5% of PCs will probably mostly be ending up in places like Thailand, where 99% of them will be overwritten with a pirated copy of Windows before the end user ever gets their hands on the machine.
ubuntu is only pre-installed on low end PCs in places like Brazil & Mexico, China and other places where the cost of the PC is whittled down so bare-bones low that even OEM MS_Windows installs are cost prohibitive, but you can count on pirated copies being printed up on CDr sold out of disposable alleyway shacks
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I stand corrected! So then Unity being default is moot, just as it is with Metro. Thanks for the info.
Astroturfer proving his botware. It's all over the net.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Is this the same "anyone" that sends responses back to phishing email and can't figure out how to setup wifi? Yep...this is going to end well.
that is scary to most users because they afraid of terminals. so for them click ubuntu software centre type kubuntu into the search box click install. enter your password wait for it to finish logout log back in under kde.
and i used to wonder how a command prompt was more powerful tiil i started using now i do all of the time i hope people keep Linux installed but most will probably wipe it, mind you i love linux but it scares people and vm's scare people almost as much.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, in other words, same old Slashdot as always...
Not at all. It's totally different now.
I pine for the return of hot grits and Natalie Portman. Those were the good old days.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
If you want to mess with your UI on Windows, there's all kinds of stuff to do it. MS has some limited tools and customizations but they really aren't in to that thing. The biggest purveyor of such things is probably Stardock. They have a massive set of tools to customize the looks of Windows in all kinds of ways, including very radical changes. They've been doing it for years and so are quite good at it. You can buy a whole suit of stuff or get produces one by one to customize what you like.
Also you can simple replace explorer as the shell. Windows doesn't mandate its use, it is just what is included, what is default. Another popular one is BB4Win, which is a windows manager inspired by Blackbox (different codebase though). It sees use on systems where people want somethign different, but also sometimes on Windows PE boot systems to keep memory usage down since it is less heavy hitting than explorer.
So in the future, perhaps less snark if you've not actually tried what you speak of. That Windows doesn't ship with 5 window managers, 20 media players, and so on does not mean that it only supports one thing. It is quite extensible, it just have a very well defined and enriched standard set of tools.
Linux is nothing but a kernel, all the rest is up to the person who decides to package it up, as such there are no mandated standards, just ad hoc ones and often many of them. It is a minimal OS definition, the rest is up for grabs.
Windows is an enriched OS definition. It includes a whole lot of stuff with it. It does not exclude you from adding your own, it just mandates that it comes with a bunch of things. Explorer, IE, WDM, DirectX, RDP, etc, etc are all part of the definition that is "Windows". It comes with all of it, however it is not less modular for it. You can add BB4Win, Firefox, ASIO, OpenGL, VNC and so on and they will all work fine, you can use them in addition to or in place of their various included components.
Yes, it is a shame that Ubuntu users are locked into Unity with absolutely no way around it.
Oh, wait...
Ubuntu's primary appeal is to users who will never willingly stray far from the default UI --- even assuming that they are aware of the alternatives.
Most people will not know how to change the desktop manager. They'll be stuck with a piece of shit UI that is a hindrance to productivity and workflow. I am also sad that you have no discernment in the matters of UI.
Here's the irony. After 20 years Linux has finally got a GUI that's been well designed. And all the freetards on Slashdot are so conservative, they hate it.
Yeah, it's about time this happened, considering 2003 was the year of Linux on the desktop.
The main problem with UEFI is that it is so complex and bug-ridden that the only use for it is going to be preventing the removal of malware. If ever there was a system that needed to be "so simple there are obviously no errors" it is this one, but instead we have an implementation that is larger than the Linux megalithic kernel.
Oh, and the future is not going to be X86, and Microsoft blatantly attempting to lock out all other OSes on other hardware.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Those 99% who don't want to use a terminal are probably not very concerned with their UI. If they can do basic tasks - which Unity handles just dandy - then that's good enough for them.
/* No Comment */
Are we really that concerned about whether those types of people are stuck using Unity or any other environment?
/* No Comment */
Actually you can install it in the software center with just a few clicks. You don't even need to use the terminal. Besides the point here is at least users will be running an install target to begin with - if they find out about Gnome 3 and want to try it they can.
sudo apt dont install ubuntu, I have better things to do than fuck around getting a UI that doesnt suck
Forgive me if I take the testimony of a abused user more or less saying "this sucks less"
Then you might as well have simply installed normal pirated versions for your company too, the windows bulk licenses are upgrades to be applied over the oem versions which will get you screwed if anyone ever decides to do an audit.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
And how OS X is idiotic?
Did you know that Canonical have not invented anything new in Unity but just making everything even more limited (shortcuts and all of those) when compared over decade old shortcuts and functions of mainstream desktops?
Installing blackbox on windows is actually more effort than installing a different wm on ubuntu (through the software center) and then selecting it when you log in...
It's also a far less common thing to do on windows, so you often get all kinds of unexpected bugs cropping up because 99% of software just assumes the default wm will be in use.
That said, it could be easier still, ubuntu could offer users a few screenshots and the opportunity to select from a few environments by default... This would have been a lot better for users than defaulting to a radical change which was also quite buggy - this put a lot of users off completely.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
There is plenty of demand for "anything that is free" from china, since they will just install pirated windows anyway, they don't want to waste their money on an unnecessary non pirated version of windows.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Another reason is that Linux distros don't, as a rule, stick to a ridgid once-a-month patch cycle. Most end users have their computers check every week, and that means that urgent security patches don't have to wait until Patch Tuesday to get delivered. Me, I check every day, but then I'm running Fedora, a bleeding edge rolling beta test of a distro.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
May I ask? How long have you spent using Unity? Judging by your tone, and your aggressive use of colloquialisms, as well as use of one study to try to prove something entirely unrelated, (and your ACowardice), you haven't used it for any longer than I have used Metro. The difference between you and I, A. Coward, is that I have no problem admitting when I am mistaken! And FYI, I am not a fanboi, as you like to call it. I use what works best for me, and have no problems publicly voicing my opinion on things that I care about. While I may occasionally come off as snide, I am in no way beyond reproach. N.B. It's unfortunate that the same anonymity which protects people from unfair reprisals due to unpopular opinions, also gives real cowards the temerity to be offensive.
They may give you a discount on the purchase of the new OS when you turn in the old one. Just like when you go the other way around and return Windows in favour of Linux.
Now it seems to me that (almost) all Linux vendors charge you a price that's equal to the return value of the Windows... it's as if they're forming a cartel!
It's not just a lower and more savvy userbase that reduces the malware on linux...
The system is better designed than windows has been, with a number of features that make the spread of malware more difficult, for instance:
central updates of all software (vs windows update which only handles the base os, leaving acrobat/flash/java easily exploitable)
non root user by default (which ms have finally caught on to, years after everyone else)
downloaded files dont have execute permission by default
file extensions are not only less important (aren't used to determine if a file is executable) but are also not hidden by default
doesn't automatically execute anything on inserted media
package management - users are less likely to download and execute random binaries, if they want to install something they can select it from the package manager
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Someone above mentioned that it's as easy as "sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop" if that's what you want. Now, there's all kinds of holes in that argument, namely the needed familiarity with the terminal, so I checked to see how hard it would be using the Ubuntu Software Centre. I would have figured somewhere around 4 clicks or so (although I use synaptic primarily, so I'm not sure). I opened USC, and typed in KDE. I couldn't find a KDE meta-package anywhere! I didn't realize that USC hides (by default only) what it calls "technical items", which for the most part are libraries and other dependencies. Also, it appears, meta-packages! I agree with the idea of offering screenshots during install, and installing another desktop if there is a network connection available (or if it's from DVD).
Uhh...you can make Windows anything you want, it just ain't free. here you go, it takes less than 30 seconds to install and its "clicky clicky next next next" simple and you even get a 30 day free trial. If MSFT is stupid enough to cancel Win 7 sales for Win 8 (which I personally doubt seeing as they recently upped the EOL date of all version of Win 7 to 2020) the users can easily get any desktop they want from Win98 to KDE if that floats your boat, but more likely MSFT will let the OEMs sell Win 7 on non touch screen devices while including a Win 8 "upgrade disc" so as to count as a sale while the user chunks them just like the XP buyers chunked those Vista discs.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Most people will not know how to change the desktop manager. They'll be stuck with a piece of shit UI that is a hindrance to productivity and workflow. I am also sad that you have no discernment in the matters of UI.
The Linux distro I had would - at logon - prompt you on whether you wanted to log into GNOME or KDE. One could select a default, and on the rare occasions that one wanted to try the other, one could specifically log into that.
Ubuntu's case is that it makes separate distros altogether of those that use other DEs - such as Kubuntu (now no longer Canonical's), Xubuntu and Lubuntu, so one would have to install the distro one wants, and go from there. One thing good about that is that it allows that distro to focus on adapting the DE's complete environment - such as Kubuntu making use of every KDE app there is, such as prefering Konqueror to Firefox, Kaffeine instead of VLC and so on. Question - do the PC vendors who install Ubuntu also offer the choices of K/L/Xubuntu to those who want them?
You are just learning what some of us have no for years friend...every OS sucks!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
No, the Start button is gone. There is no way I can make Windows 8 look like Windows 7. W/ Linux, one has the choice of which DE to install.
Ahm, no? You could turn off Metro in DP, but not in CP...except if you know a way, that would be cool if you'd share it with us.
I can see XKCD has also damaged your mind.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Will MS let Windows 8 users make the OS look like Windows 7, using a Control Panel setting? Or at least, will there be third party utilities - paid or unpaid - to enable that? Either of these could still salvage Windows 8. when it comes to that.
But it does indicate problems w/ Linux, when even the Chinese won't take a free version of it, such as Linpus or Red Flag, but rather pirate Windows instead. I wonder how well the Lemote Yeedong is selling there - it's based on the Loongson and so can't run Windows, and can only run GNU/Linux. If that platform takes off, I'd say that there's yet hope for Linux in China.
My main problem is having multiple of the same program open, ie. 6 terminals. I can't work out how to select the one I want, Alt-tabbing (or alt `) shows them as small previews but terminals look very similar, and the title bar on the bottom even more so if you have multiple ssh sessions open. Previously I just knew positionally on the task bar which was which.
Has anyone else found a way to work round this? I'm starting to get far too frustrated and am close to switching to XFCE.
Ubuntu's primary appeal is to users who will never willingly stray far from the default UI --- even assuming that they are aware of the alternatives.
I am sure that Ubuntu is the largest distro among Linux professionals too. Where I work, everyone run Linux both at work and at home with 10-15 years of Unix experience, and we still run mostly Ubuntu. Our servers run Ubuntu too. Just because I have compiled many a kernel in my day, worked with IRIX, Solaris, FreeBSD and at least once installed Linux From Scratch does not mean that I enjoy fiddling with X11 config, driver issues, etc.
I don't think any of us run Unity though ;).
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
In China, PCs are often theoretically sold with Linux, meaning you don't have to pay the cost of a Windows license. I don't know a single person using Linux on their personal PC. Everybody installs bootleg windows, generally the store themselves will install bootleg Windows for you, or you can easily find a copy on disk for maybe seventy cents.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
because the demand is not for linux it's for cheap windows like PCs. No one wants to pay extra for overpriced linux hardware, hence why you're not seeing the sales in asia.
> central updates of all software
minor quip, it's not that the updates are "central" per se (Ubuntu for example takes packages from Debian), however all packages need to be signed with an email and signing key so there is an audit trail.
5%, Does this mean that 2012 is the year of Linux on the desktop ?
da da da dum indeed.
Made my day!
I think OP was more talking about the fact that there's nearly *nothing* to configure. If we look at the Gnome2-Settings-Dialogs (especially those before they were "updated") we had a ton of settings...now...well...
"most people" have no problems with the Unity UI. squeaky-wheels and all that...
Forgive me if I take the testimony of a abused user more or less saying "this sucks less"
We forgive you. Where did you take it?
We're ALL abused users. GNOME vs. KDE anyone? And the older-school users are simply more abused. Who can forget openlook or CDE?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And you can still use a different shell, same as always - so e.g. Blackbox for Windows still works on Win8 if desired.
"still" works? When will it BEGIN working correctly? There is no shell replacement that will not cause you problems. Windows expects to see Explorer squatting there maliciously, not blackbox or afterstep.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ubuntu's primary appeal is to users who will never willingly stray far from the default UI --- even assuming that they are aware of the alternatives.
Yes, and these users will never gain anything from switching UIs. Perhaps that was your point?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I have to agree somewhat. I used an early version of Unity and hated it. Found a way to install the fallback desktop and was happy again. Each new release that included Unity I installed and tried. Each one sucked a little bit less, but I still went back to the old desktop in every instance.
I downloaded 12.04 on release day and installed it to a VM just to see how much Unity still sucks, since I've almost entirely switched over to Mint due to Unity. And guess what, Unity in 12.04 is finally usable! It's not perfect, but I have to say that the strides they took between 11.10 and 12.04 were tremendous. I'm not 100% comfortable in Unity yet and haven't switched fully back to Ubuntu, but I can see it in the near future if they continue to improve Unity in the current direction.
So, 5% of new PCs will experience borked upgrades in six months? Sorry guys, but this is a real problem, and I can't believe everyone from the lowliest Linux fanboy, all the way up to Linux kernel devs and Shuttleworth keeps pretending it's not a problem. Because admiting it's a problem would require coming up with a stable ABI, so that upgrades don't break due to binary blobs
SPAMMMERS! Any decent related post would have sh-canned this long time ago. CANonocal is making gallant strides in recent years...nobody knows what Linux is or it would have taken off long ago. Do you see REDHAT/Fedora on store shelves? No. Y? The store doesnt want to do tech support for 'non-M$' OSes. They dont want to work for free and want to charge you 50/hr to fix your PC. They want Certifications and corporations backing them.(despite Linux has an OS certification,LINUX+ and is recongnized for it by COMPTIA, which does not need to be recycled every 6 mos, like M$ exams..) Now the user is thrown into the C/C++/Python world and expects GAMES, and DVD/multimedia support. For a tablet PC, this would be a fine switch. Unity needs to checnge for lap/desktops, though. I cant stand it. And its eye candy-slow. Maybe we should all go back to days of ICEWM/XFCE... Linux was created to run on scratch HW...take the ARDU-BUNTU tester as an example...I wouldnt boot a 'PC' in 8 hrs...but goes to show you...it IS possible.
To harp on Linus a bit more here: I fully support a modernized DEBian standard. I just dont like the direction Canonocal is going with it. They break more than they fix as of late and releasing dailys/nightlies as 'promoted works' just doesnt cut it. They need a 'stable-buntu' and need to maintain that attitude, both for servers and clients. WINE needs better MONO/.NET support. Multimedia maybe needs an option like for REDHAT, where you BUY DVD/BLURAY support. CODECS should be standard. This is what people EXPECT.
And since when is there no way to install OEM Windows? You can even buy OEM discs from most online computer shops.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Add in what they can earn from crapping up a PC with shovelware
Why can't big OEMs ship Wine in which to run the shovelware?
Oh wait, Oracle v. Google. Microsoft would probably assert copyright in Win32 against Codeweavers if PCs with preinstalled Wine hit the market in large enough quantities.
And unlike Windows, you can download the LiveCD free
It's not exactly free if one has to pay the telco $7 (at $10/GB) for the 700 MB overage.
and legally
Not if someone tries to assert Raenex's interpretation of GPLv2 against Canonical and other distributors of Linux operating systems that include non-free drivers. Any non-free software included on the same disc is part of the same "collective work", and under this interpretation, the exception for "mere aggregation" applies only to private use, not to distribution of copies to the public.
boot it
Provided that the showroom where you're ordering your PC (e.g. Best Buy) lets you bring in CDs from outside and boot them on the hardware in the showroom as part of making the decision as to whether or not to buy a particular PC. And in a lot of cases, you won't be able to test everything, such as WLAN support, because the showroom's manager explicitly declines to provide free public Wi-Fi.
Indeed, most users will find that the hardware that stopped working because HP or Canon or some other similar asshole didn't update the drivers from Vista to Windows 7, or because HP or Canon or some other similar asshole has explicitly locked out your hardware from running on your new OS, even though the current driver speaks the protocol that your scanner uses, because the new model uses it too.
That works in many but not all cases. The Microtek ScanMaker 4850 is still unsupported after years. But if you were already considering buying a new printer, such as if the manufacturer has discontinued ink for your printer model, I agree that HP is a safe bet.
Do you really give a damn which OS people are using? [...] The real problem here is MFG support for the OS.
Yes, I give a damn, and exactly because of this problem. Once more people are using a given operating system, the operating system is more likely to draw substantial support from hardware manufacturers.
Fact is: [Linux] runs most of "the cloud" that your computers connect to... That's good enough for me.
I interpret your comment as "As long as Linux is on servers, it doesn't need to be on desktop computers." (If not, please help me understand why I'm wrong.) Are you trying to claim that support among hardware manufacturers for a free desktop operating system is unimportant? Would you still be making this claim if Microsoft and Apple were to announce a plan to lock out unsigned or self-signed executables on their desktop operating systems the way iOS does, except for registered developers who have paid the developer tax?
They make you sound CRAZY
Of course, such an user
Is "an user" anything like an hero? ;-)
will be restricted in the peripherals s/he can attach to it that will work w/ Linux - such as joysticks and gaming hardware.
I've never had a joystick fail to work under Linux, even an Xbox 360 gamepad.
Next questions - do users get to choose whether to go for Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu/Lubuntu? Good if they are.
Every user has the choice to sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop, even if only Ubuntu is offered preloaded. And yes, Xfce feels enough like GNOME 2.
I believe it's at least in part aimed at peripheral manufacturers and application publishers: "Linux ships on almost as many PCs around here as Mac OS X. Why do you offer Mac drivers but not Linux drivers for your flatbed scanner?"
Wine is not "pirated Windows" unless the Oracle v. Google decision goes down in entirely the wrong way.
Yes you can get a refund of the full cost of Ubuntu at any time, even if you've never used Ubuntu!
Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Central in the sense of being handled by a package manager. Windows users are accustomed to downloading executables from the internet and running them with superuser privileges to install software. It should be obvious why this is a problem.
Then what system for rapid prototyping of video game concepts do you recommend? And (ObTopic) does it run on Ubuntu?
Will MS let Windows 8 users make the OS look like Windows 7, using a Control Panel setting?
Everything in Windows 8 already looks just like Windows 7 except for the Start menu (which is now full screen).
Actually you can install it in the software center with just a few clicks.
But how would the end user know what those clicks are? Metapackages such as xubuntu-desktop are hidden by default as "technical items", as Seven_Six_Two pointed out.
No, those weird looking rectangular icons and grid look anything but similar. And losing the Start menu is a big difference, and big deal. If not, why not just put back the Windows 3.11 UI?
No, those weird looking rectangular icons and grid look anything but similar.
That's the new Start menu. Press the Windows key to make it go away and you're back at a desktop that looks just like Windows 7.
I know this is not your point, but why would you have 6 terminals open, if you can have only one gnome-terminal window and 6 tabs in it? Sorry for nitpicking :P
Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
So let's assume for a moment and this is true and there really were 8-10 million pre-installs of ubuntu on new hardware. If true, this should be detectable and show up in the form of ubuntu boxes running on the network and their users surfing the web. After all 8-10 million is a little under yearly mac sales. Sure maybe not all ubuntu installs will be on the network, but a significant percentage SHOULD be...
But it doesn't add up. Consider:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qpcustomd=0
Apr 2012 Mac 6.5%, Linux 1%
or even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
Linux ranges from 0.7% to 2.9% Apple's OSX 6.3% to 14.04%
Certainly this kind of measurement is far less then perfect, but what strikes me is that if as Canonical asserts they are seeing these kind of install numbers for Ubuntu and if one were to add in Debian, RedHat and so on, yet still in the counting of web clients OSX is being seen in the wild several multiples more often than all Linux installs together, it would strongly suggest to me that the Linux numbers quoted are at best incorrect. We know how many new Macs are sold every quarter since Apple shares those numbers.
It's not the year of the Linux Desktop as much as we might all want it to be. Sadly Windows AND OSX are kicking Linux's butt when it comes down to number of users.
I know. But again, no Ubuntu user is forced to use Unity if its limitations don't suit them.
/* No Comment */
Actually...
/* No Comment */
My main problem is having multiple of the same program open, ie. 6 terminals. I can't work out how to select the one I want ...
Try mrxvt; multiple terminals, all in one window. CTRL-TAB (sort of) toggles between them.
As for which one's which, I customize my prompt (PS1) so it displays hostname in the prompt and "[root]" if it's an su session.
export PS1='($?) $(hostname) ${PWD}_ '
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Those weird looking rectangular icons are the new Start menu.
As noted before, the only real difference in classic mode is the absence of Start button. And yes, there are already third-party implementations which re-add it, e.g. this.
Ubuntu comes with a C compiler, but no .h files. Before you can do even the littlest [programming], you have to do, in command-line, a cryptic wget.
I don't use Ubuntu, but I find all of that hard to believe. For one thing, you can apt-get from Ubuntu repositories; no need for wget. On my Debian boxes, I did install gcc with apt-get and that dragged in the header files with it.
If you need some specific programmer's toolkit (eg. wxWindows), yeah you can apt-get that too, and if you don't have the headers or gcc installed, that'll drag them in too.
All this assumes is /etc/apt/sources.list is correct for your release.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
I have done several hundred windows wipes and installed Linux.
But those were just some of my personal machines.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I've tried working with tabs for terminals but it doesn't really suit me. For a start it compounds the issue, first you have to alt-tab to the the terminal, then you have the select the correct tab. If I'm using screen then thats 3 layers and will get really confusing. But on top of that I often like having two tabs side by side if I'm using vim for instance. I also move terminals between virtual desktops depending on my work flow which is more a pain when they are in tabs.
So far everyone who has replied with suggestions as to how to make the terminals easy to see (and thank you for the suggestions, I'll look at implementing some), but the problem is with many programs that I use and obviously they can't all be customised like a terminal can.
Google
I just looked at http://www.google.com/ and there appears to be no way to drill down within a Yahoo!-style directory. Google is a search engine, and search engines need keywords. Google is good for finding information about things that have a single name that is well known to anybody who knows that a topic exists, such as "Xfce" or "supply side economics", not so much for finding things with scads of synonyms. How would the user know what keywords to use in Google in order to 1. learn for the first time that Kubuntu or Xubuntu exists and 2. discover how to install it?
And if you're not technologically savvy enough to query the abundant technical communities online
By "query" do you mean something automated, or do you mean registering and posting on forums? A lot of people aren't patient enough to lurk on a given forum for a week in order to get a sense of what is acceptable or not acceptable to post.
then you probably don't even know or care about what XFCE is anyway.
They don't want "Xfce" by name; they just want a solution to UI frustrations that they experience on the default install of Ubuntu. They might want "an environment that works similarly to the familiar environment that I learned while using another computer". Or they might want "a more responsive start menu". Or they might want "a way to use the full width of a 1024x600 netbook display or an old 1024x768 monitor for a web browser without the launcher popping up and covering the back button".Or they might want "an environment that shows the menu bar all the time without mystery meat navigation". (Even Mac OS, which has had a global menu bar since Mac OS V in August 1987, doesn't auto-hide the menu bar.) Such problems are a bit harder to search for. If the solution happens to be Xfce, then we need to ensure that newbies know that Xfce exists so that they don't associate their frustrations with "Linux" as a whole.
For computers the "phonorecord" standard applies
Where do you get this? A "phonorecord" is a material object in which a sound recording is fixed, and a computer program is a literary work, not a sound recording, despite it being stored in a format descended from the Compact Disc Digital Audio format used to store sound recordings.
I.E. (we think) software is copyrighted individually
Agreed.
and the complication / aggregation is also copyrighted and those are two different copyrights.
From the text of GPLv2, the license of Linux (the kernel): "the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program" (my emphasis). From U.S. copyright law: "A 'collective work' is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole." Thus a Linux distribution is a "collective work", and Raenex claims that the "intent [...] to control the distribution of [...] collective works" means that the GPLv2 for one program in a collective work requires that Complete Corresponding Source Code be provided for all works in the same collective work. GPLv3 clarifies the language describing an "aggregate", but any Linux distribution will contain Linux and other GPLv2-only software.
If you don't have a land based connection then go back to sneakernet
Thank you for recognizing that there is still a situation in which moving bits isn't "free".
I have a hard time believing 5% without names. That represents a huge number, at least 20 million units a year, roughly the worldwide market share of a company like Asus. (If 5% turns out to be true, that's wonderful! Onward to 50%. :-))
Fuck it then.
Tepples I think you are missing something really key here...
Consider a typical album being sold.
a) The producer gets a license for each and every song on the album. That is he has license or copyright for the songs themselves.
b) He then releases the album. He has copyright for the album.
There is very little law governing software. That model I just gave you is the way the courts choose to look at software. If you want to argue about whether software should be treated like a record or should be treated like a book full of articles, that's a valid argument about legal theory. But if you want to talk about the law as it actually exists, the black letter law governing music conglomerations is the law underying the common law which is led to court rulings governing software. But lets not confuse the debate about what should apply and what does apply, i.e. what you think the law should be with what it is.
So now with that in ming here is why I believe the law is correct in treating software like music and not literature. The core reason is because music like software is frequently created on a work for service model i.e. there musicians / programmers who are paid employees and will surrender all copyright for their creative production. Second, there are masters (which have copyright) which go through an editing processes from which record version is derived which has another copyright. This is analogous to compiling source and distributing binaries. Literature does not go this sort of process, the typesetting process, except for very heavy layout materials like magazines is not substantial enough to warrant this extra layer of protection.
Now with that in mind.... A distribution is an album with a bunch of songs (programs) on it. There is a copyright for the distribution, which Ubuntu for example holds, and Ubuntu is claiming to have a license for all other programs/songs on this album. They might be right or wrong in this claim. If someone who wrote program (A) and granted their license to redistribute to Ubuntu wants to claim that including program (B) violates the license for (A), they are going to need to show very strong evidence in the license. There is no question where the burdon is going to lie and it is going to be very very high.
Given that GPLv2 program is and has been distributed with program (B) or programs like B for years, with knowledge and yet no apparent objection, it doesn't even matter anymore what the license says (A) would lose. (A) could start asserting their rights in a more explicit way but that would changing the license for (A) as a first step. The law is not going to permit a copyright holder who writes a vague ambiguous license to assert a serious violation has occurred. What the courts are going to say is essentially "make the license stop being vague on this point or STFU". The fact that there is widespread disagreement is enough to prove that the license isn't unambiguous enough to find that Ubuntu has committed a tort.
Extremely importantly, Debian, which has association with the FSF also does this. Which means the form of the license on A does allow it, which is another barrier.
Now the Linux kernel as our (A) is a particularly bad case because AFAIKT no one has enough standing to assert a license violation of the kernel but only small parts of the kernel. I.E. the kernel itself is an aggregation where the kernel team is distributing a record.
Now if you and and Raenex about what the license should mean under a hypothetical of an entirely different body of law fine. But if you want to know why his argument is wrong, it is wrong because lots of people think it is wrong and that's all that really matters.
But if you want to know why his argument is wrong, it is wrong because lots of people think it is wrong and that's all that really matters.
Or in other words: Copyright infringement claims brought under Raenex's argument are probably estopped by acquiescence on the part of other copyright owners using the same license. I can buy that argument. Thank you.
Let me just throw in one more comment as I read a bit of your discussion. Raenex is claiming that the FSF's understanding is irrelevant. I made allusion to this in my other post but let me make it explicit. The FSF wrote the license. Everyone agrees that G in GPL stands for GNU (i.e. the project of the FSF). The FSF's published interpretation of the license is absolutely relevant to what the license means. The idea that the understand of the parties to a contract governs the interpretation of a contract is part of the very basic of contract law.
In particular copyright law, these documents are part of what is called the "form" of the license. They aren't 100% determinative but they have real and substantial weight.
By typing "ubuntu alternative desktop" into Google
The first hurdle is first informing users that alternative desktops exist in the first place, and that complaints against Unity in particular don't necessarily apply to desktop Linux in general. The second hurdle is informing users that they're called "alternative desktop". I draw an analogy to the web browser market about a decade ago, before Mozilla heavily promoted Firefox and the median user thought the blue e was "The Internet", not a replaceable "web browser". (Internet cafes in developing countries were still seen using the IE logo to mean "web access here" as late as 2010.) The solution then was the "browser ballot", an advertisement for the most popular web browsers that appeared the first time IE was opened in certain language versions of Windows.
[Annoyed users of Unity] are going to do the exact same thing they would do if it were a Windows preinstall: Ask their technically-inclined friend/relative/associate/GeekSquad
Which is the easiest way to get the machine wiped and reimaged with Windows Pirated Edition if the technically-inclined friend/relative happens not to be familiar with Linux.
contact the manufacturer directly
Ideally, the manufacturer would inform the user of alternative desktops. But for one thing, it reduces the manufacturer's technical support costs if everyone's on the same desktop. For another thing, manufacturers' reliance on automated voice response systems, long hold times, and pay-per-incident live support have conditioned people over the years to just accept computerized technology with its faults and not buy that brand next time rather than to investigate fixing the faults. I'm just trying to keep complaints against Unity in particular from rubbing off on desktop Linux in general.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How are users supposed to know that "astonshell" exists?
How are they supposed to know that "astonshell.com" is a genuine site, and not some scam site trying to steal their card details and infest their machine with malware?
With Ubuntu, the default install includes the software centre from which kde (or another wm) can be selected safe in the knowledge that it is being downloaded from a trusted source, and the default login dialog includes the ability to choose your session type. The only improvement, is that the default install should make it more clear to users that they are able to choose the interface that suits them.
The default windows install does not make any such ability available by default, you have to manually seek out and then manually install an alternative, assuming you are even aware that alternatives exist which most people aren't.
Would you enter your credit card details into a random site, and then download whatever binaries they offer you?
Or would you choose from a list of software provided by an organisation that you already trust by virtue of having installed their os?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Have you used a recent release of Unity? Early versions were buggy and had some UX issues. However it's been pretty stable & friendy since 11.10, and imho 12.04 is really quite nice. Even tho it's only one apt-get command away, I feel zero desire to go back to Gnome.
In previous Ubuntu versions with Intel graphics there was always some "snow" (row of white pixels flickering here and there) below the title bar when the window was wobbling. I wonder if it's still there...
This seems like a hugely convoluted and stupid way to manage something that wasn't even a problem to begin with. Microsoft is using the name of security to implement stuff that makes booting non-MS OS'es harder, and I doubt the primary reason truly is security. How many boot-level/BIOS-level viruses have actually become a major problem? Not many, and very few people were ever affected by them. I've been running my Windows 7 PC for two years now with no active virus protection (have MSE but disabled all real-time and background stuff as I find it slows down my PC). I occasionally run scans and have not once had a single issue. I feel that security is a way overblown issue that isn't really a huge deal at all. I also disabled Windows Firewall and other supposed "anti malware" "features" such as that idiotic pop-up complaining that you tried to do administrative tasks and wants your permission to do what you asked (whose bright idea was that?).
BIOS does it right, you turn on the machine, no time is wasted computing pointless cryptography, and the OS boots up. UEFI seems like a pointlessly complicated system that provides an unnecessary level of complication, lag, annoyance, and least importantly, security.
Also, why non-ARM systems? I will not buy any ARM system that doesn't allow me to run Linux and modify the bootloader, but then again I see Win8 tablets as a big pile of failure waiting to happen. I personally love Android's tablet interface and don't see it dying off any time soon.