They money Conroy just spent means that NBNCo doesn't need to go "re-inventing the wheel" to build out a lot of the network. Where there's pit and pipe already, they get to avoid building there own. There are projected savings due to using Telstra's infrastructure which is why it was worth paying for.
Additionally, there are many who can't even get 8Mpbs, some are on much less. There are some that suffer hourly ADSL line re-syncs which means when your trying to do something like VOIP you can expect you call to die when the ADSL session does. Not only is the NBN faster the ADSL, it's chalk and cheese far more reliable than what ADSL is.
Regarding your comment regarding of not being able to buy directly from the wholesaler, there are very good reasons to keep the monopoly section of the network a level playing field. You should read up on the reasons behind the design decisions that have been made for the NBN. There might be some improvements possible for the implementation and layout but the business model will be far better than the Telstra copper situation that we have now.
But wasn't that "a minimum peak speed" of 12mbps?
The Libs have used some pretty wishy washy terms for the "alternative."
Also, how is their 12mbps no worse that what the current gov is promising? At best it'll be fibre to the node.
It'd be nice to have the alternative gov have a compelling broad band story so that no matter who was in power we the Autralian people would have a good service but alas, me thinks the Libs plan is short sighted.
The "Something Else" option allows you to specify a current partition to install to and if you want, optionally re-format as well. This process doesn't require the repartitioning of the drive though you can optionally specify to do so inside this option.
Though to be fair I don't really understand why Ubuntu had to repartition anything if it was just replacing the existing system.
In your situation using the "Something Else" option in the installer probably would've been best. The installer would've simply reformatted your current Ubuntu volume and put the new OS on there.
Does you Thinkpad have a GPT or a MBR partition table?
For correcting a GPT problem I believe "gdisk" is the best tool for the job.
You could find out by booting the install disc and selecting "Try Ubuntu" instead of "Install Ubuntu"
Once at the desktop, Start software Center, choose "Software sources" from the "Edit" menu, tick the Universe repo and click the "Close" button.
You should then "sudo apt-get install gdisk" from a terminal and launch "gdisk" once installed.
You could have a look at GPT_Issues for some guidance if you're interested.
Yeah I did do VESA boot, but even after the nVidia proper drivers were installed the 8600 and NVS3100 machines were still freaking out.
I've only got a 9600 here for testing but I can borrow an 8600 to test which I think I will do. I've also got a 8400GS system upgrade to do Friday so that'll be instructive as well.
Also my point was that if this is someone's first foray into linux, they're not going to want to have to take extra steps to get a functional deskop.
Extra steps to get a functional desktop? When doing an operating system install it's always appropriate to install any necessary device drivers in order to achieve proper system functionality. When the day comes that you can pop an install disc into a PC and have absolutely everything done for you no matter what hardware or software requirements there be that'll be a good day for end users and a bad day for PC technicians.:)
If it's someones first foray into Linux then it'd be best if the install did everything for them and everything worked outta the box but I'm not sure a novice computer user should be doing their own installs of any OS from what I've seen.
However the path to a VESA desktop is a fairly simple one which then allows a user to go on to install the binary drivers and if they wish, select another desktop. The XP install I did today was a pain in the rear to find some drivers for but at least once located and installed everything operated properly. Still, it's not something an end user would have innate knowledge about and would've expected complaints about that as well.
I'm not arguing that Ubuntu never, ever has an installation issue, but it's also not always plain sailing with Windows as well. Canning Ubuntu just because it can't bring up every machine with no installation effort doesn't seem exactly fair. I might add that I find most machines are brain in bucket easy to get Ubuntu happy with though and if I got annoyed any time a Windows install wasn't automagically perfect after a CD boot and 5 clicks then I'd have a lower than desired batting average with it.
My major point would be that if on one hand it's considered worth while to install Ubuntu yet the end user is only prepared to invest the most minimal of effort to do so then I'd be of they opinion they weren't very serious and strongly advise they stick with what they've got. Though I'd consider it more normal for a novice to enlist the services of a knowledgeable person to get their first Linux install up if what they're after is the simplest of transitions.
The default setting of fancy, flashy graphics is not worth the hostility that it makes the OS present to new adopters. In my experience, the typical windows convert is happiest when one of the windows look-alike WM skins is being used. I'm not saying everything should regress to Win98 UI, just a simpler more functional default WM would make sense.
When someone comes to me after the Linux thing on their machine and they're making noises that sound like they want everything to be like it used to be pretty much exactly, I always recommend they stay with Windows. There are those who will irrationally ask for change, yet expect things to be exactly the same as before. Not that Ubuntu is much of a departure from other OSes but for some types of people it's better that they stay with what they have.
I would also submit that no matter which platform you're talking about, someone who's not prepared to whack a $25 second hand video card of similar or better performance in a machine in order to overcome software incompatibility that can save more than $25 worth of trouble shooting time simply isn't really very committed. And I've seen that before as well.
The real complaint is "They changed it! So now it sucks!"
No the real complaint is that it simply does not work at all without 3d support in the graphics card.
On hardware with less than about a geforce 6000 level card, unity does not work.
Perhaps you should try Unity 2D? (The QT based one)
I manage plenty of hardware at this level designed for win95/98, that of course will not run any newer windows os, but at the moment runs ubuntu just fine.
The smallest machine I have running Ubuntu is a 512M PIII 1.2GHz machine with a 40GB drive and an nVidia MX-440 PCI. I can run the machine with 256M RAM but it's certainly happier with the 512M in there.
Now, it's running 10.04 and for that I'm grateful it's happy to do that but I certainly wouldn't expect Canonical to constrain the development of Ubuntu in order for me to be able to run 11.04 on it with an accelerated desktop. I should say the PIII box does actually run Compiz but I don't think I'll even try putting Unity 3D onto it.
However all of the people stating you can just switch to classic mode will no doubt be the same people posting to slashdot in six months that ubuntu quit working suddenly and unexpectedly, with no warning what so ever it was about to happen...
Going by all the blog noise I see I'm not sure that the disappearance of Classic Gnome from the Ubuntu disc will exactly go unnoticed and anyone not wanting to migrate from it will need to consider their options then. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a PPA for the re-establishment of the classic desktop for 11.10 though.
Holding down the SHIFT key during POST and into the boot loader provides the boot menu.
One of the options, likely the second one should be "recovery mode" Select this, press 'ENTER' and the system will begin to boot into recovery mode.
After a moment a menu will be displayed. One of its options will be "failsafeX - Run in failsafe graphic mode" Select this with the cursor keys and press enter.
X should now display a dialog stating "Ubuntu is running in low graphics mode"
Press the OK button and then another list of options will be displayed.
"Run Ubuntu in low graphics mode for just one session" should be already selected. Simply press the OK button again.
Hey presto, you should have a viable graphic session from which you can install the propriety drivers or disable compiz and set the login session to "Classic Desktop"
BS. Unless they've never used a computer before. Chances are, they're refugees from Windows. The problem some of us are trying to point out is that Unity can't be configured into something familiar for them. Gnome2 can, but I gather Gnome3 plans to take that away as well.
If they don't like Unity then why wouldn't they choose Classic Desktop from the log in screen?
It's also quite presumptuous to say any Windows refugee would prefer Gnome2 over Unity. If they had such a hardon for Windows's UI they'd probably stick with WIndows surely.
result? Among too many of the potential refugees I know: "Oh hell. I guess I'll just go with Win7 if I have to learn a whole new Desktop anyway."
So a Windows refugee who is presumably running Windows XP, is going to blindly download and install Ubuntu without even looking at on-line reviews of it, before then going to the shop and buying Windows 7 to install on their PC? That sounds nothing like common sense.
So now I'm suggesting Linux Mint. (And I'm having another look at Mandriva after the comment above. Haven't paid attention to them in years.) But it's still a shame. All that momentum behind Ubuntu, just evaporating because a bunch of geeks are the ultimate fools, the kind who don't know that they don't know. And what they all-too-obviously don't know is UI.
Anyone who's prepared to not run with the "default" OS (Windows) is likely to be prepared to select Classic Desktop from the login screen. You should be waiting till 11.10 before you start complaining.
i know fullscreen flash mostly works on ubuntu. but the % of times it does not work is unnaturally high.
My experience hasn't shown this but there you go.
i have an acer i3, 2gb ram and integrated graphics. all 3d stuff works flawlessly. flash itself works very nicely. only when i fullscreen a youtube vid, it just shows me a frozen video frame with audio playing. i've messed around a lot with drivers and other suggestions but it still does not work.
I'd not be keen on installing a non-distro-standard intel driver and would only do it as a last resort. (But I'm lazy that way:)
also, i'm not going to update to 11.04 just because i hate all that unity bullshit.
I can see why people would rather stick to Gnome2, but thankfully it's shipped in the default install, and can be selected as your desktop choice from the login screen. That way you can have all the updated goodness of 11.04 but without that unsavory Unity interface.
actually i'm content with the way things are, its just that it is inaccurate to say that ubuntu is grandma friendly.
I disagree because........
because if an average user encounters this problem there is simply no recourse for him but to wait for the next version of ubuntu.
If an average person encounters this with their Windows box they're stuffed until they get help from someone who knows what they're doing. If an average person encounters this with an Ubuntu install then it's the same. I'd also submit that the Grandma probably shouldn't of installed Ubuntu herself just as I'd advise her to have a competent person do her Windows 7 upgrade.
Once the install was completed by a competent person the systems' operation should be checked, and if issue found, rectified. You'd probably say that you can't always get access to a person competent in the ways of Ubuntu but I'd suggest that perhaps Grandma would likely not be interested in or even aware of that Linux thing without exposure to a competent enough person.
If you aren't technically competent, and you absolutely don't have access to help for a platform, then perhaps that platform shouldn't be deployed. That goes for Windows, OSX and Linux amongst others. I do think that people tend to overstate the scarcity of Linux tech support though. It's not rocket surgery. Remember how everyone got along just fine with compiling IPX.COM for your given particular network adapter for a Novell network, and then have to work to get Windows 3.11 for Workgroups to play nice with it, and the world didn't end, and everyone still got their work done. (Not to mention that one could never really screw together a stable Windows system until WinNT:)) Linux is far from that level of intricacy even if everything isn't automagically how you'd like it to be after an initial install.
Have you seen the state people can get themselves in while for example fighting MS Office on a Windows box when they don't have access to help? People can be funny, and they can stuff up with technology of all sorts, and all sorts of technology can stuff up seemingly all by itself. Sadly, Microsoft's technology isn't immune from this phenomena.:)
the same average, non-techie guy will never see this problem on windows 7. in the rare case it does happen, it would have been due to a hardware problem and the vendor will replace his machine.
No, they would. But it may be for a different reason. Windows 7 has an issue sometimes with the stacking order of windows where a new one can appear behind the front most one (and no, I'm not talking about advertising "pop-unders".)
I've experienced it myself. While my machines are running Linux, the ones I'm supporting are a mix of Linux and Windows and so get to see a lot of Windows mischief played on end users. Windows isn't a panacea of
maybe its just me but i've never found a single windows pc that was unable to play fullscreen youtube video due to 'misconfiguration'. old hardware, yes, but never any software problem.
I've had to deal with Windows boxes that couldn't do full screen Flash due to misconfiguration, that is problems that aren't hardware issues.
The latest i3 based laptop I've installed Ubuntu on worked outta the box with full screen Flash. Haven't got the exact config at hand but it was a Toshiba i3 with the base model onchip graphics, 2G RAM 15", nothing special, Ubuntu 10.10
What make/model of machine are you having the issue with. You say i3 so the base Ubuntu driver should be happy. I've got to upgrade the Toshiba machine to 11.04 in about two weeks so will be an opportunity to observe exactly how intel's driver works with an i3 with the new release.
As mentioned above, I've had the fullscreen Flash video appear behind the current full screened browser window, but I've also had that happen with Windows 7 machines. There's a possibility that's what's happening for you. Even if you were using a VESA video driver on old hardware I'd expect to at least see slow full screen video, but full screen video none the less. I have a test system that's a PIII 1.2GHz, nVidia MX-440 PCI, 512M and it will also do full screen Flash video in Ubuntu.
Think OSX is immune? Read TFA. Think Linux can't be pwned? Look at the Android malware or the KDE screensaver malware that spread awhile back or even this handy how to guide on writing Linux malware.
Still bringing that one up hairyfeet? Isn't it the case that the desktop launcher vector was shut down a long, long time ago? While the article you reference is dated 11-Feb-2009 and so can be excused, it's now 2011, the vector doesn't work, and so isn't relevant here. As I asked last time, time to update your bag.
So in the end it doesn't matter what the OS, it doesn't matter what kind of permissions model you set up, if you have someone with admin rights that says "I want my emails from Melissa and you WILL let me have them!" then no matter what OS, you're screwed. An OS is only as good as the PEBKAC sitting in front of it.
Computers are here for users, not users are here for computers. Given that, we obviously can't completely remove the PEBCAK aspect of computer security. So as you note, all OS's have the PEBCAK chink in their armor to a degree, but that doesn't mean because end users can be foolish we should accept easily compromisable OS's.
If an OS has a problem with drive-by's then that's bad. When I hear of OSX being hit hard by them, I'll then considerer it as being closer to the Windows security threat level.
Which would mean either A. moving or B. giving up face-to-face interaction and free in-store pickup if I can't find a better computer store within city bus distance.
But surely if you don't have access to Linux tech support in any fashion that you find acceptable, and you were unknowledgeable with Linux, and your computer was currently running Windows, why would you upgrade your system. Some are knowledgeable with regard to Linux and others do have access to Linux tech support they find acceptable so why shouldn't they consider Linux as a viable option?
If our hypothetical "Grandma and Grandpa" didn't have access to tech support that they find acceptable for their upgrade to Windows 7 then I'd also advise them to stick with what they had instead of attempting the install themselves.
Just because you say Linux isn't an option for you doesn't mean it's not an option for others.
Sometimes they also state they're universal as well.
I've always understood "Universal" to mean that the driver for Mac OS X is compiled for both PowerPC and Intel architectures, in much the same way that "Fat" meant both 68K and PowerPC back in the mid-1990s.
That'd be universal binaries. Why would they put the universal logo on a device such as a video card where the device only has x86 firmware?
the whole discussion is about windows 7 being better than xp. if linux is brought into the debate, it has to stand up against 7, not xp.
The legitimacy of Linux as a possible solution for desktop computing was being questioned due to supposed difficulties with respect to printing from Linux.
Ignoring it's security issues, Windows XP is considered a viable platform from a usability perspective for many, many desktops.
If Linux could be considered to be as easy, or even easier to use that XP for printing, doesn't that somewhat quash the argument "You can't use Linux because you can't print from it or it's too hard to print from"
Now RobbieThe1st said
You can say that again!
Last time I tried to connect to a network printer(at school), I simply had to click "find printer", wait a few seconds, and pick from the list of available printers(all 50 on the network). Easy.
XP(which we were running at the time), required -- at best -- knowing the IP. At worst, it also required some arcane driver too.
To which DurendalMac repsonded with
When did you last use XP? Adding network printers isn't exactly straightforward, but if the admins did their job right, you don't need to punch in the IP and can just find the darned thing. Also, XP is not the latest version of Windows and shouldn't be measured against current Linux distros.
Given that XP is considered a viable platform, and when discussing Linux's viability due to aspects of its usability, isn't it OK to put Linux up against a legitimate alternative to test its appropriateness?
I also think Linux stands up against Windows 7 for many scenarios but when discussing whether Linux meets a minimum standard of usability it should only need to meet that minimum standard of usability. If it exceeds it, all the better.
Dunno what to tell you; works fine for me. Sure you're not just running it on really old hardware?
tell me if this is old: 2.3ghz core i3, 2gb ddr3 ram, 320gb hdd, intel graphics.
You speak as though every Linux user was unable to play full screen Flash video. Does that mean that if one individual running Windows is unable to play back full screen Flash video due to misconfiguration that no Windows user can?
Is such help any cheaper than a Windows license? I checked codeweavers.com, and support for CrossOver Pro (Standard + Games bundle) is $69.95 per year.
It was suggested above that
"It would be unreasonable to expect Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to learn Linux..."
Why would I pay Codeweavers so that I could have a tech install and configure a Linux install for "Grandma & grandpa"?
I would ask though, if the only reason you were running Linux was to run Windows apps then surely Windows makes some sense here. If you were after a productivity solution that was secure, fast, and efficient Linux might be of use though.
You laughed at the proposition that Macs could be mentioned in the context where cost is a consideration.
But....
I brought up Macs in the context that if the user doesn't have a Windows only program to run then they have Mac and Linux as alternatives. Have another look.
i object to you mentioning mac to be better while talking about cost. because it is not. similarly, i never said "it's too expensive to buy a Linux compatible printer or scanner to enable a platform migration".
I was talking about cost with reference to the possible assertion that it's not a valid option to buy a Linux compatible scanner or printer in order to make a platform change because it costs money. It wouldn't make sense to me to both rule out the new hardware and also not rule out spending money on a new Windows licence if it was money that was a problem.
I might add that Macs were brought up by me as an option where the end user isn't restricted by application software being tied to the Windows platform, not in the context of cost. Also, if the benefits of the Mac platform for a particular scenario can be translated into increased productivity the initial purchase price of the Mac could in the long run make a Windows PC option look more expensive.
In other words, "Linux is only free if your hardware is already due for replacement."
No, it's free if your hardware is supported, though why does Linux need to be free anyway? It's a good OS for reasons other than cost.
I asked around in locally owned computer stores, and they all specialized in Mac OS X (if they had a big Apple Inc. logo out front) or Windows (if not).
Well you need to find better computer stores. You can find ones around here that support Linux. It's a skill set that's not as rare as it used to be.
The difference is that peripherals usually state their Windows and Mac OS X compatibility right on the box; one doesn't need to run back home and check HCLs as one has to with Linux.
Sometimes they also state they're universal as well.
I've on occation had to connect some crap to a Windows box that a customers bought without any research, only to find that not only is the hardware rubbish, but its drivers are even worse. And bad drivers can be the source of platform instability. Isn't it worth while to research your hardware purchases just a little no matter the platform it's to be connected to?
People say there's no good numbers on how many machines are running Linux but looking at Linux web traffic relative to iOS and MacOS, and having large numbers of MacOS and iOS devices being reported officially by Apple suggests to me that there's an awful lot of Linux desktops out there.
As a percentage of market, Linux obviously isn't the biggest of players, but a small percentage of a large pie still equals a whole lot of Linux machines.
Anyone wanting to claim there's no meaningful number of Linux desktops doesn't sound accurate to me. If there's millions of Linux desktops, does that mean we've hit the threshold for the year of Linux on the desktop? Does Linux need to be on the majority of machines, or just millions of machines?
mac? you brought up a mac when comparing cost? hahahahaha....
Cost isn't the only determinant when considering what makes a pleasant computing experience. Sometimes user experience is more important that just cost (or so some Windows guys tell me)
And surely a pro-Windows guy wouldn't argue that it's too expensive to buy a Linux compatible printer or scanner to enable a platform migration yet think it's OK to buy a Windows licence.
Remember, a Windows upgrade licence only costs $180 if your time's worth nothing.:)
This part of the discussion has little to do specifically with the summary but more to do with is Linux a viable platform, specifically whether or not you can print something on a Linux box.
Are you arguing that we all should pretend XP doesn't have a significant user base and that it's level of usability has no relevance here?
If we could ignore XP it'd perhaps make the anti-linuxians position a little more easy to argue though.
It is all the more telling then that in the Net Applications stats for May 1, the iOS mobile device alone has twice the market share of Linux -
Did you consider before you posted that iOS is a very, very popular platform? Apples' figures suggest many, many millions of iOS devices are out there wondering around.
If Linux machines have half the penetration of a quite popular platform then doesn't that also suggest Linux has a large user base?
Slashdot Mirror
They money Conroy just spent means that NBNCo doesn't need to go "re-inventing the wheel" to build out a lot of the network. Where there's pit and pipe already, they get to avoid building there own. There are projected savings due to using Telstra's infrastructure which is why it was worth paying for.
Additionally, there are many who can't even get 8Mpbs, some are on much less. There are some that suffer hourly ADSL line re-syncs which means when your trying to do something like VOIP you can expect you call to die when the ADSL session does. Not only is the NBN faster the ADSL, it's chalk and cheese far more reliable than what ADSL is.
Regarding your comment regarding of not being able to buy directly from the wholesaler, there are very good reasons to keep the monopoly section of the network a level playing field. You should read up on the reasons behind the design decisions that have been made for the NBN. There might be some improvements possible for the implementation and layout but the business model will be far better than the Telstra copper situation that we have now.
Who gets 22Mbps over ADSL2+?
Wish I did
1 TB, Who is offering that?
Internode for one.
to quote thier web page
Easy Broadband XXL 1,000 Gigabytes - yes that's 1 Terabyte! $119.95 $129.95
But wasn't that "a minimum peak speed" of 12mbps? The Libs have used some pretty wishy washy terms for the "alternative." Also, how is their 12mbps no worse that what the current gov is promising? At best it'll be fibre to the node. It'd be nice to have the alternative gov have a compelling broad band story so that no matter who was in power we the Autralian people would have a good service but alas, me thinks the Libs plan is short sighted.
That's what it was doing as far as I know.
The "Something Else" option allows you to specify a current partition to install to and if you want, optionally re-format as well. This process doesn't require the repartitioning of the drive though you can optionally specify to do so inside this option.
Though to be fair I don't really understand why Ubuntu had to repartition anything if it was just replacing the existing system.
In your situation using the "Something Else" option in the installer probably would've been best. The installer would've simply reformatted your current Ubuntu volume and put the new OS on there.
Does you Thinkpad have a GPT or a MBR partition table?
For correcting a GPT problem I believe "gdisk" is the best tool for the job.
You could find out by booting the install disc and selecting "Try Ubuntu" instead of "Install Ubuntu"
Once at the desktop, Start software Center, choose "Software sources" from the "Edit" menu, tick the Universe repo and click the "Close" button.
You should then "sudo apt-get install gdisk" from a terminal and launch "gdisk" once installed.
You could have a look at GPT_Issues for some guidance if you're interested.
Yeah I did do VESA boot, but even after the nVidia proper drivers were installed the 8600 and NVS3100 machines were still freaking out.
I've only got a 9600 here for testing but I can borrow an 8600 to test which I think I will do. I've also got a 8400GS system upgrade to do Friday so that'll be instructive as well.
Also my point was that if this is someone's first foray into linux, they're not going to want to have to take extra steps to get a functional deskop.
Extra steps to get a functional desktop? :)
When doing an operating system install it's always appropriate to install any necessary device drivers in order to achieve proper system functionality. When the day comes that you can pop an install disc into a PC and have absolutely everything done for you no matter what hardware or software requirements there be that'll be a good day for end users and a bad day for PC technicians.
If it's someones first foray into Linux then it'd be best if the install did everything for them and everything worked outta the box but I'm not sure a novice computer user should be doing their own installs of any OS from what I've seen.
However the path to a VESA desktop is a fairly simple one which then allows a user to go on to install the binary drivers and if they wish, select another desktop. The XP install I did today was a pain in the rear to find some drivers for but at least once located and installed everything operated properly. Still, it's not something an end user would have innate knowledge about and would've expected complaints about that as well.
I'm not arguing that Ubuntu never, ever has an installation issue, but it's also not always plain sailing with Windows as well. Canning Ubuntu just because it can't bring up every machine with no installation effort doesn't seem exactly fair. I might add that I find most machines are brain in bucket easy to get Ubuntu happy with though and if I got annoyed any time a Windows install wasn't automagically perfect after a CD boot and 5 clicks then I'd have a lower than desired batting average with it.
My major point would be that if on one hand it's considered worth while to install Ubuntu yet the end user is only prepared to invest the most minimal of effort to do so then I'd be of they opinion they weren't very serious and strongly advise they stick with what they've got. Though I'd consider it more normal for a novice to enlist the services of a knowledgeable person to get their first Linux install up if what they're after is the simplest of transitions.
The default setting of fancy, flashy graphics is not worth the hostility that it makes the OS present to new adopters. In my experience, the typical windows convert is happiest when one of the windows look-alike WM skins is being used. I'm not saying everything should regress to Win98 UI, just a simpler more functional default WM would make sense.
When someone comes to me after the Linux thing on their machine and they're making noises that sound like they want everything to be like it used to be pretty much exactly, I always recommend they stay with Windows. There are those who will irrationally ask for change, yet expect things to be exactly the same as before. Not that Ubuntu is much of a departure from other OSes but for some types of people it's better that they stay with what they have.
I would also submit that no matter which platform you're talking about, someone who's not prepared to whack a $25 second hand video card of similar or better performance in a machine in order to overcome software incompatibility that can save more than $25 worth of trouble shooting time simply isn't really very committed. And I've seen that before as well.
The real complaint is "They changed it! So now it sucks!"
No the real complaint is that it simply does not work at all without 3d support in the graphics card.
On hardware with less than about a geforce 6000 level card, unity does not work.
Perhaps you should try Unity 2D? (The QT based one)
I manage plenty of hardware at this level designed for win95/98, that of course will not run any newer windows os, but at the moment runs ubuntu just fine.
The smallest machine I have running Ubuntu is a 512M PIII 1.2GHz machine with a 40GB drive and an nVidia MX-440 PCI.
I can run the machine with 256M RAM but it's certainly happier with the 512M in there.
Now, it's running 10.04 and for that I'm grateful it's happy to do that but I certainly wouldn't expect Canonical to constrain the development of Ubuntu in order for me to be able to run 11.04 on it with an accelerated desktop.
I should say the PIII box does actually run Compiz but I don't think I'll even try putting Unity 3D onto it.
However all of the people stating you can just switch to classic mode will no doubt be the same people posting to slashdot in six months that ubuntu quit working suddenly and unexpectedly, with no warning what so ever it was about to happen...
Going by all the blog noise I see I'm not sure that the disappearance of Classic Gnome from the Ubuntu disc will exactly go unnoticed and anyone not wanting to migrate from it will need to consider their options then. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a PPA for the re-establishment of the classic desktop for 11.10 though.
Did you try booting them to VESA?
Holding down the SHIFT key during POST and into the boot loader provides the boot menu.
One of the options, likely the second one should be "recovery mode"
Select this, press 'ENTER' and the system will begin to boot into recovery mode.
After a moment a menu will be displayed. One of its options will be "failsafeX - Run in failsafe graphic mode"
Select this with the cursor keys and press enter.
X should now display a dialog stating "Ubuntu is running in low graphics mode"
Press the OK button and then another list of options will be displayed.
"Run Ubuntu in low graphics mode for just one session" should be already selected. Simply press the OK button again.
Hey presto, you should have a viable graphic session from which you can install the propriety drivers or disable compiz and set the login session to "Classic Desktop"
"newbies ... don't have expectations"
BS. Unless they've never used a computer before. Chances are, they're refugees from Windows. The problem some of us are trying to point out is that Unity can't be configured into something familiar for them. Gnome2 can, but I gather Gnome3 plans to take that away as well.
If they don't like Unity then why wouldn't they choose Classic Desktop from the log in screen? It's also quite presumptuous to say any Windows refugee would prefer Gnome2 over Unity. If they had such a hardon for Windows's UI they'd probably stick with WIndows surely.
result? Among too many of the potential refugees I know: "Oh hell. I guess I'll just go with Win7 if I have to learn a whole new Desktop anyway."
So a Windows refugee who is presumably running Windows XP, is going to blindly download and install Ubuntu without even looking at on-line reviews of it, before then going to the shop and buying Windows 7 to install on their PC? That sounds nothing like common sense.
So now I'm suggesting Linux Mint. (And I'm having another look at Mandriva after the comment above. Haven't paid attention to them in years.) But it's still a shame. All that momentum behind Ubuntu, just evaporating because a bunch of geeks are the ultimate fools, the kind who don't know that they don't know. And what they all-too-obviously don't know is UI.
Anyone who's prepared to not run with the "default" OS (Windows) is likely to be prepared to select Classic Desktop from the login screen. You should be waiting till 11.10 before you start complaining.
i know fullscreen flash mostly works on ubuntu. but the % of times it does not work is unnaturally high.
My experience hasn't shown this but there you go.
i have an acer i3, 2gb ram and integrated graphics. all 3d stuff works flawlessly. flash itself works very nicely. only when i fullscreen a youtube vid, it just shows me a frozen video frame with audio playing. i've messed around a lot with drivers and other suggestions but it still does not work.
I'd not be keen on installing a non-distro-standard intel driver and would only do it as a last resort. (But I'm lazy that way :)
also, i'm not going to update to 11.04 just because i hate all that unity bullshit.
I can see why people would rather stick to Gnome2, but thankfully it's shipped in the default install, and can be selected as your desktop choice from the login screen. That way you can have all the updated goodness of 11.04 but without that unsavory Unity interface.
actually i'm content with the way things are, its just that it is inaccurate to say that ubuntu is grandma friendly.
I disagree because........
because if an average user encounters this problem there is simply no recourse for him but to wait for the next version of ubuntu.
If an average person encounters this with their Windows box they're stuffed until they get help from someone who knows what they're doing. If an average person encounters this with an Ubuntu install then it's the same. I'd also submit that the Grandma probably shouldn't of installed Ubuntu herself just as I'd advise her to have a competent person do her Windows 7 upgrade.
Once the install was completed by a competent person the systems' operation should be checked, and if issue found, rectified. You'd probably say that you can't always get access to a person competent in the ways of Ubuntu but I'd suggest that perhaps Grandma would likely not be interested in or even aware of that Linux thing without exposure to a competent enough person.
If you aren't technically competent, and you absolutely don't have access to help for a platform, then perhaps that platform shouldn't be deployed. That goes for Windows, OSX and Linux amongst others. I do think that people tend to overstate the scarcity of Linux tech support though. It's not rocket surgery. Remember how everyone got along just fine with compiling IPX.COM for your given particular network adapter for a Novell network, and then have to work to get Windows 3.11 for Workgroups to play nice with it, and the world didn't end, and everyone still got their work done. (Not to mention that one could never really screw together a stable Windows system until WinNT :)) Linux is far from that level of intricacy even if everything isn't automagically how you'd like it to be after an initial install.
Have you seen the state people can get themselves in while for example fighting MS Office on a Windows box when they don't have access to help? People can be funny, and they can stuff up with technology of all sorts, and all sorts of technology can stuff up seemingly all by itself. Sadly, Microsoft's technology isn't immune from this phenomena. :)
the same average, non-techie guy will never see this problem on windows 7. in the rare case it does happen, it would have been due to a hardware problem and the vendor will replace his machine.
No, they would. But it may be for a different reason. Windows 7 has an issue sometimes with the stacking order of windows where a new one can appear behind the front most one (and no, I'm not talking about advertising "pop-unders".)
I've experienced it myself. While my machines are running Linux, the ones I'm supporting are a mix of Linux and Windows and so get to see a lot of Windows mischief played on end users. Windows isn't a panacea of
maybe its just me but i've never found a single windows pc that was unable to play fullscreen youtube video due to 'misconfiguration'. old hardware, yes, but never any software problem.
I've had to deal with Windows boxes that couldn't do full screen Flash due to misconfiguration, that is problems that aren't hardware issues.
The latest i3 based laptop I've installed Ubuntu on worked outta the box with full screen Flash. Haven't got the exact config at hand but it was a Toshiba i3 with the base model onchip graphics, 2G RAM 15", nothing special, Ubuntu 10.10
What make/model of machine are you having the issue with. You say i3 so the base Ubuntu driver should be happy. I've got to upgrade the Toshiba machine to 11.04 in about two weeks so will be an opportunity to observe exactly how intel's driver works with an i3 with the new release.
As mentioned above, I've had the fullscreen Flash video appear behind the current full screened browser window, but I've also had that happen with Windows 7 machines. There's a possibility that's what's happening for you. Even if you were using a VESA video driver on old hardware I'd expect to at least see slow full screen video, but full screen video none the less. I have a test system that's a PIII 1.2GHz, nVidia MX-440 PCI, 512M and it will also do full screen Flash video in Ubuntu.
Think OSX is immune? Read TFA. Think Linux can't be pwned? Look at the Android malware or the KDE screensaver malware that spread awhile back or even this handy how to guide on writing Linux malware.
Still bringing that one up hairyfeet? Isn't it the case that the desktop launcher vector was shut down a long, long time ago? While the article you reference is dated 11-Feb-2009 and so can be excused, it's now 2011, the vector doesn't work, and so isn't relevant here. As I asked last time, time to update your bag.
So in the end it doesn't matter what the OS, it doesn't matter what kind of permissions model you set up, if you have someone with admin rights that says "I want my emails from Melissa and you WILL let me have them!" then no matter what OS, you're screwed. An OS is only as good as the PEBKAC sitting in front of it.
Computers are here for users, not users are here for computers. Given that, we obviously can't completely remove the PEBCAK aspect of computer security. So as you note, all OS's have the PEBCAK chink in their armor to a degree, but that doesn't mean because end users can be foolish we should accept easily compromisable OS's.
If an OS has a problem with drive-by's then that's bad. When I hear of OSX being hit hard by them, I'll then considerer it as being closer to the Windows security threat level.
Which would mean either A. moving or B. giving up face-to-face interaction and free in-store pickup if I can't find a better computer store within city bus distance.
But surely if you don't have access to Linux tech support in any fashion that you find acceptable, and you were unknowledgeable with Linux, and your computer was currently running Windows, why would you upgrade your system. Some are knowledgeable with regard to Linux and others do have access to Linux tech support they find acceptable so why shouldn't they consider Linux as a viable option?
If our hypothetical "Grandma and Grandpa" didn't have access to tech support that they find acceptable for their upgrade to Windows 7 then I'd also advise them to stick with what they had instead of attempting the install themselves.
Just because you say Linux isn't an option for you doesn't mean it's not an option for others.
Sometimes they also state they're universal as well.
I've always understood "Universal" to mean that the driver for Mac OS X is compiled for both PowerPC and Intel architectures, in much the same way that "Fat" meant both 68K and PowerPC back in the mid-1990s.
That'd be universal binaries. Why would they put the universal logo on a device such as a video card where the device only has x86 firmware?
the whole discussion is about windows 7 being better than xp. if linux is brought into the debate, it has to stand up against 7, not xp.
The legitimacy of Linux as a possible solution for desktop computing was being questioned due to supposed difficulties with respect to printing from Linux.
Ignoring it's security issues, Windows XP is considered a viable platform from a usability perspective for many, many desktops.
If Linux could be considered to be as easy, or even easier to use that XP for printing, doesn't that somewhat quash the argument "You can't use Linux because you can't print from it or it's too hard to print from"
Now RobbieThe1st said
You can say that again!
Last time I tried to connect to a network printer(at school), I simply had to click "find printer", wait a few seconds, and pick from the list of available printers(all 50 on the network). Easy.
XP(which we were running at the time), required -- at best -- knowing the IP. At worst, it also required some arcane driver too.
To which DurendalMac repsonded with
When did you last use XP? Adding network printers isn't exactly straightforward, but if the admins did their job right, you don't need to punch in the IP and can just find the darned thing. Also, XP is not the latest version of Windows and shouldn't be measured against current Linux distros.
Given that XP is considered a viable platform, and when discussing Linux's viability due to aspects of its usability, isn't it OK to put Linux up against a legitimate alternative to test its appropriateness?
I also think Linux stands up against Windows 7 for many scenarios but when discussing whether Linux meets a minimum standard of usability it should only need to meet that minimum standard of usability. If it exceeds it, all the better.
Dunno what to tell you; works fine for me. Sure you're not just running it on really old hardware?
tell me if this is old: 2.3ghz core i3, 2gb ddr3 ram, 320gb hdd, intel graphics.
You speak as though every Linux user was unable to play full screen Flash video. Does that mean that if one individual running Windows is unable to play back full screen Flash video due to misconfiguration that no Windows user can?
Is such help any cheaper than a Windows license? I checked codeweavers.com, and support for CrossOver Pro (Standard + Games bundle) is $69.95 per year.
It was suggested above that
"It would be unreasonable to expect Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to learn Linux..."
Why would I pay Codeweavers so that I could have a tech install and configure a Linux install for "Grandma & grandpa"?
I would ask though, if the only reason you were running Linux was to run Windows apps then surely Windows makes some sense here. If you were after a productivity solution that was secure, fast, and efficient Linux might be of use though.
i never said cost is the most important factor.
You laughed at the proposition that Macs could be mentioned in the context where cost is a consideration.
But....
I brought up Macs in the context that if the user doesn't have a Windows only program to run then they have Mac and Linux as alternatives. Have another look.
i object to you mentioning mac to be better while talking about cost. because it is not. similarly, i never said "it's too expensive to buy a Linux compatible printer or scanner to enable a platform migration".
I was talking about cost with reference to the possible assertion that it's not a valid option to buy a Linux compatible scanner or printer in order to make a platform change because it costs money. It wouldn't make sense to me to both rule out the new hardware and also not rule out spending money on a new Windows licence if it was money that was a problem.
I might add that Macs were brought up by me as an option where the end user isn't restricted by application software being tied to the Windows platform, not in the context of cost. Also, if the benefits of the Mac platform for a particular scenario can be translated into increased productivity the initial purchase price of the Mac could in the long run make a Windows PC option look more expensive.
In other words, "Linux is only free if your hardware is already due for replacement."
No, it's free if your hardware is supported, though why does Linux need to be free anyway? It's a good OS for reasons other than cost.
I asked around in locally owned computer stores, and they all specialized in Mac OS X (if they had a big Apple Inc. logo out front) or Windows (if not).
Well you need to find better computer stores. You can find ones around here that support Linux. It's a skill set that's not as rare as it used to be.
The difference is that peripherals usually state their Windows and Mac OS X compatibility right on the box; one doesn't need to run back home and check HCLs as one has to with Linux.
Sometimes they also state they're universal as well.
I've on occation had to connect some crap to a Windows box that a customers bought without any research, only to find that not only is the hardware rubbish, but its drivers are even worse. And bad drivers can be the source of platform instability. Isn't it worth while to research your hardware purchases just a little no matter the platform it's to be connected to?
People say there's no good numbers on how many machines are running Linux but looking at Linux web traffic relative to iOS and MacOS, and having large numbers of MacOS and iOS devices being reported officially by Apple suggests to me that there's an awful lot of Linux desktops out there.
As a percentage of market, Linux obviously isn't the biggest of players, but a small percentage of a large pie still equals a whole lot of Linux machines.
Anyone wanting to claim there's no meaningful number of Linux desktops doesn't sound accurate to me. If there's millions of Linux desktops, does that mean we've hit the threshold for the year of Linux on the desktop? Does Linux need to be on the majority of machines, or just millions of machines?
I know what I reckon.....
flash.
Didn't you know they have flash on Linux now :)
mac? you brought up a mac when comparing cost? hahahahaha....
Cost isn't the only determinant when considering what makes a pleasant computing experience. Sometimes user experience is more important that just cost (or so some Windows guys tell me)
And surely a pro-Windows guy wouldn't argue that it's too expensive to buy a Linux compatible printer or scanner to enable a platform migration yet think it's OK to buy a Windows licence.
Remember, a Windows upgrade licence only costs $180 if your time's worth nothing. :)
The summary?
This part of the discussion has little to do specifically with the summary but more to do with is Linux a viable platform, specifically whether or not you can print something on a Linux box.
Are you arguing that we all should pretend XP doesn't have a significant user base and that it's level of usability has no relevance here?
If we could ignore XP it'd perhaps make the anti-linuxians position a little more easy to argue though.
It is all the more telling then that in the Net Applications stats for May 1, the iOS mobile device alone has twice the market share of Linux -
Did you consider before you posted that iOS is a very, very popular platform? Apples' figures suggest many, many millions of iOS devices are out there wondering around.
If Linux machines have half the penetration of a quite popular platform then doesn't that also suggest Linux has a large user base?