109 replies to this topic

[VildNinja]

But every time I boot into it I instantly miss Visual Studio, Office, Msn, Photoshop, games, the list goes on...

The overall user experience is also very bad. Say all you want, but Ubuntu is NOT user friendly at all. My definition of user friendly is that
at least my girlfriend can use it. Every time you want to install anything you have to do it through packages and the like. It's so annoying.
On Windows it's just download => install => run and the computer shuts up. On Linux all it does is whining about configuration.
An OS should configure itself to be called user friendly. A good operating system also offers advanced configuration if you choose it.

Overall, Linux is not polished and not ready for the desktop. It never will be, because there's just too many incoherent ideas behind it.
Anyone who knows a little bit about psychology and user interfaces knows that the terminal is something users are scared of.
Yet every linux distro punches them in the face with it. No, my grandmother is not going to type in shell commands to upgrade her email client!

My girlfriend can't use Ubuntu either, but then again she can hardly use Windows.. It has nothing to do with user friendly, all it comes down to is what you are used to. I find it much easier to double click on a program and type my password, than having to find it on the internet, download it, and follow some often unnecessary installation wizard, where the only thing I usually has to do, is to tell it not to install some Ask toolbar. But then again if you like it that way, why don't you just do it that way? Nothing Ubuntu does keeps you from doing that. Google chrome, TrueCrypt or Blender 2.5 is not in the repository, so I just download => install => run and the computer shuts up. Quite easy

I have never run into any advanced settings, unless i was using an advanced program. On the other hand, as said above, the installation process rarely asks me of anything.

Why would your grandmother type in some shell command to upgrade her email client? that would just be stupid. I know that Windows users are only used to Windows updating its own core functionalities. But Ubuntu updates every program installed via the package manager (or .deb package). Whether they have developed it, or some third party company has developed it. In Windows that only happens if the specific software company has made their own program updater.


It is true that the graphics some times can be a bit buggy, but I truly don't believe that anyone cares, as long as they can read the text on the screen. Besides most Windows users are fine with IE, so unpolished software can't be that big a deal They just use it because they don't know any alternative, or because they had such a hard time learning it, that they don't want to go through it again.
- I actually had to convince my gf's mom that it was the same internet she was viewing through Chrome as the one she used in IE

[Luckless]

Overall, Linux is not polished and not ready for the desktop. It never will be, because there's just too many incoherent ideas behind it.
Anyone who knows a little bit about psychology and user interfaces knows that the terminal is something users are scared of.
Yet every linux distro punches them in the face with it. No, my grandmother is not going to type in shell commands to upgrade her email client!

I'm a pragmatic programmer, and I want an OS that works. I choose Windows.

Jeroen

Have you used Ubuntu? I have it set up on my netbook, the process was:
1. Download files and use the provided utility to copy it to a Thumb Drive
2. Boot the netbook with the thumb drive, and follow the on screen instructions.
3. Open the add/remove software thing under applications, browse the list and install the stuff I want to use. Most of the stuff I needed was there by default.
4. Every now and then I click ok to have things update.

Now, where in there did I use the dreaded terminal?

I had more headaches installing Windows 7 than I did Ubuntu.

What an insulting question. I've used Ubuntu since 2004 and consider myself to be quite proficient with it. Thank you.

Just because you had a nice install on your netbook doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. Installing Ubuntu on most of the pc's here has been
a nightmare! Nothing but crashes, hangs and failures on the most ridiculous errors.

The points I've mentioned were all pretty valid even on the most recent version of Ubuntu. Perhaps the fact that you fail to recognise Ubuntu's shortcomings
reveals that you yourself haven't spent much time with it.

I can recall an equal number of cases of windows and MacOS based nightmares as I can of Ubuntu based ones. You seem to be claiming that Ubuntu magically has extra shortcomings not found in other Operating Systems. (I'm not a networking guy, but I don't even remember setting up the network for the Ubuntu based computers I have. Everything just worked, and I never messed with any settings, I just followed a friendly little instruction page that was written by someone and posted online. Less than ten minutes later things worked fine, and all systems could see each other. Windows was a pain in the ass that took hours to sort out.)

Frankly, for a general User experience, most people I've met can barely tell the difference between when they are using Ubuntu and Windows. The only issue people have is switching what the 'start' menu is. After that everything works basically the same for a user. Installing stuff is in the domain of the admin, not the user. I've set up countless systems for people, and they are perfectly happy with them.

You seem to ignore the shortcomings of one thing, while claiming the other is not, and never will be, 'ready for the desktop market'?

[godmodder]

My girlfriend can't use Ubuntu either, but then again she can hardly use Windows..

My girlfriend can do anything she wants to in Windows, but she can only perform basic tasks in Ubuntu.

It has nothing to do with user friendly, all it comes down to is what you are used to

Oh, come on! Linux = terminal and everybody knows that. Sooner or later (pretty soon) you'll have to use the terminal while using Ubuntu.
And that is a nightmare for a regular user.

I find it much easier to double click on a program and type my password, than having to find it on the internet, download it, and follow some often unnecessary installation wizard, where the only thing I usually has to do, is to tell it not to install some Ask toolbar.

You have a point there, but the really interesting programs don't even come with an installer. My girlfriend knows how to setup a psx emulator on windows, but in Ubuntu I had to recompile the whole thing before it worked. In windows, developers are practically forced to include an installer, or nobody will ever even bother do download their program.

But then again if you like it that way, why don't you just do it that way? Nothing Ubuntu does keeps you from doing that.

Do it that way and you'll need to use the terminal even more.

Google chrome, TrueCrypt or Blender 2.5 is not in the repository, so I just download => install => run and the computer shuts up.

Try downloading aMsn for example. Many claim it's a good replacement for regular msn on windows. First thing you'll notice is that your profile pic won't show up in the conversation window of the person you're chatting with. Enough reason for my girlfriend to go back to windows. Every other program I've tried had similar shortcomings. Don't tell me these things are stupid. Profile photo's are an important aspect of instant messaging.

I have never run into any advanced settings, unless i was using an advanced program

Try watching a dvd in 5.1 sound. Hardly an "advanced" scenario these days. If you're very lucky, you're motherboard has a supported audio card. I never had such luck, unfortunately. So I had to recompile the whole kernel with a different audio driver in it, before it finally worked.

Why would your grandmother type in some shell command to upgrade her email client? that would just be stupid.

I couldn't agree more.

I know that Windows users are only used to Windows updating its own core functionalities. But Ubuntu updates every program installed via the package manager (or .deb package). Whether they have developed it, or some third party company has developed it. In Windows that only happens if the specific software company has made their own program updater.

That's one of the reasons Windows provides a better overall user experience. I need to be very careful in Ubuntu with updates, or it complains about errors and breaks my installation.

It is true that the graphics some times can be a bit buggy, but I truly don't believe that anyone cares, as long as they can read the text on the screen

It's 2011. As long as we consider a GUI "technology", it's just a coverup for saying that it doesn't work. You'd think that by now the GUI would have been perfected.

[godmodder]

Sorry for the double posting here, but I wanted to answer a few things here.

but I don't even remember setting up the network for the Ubuntu based computers I have. Everything just worked, and I never messed with any settings, I just followed a friendly little instruction page that was written by someone and posted online. Less than ten minutes later things worked fine, and all systems could see each other. Windows was a pain in the ass that took hours to sort out.)

It took me three days to setup my entire home network with Ubuntu. And I still couldn't do everything I wanted to. For some reason, I couldn't access my shared printer from some pc's. Now in windows, all the networked pc's immediately recognised the shared printer and I was printing documents a few minutes later.

Frankly, for a general User experience, most people I've met can barely tell the difference between when they are using Ubuntu and Windows. The only issue people have is switching what the 'start' menu is.

People stare at my screen and ask which funny version of Windows I use when they see Ubuntu running. Once they get going with Ubuntu, the start menu is about the least of their worries. They ask me why their sound crackles when they play music. They ask me why they cannot watch a dvd and then I have to come to their house and install lot's of codecs. The list of issues is endless.

You seem to ignore the shortcomings of one thing, while claiming the other is not, and never will be, 'ready for the desktop market'?

Again, you're putting words in my mouth.
I'm the first to admit that Windows is far from perfect. But from my experience, it's the least bad OS on the planet. That's if usability is taken into account.

[dwarfsoft]

Wireless and Wired networks "just worked" for me too. The only issues I've had with Networking is using SAMBA to share out folders. It seems that Windows XP Home doesn't like connecting to my SAMBA Share at all, and it also appears that Ubuntu doesn't like authenticating to a Windows XP SAMBA Share either (for some reason) so I had to open up permissions on that to Everyone. I haven't had problems sharing between Windows 7 and Ubuntu.

[godmodder]

Wireless and Wired networks "just worked" for me too. The only issues I've had with Networking is using SAMBA to share out folders. It seems that Windows XP Home doesn't like connecting to my SAMBA Share at all, and it also appears that Ubuntu doesn't like authenticating to a Windows XP SAMBA Share either (for some reason) so I had to open up permissions on that to Everyone. I haven't had problems sharing between Windows 7 and Ubuntu.

You seem to have hit some problems I encountered as well. I still use XP on some old systems at home and that's part of the reason why things don't go smoothly when sharing.

[Seaßourne]

I personally don't like Ubuntu. I hate the community because it's full of eliteness retards who think they are better than everyone because they managed to install Linux. I don't like GNOME, I find it very ugly and the developments libraries are more based to C than C++. Yes you can use C in C++ but I rather have C++ classes and their C++ Gtkmm isn't any better. GNOME just doesn't offer me what I need. I hate debian based distros because I can't stand apt-get/aptitude. I have to deal with it when I writing programmes for me Nokia N900 cellphone. Ubuntu's package manager is horrible. It's very slow, painful to use, shows multiple versions side to side rather than just gimme me the bloody latest version. I hate preinstalled apps on my computer. I like to install what I want on it and not have anything else. It installs every bloody feature in the applications when I only want specific ones. It contains outdated versions of applications. The only time you really get the latest is when they release a new version of the distro. Which by then those are pretty much close to be outdated.

I personally don't feel like waiting 6 months to get a new version. I don't like the whoring it does, makes it easy for novices to ruin the user experiences (another reason I hate the community like I said at the beginning). Personally I enjoy Gentoo as my Linux distro. I have bleeding edge applications and I have to pretty much compile everything from scratch but I don't mind that, I have a really fast computer. I pick which applications I want to install and not worried about broken dependencies, or useless features in the application I simply will not use so that saves on space and memory usage. I have my development files and libraries. Plus I like the Gentoo community more than any other distro.

I only use Windows for gaming now. I haven't used it as a primary desktop in 6 years since Windows doesn't give me anything I need except a headache in the programming department with it's lack of organisation and just really poorly written apps and lack of localisation. Visual Studios I don't miss as I have KDevelop4 which imho is less bloated but more fully features and just works I rarely ever used MS Office so I have no need for it.

[VildNinja]

Oh, come on! Linux = terminal and everybody knows that. Sooner or later (pretty soon) you'll have to use the terminal while using Ubuntu.
And that is a nightmare for a regular user.

So far I've only used the terminal for installing a lamp server on this machine - well also for NetBens and MonoDevelop, but I might just as well have used the Software Center. I've just formatted this machine though. Before I only used the terminal for development reasons. It is true though, that semi advanced users have a steeper learning curve in Ubuntu, than in Windows. But i would rather had started using Ubuntu than Windows.

You have a point there, but the really interesting programs don't even come with an installer. My girlfriend knows how to setup a psx emulator on windows, but in Ubuntu I had to recompile the whole thing before it worked. In windows, developers are practically forced to include an installer, or nobody will ever even bother do download their program.

There is allot of other emulators in the software center, but no not a psx emulator.. And yes it is true that the number of programs developed for Ubuntu is limited compared to Windows.

But then again if you like it that way, why don't you just do it that way? Nothing Ubuntu does keeps you from doing that.

The number of deb packed programs is rising. But for now yes

Try downloading aMsn for example. Many claim it's a good replacement for regular msn on windows. First thing you'll notice is that your profile pic won't show up in the conversation window of the person you're chatting with. Enough reason for my girlfriend to go back to windows. Every other program I've tried had similar shortcomings. Don't tell me these things are stupid. Profile photo's are an important aspect of instant messaging.

Try downloading aMSN for Windows, and I'm pretty sure it sucks as well. i've never tried it, and I fail to see what that has to do with anything.. Gwibber which is preinstalled works fine for both Facebook, msn and google talk. Though it does not support file transfers or talk on google talk (Don't know about msn.. Don't use it any more) But Skype's made a nice Ubuntu client, which works perfectly. Same as before the number of programs are still limited, but I truly believe that more programs are comming

I know that Windows users are only used to Windows updating its own core functionalities. But Ubuntu updates every program installed via the package manager (or .deb package). Whether they have developed it, or some third party company has developed it. In Windows that only happens if the specific software company has made their own program updater.

That's one of the reasons Windows provides a better overall user experience. I need to be very careful in Ubuntu with updates, or it complains about errors and breaks my installation.

Always worked fine for me..

It is true that the graphics some times can be a bit buggy, but I truly don't believe that anyone cares, as long as they can read the text on the screen

It's 2011. As long as we consider a GUI "technology", it's just a coverup for saying that it doesn't work. You'd think that by now the GUI would have been perfected.

At least they got a ton load of functionality that Windows doesn't have. I particulary like that if some game crashes, I can just change to an other desktop, and close the game down. I often have to restart Windows when that happens. Besides most gui errors, are caused by bad design in other programs, and not by the OS itself.

Wireless and Wired networks "just worked" for me too. The only issues I've had with Networking is using SAMBA to share out folders. It seems that Windows XP Home doesn't like connecting to my SAMBA Share at all, and it also appears that Ubuntu doesn't like authenticating to a Windows XP SAMBA Share either (for some reason) so I had to open up permissions on that to Everyone. I haven't had problems sharing between Windows 7 and Ubuntu.

My university had to write a long guide for how to access our wireless eduroam network, with different programs the Windows users had to download. I just entered my username and password and I was online. The same with my Android phone, I had to download two drivers to get internet access through it on my Windows. On Ubuntu it just worked right away.

[valderman]

When you're coming to Linux as a Windows power user, you need to realize that you are no longer a power user; you're a beginner. Most Windows power users don't realize this and get quite upset with "poor usability" when they're trying to use Linux in the exact same way they used Windows; they then think that "if I, who am a power user, can't do what I want how I want, then how could a normal user?" and proclaim that "Linux is not ready for the desktop."

The thing is though, that a "normal user" doesn't even know he's using Windows. He knows there is something that looks like a button that he can click to bring up a list of programs where he can find a web browser and a word processor. He doesn't assume anything about the system, even if it's the same Windows he's always been using. He uses the computer in simple ways, that don't require any knowledge about the system. The power user is doing quite a lot of platform-specific things and is used to idioms and ways of working that, on another system, are useless at best, and dangerous at worst.

You can seat a regular user in front of just about any system, as long as they have someone to ask when they can't find "the internet." Trying to get a power user (of any system) to use another system, on the other hand, will just lead to a neverending stream of whining that things aren't just like he's used to, AKA "inferior."

[Seaßourne]

When you're coming to Linux as a Windows power user, you need to realize that you are no longer a power user; you're a beginner. Most Windows power users don't realize this and get quite upset with "poor usability" when they're trying to use Linux in the exact same way they used Windows; they then think that "if I, who am a power user, can't do what I want how I want, then how could a normal user?" and proclaim that "Linux is not ready for the desktop."

The thing is though, that a "normal user" doesn't even know he's using Windows. He knows there is something that looks like a button that he can click to bring up a list of programs where he can find a web browser and a word processor. He doesn't assume anything about the system, even if it's the same Windows he's always been using. He uses the computer in simple ways, that don't require any knowledge about the system. The power user is doing quite a lot of platform-specific things and is used to idioms and ways of working that, on another system, are useless at best, and dangerous at worst.

You can seat a regular user in front of just about any system, as long as they have someone to ask when they can't find "the internet." Trying to get a power user (of any system) to use another system, on the other hand, will just lead to a neverending stream of whining that things aren't just like he's used to, AKA "inferior."

Well said. Windows users that do try Linux always think with a Windows mind but fail to realise that Linux is not Windows. Linux was developed with programming in mind. It's a power house compared to what Windows can do. Windows is for people who just pay a crap load of money for something that just works and for the inept normal person who just wants the basics. Linux and Unix on the other hand are for people who run servers, wants security (not bashing windows), what's the most out of there system. Hence why Unix, Linux bash shell is so functional to use and very powerful if you actually sit down and learn it unlike the Windows shell which is not really anything useful to it when compared to Bash. But Windows users need to go in it with a clear mind and actually give it a try and stop thinking with a Windows mind. That's how it was when I first started and didn't like it but I started to accept what Linux was and wasn't and now I have no problem running it for my everyday computer needs and even my own personal server for my website and backup storage. But everyone expects every OS or Phone should behave like Windows when they need to stop kidding themselves.

[Luckless]

Oh, come on! Linux = terminal and everybody knows that. Sooner or later (pretty soon) you'll have to use the terminal while using Ubuntu.
And that is a nightmare for a regular user.

This is just as true as saying that Windows = cmd, and everybody knows that. Sooner or later you'll have to use cmd to fix something when windows breaks. (That, or you just toss the whole thing and reinstall from a nuked hard drive. Which may or may not require using a command line prompt to do so.)

For the record, I use Windows 7 on my main system and for 90% of my development work.

The only time I open a terminal under Ubuntu is when I'm choosing to use command line tools, which all could have been done in some GUI based app. This is generally to SSH onto a computer with more power than my netbook. It is nice to know that with a few key strokes, my little Celeron 900 and gig of ram can suddenly have the number crunching power of a 10 system cluster of quad cores.

[phresnel]

It has nothing to do with user friendly, all it comes down to is what you are used to.

This, this and this. My gf even used a linux terminal for some time when I had some old, unsupported printer hardware. Then, she is used to starting a virtual machine through Suns^{[rip, old friend]} Oracles VirtualBox on which some wine incompatible software runs. And some other stuff.

Oh, come on! Linux = terminal and everybody knows that. Sooner or later (pretty soon) you'll have to use the terminal while using Ubuntu.
And that is a nightmare for a regular user.

This is just as true as saying that Windows = cmd, and everybody knows that. Sooner or later you'll have to use cmd to fix something when windows breaks. (That, or you just toss the whole thing and reinstall from a nuked hard drive. Which may or may not require using a command line prompt to do so.)

This, too. I was never forced to use the terminal for like 3 years or so. I consider myself Linux savyy, and I am not afraid of the CLI and often use it when it is more cosy to use than the GUI alternatives (e.g. I use git entirely through the CLI, even if there are awesome GUIs now), but forced to use it I am hardly.

There's some stuff on Windows I'd like to use through CLIs, but the standard one is so uncomfortable to use that I don't use it at all (e.g. adds "'s around filenames instead of escaping them when tabbing, forcing me to backspace to continue entering a filename) or use MSYS or cygwin instead.

Maybe PowerShell would be for me, haven't tried yet.

[godmodder]

Try downloading aMSN for Windows, and I'm pretty sure it sucks as well. i've never tried it

Dude, you totally missed my point. Why would I want to have aMsn on Windows when I can use a regular msn? It's ten times as good!

Sooner or later you'll have to use cmd to fix something when windows breaks. (That, or you just toss the whole thing and reinstall from a nuked hard drive

Every regular user just uses the recovery disk that came with their computer.

Linux was developed with programming in mind. It's a power house compared to what Windows can do. Windows is for people who just pay a crap load of money for something that just works and for the inept normal person who just wants the basics. Linux and Unix on the other hand are for people who run servers, wants security (not bashing windows), what's the most out of there system.

Last time I checked, that wasn't the goal of Ubuntu at all. They claim, with their usual marketing buzz, that they want to rival the user friendliness of a Windows OS and their target audience is mainly regular users who aren't tech-savy.

When you're coming to Linux as a Windows power user, you need to realize that you are no longer a power user; you're a beginner. Most Windows power users don't realize this and get quite upset with "poor usability" when they're trying to use Linux in the exact same way they used Windows; they then think that "if I, who am a power user, can't do what I want how I want, then how could a normal user?" and proclaim that "Linux is not ready for the desktop."

That's totally right. But you're not comparing apples to apples.
You say that users just have to accept that Linux is different. I agree with that.
But if you compare the amount of knowledge needed for just everyday stuff, like the dvd playing I've mentioned, the psx emulator, etc... then you can absolutely NOT claim that these things are easier in Ubuntu.

To give you another example. What OS would I choose when giving a presentation in school? Bare in mind that people giving a presentation are normally a bit stressed, so the least thing they would want is difficulties with their computer. Now, on windows, I just connect the projector and push Windows+P. Voilà.
On Ubuntu, I have to go to Nvidia X Server settings (so I have to know I have an nvidia card! Why should a regular user know that?), I need to change the settings to clone or whatever and then HOPE that it works. Because, that's right, sometimes for no explicable reason, I just get a purple screen and need to reboot.

If you claim that is a user friendly experience, then I hope that I'll never have to use one of your programs!

[Luckless]

That's totally right. But you're not comparing apples to apples.
You say that users just have to accept that Linux is different. I agree with that.
But if you compare the amount of knowledge needed for just everyday stuff, like the dvd playing I've mentioned, the psx emulator, etc... then you can absolutely NOT claim that these things are easier in Ubuntu.

To give you another example. What OS would I choose when giving a presentation in school? Bare in mind that people giving a presentation are normally a bit stressed, so the least thing they would want is difficulties with their computer. Now, on windows, I just connect the projector and push Windows+P. Voilà.
On Ubuntu, I have to go to Nvidia X Server settings (so I have to know I have an nvidia card! Why should a regular user know that?), I need to change the settings to clone or whatever and then HOPE that it works. Because, that's right, sometimes for no explicable reason, I just get a purple screen and need to reboot.

If you claim that is a user friendly experience, then I hope that I'll never have to use one of your programs!

You want to compare apples to apples?

Windows 7 Pro out of the box does not play DVDs. Shocker eh? I installed windows 7 on this computer, and a few months later (After keeping it totally up to date) I got bored one afternoon and threw a DVD into the drive and went to watch it. Nothing. Windows didn't know what to do with the data, because apparently I never installed any software to do this. I had to remember that both DVD drives in my system came with Data Disks that had programs on them, then install the needed software off there.

But it doesn't end. A few weeks later, after I assumed I had all the related issues sorted out and that software up to date (In case you didn't guess, watching movies on my computer isn't a really important thing to me. That is what the DVD player and TV are for. I have work to do here dammit!) my sister sends me a DVD she made of my nephews. She lives on the other side of the country and I don't get to see the boys often, so it was a nice treat to randomly get that package. I throw the DVD into the drive.

I get some random error about missing Codex and stuff. An error message that made me, a software developer tilt my head to one side and make a WTF face for a few seconds before my brain kicked back in gear and translated the message. Half an hour later I had googled a few pages and finally figured out what I needed to install. You really think your Grandmother would have happily smiled and said to herself. "Oh, silly me, I should just google the codex, find the right files, and install them", or would it be more like "It is broken and I have no idea how to fix it."

Don't compare the experience of someone setting up Linux all by themselves and then trying to use it to the experience of someone using a computer with windows that was installed in a factory. It is kind of like comparing the experience of two people driving cars, where one person is driving a stock car off a dealer's parking lot, and the other is driving a kit car that started off as a few hundred boxes spread over their garage floor.

As for the display thing. Don't know what to say, the three times I've done it I've just plugged it in and the video port just started dumping a cloned screen. It wasn't an issue on my machine, but I can tell you lots and lots of issues computer science students have had with different windows laptops. Many of them not pretty, and all of them exceedingly frustrating.


If you want to talk about Windows user friendliness, why not talk about the experience many Window Users face when it comes to browsing the web? I couldn't tell you the number of times I have to use someone else's computer and their Internet Explorer "Aka, the Internet" has nearly half the window left to actually render the web pages in, after Yahoo tool bar, 20 'add blocking' tool bars, and all the other random junk malware that attaches itself to a core piece of their computer. The windows User experience is far too close to the windows Admin experience. And when you combine the two with an user without much experience in either, then very bad things® happen. As opposed to Linux, where the user and admin is very clearly divided, an inexperienced user attempting to do admin things results in either them looking up instructions on how to do a task and becoming an admin, or running into a wall asking for a password they don't have.

Long story short: Both Windows and Ubuntu have shortcomings and major issues. Both require some advanced knowledge to properly do their related admin work. Once properly set up, both are excellent environments to work in.

[godmodder]

Windows 7 Pro out of the box does not play DVDs. Shocker eh?

Well not really. Ubuntu doesn't either. And the codec problem is practically the same for both.
Getting a real movie experience in 5.1 audio was 100x easier in Windows than in Ubuntu. I just had to use the driver that was on the disk of my audio card.
The same cd also contained Linux drivers. But as I explained before: I had to recompile the whole kernel to use them. Shocker eh?

I installed windows 7 on this computer, and a few months later (After keeping it totally up to date) I got bored one afternoon and threw a DVD into the drive and went to watch it. Nothing. Windows didn't know what to do with the data, because apparently I never installed any software to do this.

Well, file format problems are prevalent on all operating systems. You can't expect an OS to cope with every possible file format. And I don't expect Ubuntu to do that either. I was talking about just plane, normal, dvd's that people buy from the store.

(In case you didn't guess, watching movies on my computer isn't a really important thing to me. That is what the DVD player and TV are for. I have work to do here dammit!)

Well I live in the 21st century and stream movies to my TV. I don't even need a dvd player.

I get some random error about missing Codex and stuff. An error message that made me, a software developer tilt my head to one side and make a WTF face for a few seconds before my brain kicked back in gear and translated the message.

Maybe I should respond to this one like most of you responded to the issues I've mentioned: never had a problem like that

Don't compare the experience of someone setting up Linux all by themselves and then trying to use it to the experience of someone using a computer with windows that was installed in a factory. It is kind of like comparing the experience of two people driving cars, where one person is driving a stock car off a dealer's parking lot, and the other is driving a kit car that started off as a few hundred boxes spread over their garage floor.

Ubuntu gives me every right to make that comparison, because there are lot's of dealers around here that preinstall computers with it.

As for the display thing. Don't know what to say, the three times I've done it I've just plugged it in and the video port just started dumping a cloned screen. It wasn't an issue on my machine, but I can tell you lots and lots of issues computer science students have had with different windows laptops. Many of them not pretty, and all of them exceedingly frustrating.

I never had a single problem with this on a Windows machine. When the video card supported multiple monitors, it always worked.

If you want to talk about Windows user friendliness, why not talk about the experience many Window Users face when it comes to browsing the web? I couldn't tell you the number of times I have to use someone else's computer and their Internet Explorer "Aka, the Internet" has nearly half the window left to actually render the web pages in, after Yahoo tool bar, 20 'add blocking' tool bars, and all the other random junk malware that attaches itself to a core piece of their computer.

Ok, I'm not going to turn this into a browser rant. Even my grandmother knows Firefox > IE.
Your point is moot btw. Ubuntu isn't affected much by spyware, just because it's not as popular as Windows.

Both Windows and Ubuntu have shortcomings and major issues

Certainly true. But Windows feels a lot more polished.

[Antheus]

Windows 7 Pro out of the box does not play DVDs. Shocker eh? I installed windows 7 on this computer, and a few months later (After keeping it totally up to date) I got bored one afternoon and threw a DVD into the drive and went to watch it. Nothing. Windows didn't know what to do with the data, because apparently I never installed any software to do this. I had to remember that both DVD drives in my system came with Data Disks that had programs on them, then install the needed software off there.

Patent and licensing issues.

There is no free software that can legally play DVDs. The algorithms to decode DVDs and many parts of video and audio decoding algorithms are patented and in order to distribute or even develop interoperable software one must obtain a license. Then there's the whole DRM mess.

The $49.95 DVD player in Wal-Mart - $29.95 goes into licensing, so the actual manufacturing and shipping cost of that player is $20 or so.

Recent higher end Windows versions, IIRC, support DVD playback. The licensing fee is included in that price. Alternative are paid video players.


There is, AFAIK, no licensed Linux DVD player, all of them rely on DeCSS, which is illegal under DMCA. So technically, playing DVDs on Linux is same as torrenting movies. It's too fragmented a market to go against it, but there is no incentive to legalize it either due to upfront costs. Even Microsoft cannot shoulder this cost in anything but highest tier products.

[Seaßourne]

Linux was developed with programming in mind. It's a power house compared to what Windows can do. Windows is for people who just pay a crap load of money for something that just works and for the inept normal person who just wants the basics. Linux and Unix on the other hand are for people who run servers, wants security (not bashing windows), what's the most out of there system.

Last time I checked, that wasn't the goal of Ubuntu at all. They claim, with their usual marketing buzz, that they want to rival the user friendliness of a Windows OS and their target audience is mainly regular users who aren't tech-savy.

Last time I looked Ubuntu didn't make Linux. I hate how everyone sees Ubuntu as the only distro and the one who made it when it is in fact not true. Remember each distro is different to the next. Each serves a different purpose.

[Luckless]

Godmodder, you're still missing the point that User and Admin are different. A User of either Ubuntu or Windows doesn't install a codex or any other piece of software. They use the system, not make changes to it.

Getting DVD and surround sound running under Linux isn't '100x harder' than under Windows, it is just different. I've had systems where it was easy for both Windows and Linux to setup for it. I've had systems where it was a pain and took an hour or two to work out all the glitches. I've also had systems that simply refused to play nicely and ended up swapping hardware around to get things working under Windows or Linux.

(Hell, I even have one box over at a friend's place that simply refused to play nice under windows to do Anything and would constantly blue screen when even just trying to install Windows 7 to a totally blanked and properly formatted system. We were going to RMA a bunch of stuff, but tried a Live CD to try and see if we could figure out what was actually dead. It has been more than a year of flawless use after we set it up, and as of a week or two ago since I was last over to his place, it had an up time of over 6 months. The last time the system was brought down was due to his power being out longer than his UPS lasted.)

Yes, the chances are better that you'll have an easier time finding all your drivers and such for random hardware under windows, but even under windows you can have some very nasty conflicts and issues. From my view point on system administration, doing it this way is putting the cart before the horse. If you turn it around and sit down to look at your OS and driver options first, and then you look at the hardware that will actually do what you ask of it, so many headaches magically melt away. Notice this effects ALL operating systems. A bit of leg work before you start a system saves you so much time and headache trying to fix things that are broken from the get go.

So, why are drivers harder to find for some hardware under linux than windows? Because more people use windows, so more hardware vendors focus their attention and support there. Comments by people saying "Linux is hard!" (When they really mean something like "BooHoo! It isn't windows therefore it sucks") puts people off from trying it. Fewer people trying it means fewer people using it, fewer people using it means hardware vendors have less incentive to support it. Ta-Da! Self fulfilling prophecy, hardware drivers continue to have issues which leads to the single biggest 'usability' issue Linux seems to have.


From the User standpoint, I would almost argue that Ubuntu has been nicer to me than Windows. I can count the number of times I've had to force my Ubuntu system to restart in the last two years on one hand. Once. For Windows 7? I've done it twice this week alone.
Multiple desk tops? Hell yes! One of the best inventions ever.
Everything else has been about equal, and both Operating Systems have stayed out of my way and let me get to work.

[MichelPaulissen]

While this topic is clearly turning into a flame war, I'll take the oppertunity to tell my story.

I see a lot of posts here that hardware wouldn't work on Ubuntu or Windows. This has never been the case for me, the only difference is that on ubuntu installing it is either easier or harder (Installing my wacom tablet I consider being hard, but googling it and clicking the top page would have helped most users).

I come from a Windows background, and after having tried some Linux distros I switched to Ubuntu a year or 2 ago. Ubuntu 8.04 had a lot of problems that Ubuntu 10.10 fixed, so all I can say is, if you didn't like 8.04, I didn't either, but 10.10 is great.
Technically, I use Linux Mint. It's nice, has the right preinstalled packages (for me) and it's useful if you want to install for example google earth without any trouble, but has some minor flaws compared to Ubuntu.

About non-technical people and Ubuntu: My girlfriend sometimes uses my old Ubuntu laptop, and after I showed her how to install software, I haven't heard any questions from her since. In my experience Ubuntu is a much better choice for people who email, surf the web and write the occasional document or excel sheet even (I'd use LyX, though, but that's another story).

Also, I've had an ubuntu server for a few years, never had any problems with it (although i did chmod 777 on / once, boy did I learn!). It is used as a HTPC as well, and tbh, it does so nicely.

I do not miss Visual Studio for development, because IMHO Code::Blocks has been easier to use lately (the nightlies) and C# and Mono is as good, maybe slightly more bleeding edge than Microsoft's implementation.

Anyway, to conclude this: I do not dislike Windows, it's just that in my experience Ubuntu (and maybe some other free software distros) are the better choice these days for many desktop users. I expect Ubuntu's market share to rise in the next few years, because of the simple fact they have the budget and a large established user base.

[stonemetal]

Just because you had a nice install on your netbook doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. Installing Ubuntu on most of the pc's here has been
a nightmare! Nothing but crashes, hangs and failures on the most ridiculous errors.

The points I've mentioned were all pretty valid even on the most recent version of Ubuntu. Perhaps the fact that you fail to recognise Ubuntu's shortcomings
reveals that you yourself haven't spent much time with it.

He could have spent all the time in the world with it. For some people it rather just works, and others hit some weird edge case and it all falls apart. In that way it works just like every other os on the market. Just because you ran into a situation that was weird and didn't work doesn't mean everyone does(my parents successfully ran Ubuntu for about year until they bought a new computer with Win7 on it, and liked it well enough to not ask for Ubuntu). I have been using Ubuntu since about 06 and never had any trouble until I bought a new computer this past year, after I got the config sorted out it hasn't caused problems since. Running into weird edge cases can happen on any OS out there. Everyone talks about how Macs just work. Well my mac got into weird state were it would reboot itself every three minutes(until I reinstalled the OS), it was impossible to use the network config panel because it continuously popped a dialog saying an outside app had modified settings(note to fix that one you have to drop to the command line and ...) Every OS has its issues some you can get used to, some annoy you until you try a new OS. Right now I find Windows to be the best at Entertainment (games and pretty much anything targeted at consumers aims for windows first.), most of the interesting libraries, servers etc. target Linux, and Macs are somewhere in between, libraries and servers tend to work because of the shared unix heritage but not always, and Entertainment companies make a half hearted attempt at supporting the platform (hey they even have steam now, how many years late?).