Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:14 UTC, submitted by Anonymous Reader
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "My verdict: Even in the relatively slick Ubuntu variation, Linux is still too rough around the edges for the vast majority of computer users", says Mossberg. Among others, he complains about one of the things I did too when I was writing my stream of Ubuntu reviews back in Spring.
Order by: Score:
Jumping in blindfolded
by JCooper on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:37 UTC
JCooper
Member since:
2005-07-06

It seems to me he went about his little "trial" in the wrong way. People ordering Ubuntu Dells are going to at least understand some of the limitations (which aren't really limitations - see the usual mp3, DVD rant) that are thoughtfully and well engineered around.

The lack of an option for the synaptic touchpad is an actual shortcoming, however I've never had a problem with accidentally launching applications using my Toshiba M2. Maybe we just use them differently.

I'm also not really sure what "To get the computer to recognize my Kodak camera and Apple iPod, I had to reboot it several times" implies ... if you plug something in, it's either recognised or not; if the software that does the recognising is hit and miss then there are bigger issues than playing your videos!

"When it did find the iPod, it wasn’t able to synchronize with it." - you'll have that problem on Windows too, without iTunes (yes I'm aware there are 3rd party applications, but come on, the guy was put off by a helpful codec installer, I doubt he uses anything but iTunes for his iPod).

While I may have found the review a little poor, it does provide a great resource for focusing efforts. This is a "normal" user in every sense of the word - the sort that we sit here and rant about all the time. He just wants to get on with things, and has provided a list of what's important to him. That is the one serious strength that will come from big hardware manufacturers shipping a non-Windows OS - "normal" user feedback, something sorely needed to polish applications, control panels, system services and how things work. You just can't get that sort of feedback from us geeks who quite like the quirkiness of their daily OS.

Reply Score: 16

RE: Jumping in blindfolded
by Kroc on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:51 UTC in reply to "Jumping in blindfolded"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

No, he went about his trial exactly how it should have been; from the perspective of someone who does not know the limitations. Linux cannot progress if it has a continual list of limitations that people are expected to know.

Would you be disappointed if your car's Stereo didn't work every second time you started the car, and you go back to the salesman and he tells you that 'you should have known that limitation before ordering'.

Linux will only progress by admitting bluntly to any shortcomings, and addressing them. Mark Shuttleworth seems to have his head firmly screwed on, unlike RMS.

Reply Score: 31

RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded
by JCooper on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Jumping in blindfolded"
JCooper Member since:
2005-07-06

No, he went about his trial exactly how it should have been; from the perspective of someone who does not know the limitations. Linux cannot progress if it has a continual list of limitations that people are expected to know.

Maybe it's just the techy in me that looks at a product before ordering (ok he didn't order, but still) - the same can be said for ordering a PC with Vista, or an OSX Apple machine - I'd expect to do a little research to understand what I'm spending my hard earned on. I think I'd probably do the same if I was loaned an expensive laptop for a while ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Jumping in blindfolded"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

Would you be disappointed if your car's Stereo didn't work every second time you started the car, and you go back to the salesman and he tells you that 'you should have known that limitation before ordering'.


Of course we would. But who never has any similar problem with Windows? Especially this kind of problem... Let's talk about the X configuration, complicated sound problems, video editing softwares if you really want to talk about SERIOUS problems. Those are just the everyday little problems of every OS. I can write the same article about XP or Vista honestly. Or the same article explaining that Ubuntu is nicer to use than Vista, based on a few nicely chosen examples.

That's a bit too short to me, sorry. I think people go beyond the first look, they are not stupid, he says it. So they know you will need some time to use a new system. But I'm confident most of them can simply do it.

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded
by Kroc on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You can write an article, but the fact of the matter is that Dell sells 99.9% Windows PCs for a living. They could not replace that with Linux tomorrow, without finding that Linux was totally and wholly inadequate for that size of crowd (and computer skill level). Their support systems would collapse under the weight of calls about "hardware faults" that were really ACPI-driver bugs, and "I can't play MP3s".

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Jumping in blindfolded
by Kroc on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I should add that Dell couldn't do that with OS X either. Microsoft's stranglehold on the industry is so severe that we're heading for some kind of industry disaster at some point unless Microsoft really starts interoperating without patent threats, backroom deals and faux-standards pushing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Jumping in blindfolded
by Phloptical on Thu 13th Sep 2007 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Let's be honest, the only reason why Dell sells anything, today, is because they are willing to cut their throats on price points. Their customer service is a joke, and their salespeople have all the knowledge of a Burger King manager selling TVs at Best Buy.

Their hardware is cheap and shoddy and basically harkens back to the Big 3 days of old where the car you bought was of better quality if it was assembled on a Tuesday vs. built on a Friday.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Jumping in blindfolded
by Soulbender on Fri 14th Sep 2007 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Jumping in blindfolded"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Their customer service is a joke, and their salespeople have all the knowledge of a Burger King manager selling TVs at Best Buy. "

Oh, yeah mean exactly like every other big vendor?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Jumping in blindfolded
by raynevandunem on Fri 14th Sep 2007 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Jumping in blindfolded"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Yes, every other manufacturer that churns out every possible computing system form factor for every possible market at the lowest prices possible (namely, Dell and HP).

Plus, because they don't have control over the software which goes onto their products, they usually shirk the responsibilities over the software part of the systems to the software vendor (Microsoft), which then charges $25 to ask a single question (hearsay).

The customer service, in this case, isn't taught to cater to the whole system, only the half or less of it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Jumping in blindfolded
by Phloptical on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Jumping in blindfolded"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

I would buy a server from HP any day of the week and twice on Sunday. The quality is remarkably better.

Dell servers? No thanks. Been there, done that....won't happen again.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded
by ThawkTH on Thu 13th Sep 2007 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

I can see where you're coming from, but...

How about instead of trying to MATCH windows, trying to BE windows, trying to always win in comparisons with windows in every single way...

Why not EXCEED people's expectations. That's the only way MS is going lose any signifigant market share!

By winning, hands down. Being better in so many ways people make an effort to switch, or it makes big news and makes it into joe consumer's mindshare.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Jumping in blindfolded
by diskinetic on Thu 13th Sep 2007 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded"
diskinetic Member since:
2005-12-09

You should have provided ways/areas wherein Linux exceeds Windows or should exceed Windows. It's one thing to yell, "we should be better!" it's (as my Dad would say) a far-nuther thing to provide examples. Windows has such a lock on what you must bring to the table for the consumer, that you in essence have to copy them in order to be visible in the same space. Look at OS X. It's a vastly different experience, to be sure, but there are the "windows" and the mouse pointer and so on. It plays mp3s and surfs the web. I don't know the exact point at which Apple's offering simply pulls away from Microsoft's, but my guess is that it would be a tad beyond basic functionality before it occurred. In order to be different enough to be vastly better, Linux would almost have to be unrecognizable, and then it would be biscuit to the cake (not a perceived one-for-one substitution).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Jumping in blindfolded
by ThawkTH on Fri 14th Sep 2007 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Jumping in blindfolded"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

I disagree. At it's core, Linux doesn't need to change a whole lot.

Package management/software install, drivers, and codecs are more important.

The DE's need to evolve a bit as well, but I think they're on their way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Jumping in blindfolded
by diskinetic on Sat 15th Sep 2007 12:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Jumping in blindfolded"
diskinetic Member since:
2005-12-09

So, by package management and software installs, you mean that the user would have an easier time adding programs to their computer, and by drivers and codecs you imply that the user would have access to more media types more easily. It sounds like Windows-land to me. I think I didn't make my point clear. Because Windows is what people expect, and Windows does an decent enough job delivering it, and it's on about 90% of the desktops people encounter, being too terribly different from it will be a harder marketing sell. Linux needs to fall back on its old strengths when it comes to selling itself, namely freedom, choice, stability, and viral anonymity. Sure the DEs can be "improved" (almost all the arguments I see here about that seem to be subjective taste-test results), but if they do what people expect, we're right back at Windows, and if they don't, people wonder why they're using it.

The bad car analogy: Linux won't successfully compete with HOME USERS (please remember I said that) even if they bring a Corvette (cheap, fast, awesome) if the average family already has Camrys and Accords on their minds. Linux should be the Hyundai Sonata instead. Very similar, but just not as pricey. I see Ubuntu going for just that, and they tend to be getting along okay.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded
by edoardo on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Jumping in blindfolded"
edoardo Member since:
2006-09-21

Linux will only progress by admitting bluntly to any shortcomings, and addressing them


If you reread the (poor) review, you may notice that these shortcomings are not linux's. They are about proprietary content formats (mp3,dvd with css) or proprietary devices (ipod) that require some effort to be used to circumvent legal limitations.
The current legislation worldwide is protects corporate interests, not users.
That's, IMO, the shortcoming.

I don't think we'll see elected people representatives push for legislation that helps free software.
That won't happen when voters are media influenced and media are just corporate money making machines ...

Reply Score: 12

RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded
by sanctus on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded"
sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

that is totally irrelevant outside the small geek community. Maybe people understand this, but they will not accept it if it limit the things they can do, especially when it was working before.

People want something that work. end.

It's like your fridge was cooling only bio food in respect to the political point of view of the maker.

If you can't provide something, give solutions not excuses. mp3 converter? dvd alternative (what?? are we screw!)

What make a poor review is not related to the fact that someone like the arguments.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Jumping in blindfolded
by binarycrusader on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

that is totally irrelevant outside the small geek community. Maybe people understand this, but they will not accept it if it limit the things they can do, especially when it was working before.

People want something that work. end.


Then those people are going to have to tell their congressman to change laws and legislation. It is *illegal* for GPL'd software to use patent technologies such as mp3. Read Stallman and the FSF's writings about this. Unless you have the rights to the patents that your software uses, you cannot distribute it under the GPL.

The Linux world can do *nothing* about the legal situation we are mired in.

If people want to "listen to their mp3s" they're going to have to understand that there are *laws* in place preventing that from happening in a free environment.

They're going to have be prepared to *pay* for that, just as they do in Windows.

I'd like to point out that when Windows XP was launched, it didn't have DVD playback either. Microsoft made you *pay* to add that capability *gasp*.

So, I bet if free software vendors did add a button that said "install proprietary DVD playback for $15" people would be outraged and still not use Linux.

So, sucks to be Free Software I guess...

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Jumping in blindfolded
by sanctus on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Jumping in blindfolded"
sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

But still, you're exposing the problem and excuses. Now, if people/community want to see Linux adoption, we must find answers and solutions.

I say we, because I am a linux user and I want to see more hardware support, more openness, etc. But this is a uphill battle and to make it worst - we fight without weapon ($).

My solution:

1. Dell/Ubuntu solution: charge for mp3/dvd playability and mp3 encoding (it is probably not that expensive on large scale, way below 15$)

Then problem solve, well partially because it doesn't help open standard.

2. Open source programmer should add "informative" wizard to help transition.
lets say I import my music library, a wizard will ask me if I want to convert it and clearly explaining :
Reason: | Avantages: | Problems: here it can warn users to check if their device support X format[ogg vorbis, etc].
This wizard can also be display the first time a user want to encode music.

It will not convert everyone, but it could make enough noise that more and more device will support open standard. More device support it, more user will use it. Then Dell/Ubuntu can charge extra for this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Jumping in blindfolded
by binarycrusader on Thu 13th Sep 2007 18:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Jumping in blindfolded"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Both of those are good things, and admittedly, I did leave out the point earlier that Dell should be shipping the proprietary codecs with their systems by default. They could license them from fluendo and distribute them with the system.

Obviously, Ubuntu can't do this themselves, but Dell can as an OEM.

Then problem solve, well partially because it doesn't help open standard.

Open standards aren't good enough unless they're also royalty free. The mp3 format is well understood and an "open format", but it is not royalty free.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Jumping in blindfolded
by IceCubed on Fri 14th Sep 2007 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Jumping in blindfolded"
IceCubed Member since:
2005-07-01


2. Open source programmer should add "informative" wizard to help transition.
lets say I import my music library, a wizard will ask me if I want to convert it and clearly explaining :
Reason: | Avantages: | Problems: here it can warn users to check if their device support X format[ogg vorbis, etc].
This wizard can also be display the first time a user want to encode music.


If you want to play this file etc...
Reason: no codecs
Advantages: you will be listening your music in no time
Problems: Your home will be raided by FBI/RIAA in 10min.

( just joking )

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

"They are about proprietary content formats (mp3,dvd with css) or proprietary devices (ipod) that require some effort to be used to circumvent legal limitations.
The current legislation worldwide is protects corporate interests, not users."

I agree with you on the incompatibility problems being due to proprietary software. One would think, though, that Canonical would take steps to correct that, like buy some licenses for those codecs since I'm assuming they're getting some money from Dell. I mean is it really that big of a deal to buy some licenses and create a package that they can sell to OEMs? Give them the OS for free, but charge them $20-25 for a non-free codec pack making everything legal.

It should be noted that Automatix solves the codec problem. I'm not sure how to solve the ipod problem as I don't buy mp3s players that aren't UMS devices.

Maybe we should create a political action committee, take some donations, and hire a lobbyist.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded
by starnix on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded"
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

Hate to burst your bubble but typically open source projects openly admit to bugs and problems. Its their proprietary counterparts that deny problems until they are too big to deny.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded
by polaris20 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Jumping in blindfolded"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

No, he went about his trial exactly how it should have been; from the perspective of someone who does not know the limitations. Linux cannot progress if it has a continual list of limitations that people are expected to know.

Exactly. This has been my thought since the beginning of using Linux for me. How's it going to improve if all you have to go by for improvements are a bunch of geeks that know how to work around its quirks?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Jumping in blindfolded
by dbodner on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Jumping in blindfolded"
dbodner Member since:
2007-07-01

No, he went about his trial exactly how it should have been; from the perspective of someone who does not know the limitations. Linux cannot progress if it has a continual list of limitations that people are expected to know.


I don't agree. I don't think the goal of the Dell Linux deal is to get normal user feedback, but to extend the range of users interested. If we can agree that two of Linux's main setbacks from being a viable alternative are support from hardware vendors and a lack of gaming support, this is not going to change until there is a large enough userbase for those companies to make the platform a priority. Linux is not going to just one day be "ready" to be unleashed to the general public, and if Dell marketed Ubuntu like that now, there would be more people who would try it, get aggravated, and never go back. Dell's marketing Ubuntu to “advanced users and tech enthusiasts”, which IMO is the right strategy. These are people who may not have used *nix's in the past, and may not have previously been in the Linux demographic, but are also aware that it's not ready. But by extending the user base and shipping it through a major provider it's a step in the right direction to getting the support from third party vendors, which IMO is the goal of the Dell agreement much moreso than trying to pass it off as a windows replacement at this time.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Jumping in blindfolded
by Luminair on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:24 UTC in reply to "Jumping in blindfolded"
RE: Jumping in blindfolded
by netpython on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:03 UTC in reply to "Jumping in blindfolded"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

While I may have found the review a little poor, it does provide a great resource for focusing efforts.

Yes but at the same time what he says about windows (which one, XP{home/pro}, Vista{Home,..n} )should be taken with a grain of salt.

Windows XP for instance doesn´t play commercial encrypted DVD´s by default. You get a warning message about a proper codec not installed. With Ubuntu on the other hand you get at least an opportunity to download the codecs.

To get the computer to recognize my Kodak camera and Apple iPod, I had to reboot it several times.

Should be familiar as average Joe from a windows platform. You have to reboot for almost anything

Although i welcome any experience anecdotes from all kinds of users i get the feeling here the author drops his actual skill-set in the article in order to get a more trustworthy undertone.

But open source is a two-edged sword. While it draws on smart developers from many places, nobody is ultimately responsible for the quality of the product, and open-source developers often have an imperfect feel for how average people use software.

How will he know he is average Joe. And if he isn´t than his article is prejudiced in the first place.

I would rather prefer real user feedback how bad the outcome maybe. Rather then a hidden or not MS showcase.

Edited 2007-09-13 13:04

Reply Score: 4

RE: Jumping in blindfolded
by philicorda on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:54 UTC in reply to "Jumping in blindfolded"
philicorda Member since:
2005-12-31

"This is a "normal" user in every sense of the word - the sort that we sit here and rant about all the time. He just wants to get on with things, and has provided a list of what's important to him. That is the one serious strength that will come from big hardware manufacturers shipping a non-Windows OS - "normal" user feedback, something sorely needed to polish applications, control panels, system services and how things work. You just can't get that sort of feedback from us geeks who quite like the quirkiness of their daily OS."

That's not true. The reviewer is a geek pretending to be a normal user, in the same way any geek can:

"I evaluated it strictly from the point of view of an average user, someone who wouldn’t want to enter text commands, hunt the Web for drivers and enabling software, or learn a whole new user interface."

I.e., he is a computer journalist perfectly capable of downloading a driver or installing a codec, but pretended he was not for the sake of the article.

I'm not arguing that a whole load of polishing that would not improve Ubuntu, just that the idea that geeks don't find missing codecs or non working hardware irritating is a myth. It's resources to fix the problems that are lacking, not the desire to do so.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Jumping in blindfolded
by ngaio on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:26 UTC in reply to "Jumping in blindfolded"
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

I wish there was a GUI option to turn off touchpad clicking. On my Sony it's extremely easy to accidentally tap the touchpad while typing. 99% of the time I don't even feel it. It's highly annoying.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Jumping in blindfolded
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Jumping in blindfolded"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

Won't the Xorg 7.3 addresse this concern? It should improve a LOT the hotplugness (if the word exists...) of the system. Including input devices. Maybe you can easily turn on/off the touchpad? Should be possible very easily soon otherwise.

Reply Score: 1

Just a minor typo...
by marafaka on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:48 UTC
marafaka
Member since:
2006-01-03

it should say GNU/Linux, if calling it Ubuntu is not enough for him. Also, if it's for non-techies it's PR. Should I remind people of driver installation procedures on windows compared to free OSes? Now tell me this article is not PR again?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just a minor typo...
by Kroc on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:53 UTC in reply to "Just a minor typo..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It's Ubuntu, the product. I don't correct people who talk about the "Bayerische Motoren Werke/CAR".

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Just a minor typo...
by marafaka on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Just a minor typo..."
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

This guy could sell his PR better buy using the correct and hip term GNU/Linux. Would you care explaining what was your point again?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Just a minor typo...
by Coxy on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just a minor typo..."
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

GNU/Linux hip? Are you sure your living on planet earth?

He calls it Linux because to any newbie that's what it will be. Hell, most people will just call it Ubuntu, without even realising it's Linux (lack of Gnu/ is extra).

Making everyone say 'Goohnuh slash Linux' instead of Linux will just put more people off from using it before they even try.

It's too long winded and cumbersome, ever heard of Mac Operating System 10? No? There's a reason for that ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Just a minor typo...
by marafaka on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Just a minor typo..."
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

Calling Ububtu Ubuntu is fine, we agree on that. Calling whatever Linux in a circle of your friends will not do much harm. But dissemination of information to wide audience without understanding the basic terms is lame and doing that could be asking for professional and potentially financial problems.

Please see http://www.linuxmark.org/, plus it is a good karma to give credit to whom it belongs.

And you don't have to choke, pronounce GNU/Linux as "new linux" and you shall be fine. There will not be many people choking in the store anyway as 99.9% of them can't name two OS kernels and call "windows" whatever shows a mouse pointer and a wallpaper ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Just a minor typo...
by Luminair on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Just a minor typo..."
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

I think you draw the line too soon. I'm using GNU and Linux and Pidgin and Firefox and Gnome, so sometimes I call it Gnome Firefox Pidgin Linux Gnu.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Just a minor typo...
by dbodner on Thu 13th Sep 2007 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Just a minor typo..."
dbodner Member since:
2007-07-01

And you don't have to choke, pronounce GNU/Linux as "new linux" and you shall be fine


And is that really doing GNU a service? How many people who already don't know what linux is, will understand what "new linux" is? I'd bet a majority of them will go "well, duh, I don't want old linux!"

In order for them to understand you're talking about GNU, an organization they don't know of, you either need to annunciate the letters, or call it "guhnoo slash linux". Neither of which will matter to the first time user, and might even put them off.

Debian calling itsels Debian GNU/Linux is great. Writing about Linux as GNU/Linux is great. Using it in spoken tongue to people who don't know what the GNU is and won't understand you're crediting an organization is a waste of time. Way back when, when I first "made the switch" and got into Linux, I learned about Linux first, then got a deeper meaning of what the GNU is. If these first time users stick with Linux, and use it, they will understand the role of GNU in the experience. It doesn't have to be forced down their throat on their first experience.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Just a minor typo...
by sanctus on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just a minor typo..."
sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

Even for a Linux user, that's funny!

ohh, I mean ... Even for a GNU slash Linux Ubuntu Distribution Feisty version 7.04 on a mac mini intel core duo, that's funny!

Reply Score: 1

well
by Redeeman on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:48 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

what he leaves out, is that ubuntu may be too rough compared to ideal, but if we were to analyze winblows, it would be so rough that it could never ever EVER be smoothened..

Reply Score: 3

RE: well
by Kroc on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:58 UTC in reply to "well"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

So rough that you can put a DVD into it and play it?
So rough that it plays MP3s out of the box?
So rough that it wakes up from sleep without problems?

Prey tell, what is so rough about Windows that makes it not "good enough"? It's badly designed, slow and a security nightmare in anything but a power user's hands, but it's certainly no where near as rough as Linux.

Safe mode video fallback, in 2007, nice. Been around since the Amiga
Hardware accelerated desktop effects, nice. Been around since 2001 on Mac.


Seriously; bashing Windows does not improve Linux, magically. All it will get you is Linux bashing back. Wise up, focus on the article, and the experience of the average user.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: well
by anda_skoa on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:45 UTC in reply to "RE: well"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

So rough that you can put a DVD into it and play it?


Would be nice, but it doesn't. I have to install the WinDVD software that came with the DVD drive, otherwise no DVD watching.

So rough that it plays MP3s out of the box?


Yes, it can do MP3. Nice. Howeve, the problem is a lot bigger than on other platforms. In case you encountern an uninstalled codec, it is more likely that the download feature will actually fail to download it.

Almost everybody I know had to go through the extra hassle of installing yet-another-player software just because standard media player was not capable of fetching the respective DivX codec.

So rough that it wakes up from sleep without problems?


Would be nice if it would always be capable of this as well. Unfortunately it isn't. Fortunately if you have a comparable Linux installation, e.g. respective OEM image, it will.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: well
by Coxy on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

"Would be nice, but it doesn't. I have to install the WinDVD software that came with the DVD drive, otherwise no DVD watching. "

-- The point is, is that anyone buying a dell Linux computer will expect it to play mp3s since they get that functionality with windows computers from dell out of the box... that's the dell box. Not the geek-self-built box sitting on your desktop. Normal users buy their computers pre-built with everything ready made and installed, so yes, windows does ply dvd's put of the box. Normal users will expect the same from a Dell Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: well
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

Normal users will expect the same from a Dell Linux.


Normal users won't buy Dell Linux yet. How do you buy a desktop with Ubuntu starting from Dell.Com? You have to know what you are looking for. It's not like in the configurator you can choose XP, Vista or Ubuntu. Currently Dell does NOT promote it the same way as Windows, and it's quite understandable. They just begun, they need to soften some rough edges first. Then maybe we will see it offered just like Windows (with a DVD player ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: well
by sanctus on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: well"
sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

People are always saying that Linux can replace Windows easy.

Maybe Normal users won't buy Dell Linux yet, which I don't believe. If you go out of your cubicle, you'll see that alot of small business and individual who are flirting with the idea.

Right now, this kind of review are a good way to see what are the shortcomings and find solutions to fix them. You don't improve product by pointing other's problem.

A bad start can do more harm than good. Remember BSOD ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: well
by Soulbender on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"so yes, windows does ply dvd's put of the box."

Uh no it doesn't. Some computers from some vendors comes with the ability to play DVD's but if you install XP from the box it came in it can't.
But lets apply your line of reasoning to Linux. Since both Linspire and Xandros (AFAIK) comes with the ability to play DVD's then Linux can play DVD's out of the box.

Edited 2007-09-13 12:32

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: well
by dylansmrjones on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Hmm.. does Windows play divx-movies out of the box? Or movies in the matroska-container? Or OGM? Or audiofiles in Ogg Vorbis format? Or musepack? Does Windows play DVD's out of the box?

Eehhh... No, no, no, no, no and no. Does a typical Linux system support this out of "the box"? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

And if the Linux system does not support is it harder or easier to get the Linux system to support it than making the Windows system support it? YES.

Making Windows multimedia capable requires googling for codecs in more or less maintained state and modifying the registry in order to get WMP/WinAMP/MPC (or other DirectShow-dependent mediaplayers) to work. The easiest way to turn Windows into a proper multimedia OS is to install VLC.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: well
by Coxy on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: well"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Normal users have never heard of ogg or musepack and don't care if they play. They do care if Lord of the Rings or Indiana Jones doesn't play. Windows xp from a vendor like dell plays that out of the box

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: well
by dylansmrjones on Thu 13th Sep 2007 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: well"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

So your claim is that I'm mentally ill (abnormal) because I don't use WMA? Gee thx ;)

Personally it's my opinion your view of "normal user" is quite distorted. Many users have music in other formats than .wav, .wma and .mp3. And problems with DVD-playback is quite common.

Who is this "normal user" and where do they offer courses to those of us who are "abnormal" or otherwise mentally ill, as you seem to believe non-MS followers are.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: well
by raynevandunem on Fri 14th Sep 2007 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: well"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Did he say that you were mentally ill? No.

So why are you whinging about words that you put in someone else's mouth?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: well
by Coxy on Fri 14th Sep 2007 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: well"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Quite right raynevandunem, I never said anything about being mentally ill. That's what you choose to read in to my comment. I also never said ms followers are ill either. It's people like you making sarcastic comments that will stop linux expanding, you need to accept that at some things windows is better.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: well
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: well"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Eehhh... No, no, no, no, no and no. Does a typical Linux system support this out of "the box"? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. "

No Linux system I ever used could play mp3s or Encrypted DVDs out of the box. I can play DVDs if there was no DRM on them, but that was it, I have always had to install codecs for mp3s and protected DVDs, as well as flash and Java.

Now, that's not to say that it is hard, but it is true that you have to install these things, just like in Windows

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: well
by dylansmrjones on Thu 13th Sep 2007 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: well"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It depends on the encryption, but if it doesn't play in Linux it definitely does not play in Windows, unless somebody installs third party software to handle it.

Windows out of the box cannot play DVD at all, and especially not encrypted DVD. It takes DVD Decrypter (for Windows) or dvd::rip (for Linux/*BSD) to break them - perfectly legal in Denmark btw (as long as you don't distribute (or keep the ripped content if DVD is rented)).

Java and Flash must also be installed in Windows. It's not there out of the box. Whether it is there or not in a finished linux installation depends on the distribution. Source-based distributions tend to have it easier here than binary distributions (unless the binary distributions are EU-oriented).

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: well
by AdamW on Thu 13th Sep 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: well"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Mandriva plays MP3s out of the box, and always has.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: well
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

NO windows does not play dvd's out of the box. OEM value added stuff does not mean it is part of windows regardless of how users perceive it to be. Truth is truth and the truth is that windows is darn right unusable in its default configuration and linux does a far more out of the box including hardware support. Having to hunt down drivers just to get a decent resolution for your monitor is NOT windows hardware support its support from the manufacturer of the hardware and that is where linux is lacking, but as for support from the OS itself there is little to none. So if they really want to make it even they should try comparing apples to apples. This is not to day that Dell and Canonical didn't drop the ball with their offering specifically with the value added stuff such as DVD playback and support for some codecs. Hopefully they will work closer together to provide added value to their customers. However, the experiment worked so far and people are starting to notice Dell's offering, its up to both companies to step up the game. Especially Ubuntu. If they get better OEM support, they can rival if not surpass windows in many respects.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: well
by Jack Burton on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE: well"
Jack Burton Member since:
2005-07-06

"So rough that you can put a DVD into it and play it? "

Windows XP can't play DVD out of the box. Unless it's a custom installation (OEM for example, but not even all OEMs installs the DVD codecs by default).

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: well
by dylansmrjones on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: well"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Let's see... try to make Windows Media Player play Matroska movies properly when running as a normal user in XP (e.g. Limited User Account) or in Win2K3 Server (Restricted User Account).

Which is fastest? Googling for DirectShow codecs for Windows or using apt-get/synaptic to install the proper codecs for Linux?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: well
by phoenixt on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well"
phoenixt Member since:
2006-09-01

What is more intuitive for the average user?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: well
by dylansmrjones on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Synaptic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: well
by FooBarWidget on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

Neither. If you ask my mother then she'd ask "what is a codec" and wouldn't even think about Google.

If you asked what people are *used to*, well that's an entirely different story.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: well
by dylansmrjones on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: well"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The most intuitive would probably be silent installation of the required codec. But that would of course piss off the entire Geek population ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: well
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Which is fastest? Googling for DirectShow codecs for Windows or using apt-get/synaptic to install the proper codecs for Linux?"

If you don't know the name of the codec you need to install, then you're googling either way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: well
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

No, the codec will have either been already installed after the initial do you want to install this to play this thing or you can just go to add/remove programs and look under multimedia and it will be there plain as day under gstreamer. Can't get easier than that. I wonder why Ubuntu even bothers adding help files if people aren't going to look at them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: well
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Sep 2007 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: well"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It's a known fact that users don't read helpfiles.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: well
by dylansmrjones on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

If you're using Totem or VLC you'll be notified about which codec you are missing.

On Windows, Media Player Classic will do the same. I believe WMP does so too, so getting the required information about the format is not the problem. It's finding the right codec that is the problem. At least with Windows. On Linux it's either recompiling VLC (or installing an unofficial version) - or installing a Gstreamer codec (and cross your fingers that it works).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: well
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Sep 2007 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: well"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Oh, I agree, and that's what I was saying. Either OS, you're googling for the name of the codec, even if it is in the repos (linux) as most normal users don't know what gstreamer (example) is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: well
by cmost on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE: well"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

So rough that you have to spend a considerable amount of time securing the system so that it remains free of viruses and spyware...

So rough that every user has to be an Administrator in order to use certain features, run certain programs, or modify certain settings...

So rough that you're stuck with Redmond's vision of a desktop environment unless you shell out $$$ for Stardock's object dekstop & other theming enhancements...

So rough that if you upgrade too many components you have to call an MS representative and beg them to let you use what you already paid for...

So rough that most hardware you purchase has to have its driver CD inserted and proprietary software installed before the hardware will work...

Should I go on?

Both Windows and Linux have their good and their bad points. The informed user, however, questions and makes a decision based on what s/he's willing to put up .

Personally, I'll take Linux over Windows any day.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: well
by Redeeman on Thu 13th Sep 2007 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE: well"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

but how many other things does ubuntu do out of the box? come to think of it? drivers.. lots of codecs, not having to pay money for antivirus and firewall crap, not seeing bsod, not having system automagically reboot when bsod'ing not to scare people, actually working, how about a nice shell, lots of apps preinstalled, pdf out of the box, usable browser out of the box, IM out of the box(yes, im that doesent suck), system tools out of the box, office tools..

you know, your out of box arguments are just plain crap, theres a shitload more things to do on a fresh winblows install than there is of even a gentoo.

so the real deal comes to this, linux is a hell of a lot faster, stabler, more secure, easy to use, logical..

just... get over it, winblows is a piece of shit, a bug in history.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: well
by leech on Thu 13th Sep 2007 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

just... get over it, winblows is a piece of shit, a bug in history.

Don't sugar coat it, tell us how you really feel ;)

I agree, you can't polish a turd, and that's what they tried with Vista.

Reply Score: 2

Quite short...
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:53 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

Some very relevant remarks, but focusing a bit too much on some problems and delivering only negative feedback. I think Linux has some much more serious problems than those in this review. It takes few clicks to install MP3 codecs? What's the big deal? And the user learns that MP3 is a patented codec, is it really a problem to inform the user? Plus he doesn't explain that it installs codecs automatically in a few clicks while on Windows if you pick the wrong file, you have to look for the codecs online by yourself. That would be a better picture of this problem I think. Overall I agree with his conclusion, but not completely with the demonstration. I don't think he used it a long time.

So from reading this, you see only the problems, not the advantages. No system is perfect, I can do the same with every available OS. That doesn't make problems irrelevant, but that helps balancing the picture.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Quite short...
by dagw on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:33 UTC in reply to "Quite short..."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know. While I certainly understand the problems with patents and licenses and propritary codecs, it's not really in Dell or Canonicals best interest to make their users take part in that debate. Dell should do whatever they have to do to make sure mp3's and DVD's work out of the box on the pre-installed Dell machines. If that means signing a deal with the devil himself, then they should bite that bullet and do it.

Yes it sucks, yes the laws suck, yes the whole situation sucks, but don't punish your customers to prove a point about the problems with the systen, they won't appreciated it. If you're going to sell Linux pre-installed then do it right and make the experience the best you possibly can, otherwise don't bother.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Quite short...
by JohnFlux on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite short..."
JohnFlux Member since:
2007-01-04

Of course it is in the best interest for us to have consumers part of the debate. We are talking about a single, once time, simple dialog that tells the user about mp3s. That's a pretty small price in order to put pressure on companies to fix the situation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Quite short...
by dagw on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite short..."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

It depends who 'we' are. If 'we' are Dell or Canonical then no I don't think it's in 'our' best interested to drag consumers into this whole mess. Delivering the best user experience possible is in your best interest.

People who care will hear about it from other places, and people who don't will just be annoyed. I don't think anyone will convert because of the message. The only people who might think this is a good idea are linux users with a political agenda, and even for that purpose I doubt it will work.

Just to clarify, I am in fact a Linux user with an anti software patent agenda and I believe this is the wrong front to to try to approach the problem from.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Quite short...
by gustl on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quite short..."
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Well, but I would guess from the 99% uninformed, 50% would convert to informed and against software idea patents, 40% would convert to "who cares, I use warez anyway", and 10% would be annoyed.

And I guess, unless we push on our political agenda in every place imaginable, we will get sued out of existence (or patented out of it).
If the politicians know, that 20% of the population knows something about this topic, and 90% of them are against software patents because they negatively affect their daily lives, they might no longer be willing to fulfill the wishes of IBM, MS and diverse patent troll companies.

It is like the question: Should Ubuntu take the blame for not playing mp3s out of the box, or should Ubuntu say WHY they do it in this complicated way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Quite short...
by dagw on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Quite short..."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I would guess that from the 99% uninformed, 99.5% will be equally uninformed about the issue after getting the popup. It's not a simple issue and not one that can or should be explained through a pop up from an installer.

In this particular case I think Dell and Canonical should take the blame. Yes Ubuntu cannot ship with mp3 decoding installed by default, but there is no reason why Dell has to ship with default Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Quite short...
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Quite short..."
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

"In this particular case I think Dell and Canonical should take the blame. "

Come on, give them some time! It's just the beginning, very few models available with Ubuntu. Let Dell solve the initial problems, then improve the offer. All this is smelling quite good for Ubuntu and linux in general.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Quite short...
by sanctus on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite short..."
sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

and then what?

How they will sync their collection of mp3 with their mp3/aac/wav but not ogg player?

How will they burn mp3/aac/wav but not ogg cd in other to use their car player?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Quite short...
by starnix on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:35 UTC in reply to "Quite short..."
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

I agree. Everyone complains about the codecs but Windows does not by default install all the required codecs either. The manufacturer of the PC does. DVD codecs are NOT in Windows and as far as installing them, it is MUCH easier on Ubuntu than on Windows.

If anything, this is a shortcoming of Dell, not Ubuntu. They should be installing the proprietary codecs in the default configuration like they do for Windows.

I know, to the user it looks like a problem with Ubuntu which sucks. Dell is making Ubuntu look worse than Windows in that respect.

Reply Score: 5

Dell, where are my codecs?
by daddio on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite short..."
daddio Member since:
2007-07-14

Agreed. Along with installing windows drivers so the user doesn't have to, Dell and all mfrs have been for many years adding extra software to do things like play dvd's, and burn CD's and DVD's because they knew the user would (rightfully)blame Them, and not Redmond, if their computer could not do these things.
One of the things I looked forward to with Dell offering OEM Linux was that they would do the same for us. Not leaving US Linux users in the same legal quagmire that we started in. I am embarrassed to see this so far has not been the case. I'm sure Fluendo is disappointed too.

Reply Score: 2

This is a classic...
by s_groening on Thu 13th Sep 2007 19:12 UTC in reply to "Quite short..."
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

It seems to me that too many want the same of Linux or Mac OS X as from Windows - but only seldom the other way around ...

It seems that whatever Windows does in a certain way, all the others should simply follow lead ... No matter if there are flaws in the way that Windows does it ... Flaws seem to be a part of choosing something other than Windows ...

Generally, though, there seem to be flaws more worthy to point your finger at, like e.g. the many proprietary sound and video formats, the way that companies take open industry standards and make them less compatible with the standards they're derived from (Microsoft's Kerberos anyone?) ...

This is one of the things I'd want columnists to lash out at instead of pointing to less significant things like iPod sync and the likes ...

Reply Score: 1

Is this even a review?
by nzMM on Thu 13th Sep 2007 08:58 UTC
nzMM
Member since:
2006-06-22

As an Windows XP/Ubuntu dualboot user, I can't really disagree with the guy... but it would have been nice of him to say that some things in linux are in fact much better than Windows.

Given that my Desktop PC hardware is well supported I've personally found that when it comes to my everyday needs, email, web browsing and music, i prefer the applications and the Ubuntu set-up. But Windows is still indispensable if you want to do many things not easily achieved in Linux: AAA Games (most notably). Also i prefer MS office over OO.org.

'Linux' has always received a bit of beat up over multimedia. I would actually say that in certain respects audio and video are better in Ubuntu/Linux. While mp3 and wma/wmv are not apart of a default install, it usually only takes a couple of prompts and you have the whole swag of popular codecs covered (as a single package will provide playback for many different formats, not just one). In windows you have the hassle of dealing with an array of codecs from many format vendors.

And there are many more areas in which Ubuntu excels in usability...

So while i don't disagree per se with his conclusions, i would have thought if he genuinely believes his readers are intelligent individuals he would have provided a more expansive coverage of the pro's and con's -- Enabling them to better form their own opinions.

Edited 2007-09-13 09:01

Reply Score: 9

rough
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:23 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

Kroc, you take mp3 as an example, but that's the good one if you want to defend Windows and bash Linux. Let's take another codec, anyone that WMP does not support. What will happen then? You will have a nice error message explaining that it cannot read the file. What's next?

I won't deny that there are plenty of domains where Linux is behind, usually hardware related. Will take a couple more years to fix that. But for the rest, honestly, the difference is usually not that big, and not always at the advantage of Windows.

Reply Score: 10

RE: rough
by Kroc on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:46 UTC in reply to "rough"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I don't see how wanting to play the most ubiquitous music file format, somehow makes an unrealistic test case for the out-of-box experience of between any OS and Linux.

This is not a test-lab, with controlled conditions. Windows being unable to play an OGG file out of the box does not constitute some kind of justification that Walt Mossberg had a less than stellar experience with the Linux out-of-box experience.

Windows exists on 95% of computers, and Linux has to meet the expectations of Windows users, like it or not.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: rough
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE: rough"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

I don't see how wanting to play the most ubiquitous music file format, somehow makes an unrealistic test case for the out-of-box experience of between any OS and Linux


Can we move to another topic? Because it JUST WORKS. It's not like 2 years ago when you add to manually find the codec to install. It takes 30 seconds to install it, and you learn about the patent problem. Oh my god, that's just so complicated.

What about if I try to play any common video file in WMP and it fails to display it? Should I complain about how Windows poorly manage video files? That would not be a test-lab either.

Wrong problem here. The DVD part is more interesting, but I'm also quite sceptical, isn't it also installing in a few clicks?

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: rough
by ciplogic on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rough"
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

Great point of view. The laptop should just work. If you expect the same on Windows, it not always happening, like driver activation, downloading and managing updates, system-wide updates for instances are an utopia cause of ISVs.

Windows goes well in lot of places, mostly on Windows application compatibility, games support, strange hardware support (WinModems, wireless devices), but when the limit is broken, we can be sure that Linux can manage at the same level of usability as typical Windows user.

For instance I don't know how to uninstall DirectX on Windows, to downgrade it, etc.

The strongest point IMHO is that Ubuntu manages best the software, but Windows have better software to manage, but does not manage it so well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: rough
by slight on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE: rough"
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

How about .mov? .rm? xvid, divx, rar files? .doc? Linux actually has better Word compatibility out of the box than a lot of Windows boxes (that ship with Works), and all those media formats are available for automatic download on Ubuntu with a couple of clicks (i.e. it presents you with a box to click 'ok' on in order to download and install), which they're not for Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: rough
by unoengborg on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE: rough"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see how wanting to play the most ubiquitous music file format, somehow makes an unrealistic test case for the out-of-box experience of between any OS and Linux.

Yes, I totally agree. Any OS that doesn't come with a good Office suit, some sort photoshoplike/illustratorlike image editing application preinstalled and a good media player will never make it in the world of "average users".

Even if such applications can be found and downloaded for free most "average users" will not know where to look, or how to install them.

Hmm... Wait a minute...

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: rough
by joelito_pr on Fri 14th Sep 2007 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rough"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

The ones that became successful it without that kind of software were first released in a time when most people did not wanted/needed those features. The users tough, got used to them and their minds stuck with the idea that they were the only choices until very recently.

Reply Score: 1

RE: rough
by dagw on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:38 UTC in reply to "rough"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Kroc, you take mp3 as an example, but that's the good one if you want to defend Windows and bash Linux. Let's take another codec, anyone that WMP does not support. What will happen then? You will have a nice error message explaining that it cannot read the file. What's next?

It will ask you if you want WMP to go online and try to download the correct codec for you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: rough
by anda_skoa on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:06 UTC in reply to "RE: rough"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

It will ask you if you want WMP to go online and try to download the correct codec for you.


And then it will fail to do so.
Unless it is a codec Microsoft wants you to have, you won't get it this way.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: rough
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE: rough"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

It will ask you if you want WMP to go online and try to download the correct codec for you.


Yes it will, and it fails in plenty of cases. Just try with ogg. Don't tell me it's an exotic codec, plus it's opensource. So difficult to implement. First, double clicking the file won't open WMP, as XP has no clue what ogg might be. Let's help him a bit.

WMP 9: one message, can't read the file, not supported or damaged. Nothing more. ok let's update to WMP11.
WMP11: another try, first message to tell me it's not a supported extension, but that WMP can still read the file. Click Ok, new message similar to WMP9's one. I click on the "online help" button. A very generic page in english (my OS is in french) explaining that it's not supported, and that's it.

How do you call this?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: rough
by dagw on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rough"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

First of all ogg is hardly a common format, certainly not when compared to mp3, but I agree that's no excuse for WMP not to support it.

Secondly "Windows isn't much better" should never ever be an excuse for delivering a sub-par experience if Linux wants to have a chance of the desktop.

The correct response to critisism is to fix the problem not to point and say "but he does it too". I thought the goal was to be better than Windows, not just as bad as Windows.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: rough
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: rough"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

"I thought the goal was to be better than Windows, not just as bad as Windows."

But who is focusing only on the things worse than windows? Is it us? The plan is to be a good OS, not to beat anybody. Who cares anyway?

The article just focuses on details worse on Linux. Some are questionable, we comment on this. But the article could and should also have focused on what is better. It's too negative, even if I agree that blocking problems are important to know before installing a system. But to have the whole picture is the only way to really choose.

And anyway, codec management on Linux is better than Windows. It just works quite nicely, so I don't see why you can call this a "sub-par experience".

Edited 2007-09-13 12:42

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: rough
by phoenixt on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rough"
phoenixt Member since:
2006-09-01

Uh, I just checked my file types under WMP 11 and .oga is there as an Ogg audio file. I have never even played an .oga file with WMP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: rough
by phoenixt on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rough"
phoenixt Member since:
2006-09-01

I just downloaded an .oga file and it plays fine under WMP 11.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: rough
by dylansmrjones on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE: rough"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Often it won't and even if it asks you it'll fail to find it.

Usually it just complains about not being capable of playing the file. WMP couldn't find a codec to play my musepack-encoded backup of my CD-collection. Nor could it play or find codes for my matroska+xvix+vorbis encoded backups of my DVD-collection.

Reply Score: 2

He Bent Over Backwards To Be Nice
by DMAPacket on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:25 UTC
DMAPacket
Member since:
2007-09-13

Quick commercial software development quiz for the open source crowd:

Your software project is 95 percent complete. How much work is left?

Hint: the answer isn't 5 percent...and in most cases it most likely isn't even as low as 50 percent.

The days of Linux being evaluated for how far it's come are over. Linux is now and will continue to be evaluated from now on as to how far it fails to deliver relative to commercial desktop operating systems.

Everything that Walt found wrong with his copy of Ubuntu could be fixed this week or at worst this month. It would be tedious, require long hours, and would be very unglamorous and unrewarding.

Instead Linux developers will go back to adding more spinning 3D cubes and other crap to the desktop that is fun to work on and gets lots of attention and articles written about.

Reply Score: 15

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Quick question for the commercial crowd:

"Your software project is 95 percent complete. How much work is left?"

Hint: 0. There's a sucker born every minute, just ship as it is and release "service packs" later. Besides, who cares about the people who paid for your product when you can add more "features" for the next version and sell that to more people.

"Instead Linux developers will go back to adding more spinning 3D cubes and other crap to the desktop that is fun to work on"

Feel free to pay them to work on the things that aren't fun.

Reply Score: 13

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"Feel free to pay them to work on the things that aren't fun."

No, IBM, Sun, Google, RedHat & Novell do that.
Linux isn't just bedroom hackers any more. There is big money being ploughed into its development, including "boring" work, like usability, accessibility &c.

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"No, IBM, Sun, Google, RedHat & Novell do that. "

Eh, yes. The point I tried to make is that *someone* has to pay for the boring work to get done. Few people sit around and do things they find really boring on their free time.

Reply Score: 3

ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you know what you're talking about?

Open Source != Closed Source Development.

Manpower is limited mostly by interest. True, coding doesn't alway scale perfectly (you can have TOO many people on one project!).


For the most part, OSS developers are hobbyists. Some LIKE spinning cubes, others adore and work on Amarok, while others like to be really fun and work on the kernel.

Just because some people are working on the cubes doesn't mean the kernel is going to suffer.

Reply Score: 2

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

The days of Linux being evaluated for how far it's come are over. Linux is now and will continue to be evaluated from now on as to how far it fails to deliver relative to commercial desktop operating systems.

This has been said many times but I think it is a bogus argument. The comparisons are always against what Windows does that Linux doesn't do as well. What about what Linux does better than Microsoft? Linux is much better at installing on a bare machine than Windows. All drivers, and applications are part of the initial install. How about the fact that Linux supports more codecs out of the box than Windows, or the fact that more compression/decompression algorithms are supported out of the box than Windows. Built in burning is also better than Windows. Linux has better default PIM abilities than a standard Windows install too.

Instead Linux developers will go back to adding more spinning 3D cubes and other crap to the desktop that is fun to work on and gets lots of attention and articles written about.

Linux developers have nothing to do with Compiz developement. Open source isn't one big company. Anyone can work on what they want to work on. Take issue with GNOME developers if you want for not including synaptics options in their mouse configuration preferences but blaming Dave Raveman for working on Compiz or blaming Linus Torvalds for working on the kernel instead of polishing GNOME or KDE is just ridiculous.

Reply Score: 2

Very, Very Funny
by segedunum on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:42 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Among others, he complains about one of the things I did too when I was writing my stream of Ubuntu reviews back in Spring.......

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154029

I wouldn't hold your breath on that. It's a cold day in hell before anything gets added to the Gnome Control Centre, as we all know. You even get the old, well worked response of "Can we not just use this add-on tool?"

gsynaptics (http://gsynaptics.sourceforge.jp) shows us what can be done.

Maybe it can be merged as a new tab on mouse configuration applet?


As for the codecs problem, the distributions have this so wrong it isn't believable. Lame is open source code, so you just ship it with your distribution. If someone wants to complain about it then you let them, but this silly patent needs to be overturned (well, in the US).

Either that or roll on 2010.

Edited 2007-09-13 09:45

Reply Score: 4

RE: Very, Very Funny
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:49 UTC in reply to "Very, Very Funny"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

Am I wrong or is Lame an ENCODING software and not a codec to decode MP3? Also, even if it's opensource, the MP3 patent problem is still present I think (from their website: "Using the LAME encoding engine (or other mp3 encoding technology) in your software may require a patent license in some countries.").

Anyway, what's the big deal with MP3? 30 secondes and it's installed... Wrong target here honestly. Codecs management is just so easy now, except some very specific cases that other OS don't handle any better.

Reply Score: 3

Re: He Bent Over Backwards To Be Nice
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 09:45 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

Instead Linux developers will go back to adding more spinning 3D cubes and other crap to the desktop that is fun to work on and gets lots of attention and articles written about.


Yes, but it's an understandable position. Most of the Linux problems come from the hardware. To have decent drivers, you need market shares, otherwise the manufacturer have no interest in creating them. Understandable. To get market shares, the bling bling can be VERY useful. Once you have the market shares, thing will just get easier. They are already. So I guess I understand why they are doing this.

Reply Score: 1

imperfection
by lucac81 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:15 UTC
lucac81
Member since:
2007-09-13

While I agree that critics are always accepted, I think that the problems found by Mossberg are minor ones, sign that gnu/linux it's improving.
I found the ipod and camera issues strange, because in ubuntu you don't have to reboot unless you upgrade the kernel package, devices are always configured when you plug them, maybe he misses needed software (gtkpod and gphoto libraries) but installing them doesn't require a reboot, and even in windows you need to download and install iTunes to manage the ipod.

Reply Score: 2

RE: imperfection
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:16 UTC in reply to "imperfection"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

I guess it would have worked simply by unlogging / relogging.

That's a typical windows habit to reboot to solve problems ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: imperfection
by BBlalock on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE: imperfection"
BBlalock Member since:
2006-01-15

Dumb Question:

How do you unlog something or relog it? What does "log" mean in this context?

The only contexts (that I know of) where "log" is a verb is when recording data (ie logging data) in a log and when harvesting trees. Neither seems relevant to your use of the term.

This is a genuine question because I am seeking knowledge, but it is also semi-rhetorical because the vast and overwheming majority of people (not OSnews readers) would probably ask the same question.

And yes, I tried Google, "define: unlogging", "define: relogging", "define: unlog", and "define: relog" all return no meaningful result.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: imperfection
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: imperfection"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

What does "log" mean in this context?


Nothing, probably just a poor translation from french.
However "log in" and "log out" are pretty common. So I should instead say "log out and log in". Or "close and reopen a session".

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: imperfection
by BBlalock on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: imperfection"
BBlalock Member since:
2006-01-15

Thanks for the quick explanation/response!

Reply Score: 1

RE: imperfection
by Kroc on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:36 UTC in reply to "imperfection"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I can imagine the support call:
User: "I can't play DVDs"
Tech: "You can't legally play DVDs on Linux in your country"
User: "My old computer could"
Tech: "You can play DVDs on Windows"
User: "Well, I want a refund and to get a Windows computer"

You hold a value to Linux, that regular consumers do not. You are willing to trade off the extra effort and some drawbacks, for the freedom and additional technical capability that Linux offers.

But "improving" doesn't hold ground with regular consumers when price doesn't factor (the OS is bundled) and freedom (libre) doesn't factor. Technicalities, no matter how asinine (like the legality of DeCSS), is not a concern of consumer; they see one product that plays DVDs and one that does not.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: imperfection
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE: imperfection"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

Price does factor. The fact that it's bundled doesn't mean you don't pay it. If for the same configuration, the computer with Ubuntu is 50$ less, it can be a criteria. Plus the fact that to upgrade to the next version of the OS, you don't pay.

Freedom does factor. I hear users of Windows complaining about the potential intrusion in their private life. Quite simply, they don't trust the OS. Minority yes, but that's a factor for some customers for sure.

The DVD problem is quite troublesome though. But what I think will happen is that Dell or Ubuntu will find an agreement with Cyberlink to have a version of PowerDVD installed on Ubuntu on Dell machines in a near future. That's more or less mandatory for US machines for instance. But currently, that's for sure a real problem.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: imperfection
by anda_skoa on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE: imperfection"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

I can imagine the support call:
User: "I can't play DVDs"
Tech: "You can't legally play DVDs on Linux in your country"


Which would be a lie. Not sure if companies have rules for support techs to lie to customers.

The correct answer would have been
Tech: "We did not include DVD playback capability in our Linux offering".
User: "Why not?"
Tech: "We needed to make sure that reviewers can find flaws in our product. Beats me why managment wants them to."

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: imperfection
by JohnFlux on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: imperfection"
JohnFlux Member since:
2007-01-04

Why would it be a lie? Do you know of a way to legally play DVDs in linux?

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: imperfection
by Johann Chua on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: imperfection"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Turbolinux has licensed DVD playback out of the box.

Linspire's Click and Run can install licensed DVD playback software.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: imperfection
by polaris20 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: imperfection"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

You cannot legally play DVDs on Linux without purchasing a codec for it in many countries. It is not a lie.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: imperfection
by itisak on Thu 13th Sep 2007 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: imperfection"
itisak Member since:
2006-07-24

What a load of FUD
Which countries do you refer too?
In the US it (libdvdcss) is legal and covered in section 1201(f) of the DMCA.
This Ubuntu page explains it in plain english, under Video ~ DVD.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FreeFormats#head-c2258969400dbf867...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: imperfection
by AdamW on Thu 13th Sep 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: imperfection"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

That's bull.

Using libdvdcss to play back a DVD is not "for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs". What program are you making interoperable with other programs?

That clause has absolutely no relevance to dvdcss. As far as I can see, dvdcss is clearly in violation of this particular clause of the DMCA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: imperfection
by itisak on Thu 13th Sep 2007 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: imperfection"
itisak Member since:
2006-07-24

What is so difficult to understand
(although legalspeak can seem like doublespeak and lead to more than one interpretation)

When you purchase or rent a DVD you are granted limited license to decode & VIEW the content.

BTW.. From what I've read libdvdcss DOES NOT use DeCSS and just decodes the week cryptographic algorithm CSS directly.

Again I point out to play or view your DVD. Copying or Backing Up is technically illegal in the US on any platform, yet still rather common. I mean what do Windows users do With Alcohol, DVD Xcopy, DVD Copy, DVD Shrink etc.Even stand alone decks with harddrives can copy & cache.

So it is not illegal to use to view content and calling it illegal is FUD created by those who know no better or have an agenda (Dislike or afraid of Linux) to scare away those who maybe unaware of the issues.

Also nothing stops you from purchasing a paid for player/Codec like Nero for Linux etc

For me it works great and have been using for more than 5 or 6 years on many Distros

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: imperfection
by lemur2 on Fri 14th Sep 2007 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: imperfection"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

From what I've read libdvdcss DOES NOT use DeCSS and just decodes the week cryptographic algorithm CSS directly.


As far as I can tell, libdvdcss just tries all of the keys that are supplied on the DVD, until it finds one that gives an acceptable playable data stream instead of gibberish as output.

IANAL but ... libdvdcss appears to fall well within what is legal according to the DMCA, and libdvdcss has never been challenged in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: imperfection
by anda_skoa on Thu 13th Sep 2007 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: imperfection"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

You cannot legally play DVDs on Linux without purchasing a codec for it in many countries. It is not a lie.


In orginal made up "dialog" the "tech" says that it might be illegal to play DVDs on Linux, which is not true.

It might be illegal, depending on each country's law, to use DeCSS for playing encrypted DVDs, it is quite certainly not illegal to use a properly licenced DVD player software or to play unencrypted DVDs.

It is, depending on "tech's" knowledge, either a lie, FUD or just extraordinary incompentence. I can not be sure which of the three possibilities Kroc had in mind when letting "tech" make this obviously wrong statement.

Reply Score: 2

bad review!
by pinky on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:24 UTC
pinky
Member since:
2005-07-15

Even if all his points are true i consider it as a really bad review.

He has focused on this things that doesn't work. It is OK to mention these but he should also mention the things that work better or as good as on windows.

E.g.:

- What do i do on a fresh windows if i want to burn a CD/DVD (on GNU/Linux you get first-class burning apps out-of-the-box)
- What is about the overall hardware detection? Most things on GNU/Linux work today out of the box while on Windows i have to collect all the driver CDs and search the net for up-to-date drivers.
- What does he do if he needs a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation,... on windows. On GNU/Linux he has all this out-of-the-box.
- If he wants to open a PDF does Windows come with a PDF viewer?
- If he wants to play a ogg he has a codec problem on windows too and windows doesn't offers an easy dialog to install them.

etc.

His review could be much more balanced.

Edited 2007-09-13 10:28

Reply Score: 6

RE: bad review!
by dagw on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:46 UTC in reply to "bad review!"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

- What do i do on a fresh windows if i want to burn a CD/DVD (on GNU/Linux you get first-class burning apps out-of-the-box)

I've yet to get a fresh windows install on a Dell. They always include things like CD-burning software and the like pre-installed. And that's the point. Dell realizes that a pure Windows install is a bad user experience so they don't ship that. Now we can complain how annoying it is to have a bunch of 'crap' installed on your brand new machine, but the point is Dell trys to make Windows useable out of the box before shipping by adding stuff they think the end user will need.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: bad review!
by Kroc on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE: bad review!"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"Dell trys to make Windows useable out of the box before shipping by adding stuff other companies pay to bundle in"

Fix'd! They are not as bad as Packard Bell as far as shipping a machine with software conflicts out of the box, but they don't take a great deal of care over testing that this stuff actually works how it is supposed to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: bad review!
by superstoned on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE: bad review!"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

yeah, that's why DELL adds all this spy- and adware to your system, which constantly bugs you for money...

Thank you, DELL!!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: bad review!
by dagw on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bad review!"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

The last Dell I checked had no spyware at all out of the box. It had a couple of 60 day trial software which asked you to buy the full version when your trial was up, but it was hardly nagging you and it certainly wasn't adware. Then there where a a couple of fully functional apps without any nagging, ads or spying.

Now these apps might not have been my first choice, but they got the job done, and where easy to remove if and when I wanted to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: bad review!
by superstoned on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: bad review!"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Linux doesn't have any of such stuff, it only comes with full featured apps that NEVER bug you or stop working. How's about that?

DELL ships this stuff because it lowers costs (the companies delivering it pay them to put it on their consumers pc's). And I think it sucks...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: bad review!
by superstoned on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: bad review!"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Linux doesn't have any of such stuff, it only comes with full featured apps that NEVER bug you or stop working. How's about that?

DELL ships this stuff because it lowers costs (the companies delivering it pay them to put it on their consumers pc's). And I think it sucks...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: bad review!
by mabhatter on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: bad review!"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

but they don't include FREE software to do those tasks, the software they include only has partial functionality or nags you to pay. How is that different than being "nagged" that your codex have patents and can't be free.

I'd agree with another poster that the review missed the mark. Everybody knows that Linux doesn't support non-free codex or mac/win only software. Using that as the only criteria for the review is not a good review. After all, Windows dosen't sync iPods either.. and iPods don't even come with software anymore! Bad choice of examples.

I will say that the main point everybody makes is you can't run popular program X that cost $500 for FREE so linux is no good. While most people don't see the cost of the software on their desk, the whole POINT of linux is that they SHOULD see how much cost their is an not bury their heads in petty piracy when legitimate, free software is there to use for FREE.

Reply Score: 2

RE: bad review!
by Temcat on Thu 13th Sep 2007 10:59 UTC in reply to "bad review!"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

To me, reviews that show what doesn't work are very useful. These are similar to negative feedback in an automatic control system - the feedback that actually makes the system work. The "balance" that you seek lies more within the human relationship domain than within the technical domain.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: bad review!
by Kroc on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE: bad review!"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I don't read game reviews on the net, or in [most] magazines because everything is glowing, and everything is rated 98%. If every game was really as good as it's advertised / reviewed, Gaming would be the most awe-inspiring pasttime ever invented.

I tell if a game is good or not by a) how much Penny Arcade does or does not lambastes it, and b) the review in Edge magazine, where a 10/10 score is bestowed upon a very very select few number of games- so rare, that a special edition magazine was made to justify them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: bad review!
by Luminair on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:26 UTC in reply to "bad review!"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

Update: people only care about what doesn't work, because they don't think about what does.

Reply Score: 2

RE: bad review!
by Aragorn992 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 19:34 UTC in reply to "bad review!"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Err I think most of your points are inaccurate...

"What do i do on a fresh windows if i want to burn a CD/DVD (on GNU/Linux you get first-class burning apps out-of-the-box)"

Windows has got this so polished you dont need burning apps, its built into explorer, drag and drop - cant be simpler. If you want more power then you get an app like Alcohol. Linux has no advantage here.

"What is about the overall hardware detection? Most things on GNU/Linux work today out of the box while on Windows i have to collect all the driver CDs and search the net for up-to-date drivers."

Well I guess that comes down to how you define "work today out of the box". Broken 3d support, touchpads not working properly (ok not explicitly a driver issue but same thing to a novice user).

Frankly Windows has significantly better "out of the box" support than Linux, and its ridiculous to argue otherwise, and on top of that it has much much better system for installing updates onlne including drvers.

No you don't. Frankly Windows XP is pretty good and Vista is nearly flaw

"What does he do if he needs a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation,... on windows. On GNU/Linux he has all this out-of-the-box. "

Yeah OpenOffice or some equivalent. I admit its ok but don't even try and compare this to MS Office for real work. As for Windows - you're going to have some office package preinstalled if you buy from an OEM e.g. Works, did you even read the part where the reviewer said the Windows version comes has Office available, sure you have to pay for it but it will be preinstalled.

"If he wants to open a PDF does Windows come with a PDF viewer? "

As I said, most OEMs will preinstall Acrobat reader just as Ubuntu and other distributions preistall something. No advantage.

"If he wants to play a ogg he has a codec problem on windows too and windows doesn't offers an easy dialog to install them. "

Oh no. Let me see, would I rather play some wicked cool open source ogg codec or the codec used by 99.9999% of the world (i.e. MP3)? The ability to play ogg but not mp3, is NOT an advantge.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: bad review!
by WereCatf on Thu 13th Sep 2007 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE: bad review!"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Windows has got this so polished you dont need burning apps, its built into explorer, drag and drop - cant be simpler. If you want more power then you get an app like Alcohol. Linux has no advantage here.

Well, under GNOME you get nautilus-cd-burner which also works just by drag-and-drop and is already part of Nautilus, so Windows has no advantage there ;) Though, I admit there is nothing similar to Alcohol 120% for Linux, but then again, there isn't even much need for such. Alcohol is usually used to burn/copy protected discs such as games whereas there just isn't much of anything for Linux to be copied illegally.

Frankly Windows has significantly better "out of the box" support than Linux

I partly agree with that one. If Windows doesn't have a driver for something then it can search online and install one. And that is very handy. I wish that was possible under Linux too, but since there is no stable api for precompiled binary drivers it just isn't possible. Way too many different kernels out there.

Windows version comes has Office available, sure you have to pay for it but it will be preinstalled.


It's possible to run atleast some versions of Office under Linux, but it sure would be easier if there was a version of Office for Linux. I'm quite sure it would sell pretty well actually ;) And then it could be preinstalled the same way as it is on Windows.

Reply Score: 2

waste
by superstoned on Thu 13th Sep 2007 11:22 UTC
superstoned
Member since:
2005-07-07

Many of these things he complains about work pretty reasonable in Gnome and KDE, but yes, not perfect. Ubuntu spend years on getting Gnome to this level of almost-usable (KDE already was there a few years earlier), but the problem is that having it on computers pre-installed is relatively new for linux. So still stuff has to be fixed for that. We'll do that, don't worry... 2 or 3 new (K)Ubuntu versions and it has fixed all these.

Besides, Walt ends his talk with "if you don't want to maintain your computer (...) stick with windows or Mac OS X". But that's downright wrong, Windows takes a lot more maintenance than linux... By a huge margin...

Reply Score: 6

RE: waste
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:59 UTC in reply to "waste"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Besides, Walt ends his talk with "if you don't want to maintain your computer (...) stick with windows or Mac OS X". But that's downright wrong, Windows takes a lot more maintenance than linux... By a huge margin..."

I have to disagree. Linux takes a different type of maintainance, but it does have to be maintained.

Update your kernel, and you'll see what has to be done then, you have to reinstall everything that uses a kernel module, even if using an updated kernel from official repos.

That sort of thing would kill a normal user. Since installing Etch, I let it do 2 kernel updates, and both times I had to reinstall vmware and my ATI drivers. A normal windows user would lose his or her mind.

Most of the things that take work on Windows is now automated, virus updates, spyware scanner updates, windows updates, so I don't see how it takes more work.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: waste
by WereCatf on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE: waste"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Update your kernel, and you'll see what has to be done then, you have to reinstall everything that uses a kernel module, even if using an updated kernel from official repos.

I haven't used a binary distro in ages, but I would have thought they had already fixed that :O Why can't they automate reinstallation of such things that break when a user updates the kernel?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: waste
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE: waste"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I disagree with you here. It migh be automated for the most part but its not intuitive and its resource intensive for the most part because you have to have 5 different services running in-order to have to update everything all your different apps that have their own updaters. If you are installing your own kernel modules then updating them shouldn't be an issue, since its likely that you know what you are doing. If you use the modules form the repo then their is no issue at all. There can be less upkeep in linux, far less than windows, but it depends on the user. An average user will have no issues updating linux at all, they login they see the update notification and install the updates for everything hat needs it, without any issues.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: waste
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: waste"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"An average user will have no issues updating linux at all, they login they see the update notification and install the updates for everything hat needs it, without any issues."

Unless it's a kernel update, and then they have to reinstall all the apps that have kernel modules. I have gotten 2 in the last 2 months for my Debian boxes, and had to reinstall vmware and my ATI drivers after each one. Ubuntu does the same thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: waste
by SlackerJack on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: waste"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Well Vmware is hardly a desktop tool for a noob and I dont know about the ATI driver but with the nvidia driver you dont need to compile it, Ubuntu already has the precompiled binary ready.

Two reboots a month, hardly anything to complain about since I've lose count how many times i've had to do it in Windows.

Reply Score: 3

Hmmm... VMWare is noob
by christianhgross on Fri 14th Sep 2007 06:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: waste"
christianhgross Member since:
2005-11-15

VMWare is for a noob because VMWare runs appliances. On Windows VMWare installs without any hassles or complications. It is truly easy!

On Linux, not so lucky. Actually a downright painful experience and is one the reasons why I simply do not use Linux on my desktop. I need VMWare for one reason or another, and the pains I experience on Linux are great.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: waste
by superstoned on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE: waste"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, I never encountered any of this with Kubuntu and OpenSuse. Reason of course is that I don't use unsupported, external kernel drivers, but only what is supplied by the distribution. If you just install the NVIDIA or ATI packages from either Kubuntu or Suse, you will never have to do any of the stuff you mention.

In windows, you still have to interfere with most of this 'automatic' stuff. It asks at least 'are you sure you want to install this', or even cooler, in Vista, it automatically reboots your PC when you're in the toilet, of course closing (but not restoring, no!) everything you where working in - including emails you where writing etc.

I've been bitten by that, the 'automatic' part in Windows seriously sucks donkey balls.

Kubuntu, on the other hand, can require NO maintenaince at all (auto download & install off updates), except for a 'next next' every 6 months when a new version comes out (yeah, ONLY for major upgrades you have to klik OK or Next or whatever 3 times. Compare that with XP->Vista).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: waste
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: waste"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Kubuntu, on the other hand, can require NO maintenaince at all (auto download & install off updates), except for a 'next next' every 6 months when a new version comes out (yeah, ONLY for major upgrades you have to klik OK or Next or whatever 3 times. Compare that with XP->Vista)."

I am comparing to XP, and when I was running Kubuntu (Hoary, Breezy and Edgy) when ever a kernel update came down, same thing, had to reinstall ATI/vmware/lmsensors. That is not "NO maintenaince" not in the least.

Linux still needs tlc, just not the same kinds as XP/Vista

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: waste
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: waste"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Thats because you were installing the software wrong. Don't blame ubuntu for your shortcomings. The drivers are in the repo. No, but you want the latest, well deal with the consequences.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: waste
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Sep 2007 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: waste"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

vmware was not in the repos at the time, and it isn't in Debian's now. Check things out before you type.

My card is an x1650, and to get ubuntu support when I was still using it, I had to use ATI's driver. I was not installing it wrong. It was the only choice I had. Perhaps you could learn some tact. I can use the Debian ones and I do, but the repos don't support everything.

lmsensors never did work using the repos. Try google.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: waste
by Kokopelli on Thu 13th Sep 2007 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: waste"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

"vmware was not in the repos at the time, and it isn't in Debian's now. Check things out before you type. "


Funny, the install of VMWare Server on my secondary laptop must be an illusion.

http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/09/12/how-to-install-vmware-server...
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/VMware/Server

and on the off chance you use player instead of server:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/VMware/Player
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=342631


Like myself, you probably installed VMWare before it became available officially. That does not mean that it is not in the repositories. Might I suggest that you check things before you type?

"lmsensors never did work using the repos. Try google."


And where did I ever say even the slightest peep about lmsensors? I guess you are responding to two different messages?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: waste
by Kokopelli on Thu 13th Sep 2007 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: waste"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

Ah "was not" not "is not". Regardless:

1) I never said it was in the Debian repositiories. and
2) It most definitely is in the Ubuntu Reps now (not counting Gutsy)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: waste
by BluenoseJake on Thu 13th Sep 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: waste"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

vmware server was not available for edgy at the time I was using kubuntu, and according to the list of packages for etch (gotten directly from packages.debian.org), which is what I am using now, is not available from the repos either. Like I said before, check before typing.

If you are a normal user, and have to edit sources.list to get it from backports, it might as well not be in the repos. This is what we are talking about, normal users.

I mentioned lmsensors as another example of software that needed to be installed without using the repos, and that uses a kernel module. Same problem. You accused me of installing software THE WRONG WAY, which is just retarded. I did it that way to make the best use of my hardware. A normal user is not going to be able to do that, so that leaves them out in the cold.

My original point was that Linux has it's own set of problems, different than (and thank god less annoying to me) than XP/Vista, but that doesn't mean a normal user will know what to expect, or what to do if something breaks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: waste
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: waste"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Its should be in the Ubuntu repos.

Edited 2007-09-13 21:43

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: waste
by steampoweredlawn on Thu 13th Sep 2007 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE: waste"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

Update your kernel, and you'll see what has to be done then, you have to reinstall everything that uses a kernel module, even if using an updated kernel from official repos.


I've upgraded my kernel in PCLOS twice in the last year, and it's always been completely painless, as I always have DKMS installed (indeed, it's set up that way by default in PCLOS, not sure about other distros). the first boot to the new kernel takes an additional minute or two while it installs all the extra kernel modules, and that's all there is to it.

Edited 2007-09-13 22:33

Reply Score: 1

more
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:47 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

or using apt-get/synaptic to install the proper codecs for Linux?


You should not even have to use them. Click on the file, and it should propose the codecs to install.

I just downloaded an .oga file and it plays fine under WMP 11.


Great. OGA is audio in a ogg container. The most common format is OGG though. Doesn't make much sense that it can play OGA and not OGG. Anyway, some formats work, yes, of course. But they'd better be monopolistic or belonging to Microsoft...

Reply Score: 1

RE: more
by phoenixt on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:02 UTC in reply to "more"
phoenixt Member since:
2006-09-01

Is .oga a proprietary format? Does it belong to Microsoft?

Reply Score: 1

v First MISTAKE ***
by GENIUS on Thu 13th Sep 2007 12:56 UTC
RE: First MISTAKE ***
by Kokopelli on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:13 UTC in reply to "First MISTAKE ***"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

Matter of opinion, many people prefer Ubuntu to Fedora. Personally I prefer Debian based distros, including Ubuntu though I am using Etch at the moment.

It is a matter of personal choice so please do not sound off like Fedora is the answer to all problems. Each has their strong points and their followers. If you really must proselytize then list the reasons for you preference in a polite and well reasoned article or post. "UBUNTU is horrible!" is simply not constructive.


Also not to contradict some of the Ubuntu supporters but getting encrypted DVDs is not as easy as picking the choice from the codec app in my experience. (MP3, yes. DVD, no.) You need to add the medibuntu repository and install dvdcss separately in my experience, though I suppose I may have been doing something wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: First MISTAKE ***
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE: First MISTAKE ***"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

You don't even have to do that. the script to install it is included with the libdvdread library, its just hidden, but the instructions are in the actual help files nice and big so users can do it if they wanted to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: First MISTAKE ***
by Kokopelli on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: First MISTAKE ***"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually as of Gutsy the script is no longer there. Though as of the last official release you are correct there is a script to do the install for you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: First MISTAKE ***
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: First MISTAKE ***"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I guess mediabuntu is good enough and it updates the software, so that might be the best solution in the long run.

Reply Score: 2

RE: First MISTAKE ***
by polaris20 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:25 UTC in reply to "First MISTAKE ***"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

DUMP UJUNKTU

Install Fedora and problem solved.


NEXT ----------->

UBUNTU is horrible!


Wow, your wordplay is so creative! Quit trolling. If you don't like Ubuntu, how about stating why?

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: First MISTAKE ***
by GENIUS on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:44 UTC in reply to "RE: First MISTAKE ***"
RE[3]: First MISTAKE ***
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: First MISTAKE ***"
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

Fedora Core is swept away like SuSE and other excellent distros.


Where? How?! You can download and install whatever you want. It's not like if you didn't have the choice. People have the choice. There are good reasons why they go for Ubuntu. Probably some bad also. But you can't make it all white or all black.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: First MISTAKE ***
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: First MISTAKE ***"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

You are an idiot. Ubuntu is not doing anything different than any other distro except making things easier. You are even more of a fool because you have the choice of what desktop you can use its called synaptic, look it up. You don't want to install Gnome first, you have K/Xubuntu. I'm not saying Fedora is lacking in any way but there is a reason why Ubuntu is currently at the top and it has very little to do with hype, that is a result of the enthusiasm that people have for the product, but not solely the reason why its on top. Sure other distros do certain things better, but Ubuntu does most things right. I can't say the same for Suse or Fedora. I like having only one cd to install my whole setup, I don't want to download 5cd's or dvd's worth of crap I'm not going to use in the first place.

Stop being an ass and stop trolling. Jealousy makes you look like a bitch. Sorry but its true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: First MISTAKE ***
by polaris20 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: First MISTAKE ***"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

1. Watered down? In what way? Install what you want from the repositories.
2. Apt-get KDE. Or XFCE. Or Fluxbox.
3. Do explain.
4. Arrogant because they want to make an easy to use distro that gets widespread adoption? Yeah, that's a horrible idea. :
5. Such as? Making blanket statements without backing it up with examples as you continue to do largely negates your opinion.

The whole deal is basically this either Ubuntu or Ubuntu what happened to choice???

The last time I checked, Debian, Fedora, SuSe, Mandriva, etc. etc. were all still available for download. The choice is still there.

Fedora Core is swept away like SuSE and other excellent distros.

Swept away by whom? If Ubuntu is beating Fedora in any way, it's just because more people are downloading Ubuntu than Fedora. They're making this "choice" you speak of. I don't see the problem with that.

By the way SuSE is given a black eye everytime because someone always says they are with Microsoft...

It is? I thought we were over that by now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: First MISTAKE ***
by GENIUS on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: First MISTAKE ***"
GENIUS Member since:
2007-09-10

Well, like anything else any comment that does not give kudos to Ubuntu gets modded down. If an opinion is not the same then it is trolling, what is the deal choice is like freedom of speech it is someone's opinion and they have the right to voice it.

Read the comments people write about between Microsoft & SuSE Linux it is all negative and everyone jumps on the wagon saying how correct it is.


Simply saying Fedora Core is the test bed for RHEL releases, and it is the most widely used distro in the Enterprise environment. If anyone mentions anything about Ubuntu they are called a troll....

Choice is about having the desktop environment available like Gnome/KDE at setup time not having to install it separately....

oh well

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: First MISTAKE ***
by polaris20 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: First MISTAKE ***"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, like anything else any comment that does not give kudos to Ubuntu gets modded down. If an opinion is not the same then it is trolling, what is the deal choice is like freedom of speech it is someone's opinion and they have the right to voice it.

No, saying Ubuntu sucks without providing a shred of information as to why it sucks, or making clever names like "Junkbuntu" is trolling.

Stating that you don't like Ubuntu because {insert reason(s) here} is not trolling, and is a valid opinion.

I'm glad I could clear that difference up for you.

Choice is about having the desktop environment available like Gnome/KDE at setup time not having to install it separately....

As was said before; if you don't want to have to go through the complicated task of installing KDE through Synaptic, simply download Kubuntu, or the myriad of other Ubuntu-based distros, depending on what DE you're looking for.

Please, tell me what's so difficult about that?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: First MISTAKE ***
by WereCatf on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: First MISTAKE ***"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Choice is about having the desktop environment available like Gnome/KDE at setup time not having to install it separately....

Err, no it's not! Do you get to choose everything else at install time? Which media player to use? Which music player? Err, nope. You install your preferred one after installation if the default one doesn't suit you.. You still have the choice as it is POSSIBLE to choose to use anything you wish. And well, is it really that difficult to just download Kubuntu install disk instead of Ubuntu?

Read the comments people write about between Microsoft & SuSE Linux it is all negative and everyone jumps on the wagon saying how correct it is.

I only see you saying that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: First MISTAKE ***
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE: First MISTAKE ***"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah, I guess he hasn't used yum which is horrible. Besides if Ubuntu was junk why is Fedora getting its ass kicked by it? Its certainly not because of the DE they use.

Reply Score: 2

Reading this thread
by phoenixt on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:07 UTC
phoenixt
Member since:
2006-09-01

makes it apparent why MS will maintain its near monopoly.
The strongest competitor is pretty much in a state of denial.

Reply Score: 2

smiley smiley
by l3v1 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:11 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

No let's see, a user complaining about the lack of gui-based selectability of an option, of a touchpad. In Gnome. Woah, now that's a surprise.

I'd say, if a company like Dell decides to ship Linux, they'd better be sure it can handle popular media files. I wouldn't really care for excuses. For myself, doesn't matter, I can manage my own Linux, but for those who decide these laptops, they'd better make sure they can do everything when first booted.

Reply Score: 3

Time for some civil courage
by gustl on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:11 UTC
gustl
Member since:
2006-01-19

He mentioned some "good to know, we'll improve" points like:
"There is no control panel for adjusting the way the touch pad works, and I found it so sensitive that I was constantly launching programs and opening windows accidentally by touching the thing. Every time the computer awoke from sleep, the volume control software crashed and had to be reloaded."

On the other hand, there are some issues where only pestering the political leaders will help like:
"When I tried to play common audio and video files, such as MP3 songs, I was told I had to first download special files called codecs that are built into Windows and Mac computers. I was warned that some of these codecs might be “bad” or “ugly.”
Oh, and there’s no built-in software for playing commercial DVDs."


The second sort of problems clearly are not technical, but legal/political problems. Maybe through higher market share because of Dell selling these laptops, and consequently many people "taking their rights back" from DMCA and similar laws, politicians will find they get elected more often if they make those laws less stupid. Because you simply cannot jail 50% of the population.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Jumping in blindfolded
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:15 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

Is .oga a proprietary format? Does it belong to Microsoft?


Nope and nope, so you are just lucky in this case ;)

Reply Score: 1

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:20 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

nobody is ultimately responsible for the quality of the product, and open-source developers often have an imperfect feel for how average people use software.


Just plain wrong. There are plenty of poor closed source softwares, as well as wonderful opensource ones. And there are plenty of closed sources softwares with very poor interface and userfriendliness, while there are extremely easy to use opensource softwares. And the opposite is true too.

I don't see why opensource developers would have a more imperfect feeling for how average people use software. I need an explanation... A developer is a developer, no matter how the code is managed. They often can't really guess how an average user will react in front of his work. Can someone enlighten me? Please?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong
by Kroc on Fri 14th Sep 2007 14:28 UTC in reply to "Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

If that were the case, Linux would be more like OS X, and less like Windows. But the proof is in the pudding. Making something as easy or easier than OS X isn't impossible, it's just improbable with Linux's many-cooks development model.

Reply Score: 2

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I wonder if you'd be saying the same if OSX supported anythign other than their own hardware? Besides I find that Ubuntu is a kind of mix between the two extremes Windows and OSX. It has aspects from both and thats how I like it.

Reply Score: 2

Twisted priorities
by jaylaa on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:23 UTC
jaylaa
Member since:
2006-01-17

I don't understand why setting up mp3 and dvd playing ability is seen as more important that keeping your computer from becoming part of some bot-net. Mossberg recognizes in the review that Linux is better than Windows for security, yet he would send novice users to Windows? As if those novices who can't download a codec can keep their box clean?

What's more rough around the edges, a system where you have to do some tweaking or a system that spews spam?

And yes, I know there are plenty of people who can keep a Windows box clean, I'm one of them, but obviously there are a lot of people who can't. And I find it galling to see that a technical writer thinks hassle free mp3 playing is more important for these novices than security.

I'm also sick of the double standard. People are used to jumping through hoops to do certain things in Windows so much that they no longer think of these things as drawbacks. When mentioning viruses to Mossberg he'd probably (like most people) talk about how there are plenty of good anti-virus programs, and all you have to do is go pick the right one out, download it, set it up, tweak it to your preferences and make sure it runs at least once a week. Easy! Oh but with Ubuntu you have to go through all the hassle of opening up the package installer and downloading some codecs. Give me a break. The only reason people think this makes Ubuntu "rough around the edges" is because they're not used to doing it. But they are used to EULAs, product activation, WGA, Patch Tuesday and rebooting so these aren't seen as the hassles that they are.

Edited 2007-09-13 13:35

Reply Score: 11

RE: Twisted priorities
by starnix on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:59 UTC in reply to "Twisted priorities"
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

No kidding!!!!

Reply Score: 1

Which ones
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:23 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

a bunch of geeks that know how to work around its quirks?


Which quirks? Develop plz. And do not mention the word "codec" please. What else is really such a blocking problem? I don't say there are not, there are for sure. Still too many. But there are in the other way (for Windows), even if less. But please, give me some examples.

Reply Score: 1

Short term / long term
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:28 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

Plus all his remarks concern one-time problems. Fix them, and you are fine for all the rest of your work with the system. I'm more interested in everyday life with the system when I need a review. To me that's a review from someone who tried it during a couple of days maximum, which is NOT enough to get rid of your Microsoft habits. You don't change from a system you are using for 20 years that easily. And don't tell me that the average user will give up that quickly. I have numerous examples of people who successfully adapt. Some will never, fine, they can stay with Windows.

He is drawing conclusions from valid yet incomplete examples. That's poor maths. You can't conclude from examples.

Reply Score: 1

Wrong again
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:31 UTC
risbac
Member since:
2007-03-29

The strongest competitor is pretty much in a state of denial.


No it's not. We don't deny Linux is not ready for the desktop. We just deny some wrong assessments from this journalist. To read all those mistakes or silly cliches about Linux are quite annoying, it's just fixing things, not being in a state of denial.

Reply Score: 3

What a shame.
by cyclops on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:49 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

"Before every passionate Linux fan attacks that conclusion"

You post here long enough you understand those words mean. GNU it seems had greater problems than simply playing mp3's.

Reply Score: 3

This is a *good* thing
by tristan on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:09 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

An article like this is evidence of just how far desktop Linux has come in the past couple of years. No longer is it solely the domain of specialist sites. No longer is it looked at with the caveat that "well, considering it's Linux, this is pretty good". People aren't pulling punches; Linux has stepped up, and is expected to be able to compete with Windows and OS X.

And guess what? The newcomer falls short of the established "big boys" here and there. Surely no-one is surprised?

That said, I think some of the criticism in the article was wide of the mark. As others have pointed out, while WMP might have built-in support for MP3, it doesn't play Ogg, DivX or Quicktime files out of the box. The user has to manually go and find the software required (no auto codec installation here!), or in the case of Quicktime files, install a completely separate player. Similarly, last time I checked, you had to manually download stuff if you wanted to play WMV files on OS X.

Furthermore, while it's true that Rhythmbox can only read, but not sync with, iPods (and that this is indeed something that ought to be fixed), it's worth remembering that WMP won't even recognise that the iPod exists! If you want to sync with it on Windows, you need to install iTunes. Which you have to discover for yourself. On Ubuntu, typing the word "ipod" into the Add/Remove programmes search bar gives no less than seven different programmes that one could install for iPod management, complete with a popularity rating to guide new users as to which one might be the best.

With regard to the lack of out-of-the-box DVD playback, this is something that it would be nice to have fixed. But we should also remember that the only reason that it works in Windows is because Dell pays to include a DVD player in the default installation. They could equally choose to pay to include a Linux DVD player, but choose not to do so. Who's at fault here, Ubuntu or Dell?

(Come to that, Dell could also pay to include lots of 100% legal codecs so that the auto-codec installation isn't required, but they don't do that either.)

But for all that, the guy's final conclusion, "I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users to avoid Linux" is something that I have to agree with. For now. But a year from now...

Reply Score: 7

Shame on Dell ...
by MacTO on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:21 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

If I buy a computer with Linux pre-installed, I would expect it to work properly with Linux. That means that they should select hardware that is happy with Linux, and do some basic testing. Double up that testing before sending the computer to a reviewer. Yet it sounds like this one escaped to the reviewer with a few defects. Defects of the sort that I haven't seen from Linux in years, and defects that anyone should find inexcusable.

As for support for multimedia content. That is another shame on Dell. Ubuntu cannot afford to pay the licensing fees for stuff like MP3 codecs, but Dell damn well can and they can tack on the extra cost to the selling price of the computer. After all, Dell's goal ought to be selling a product that people want (i.e. a product that supports and includes Linux) rather than a product where people will save a few bucks.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Shame on Dell ...
by risbac on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:26 UTC in reply to "Shame on Dell ..."
risbac Member since:
2007-03-29

"Dell damn well can and they can tack on the extra cost to the selling price of the computer."

That would go a bit against the philosophy of Linux: you have the freedom to choose. Including "to choose to buy some codecs". People buying a Dell Linux computer don't want the crapware installed. Maybe they just don't want to watch DVD on their computer, so why would they pay for the licence? It makes sense to me... Instead they should include some kind of installation with a paying form to buy the codec. Maybe that will happen, thanks to the partnership with Linspire.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Shame on Dell ...
by MacTO on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Shame on Dell ..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

Well, Dell does love selling their BTO options.

Other than that, you also have to look at what their competitors are offering. And that means Apple and Microsoft. Apple offers DVD and MP3 playback. Microsoft offers MP3 playback, and I think the latest WMP does DVDs too. So if a "normal" user wants Linux, they are probably going to exepect those features too.

As for Linux and choice, that isn't Dell's (or any other commercial Linux vendor's) responsibility. And it shouldn't be. Their objective is to sell products after all, and if most people want MP3 and DVD playback by default it is their responsibility to provide it because it is going to help their revenue stream. (It may also help the long term adoption of Linux.) If anything, we should feel privileged that Dell even offers Linux since Linux users are in the minority.

What about Linux users who want choice: do what I did, build the machine yourself. You do want choice after all, and that is the best way to maximize your choice since you get to choose every hardware and software component that goes in there. Yet the moment you step up to a company like Dell, you are delegating some of your decisions to them. That includes decisions on hardware AND software.

Reply Score: 3

shame or lack of it
by spikeb on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:01 UTC
spikeb
Member since:
2006-01-18

Yes, the dell installs are a bit rough yet, but Dell is (cautiously) making their way into this market. they recently released a remixed CD for their hardware, and I think eventually they will have that as the default install.

Reply Score: 2

But compare the hassles
by KenJackson on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:20 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

...it is full of little complications and hassles that will quickly frustrate most people who just want to use their computers, not maintain or tweak them.


That could easily be said about Windows too, as some others have noted here.

But I find the difference is that information on how to fix little hassles with free software is more abundant and more easily found than with closed proprietary software. So with Windows, not only do you have the hassle, you have the added hassle of getting the information you need to fix it.

Reply Score: 3

No way
by gdanko on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:24 UTC
gdanko
Member since:
2005-07-15

Unless you are braindead, Ubuntu makes a perfectly fine desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No way
by WereCatf on Thu 13th Sep 2007 15:29 UTC in reply to "No way"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It depends on your situation. If all your hardware works properly with Ubuntu, you don't need any Windows-only apps and you don't do gaming then it does. Sure, lots of hardware, maybe even most hardware do work nowadays, but not everything. I have a few good examples of that right here: my HP ScanJet 2400 and Canon Pixma iP2000. And gaming...well, it's a pain in the butt to even try to run Windows games under Linux, not to mention the performance drop..

Reply Score: 4

How rough is rough?
by moleskine on Thu 13th Sep 2007 16:35 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

It seems a perfectly fair article to me. Not least because if you want to nitpick you can do it every which way. No OS is perfect, all have faults. In any case, imho the meat of the article lies in this statement:

"But open source is a two-edged sword. While it draws on smart developers from many places, nobody is ultimately responsible for the quality of the product, and open-source developers often have an imperfect feel for how average people use software."

That's the bottom line here: is the methodology of open source flawed in some way so that meeting the needs of ordinary computer users or "average people" is really quite difficult for it?

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong answer, just that this is a thoughtful question to have posed. You can talk all day about mp3 or ogg or WMA or whatever, but they are all symptoms, not causes. Mossberg, rightly, is suggesting we look a little deeper than that. I guess the good news is that if anyone is equipped to understand this really well, Mark Shuttleworth is.

Reply Score: 3

ishmal
Member since:
2005-11-11

Where did the idea ever arise that the intended target demographic of Linux, Gnuish stuff, and Open Source is the ever-invoked ghost of everyone's computer-illiterate grandmother? And why is there a group of people who only consider open software "ready" when any bum off the street can master it without any education or training?

And this is the most puzzling question of all: Why is it, that the less capable of running a computer that a person gets, the more of a voice he has into how a computer should operate?

If you can install Linux on your PC or laptop, and run it, and it appeals to you, then you are the target audience, and it is doing its job just fine.

Reply Score: 6

Good review
by ssa2204 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 22:01 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Time and time again, instead of looking at deficiencies and inconsistencies, people who prefer Linux simply get defensive to a point that there is no room for discussion for improvement. I think this is one factor in why Linux does lag so badly behind Windows. Fact of the matter is reviews like these are sorely needed. Too often what we get are just typical fanboy rants about how great Ubuntu is etc..

But the very nature of OSS demands very high public critique. Microsoft does spend a considerable amount of time and money researching with focus groups to determine how average users view the desktop and work. Nobody I know of is doing similar for any distro, as such something like Ubuntu sorely needs strong reviews. To be honest, if Linux was some commercial OS put out by some company, it would have long since failed miserably. And it some regards, it is falling behind.

This was not some anti-Linux bashing review, I consider it quite insightful, especially how the community reacts to anything that isn't a glowing rave from a fanboy. Spreading FUD about Windows and false claims about Linux are certainly the absolute worst thing that can happen. Enough worrying about Windows and what Windows can or can not do. Fact is at this time, for whatever reason, Windows on an HP laptop is a finished and polished system for average Joe. The same can not be said for Dell Ubuntu. I think it is quite obvious if you take 100 average random people, majority are going to chose and be willing to pay $100 more for the Windows. Finding out why people would be willing to pay more money on a competing product is a red flag. Instead of getting defensive and crying Windows monopoly, it would be better to find out why these people prefer the more expensive product. Companies do this research all the time, there should be no excuse why the Linux community can not do it either.

Putting something out that is just "good enough" and then claiming it is better than Windows just because it is Linux is one hell of a recipe for disaster.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good review
by apoclypse on Thu 13th Sep 2007 22:23 UTC in reply to "Good review"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Didn't Novel runs some focus groups for its distro? Focus groups are redundant, the community is the focus group and they will damn well tell you if something is working or not. A lot of issues with "Linux" are really issues with gnome or kde or some other project that doesn't have the resources or the time to listen to users the way they should. What they need is a global bugzilla where all projects get the same information and know what needs to be fixed and tweaked. Ubuntu is the way it is because the community is so large and very vocal. Ubuntu has come a long way since warty and most of that is due to them actually listening and catering to users, not all the time but where it really counts Ubuntu has listened to users. I though th article was a little biased but what interested me the most is how few the nitpicks actually were. I was expectign huge issues with hardware, or issues configuring screens, but if multimedia and a touchpad problem is all they had I think we're good. I think Dell and Canonical have something up their sleeves I say we wait and see what it is.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good review
by lemur2 on Fri 14th Sep 2007 03:31 UTC in reply to "Good review"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Putting something out that is just "good enough" and then claiming it is better than Windows just because it is Linux is one hell of a recipe for disaster.


Linux is not claimed to be better than Windows just because it is Linux.

Linux is better than Windows for the following reasons:
(1) Linux contains no malware
(2) Linux contains no spyware (i.e. Linux will not "rat" on you)
(3) There are virtually no viruses or other malware that targets Linux
(4) There are no Linux botnets
(5) There are no ads or adware on Linux
(6) It is easier to install extra software on Linux, it is installable via a single consistent point-and-click interface and guaranteed to come without malware
(7) Linux code itself is auditable, but no-one can or will audit you for your use of Linux
(8) Linux is free
(9) Linux is written by and for its own users
(10) Linux rarely requires a reboot even after installing system software
(11) Linux has longer uptimes
(12) Linux includes drivers for far more hardware than Windows
(13) Linux does not include DRM
(14) There are no "reduced functionality" modes that are deliberately invoked
(15) On a Linux system, the person that owns the hardware and installed the system has full control over the software
(16) Linux menus are organised according to what the programs do, not by the name of the software vendor (which people may not happen to know)
(17) There is nothing you can do on a Windows system that a Linux system cannot technically also do
(18) Out of the box a Linux system is far more functional than a Windows system ... for example, the Linux system includes a complete Office suite (maybe even two) whereas for Windows that is extra.

What more do you want?

Just hold Linux and Windows up to the same level of objective scrutiny from an end-user persepective, and Linux clearly stomps all over Windows.

Edited 2007-09-14 03:50

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Good review
by polaris20 on Fri 14th Sep 2007 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Good review"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

(17) There is nothing you can do on a Windows system that a Linux system cannot technically also do

Except interface with a buttload of corporate software systems. Granted that's the fault of the developers not offering Linux versions of their software, but unfortunately it's true.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Good review
by lemur2 on Fri 14th Sep 2007 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good review"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Except interface with a buttload of corporate software systems. Granted that's the fault of the developers not offering Linux versions of their software, but unfortunately it's true.


You are saying here that a lot of corporate IT types believe that they have managed to lock themselves in to operating on a Windows-only platform, primarily because their data files are application-specific and the vendors of those applications have a vested interest in maintaining lock-in.

That is true. However, the lock-in for MS Office files is being slowly eroded, and there are several methods around this now. Once a significant userbase builds for Linux as the MS Office lock-in is broken up, then other software vendors may find it worthwhile to offer their product on multiple platforms, or suffer the same fate as the Windows lock-in (ie they would inspire a great many FOSS programmers to break the lock-in and thereby put themselves out of business). For example, Autodesk ... either they can offer Autocad for other platforms, or they can watch their market dissipate as better and better free programs are developed for other platforms which can read Autocad files.

As soon as any company tries to lock users in via data formats, that is the exact moment they make it worthwhile (and hence create the motivation) for FOSS programmers to try to break their lock-in.

http://www.linux.ie/newusers/alternatives.php

http://www.varicad.com/
http://www.cycas.de/
http://www.cadopia.com/

http://www.openxchange.org/
http://www.zimbra.com/

... and so on, and so on.

Edited 2007-09-14 06:15

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Good review
by polaris20 on Fri 14th Sep 2007 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good review"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

You are saying here that a lot of corporate IT types believe that they have managed to lock themselves in to operating on a Windows-only platform, primarily because their data files are application-specific and the vendors of those applications have a vested interest in maintaining lock-in.

I don't see anywhere me saying data files. It's entire systems I am referring to, such as accounting, legal, and document management systems.

Office lock-in is the least of my worries.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good review
by DrillSgt on Fri 14th Sep 2007 05:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Good review"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"(4) There are no Linux botnets "


Ermmm...go onto IRC sometime. Most of the Botnets are from compromised Linux boxes. Lets be objective k?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Good review
by lemur2 on Fri 14th Sep 2007 05:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good review"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Ermmm...go onto IRC sometime. Most of the Botnets are from compromised Linux boxes. Lets be objective k?


OK, being objective then:

http://www.honeynet.org/papers/bots/
These days, home PCs are a desirable target for attackers. Most of these systems run Microsoft Windows and often are not properly patched or secured behind a firewall, leaving them vulnerable to attack. In addition to these direct attacks, indirect attacks against programs the victim uses are steadily increasing. Examples of these indirect attacks include malicious HTML-files that exploit vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer or attacks using malware in Peer-to-Peer networks. Especially machines with broadband connection that are always on are a valuable target for attackers. As broadband connections increase, so to do the number of potential victims of attacks. Crackers benefit from this situation and use it for their own advantage. With automated techniques they scan specific network ranges of the Internet searching for vulnerable systems with known weaknesses. Attackers often target Class B networks (/16 in CIDR notation) or smaller net-ranges. Once these attackers have compromised a machine, they install a so called IRC bot - also called zombie or drone - on it. Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is a form of real-time communication over the Internet. It is mainly designed for group (one-to-many) communication in discussion forums called channels, but also allows one-to-one communication. More information about IRC can be found on Wikipedia.

We have identified many different versions of IRC-based bots (in the following we use the term bot) with varying degrees of sophistication and implemented commands, but all have something in common. The bot joins a specific IRC channel on an IRC server and waits there for further commands. This allows an attacker to remotely control this bot and use it for fun and also for profit. Attackers even go a step further and bring different bots together. Such a structure, consisting of many compromised machines which can be managed from an IRC channel, is called a botnet. IRC is not the best solution since the communication between bots and their controllers is rather bloated, a simpler communication protocol would suffice. But IRC offers several advantages: IRC Servers are freely available and are easy to set up, and many attackers have years of IRC communication experience.

Due to their immense size - botnets can consist of several ten thousand compromised machines - botnets pose serious threats. Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks are one such threat. Even a relatively small botnet with only 1000 bots can cause a great deal of damage. These 1000 bots have a combined bandwidth (1000 home PCs with an average upstream of 128KBit/s can offer more than 100MBit/s) that is probably higher than the Internet connection of most corporate systems. In addition, the IP distribution of the bots makes ingress filter construction, maintenance, and deployment difficult. In addition, incident response is hampered by the large number of separate organizations involved. Another use for botnets is stealing sensitive information or identity theft: Searching some thousands home PCs for password.txt, or sniffing their traffic, can be effective.

The spreading mechanisms used by bots is a leading cause for "background noise" on the Internet, especially on TCP ports 445 and 135. In this context, the term spreading describes the propagation methods used by the bots. These malware scan large network ranges for new vulnerable computers and infect them, thus acting similar to a worm or virus. An analysis of the traffic captured by the German Honeynet Project shows that most traffic targets the ports used for resource sharing on machines running all versions of Microsoft's Windows operating system:

Port 445/TCP (Microsoft-DS Service) is used for resource sharing on machines running Windows 2000, XP, or 2003, and other CIFS based connections. This port is for example used to connect to file shares.
Port 139/TCP (NetBIOS Session Service) is used for resource sharing on machines running Windows 9x, ME and NT. Again, this port is used to connect to file shares.
Port 137/UDP (NetBIOS Name Service) is used by computers running Windows to find out information concerning the networking features offered by another computer. The information that can be retrieved this way include system name, name of file shares, and more.
And finally, port 135/TCP is used by Microsoft to implement Remote Procedure Call (RPC) services. An RPC service is a protocol that allows a computer program running on one host to cause code to be executed on another host without the programmer needing to explicitly code for this.
The traffic on these four ports cause more then 80 percent of the whole traffic captured. Further research with tools such as Nmap, Xprobe2 and p0f reveal that machines running Windows XP and 2000 represent the most affected software versions. Clearly most of the activity on the ports listed above is caused by systems with Windows XP (often running Service Pack 1), followed by systems with Windows 2000. Far behind, systems running Windows 2003 or Windows 95/98 follow.


Good try, but no cigar. IRC does not mean "Linux".

Zombied Windows machines form the botnets themselves, although it is possible that the botnets are controlled using Linux boxes because the people who are establishing botnets presumably don't want their own machines to become owned.

Edited 2007-09-14 05:50

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Good review
by lemur2 on Fri 14th Sep 2007 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good review"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Zombied Windows machines form the botnets themselves, although it is possible that the botnets are controlled using Linux boxes because the people who are establishing botnets presumably don't want their own machines to become owned.


Backup:
http://lowkeysoft.com/proxy/
The clients: http://lowkeysoft.com/proxy/client.php
... are zombied Windows machines.

Here is a picture for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnets#Formation_and_exploitation
... notice that all the "zombied" machines in the botnet architecture have a Windows logo on the screen.

The many "bots" in a botnet are always infected Windows machines.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp
"Since the first iteration of the MSRT in January 2005, the tool has removed at least one Trojan from about 3.5 million unique computers. Of the 5.7 million infected Windows machines, about 62 percent was found with a Trojan or bot."


5.7 million infected Windows machines. 62% infection rate of botnets amongst infected Windows machines.

Oh my.

Edited 2007-09-14 06:32

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Good review
by lemur2 on Fri 14th Sep 2007 06:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good review"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Most of the Botnets are from compromised Linux boxes. Lets be objective k?


Au contraire, the "bots" are Windows machines.

Here is a description of the world's largest botnet, the Storm botnet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_botnet
The botnet, or zombie network, comprises computers running Microsoft Windows as their operating system, the only operating system which can be breached by the Storm worm. Once infected, a computer becomes known as a bot. This bot then performs automated tasks -- anything from gathering data on the user, to attacking web sites, to forwarding infected email -- without it's owner's knowledge or permission.

Estimates indicate that 5,000 to 6,000 computers are dedicated to propagating the spread of the worm through the use of emails with infected attachments; 1.2 billion virus messages have been sent by the botnet including a record 57 million on 22 August 2007 alone.


The Storm botnet is estimated to comprise up to 50 million infected Windows machines.

Edited 2007-09-14 06:53

Reply Score: 2

The reason why
by kanwar.plaha on Thu 13th Sep 2007 23:34 UTC
kanwar.plaha
Member since:
2006-02-20

... he finds it still rough around the edges is that despite all the usablility tom-tom'ing, PCLinuxOS beats Ubuntu in every department. And its no less "usable" since I have it installed as the default OS at home and nobody besides me at home is remotely connected to IT or computers except as casual users.

Of course hype and money can promote anything as has already been the case with MS trash ...

Reply Score: 2

RE: The reason why
by WereCatf on Fri 14th Sep 2007 08:52 UTC in reply to "The reason why"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

PCLinuxOS beats Ubuntu in every department

Does PCLinuxOS address the problems mentioned in the article? I somehow doubt it. Haven't tried PCLOS but a gut instinct tells me those same issues are there too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The reason why
by lemur2 on Fri 14th Sep 2007 10:57 UTC in reply to "RE: The reason why"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Does PCLinuxOS address the problems mentioned in the article? I somehow doubt it. Haven't tried PCLOS but a gut instinct tells me those same issues are there too.


Touchpad - there is a configuration GUI for this, apparently not included in Ubuntu nor in PCLInuxOS by default though.

MP3 files - this is a US problem only. Anywhere else just install the codec. For the US, buy a US-legal codec from Fluendo. https://shop.fluendo.com/

Camera, iPod - strange, that should not have happened. Should work straight up, if the USB hardware is OK. If I were this person, I'd have the laptop hardware checked.

DVD software - he is wrong about that. PCLinuxOS has libdvdcss in the repositories, for Ubuntu you have to enable the Medibuntu repositories (google for it). With XP, you have to buy an expensive 3rd party player.

Or alternatively, for either Ubuntu OR XP, you could just download the VLC player.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

Skipping video - definitely sounds like something wrong with his hardware.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: The reason why
by apoclypse on Fri 14th Sep 2007 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The reason why"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Well, I don't know gstreamer kind of blows on my machine, anythign that streams is choppy as hell. Everything else plays fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The reason why
by apoclypse on Fri 14th Sep 2007 13:45 UTC in reply to "The reason why"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Well i think usability is subjective. PClinuxOS uses KDE, that right there pretty much makes it unusable for me. So spreading your opinion as fact isn't getting us anywhere.
The name of the disto implies lack of imagination. Ubuntu has a huge community that is very helpful and they, I think that adds to usability a bit, again its subjective.

Reply Score: 2

windows and dvd
by pixel8r on Fri 14th Sep 2007 03:18 UTC
pixel8r
Member since:
2007-08-11

windows doesn't play commercial dvd's out of the box. when will review writers get a clue?

and I'm kinda sick of people writing reviews from the point of view of non-technical users. How on earth can anyone predict how a non-technical user will use linux? For once in your life, write a review from your own perspective and give up trying to put everyone else into some magic box.

Non-technical users hardly know how to use windows. They had to learn that too. And you started by saying this was about users who didn't want to learn a new user interface...er...in that case, why are they not just using the interface they know? its just another CRAP review full of half-truths and general FUD.

Half of these issues aren't issues to the majority of linux users today and linux adoption is still growing. its not ready for the masses - live with it. but one day it will be...and that day is getting closer. ;)

ask yourself if its more user friendly than win3.11 or DOS or even win98 (its certainly more polished and capable than win98)? Linux isn't as far behind prime time as you might imagine.

Reply Score: 2

blah blah blah
by timefortea on Fri 14th Sep 2007 10:19 UTC
timefortea
Member since:
2006-10-11

There's a lot of reading in those posts... but it's the same old tune that's playing as far as I can tell. Has anyone been enlightened by the chitter chatter?

Sorry, I'm feeling cynical this morning ;)

Reply Score: 1

DVD Software for Linux?
by WereCatf on Fri 14th Sep 2007 15:27 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

These comments here make me wonder, are there any good DVD players for Linux? Totem, atleast on my machine (Gentoo) complains about proper plugins not being installed even though I have installed every gstreamer-plugin available.. MPlayer doesn't apparently support menus. Haven't tried VLC though. The only app I have found to fully support menus and all is Ogle, but Ogle itself isn't very intuitive nor pretty.

And it'd be nice if they made it very easy to install everything needed to play DVDs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: DVD Software for Linux?
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Sep 2007 10:32 UTC in reply to "DVD Software for Linux?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

MPlayer doesn't apparently support menus. Haven't tried VLC though. The only app I have found to fully support menus and all is Ogle, but Ogle itself isn't very intuitive nor pretty.

And it'd be nice if they made it very easy to install everything needed to play DVDs.


Xine supports DVD menus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xine

Kaffeine is the KDE front-end for Xine, and that works very well. The only extra thing one has to install on PCLinuxOS (other than kaffiene, which is installed by default) is libdvdcss, and that package is in the PCLinuxOS repositories.

http://hftom.free.fr/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffeine

For a GNOME-based system, or XFCE-based system, the best front-end to Xine would probably be gxine. I'm reasonably sure that would work with DVD menus.

http://www.gnomefiles.org/app.php?soft_id=1203

Xine can even skip the "unskippable" bits of a DVD.

Please be aware that in the US there might arguably be some problem associated with installing libdvdcss ... although it is unknown since libdvdcss has never been challenged in court. This is, however, the reason why libdvdcss is not installed for you automatically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss
Many Linux distributions do not contain libdvdcss (for example Debian, SUSE Linux, and Ubuntu) due to fears of running afoul of DMCA-style laws. In other cases some distributions refrain from preloading libdvdcss onto their install discs but it is available in their software repositories.


Elsewhere it should be fine, so enjoy.

Edited 2007-09-15 10:46

Reply Score: 2

gerli
by gerli on Sun 16th Sep 2007 00:02 UTC
gerli
Member since:
2007-09-15

Gerli & Co. was established in 1992 by Mr. Ismael Gerli.
The founder's vision at the time was oriented towards providing legal services in the maritime and corporate fields, offering solutions to the clients' needs at a reasonable cost, with improved levels of professionalism and dedication towards clients. Legal services that reflect only the perfection clients deserve was and remains the single most important issue in our organization. After 15 years of practice and international recognition, the organizational structure of Gerli & Co. remains rock solid and growing.

Ismael and Genevieve Gerli - Champsaur have taken Gerli & Co. to extraordinary levels of acceptance, fulfilling with the international demand from those clients who have preferred us.

The Fifteenth Anniversary of Gerli & Co. was marked with
the purchase in August of the group's new offices, thus closing this year
with a ground breaking investment which will ensure the growth
of our organization and the continuous provision of services
with the perfection levels you all deserve.

Regardless of the growth of our organization, our key business units
have remained untouched, thus guaranteeing the conformability and easy to make business approach that you have always enjoyed with us.

Thanks you all.
Ismael Gerli
Founder

Reply Score: 0

gerli
by gerli on Sun 16th Sep 2007 00:03 UTC
gerli
Member since:
2007-09-15

Gerli & Co. was established in 1992 by Mr. Ismael Gerli.
The founder's vision at the time was oriented towards providing legal services in the maritime and corporate fields, offering solutions to the clients' needs at a reasonable cost, with improved levels of professionalism and dedication towards clients. Legal services that reflect only the perfection clients deserve was and remains the single most important issue in our organization. After 15 years of practice and international recognition, the organizational structure of Gerli & Co. remains rock solid and growing.

Ismael and Genevieve Gerli - Champsaur have taken Gerli & Co. to extraordinary levels of acceptance, fulfilling with the international demand from those clients who have preferred us.


Thanks you all.
Ismael Gerli
Founder

Reply Score: 0

Ismael, It Is
by gerli on Sun 16th Sep 2007 00:06 UTC
gerli
Member since:
2007-09-15

Gerli & Co. was established in 1992 by Mr. Ismael Gerli.
The founder's vision at the time was oriented towards providing legal services in the maritime and corporate fields, offering solutions to the clients' needs at a reasonable cost, with improved levels of professionalism and dedication towards clients. Legal services that reflect only the perfection clients deserve was and remains the single most important issue in our organization. After 15 years of practice and international recognition, the organizational structure of Gerli & Co. remains rock solid and growing.

Ismael and Genevieve Gerli - Champsaur have taken Gerli & Co. to extraordinary levels of acceptance, fulfilling with the international demand from those clients who have preferred us.

The Fifteenth Anniversary of Gerli & Co. was marked with
the purchase in August of the group's new offices, thus closing this year
with a ground breaking investment which will ensure the growth
of our organization and the continuous provision of services
with the perfection levels you all deserve.

Regardless of the growth of our organization, our key business units
have remained untouched, thus guaranteeing the conformability and easy to make business approach that you have always enjoyed with us.

Thanks you all.
Ismael Gerli
Founder

Reply Score: 0

Real bullshit
by eduardp on Mon 17th Sep 2007 17:12 UTC
eduardp
Member since:
2006-09-01

I know nobody is going to read the comment number 211, but I cannot help it. This guy sucks. Sorry, he is an old person and very polite, but he is making really ofuscated statements.

Two of the huge problems he say are simply little tweaks for the very first version of an OS. Volume fails. Ok. Touchpad config. Nothing that shouldn't be arranged in a month or two.

So the third only problem he finds is that he want to play MP3 and DVD's and he cannot. Well he cannot play DVD's with XP neither, but anyway: lets take it as a fault. No MP3 and DVD codecs from scratch.

Ok. But that is never a reason, as long as he will have to install Divx codecs, Open Office, Winzip, iTunes or Similar, Games (appart of solitaire), GIMP or some Image editor, MS Money, and so on on a windows/mac machine too.

So that is no reason to choose windows/mac over linux.

Appart of that he doesn't say something. Linux is extremely faster that any of the others.

Reply Score: 1