Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Nov 2008 15:02 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu One of those traditional "I'm a user of abc, trying out xyz" articles. This time, a Mac user tries Ubuntu 8.10, and concludes: "Linux has come a long way, but it's not totally ready for the mom and pop folks, in my opinion. In the two days of testing, with two occasions it refused to load the graphic drivers and I could not enjoy Compiz. I found a tutorial which taught me how to modify xorg.conf to load XGL (I suspect that messing with the resolution of the second screen might have overwritten the xorg.conf file). Even so, I'd say Ubuntu 8.10 is a fantastic operating system. I guess it may take a while to tweak an Ubuntu installation to perfection, especially for more demanding users. I will recommend Ubuntu to everyone who can't afford a Mac, are not into heavy media content creation or hard-core gaming."
Order by: Score:
Fair
by Gone fishing on Sun 16th Nov 2008 15:48 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

I thought a fair review Ubuntu is great most things work, some commercial apps are difficult to replace with open source, it doesn't surprise me the reviewer broke his video trying to the resolution right on his monitors. Getting two monitors to work properly at the right resolution can be a real pain and something that regularly crops up on ubuntuforums.org an area that still needs some attention.

Edited 2008-11-16 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Fair
by cburgess on Sun 16th Nov 2008 15:55 UTC in reply to "Fair"
cburgess Member since:
2007-09-12

From the original...

Linux has come a long way, but it's not totally ready for the mom and pop folks, in my opinion.


Gone Fishing writes...
Getting two monitors to work properly at the right resolution can be a real pain and something that regularly crops up on ubuntuforums.org an area that still needs some attention.


Ok, and since when do Mom and Pops mess around with dual monitor setups? :-)

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Fair
by Liquidator on Sun 16th Nov 2008 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Hi didn't say so. It's just an miscellaneous note ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fair
by leech on Sun 16th Nov 2008 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Multi-monitor mode has come a LONG way in the very recent past. So it's a bit buggy still, and not all drivers (I'm looking at you nVidia and AMD/ATI) support the coolness of xrandr. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) I have a nVidia card, and it has it's own Multi-monitor goodness that works quite well and is easy to set up. Compiz, for what it's worth, is still very picky on multi-monitor set ups.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Fair
by porcel on Sun 16th Nov 2008 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fair"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

I have an intel card and have had a hell of a time trying to get xrand to play nice with my dual monitor set up.

I have a medion akoya mini and I want to clone the laptop to an external monitor, so that they both show the same content at different resolutions, but I have been unable to get it to work.

The only way it work is if I bring the resolution on the laptop and external monitor down to 800x600. Instead, what i want is to have the internal laptop use its native 1024x600 resolution and the external monitor use its 1680x1024 resolution. is this possible and does anybody know how to get it to work?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fair
by B. Janssen on Sun 16th Nov 2008 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fair"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

Just think a moment about mouse cursor movement and answer the question yourself.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Fair
by Vanders on Sun 16th Nov 2008 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fair"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Missing your point here. Windows (for example) handles two monitors at different resolutions and different positions/alignment, just fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Fair
by Dryhte on Mon 17th Nov 2008 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Fair"
Dryhte Member since:
2008-02-05

I think you're missing the point here, Vanders...

Porcel wanted to display the same content twice on different resolutions. I don't thing Windows can handle that either.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Fair
by porcel on Mon 17th Nov 2008 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Fair"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Of course, it can. That´s precisely the point.

I have been using Windows since 1999, but this laptop came preloaded with Windows. The windows xp partition that I left on it is capable of rendering the internal laptop screen at 1024x600 and the external at the correct resolution (1680x1050) and all the content is scaled appropriately.

Right now the only way it works in Linux is to have both screens at 800x600, which is far from optimal. Maybe this will be fixed in future versions of kde and xorg, but stop making excuses.

It´s a shame becasue kde 4.1 has been a joy to use and I wanted to be able to use it during presentations, but so far no dice.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fair
by leech on Mon 17th Nov 2008 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fair"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Well, theoretically, you should be able to just go up under System -> Preferences -> Screen Resolution and then click Detect Displays.

This is new to Gnome 2.24 (well, the fact that it now supports the new xrandr 1.2)

Test it out, I'm curious if it works well for you.

I managed to get multi-monitors working on a Thinkpad for the VP at the company I work for. It's also using an Intel Graphics Adapter. That was on Ubuntu 8.04

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fair
by Gone fishing on Sun 16th Nov 2008 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Don't get me wrong I think Ubuntu is a great OS. That why its my main OS, I'd consider myself a bit of a fanboy – but not a completely uncritical one, and yes multi screen support and changing screen resolution using the graphical tools has improved, however, if you go to ubuntuforums and search for resolution you will find 250 entries obviously this is not perfect and needs improving.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Fair
by flanque on Mon 17th Nov 2008 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Right, so if "mom and pop" don't use it, then it's not really a problem which needs fixing...

Right now, "mom and pop" for the most part don't use Linux, so lets just freeze the code and not progress further.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fair
by lemur2 on Mon 17th Nov 2008 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fair"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Right, so if "mom and pop" don't use it, then it's not really a problem which needs fixing... Right now, "mom and pop" for the most part don't use Linux, so lets just freeze the code and not progress further.


Not really the point.

The point would be not so much that "mom and pop" don't use dual monitors, but rather the point is that "mom and pop" wouldn't expect to set up an OS to deal with a dual monitor system.

If "mom and pop" want a dual monitor system, they buy from the IT store such a system already set up for them. Windows or Mac doesn't matter.

It shouldn't matter for Linux either. It is NOT valid to reach a conclusion that Linux isn't ready for "mom and pop" becuase it is hard for them to set up a dual monitor system ... it would be hard for them to do that for any OS, and for any dual-monitor solution that "mom and pop" would need to buy they would only consider one where it was already set up for them in advance.

So this simply isn't an issue for Linux. Compare apples with apples ... compare a Linux system pre-installed with OSX pre-installed or Vista pre-installed. The Linux system in that scenario is easily as suitable and as easy for mom and pop to use as either of the others.

Edited 2008-11-17 05:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Fair
by Daniel Borgmann on Mon 17th Nov 2008 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fair"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

That's not really true... Setting up a second monitor is hardly a hassle these days (or rather shouldn't be), and isn't comparable to upgrading the hard disk or similar.

E.g. plugging a desktop monitor into a MacBook is a very common thing to do (and being marketed by Apple, they certainly don't expect you to get a technician to set this up...).

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Fair
by lemur2 on Mon 17th Nov 2008 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fair"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That's not really true... Setting up a second monitor is hardly a hassle these days (or rather shouldn't be), and isn't comparable to upgrading the hard disk or similar.

E.g. plugging a desktop monitor into a MacBook is a very common thing to do (and being marketed by Apple, they certainly don't expect you to get a technician to set this up...).


If you have Ubuntu pre-installed, so that the video drivers and Xorg.conf are all pre-set correctly for you before you purchase the machine, then plugging in a second desktop monitor into such an Ubuntu machine is exactly the same experience ... it will just work.

http://www.x.org/wiki/Projects/XRandR

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

The only problem with Linux, Xorg and Xrandr is that it is not necessarily correct after auto-detection following an install from a LiveCD. This however isn't a problem at all for a pre-installed Linux correctly set up by the OEM or the IT store.

So once again ... compare the two OSes in the same circumstances (ie both pre-installed and set up before the consumer gets them), and they perform similarly.

The only difference is, OSX hits your wallet hard and often, and Ubuntu never does.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Fair
by pixel8r on Mon 17th Nov 2008 03:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair"
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

From the original...
"Linux has come a long way, but it's not totally ready for the mom and pop folks, in my opinion.


Gone Fishing writes...
Getting two monitors to work properly at the right resolution can be a real pain and something that regularly crops up on ubuntuforums.org an area that still needs some attention.


Ok, and since when do Mom and Pops mess around with dual monitor setups? :-)
"

you may have noticed over the years just how much more mom & pop do with their computers now compared to a few years ago.

It seems that the more features linux gets and the easier it is to use, the longer the list of things that the "average" user STILL needs before linux is a possibility for them.

The real fact is, that linux has been fine for the average user (read: web/email) for years, but whether they would be as familiar with it as with windows/mac is a completely different story, and depends on many other factors.

Anyone can use linux nowadays, but they may not be as productive with it as with windows/mac. There is a difference. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fair
by Lobotomik on Mon 17th Nov 2008 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fair"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Your argument does not really hold as long as you say "windows/mac". Mac is as unfamiliar for the vast majority of people as Linux is. Easy to learn? Possibly, but so is Linux nowadays (yeah, it can get creepy at times, but then most would agree that XP is often a real bitch).

As for "more productive", these should also count:

* media players without the restrictions imposed by iTunes or WMP.

* no dealing with malware and progressive system rot.

* centralized software repository with immediate access to thousands of (free) apps.

* free automatic updates to the latest version of all the software you use, twice a year.

* no shitware preinstalled. My previous laptop felt like a beggar lived inside, always asking for money!

And on, and on, and on. Yeah, it is not perfect, and where it fails it might do so horribly. But it is getting better by leaps and bounds. What it might be missing is in a simple way to publish commercial proprietary apps: truly some pieces are missing which are available for Windows, but that can also be said of the OSX ecosystem.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Fair
by dagw on Mon 17th Nov 2008 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok, and since when do Mom and Pops mess around with dual monitor setups? :-)

Both my mom and my pop have jobs that involve them plugging their laptops into projectors to give presentations from time to time. That's a dual monitor setup and a very common one at that.

Reply Score: 3

Nice review
by Liquidator on Sun 16th Nov 2008 15:52 UTC
Liquidator
Member since:
2007-03-04

I think the conclusion that Ubuntu is fine for those who can't buy a Mac is flawed. Many people who can certainly buy a Mac (ie: an affordable Mac Mini or iMac) have decided to choose a computer with Ubuntu.

I have used OS X for a few days, on my PC with the patched OSX86 version, so it didn't cost me anything, but I didn't find myself at home. The dreary grey interface an the fuzzy fonts didn't please me, along with other annoyances that OS X has.

On Ubuntu, I find the interface quite beautiful and the Liberation fonts clean and nice: http://lh5.ggpht.com/warren.butler/R-XRWAgPJxI/AAAAAAAABaw/9iZCn0Ii...

It's hard to discuss tastes...Either you like or not...I have a friend who is graphic designer, he loves Apple and buys every new Apple product. He spends lots of money in those toys. With Linux, you can keep the money for higher-end hardware or for donations instead.

It's a different philosophy, but also it's funny to see how advocates, either for Apple or Linux, are categoric, they either think that all that Apple creates is awesome, and others are bad, while others think the exact opposite. Truth is each community and each system has its pros and cons, and everyone should have it in mind.

Edited 2008-11-16 15:56 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: Nice review
by Clinton on Sun 16th Nov 2008 16:25 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

I think both operating systems are great. Both excel at certain things and both have their shortcomings.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Nice review
by Morgan on Sun 16th Nov 2008 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice review"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Came here to say that. I've enjoyed using Unix-based operating systems since I first tried Red Hat back around 2001. For Linux, I prefer Slackware mostly because it just simply works, though these days Ubuntu makes it very easy to set up and maintain a box.

For the most part though, I'm sticking with OS X. It's just a better fit for my workflow and it still has the Unix underpinnings I need. The only thing I'd need Windows for these days is gaming, and I rarely have time for that. I find myself more entertained by the occasional Flash-based strategy game than any of the shooters or MMOs out there today.

I'm still going to use some form of Linux on the lone x86 machine in the household -- it's for the kids -- but my main computer is my Mac mini and my fiancee loves her PowerBook G3, so we'll remain a Mac household as long as we can afford used Apple computers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Nice review
by Liquidator on Mon 17th Nov 2008 06:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice review"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Now, with the Mac Mini, almost anyone can choose between a Mac and a traditional PC.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nice review
by gan17 on Sun 16th Nov 2008 20:25 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

I think the conclusion that Ubuntu is fine for those who can't buy a Mac is flawed. Many people who can certainly buy a Mac (ie: an affordable Mac Mini or iMac) have decided to choose a computer with Ubuntu.


I use a MacPro and run a dual-boot Leopard/Ubuntu setup. I find myself using Ubuntu more often these days... although I still use Leopard for printing and color management (artist/photographer).

I'd probably be on Linux full-time if color management was more straightforward and Epson provided good drivers for their pro series printers.

But yeah, it was a decent review (mostly).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nice review
by theTSF on Mon 17th Nov 2008 00:59 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

I did something similar to the author of the story. My experience with a Mac Book Pro wasn't as positive. I recently had my Mac OS X crash on me. And my OS X CD's were packed up. So for a few months I have been using Ubuntu as a replacement. Things were not working that great. Its wireless stunk always disconnecting every minute when I had anything less the full bars. The track pad will work 50% of the time when it awakes from hibernation. When I closed the lid it would go to sleep then wake right up in a minutes or so. My Experience with Ubuntu was so bad that I spent a day trying to find my OS X DVD to reinstall my backups. Ubuntu has a lot of polish that is missing that you don't realize until it is gone. While my experience is unique. Running it on a ThinkPad at work I had less of these issue (Just a bunch of different ones). Once they really work on the driver problem and stop treating us like evil people by installing a non open source drivers then it may be competitive.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Nice review
by Daniel Borgmann on Mon 17th Nov 2008 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice review"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

The sleep/hibernation situation on Linux is admittedly quite pathetic, but I really think it's the wrong approach to create a generic OS (like Windows or Ubuntu) and expect it to work flawlessly on every hardware under the sun.

Apple can create a fantastic user experience by coupling their own hardware with software that makes perfect use of its capabilities. Nokia is doing something similar with free software on handheld devices. I believe that this is what we should shoot for. Free software is perfectly positioned for this, because it allows hardware manufacturers to have complete control over the software. Windows is not.

I don't believe that the "cheaper than Windows generic OS" strategy most distributions are currently running is going to get us very far. And I hope that the various hardware vendors who are interested in custom Linux-based solutions for their hardware (Nokia, Dell, HP, etc), are a sign of things to come. To me, it doesn't matter one bit if it's called "Linux", as long as there is free software under the hood.

This also creates jobs, because those hardware manufacturers will need developers to create these custom user experiences. ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Nice review
by r_a_trip on Mon 17th Nov 2008 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice review"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Once they really work on the driver problem and stop treating us like evil people by installing a non open source drivers then it may be competitive.

The only problem with that is the kernel license forbids linking closed modules and distributing the end result. So it is not an issue of "evil people", but of legal requirements. Requirements who brought you a free as in freedom GNU/Linux in the first place.

Closed modules aren't necessary as proven by all the companies who do provide full specs or even complete GPL'ed drivers. Manufactureres who don't should be shunned if we are serious about maintaining a system in freedom.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice review
by DavidSan on Tue 18th Nov 2008 00:17 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

I think you have not used the right hardware with the software.

Mac OS X font rendering is designed to be run on certain kind of equipment. Apple can control that , and that is the reason fonts look fine on Mac computers.

On different hardware, usually cheaper monitors with lower DPI, fonts tend to look very fuzzy.

For example, a typical 17 inch screen Mac laptop has 1680x1050 resolution. A typical 17 inch Windows laptop has 1400x800.

When you have higher DPI fonts look very nice.

Reply Score: 1

Not Ready for Mom and Pop?
by ashcrow on Sun 16th Nov 2008 17:19 UTC
ashcrow
Member since:
2008-02-02

Tell that to my parents who did just fine for a long time with their Fedora system. True, I installed it for them, but after that I really didn't have to do anything .... it actually just worked :-). With thay being said they didn't have a need for Quicksilver (Gnome-do) or Expose (Compiz) ... they just wanted web, email, documents, games and communication software which was a breeze to setup and just as easy showing them how to keep it updated (click this, put in your password, fin).

Full disclosure, my mom now runs with Vista because of online applications for work that ONLY work with IE (no Firefox/Opera/Safari/Konq support).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not Ready for Mom and Pop?
by rockwell on Wed 19th Nov 2008 15:07 UTC in reply to "Not Ready for Mom and Pop?"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

My Mom and Pop's Ubuntu 8.10 system just got totally borked with Monday's patches. They did "auto update" and now x won't load at all.

Yah. great os. Linux on the desktop in .... X years.

Time to reinstall XP SP3 ...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by LB06
by LB06 on Sun 16th Nov 2008 17:52 UTC
LB06
Member since:
2005-07-06

[quote]or hard-core gaming[/quote]
Very unfortunate remark in an otherwise fair review. Both OS X and Linux are absolutely not even remotely suitable for hard-core gaming. And OS X is only a little bit better than Linux.

If you've bought a game for Windows, switched to OS X and find out that this game also runs on OS X you're still screwed, because you have to pay full price for the same game a second time. I can understand that it costs money to port a game to OS X, but I already payed for the efforts that the original game studio already put into it so I do not see why I should be paying for it again. It's perfectly acceptable to pirate a game if you've already bought the Windows version, imho (morally seen).

Still, both OS X and Linux are superior compared to their main competitor. So if you're really into hard-core gaming run OS X or Linux and get an Xbox360 or PS3.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by LB06
by evangs on Mon 17th Nov 2008 13:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by LB06"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


It's perfectly acceptable to pirate a game if you've already bought the Windows version, imho (morally seen).


Great, so you kill the porting houses that were contracted to do the port. With such attitudes, is it any wonder Loki died?

Ports aren't cheap and it's a real shame that most game development houses aren't like Blizzard who do parallel developments on the Mac and PC. Most game developers don't even bother to contract out the porting work to other companies (e.g. Macplay, Aspyr) since they don't believe they will recoup a return on investment. By pirating a port, you make it even less likely that any games will be ported in the future. If this keeps up, Aspyr and Macplay will go the way of Loki.

When Mac porting houses close shop, you'll end up playing World of Warcraft (or even Spore!) on your Mac for the rest of your life. That my friend is the definition of hell.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by LB06
by LB06 on Mon 17th Nov 2008 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by LB06"
LB06 Member since:
2005-07-06

Right... I realize it's not good for the Loki's of this world, but I still fail to see why I should buy a game twice. It means that I have to pay twice for the artwork, audio, graphical designs, storyline, most of the OpenGL programming and all other platform independent work. This is 90% of the effort that development studios have to put into it.

So why do I have to pay Loki for something that they didn't do and were able to almost efforlessly reuse?Maybe they should also release patches + an installer that can use the official CD/DVD and its license and then charge a more reasonable fee.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by LB06
by evangs on Mon 17th Nov 2008 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by LB06"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


So why do I have to pay Loki for something that they didn't do and were able to almost efforlessly reuse?


Firstly, ports don't happen by magic. People had to sit down and actively do the port. If you've actually worked on a non-trivial project, you'll know that the number of lines of code and easily run into millions. Secondly, the majority of games use DirectX for sound, networking, and input and porting these over are most definitely not trivial. If porting was such a small task, why aren't more games cross platform?


Maybe they should also release patches + an installer that can use the official CD/DVD and its license and then charge a more reasonable fee.


More likely, given that people are more willing to pirate ports, game companies cannot justify the added cost of porting games since they get no return on their investment.

But hey, it's a free world. Do whatever floats your boat.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by LB06
by anda_skoa on Wed 19th Nov 2008 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by LB06"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Right... I realize it's not good for the Loki's of this world, but I still fail to see why I should buy a game twice.


The problem is not that the Mac version costs money, the problem is that you bought a different version first.

No company is making you pay twice, it is your choice if you want to buy twice instead of just buying the Mac version.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by LB06
by Lobotomik on Mon 17th Nov 2008 17:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by LB06"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

True, gaming is becoming a non-issue for Linux or OSX.

For the price of a mediocre graphics card for your PC, which would need replacent at the same cost in a year or two if you wanted to run the newer games, you can get a console. And you get a nice media player for free!

Oh, and you cannot get a good graphics card for a Mac at any price.

Edited 2008-11-17 17:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by LB06
by helf on Mon 17th Nov 2008 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by LB06"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

I have an nvidia quadro 5600.. its decent ;) mostly because of its 1.5gb of vram...

Reply Score: 2

What I have found
by hraq on Sun 16th Nov 2008 18:00 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ubuntu is almost like any linux distro out there.
They all suffer from fragmentation of projects,ie no integration.

I tried 7.10 8.04 and 8.10 in the last 1.5 years extensively and 24/7 and found that 7.10 was the best one I have tried; then came the buggy 8.04 and the buggiest 8.10 which I am using right now to write this comment.
On the same hardware, 7.10 operated my keyboard and graphics fine then 8.04 didn't operate my keyboard at all and my graphics card weren't supported. Then when 8.10 came my keyboard started to work but without the Function keys so I cannot pop up run windows by (Alt+F2) or any other keyboard shortcuts that requires F1-F12
My graphics were recognized with 2 drivers and finally installed but when I scroll firefox web browser while I watch a movie on my big 24" screen the movie will start to flicker greatly, and sometimes the movie crashes and I have to restart the movie again.
I've tried both drivers and the bug is persistent.

Now, lets analyze this:

1. I have filed a bug report against keyboard issues with 8.04 and ubuntu team didn't solve the problem, they said its a bug against the kernel, and wait for the next kernel version in the next ubuntu.....which shows that ubuntu is a beta quality software

2. Graphics and keyboard issues are major problems, we are not talking about a productivity application bug, so ubuntu team should be responsible somehow to fix it.

3. Recent Performance benchmarks by independent people showed performance degradation over time with version 7.10 being the fastest 8.10 the slowest

4. Commercial software is commercial software they might have resources as big as ubuntu teams resources themselves and thus you cannot say to advanced users use scribus instead of InDesign or use Gimp instead of Photoshop or much more funny kino or others instead of Sony Vegas and Apple Final Cut Studio for video editing and DVD authoring, or use " fill here application" instead of Quickbooks.

I am sorry to say that Ubuntu is a beta quality software and it fits best developers and Advanced users or users with limited demands.
I believe that the best Unix out there is OSX for most of people's general needs. The only problem with OSX is the hardware that it runs on. (mac mini, imac and macbooks are all fragile, ie their failure rates are very high) only (Mac Pro, Macbook Pro or Air) are reliable.

My current version of ubuntu is x64 8.10
Core2Duo 3 GHz, 8GB RAM and WD Raptor 300GB HDD, GF9800GTS, Asus Workstation class motherboards.

Reply Score: 7

RE: What I have found
by StaubSaugerNZ on Sun 16th Nov 2008 19:47 UTC in reply to "What I have found"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


My graphics were recognized with 2 drivers and finally installed but when I scroll firefox web browser while I watch a movie on my big 24" screen the movie will start to flicker greatly, and sometimes the movie crashes and I have to restart the movie again.
I've tried both drivers and the bug is persistent.


I had the same problem with flickering movies. The problem is simple to fix. From the menu choose:
System > Preferences > Multimedia Systems Selector
then choose the Video tab and set the Plugin for Default Output to "X Window System (No Xv)". For some reason the Xv video extension is not properly enabled using my ATI proprietary driver.

Note: You may have to use: System > Preferences > Main Menu to make the "Multimedia Systems Selector" visible.

Sure, this is not ideal, but I could even talk my mother through this over the phone.


Apologies if this is slightly off-topic.
Your normal programming will resume ...

Reply Score: 5

The reason why I don't use Ubuntu
by shotsman on Sun 16th Nov 2008 21:33 UTC in reply to "What I have found"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

is their lack of feedback into the Kernel.
This fact is well documented in many places.
Their unwillingness to report bugs and any fixes is AFAIK, not playing fair with the other distros that do this.
Even 'source clone' distros like CentOS feed back bugs they find to RedHat. Many of these get fed into the main kernel & other packages which Ubuntu seems to want to use in a one way street (the linux kernel, not the application packages)
IMHO, this is a selfish attitude.

There is far more to the FOSS world than Ubuntu. I just wish that the drift towards the 'Ubuntu is the ONLY Linux worth having' drift could be stopped but in the PRess etc, LINUX ==== Ubuntu and nothing else matters (even its spritual home in Debian land)

Reply Score: 6

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Their unwillingness to report bugs and any fixes is AFAIK, not playing fair with the other distros that do this."

Ubuntu does report bugs. What they do not do is provide any patches/code. They have no developers that are dedicated to the kernel, and actually focus on the desktop software aspects, which according to recent stories, does not count as contributing to Linux.

Reply Score: 4

callmetalu Member since:
2008-11-19

Ubuntu is one of a few distro that distributes enterprise version of the platform for free. We switch to ubuntu from redhat few years ago. It has been great.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What I have found
by unoengborg on Sun 16th Nov 2008 23:03 UTC in reply to "What I have found"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06


1. I have filed a bug report against keyboard issues with 8.04 and ubuntu team didn't solve the problem, they said its a bug against the kernel, and wait for the next kernel version in the next ubuntu.....which shows that ubuntu is a beta quality software


By that definition, I would say that most software is beta quality. The next release with a new kernel is not that far away. Many software vendors let their customers wait much longer than that for a bug fix.

Reply Score: 3

RE: What I have found
by leech on Mon 17th Nov 2008 01:34 UTC in reply to "What I have found"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

4. Commercial software is commercial software they might have resources as big as ubuntu teams resources themselves and thus you cannot say to advanced users use scribus instead of InDesign or use Gimp instead of Photoshop or much more funny kino or others instead of Sony Vegas and Apple Final Cut Studio for video editing and DVD authoring, or use " fill here application" instead of Quickbooks.

I am sorry to say that Ubuntu is a beta quality software and it fits best developers and Advanced users or users with limited demands.
I believe that the best Unix out there is OSX for most of people's general needs. The only problem with OSX is the hardware that it runs on.


I'd tend to agree with everything that you said, except this. The problem with so called "Advanced" users is that they tend to think that the program they are so learned in is the only possible option for them. They could indeed find some new way to artistically express themselves using some software that is different than what they are used to.

Unfortunately, people for the most part are averse to change. So those so called "Power Users" of software X are always going to be the last to convert to anything different.

The reason that Ubuntu is 'beta' software is because it literally is synchronized from Debian Sid (Unstable!) branch. The really funny thing is, in some cases, an Ubuntu release has been less stable than Debian Unstable!

What I would like to see Ubuntu do, is give their patches upstream to Debian, since that's where they grab their code anyhow. I know they do this to a certain extent, and that Debian developers mostly choose not to add their patches. But it doesn't happen nearly enough.

Personally I think Ubuntu should change their development a little bit and make the statement that every other release will be considered a bit more edgy than the other. Rather than always trying to have the latest kernel in there, stay with one kernel for the yearly release, then change it every other. Stabilize it for those who love stability over new features. But they would need to skip a release of somethings. Maybe do a longer feature freeze on the yearly releases. Either way, I think 8.04 was released with quite a large amount of bugs, which is why it quickly turned into 8.04.1.

I do wish other distributions would take notes from Debian. While they do usually lose out on their release schedules, at least they have a quality standard that says "Hey, face it. It's not ready and we don't release crap to the world." I mean there really should be a certain limit of release critical bugs before a distribution is considered 'release worthy'. Instead of sticking to a firm clock. I could understand more of a "about every 6 months".

rant mode off....

Reply Score: 7

RE: What I have found
by sultanqasim on Mon 17th Nov 2008 03:22 UTC in reply to "What I have found"
sultanqasim Member since:
2006-10-28

"mac mini, imac and macbooks are all fragile, ie their failure rates are very high"

Who told you that?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What I have found
by sultanqasim on Mon 17th Nov 2008 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE: What I have found"
sultanqasim Member since:
2006-10-28

There are countless surveys that rank Apple as the industry leaders in reliability of consumer desktops and laptops. Examples:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326602,00.asp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326607,00.asp

(this years PC mag service and reliability survey results)

I am not saying that Apple hardware is perfect or that problem never happen but they are rare and those that get them, especially multiple problems in a row are either strangely unlucky or are doing something wrong.

This comment comes from a person with about $13,000 of Apple hardware and has not had a single defective item.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What I have found
by alcibiades on Mon 17th Nov 2008 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What I have found"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

But do they show they are statistically more reliable? Or do they show that the users feel more satisfied with what their reliability is?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What I have found
by anduril on Mon 17th Nov 2008 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What I have found"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

It shows a smaller sample size and generally more satisfaction with the perceived reliability of the macs than true "better" reliablity. Between my ibook and a friends powerbook (both G4s and I dont know anyone else locally that have macs anymore) we've had three hard drive failures, a bad memory module and a bad logic board. Granted, both were heavily used.

Among the four PC laptops we've owned we've had two hard drives and one bad memory module. So, technically, the PC's have been more reliable. However, in all the cases Apples SUPPORT was far better to deal with so we've been far more satisfied with them than say with the Dells and HPs

Reply Score: 1

off-topic comment
by siraf72 on Sun 16th Nov 2008 18:05 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

...on Ubutu vs mac vs etc, different strokes for different folks.

On the gaming issue. I have huge respect for companies that ship OS X and windows games on the same DVD. Blizzard games tend to have both versions on the same DVD and Spore is also dual OS. Good on them ;)

Reply Score: 3

Xubuntu!!
by sigzero on Sun 16th Nov 2008 18:49 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

It rocks! :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Xubuntu!!
by nbensa on Mon 17th Nov 2008 01:21 UTC in reply to "Xubuntu!!"
nbensa Member since:
2005-08-29

++(1*10^100)

Yup. I did:

aptitude install xubuntu-desktop
aptitude remove kubuntu-desktop

And that's the best thing I've ever done. Xubuntu is FAST. KDE4 is sh*t.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Xubuntu!!
by Dryhte on Mon 17th Nov 2008 07:17 UTC in reply to "Xubuntu!!"
Dryhte Member since:
2008-02-05

While I tend to like Xubuntu (and Xfce), there's one major problem it creates for me: I have loads of trouble connecting to windows shares.

Whereas Nautilus contains a samba client that seamlessly blends in with the rest of its functionality.

Reply Score: 2

Coclusion is flawed.
by lemur2 on Sun 16th Nov 2008 22:43 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

FTA:

Linux has come a long way, but it's not totally ready for the mom and pop folks, in my opinion. In the two days of testing, with two occasions it refused to load the graphic drivers and I could not enjoy Compiz. I found a tutorial which taught me how to modify xorg.conf to load XGL (I suspect that messing with the resolution of the second screen might have overwritten the xorg.conf file).


The "trial" of Ubuntu fails to compare Ubuntu under the same circumstances as OSX.

The "mom and pop" folks will get OSX pre-installed (and hence fully working) on a machine as they purchase it.

If one were to compare Ubuntu under the SAME circumstances ... that is to say, "mom and pop purchasing a machine with Ubuntu pre-installed and working" ... then none of the criticisms of the article apply.

Since the criticisms of Ubuntu in the article in the "ready for mom and pop folks" arena are all similarly flawed, and fail to consider Ubuntu from a "pre-installed on the machine" perspective, I'd suggest that the article's conclusions are based on an invalid comparison premise and hence incorrect.

Edited 2008-11-16 22:44 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Annoying
by Jo Boo on Mon 17th Nov 2008 00:00 UTC
Jo Boo
Member since:
2006-01-06

I find it annoying that author assumes someone would only not want a Mac if they can't afford it or don't do multimedia work.

I don't want a Mac because and extra $1500 for an OS is absolutely ridiculous to me.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Annoying
by vikramsharma on Mon 17th Nov 2008 01:06 UTC in reply to "Annoying"
vikramsharma Member since:
2005-07-06

Not all macs are an extra 1500 dollars and thats quite a bit of exaggeration. Apple is selling hardware not software (by software I mean OS X), Apple wouldn't care if you used linux as the main os on your mac. It's a myth that Apples are expensive, compare them to any other brand say SONY, Panasonic, Dell, Lenovo, HP etc the prices are comparable; comparing the cost of an Apple Computer to an assembled computer is not fair. Why don't people do the same for other computer companies as well. Btw the new MacBook, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro are using DDR3 RAM have a good graphics card some even having two, and aren't that expensive either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Annoying
by Jo Boo on Mon 17th Nov 2008 01:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Annoying"
Jo Boo Member since:
2006-01-06

http://shopping.dallasnews.com/ROP/ads.aspx?advid=2519&adid=7203272...
vs
http://shop1.frys.com/product/5759432?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

More memory.Same hard drive space. Slightly larger screen. Webcam. $1400 more. Sure, they're not all that much of a price difference, but the one I would buy would be.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Annoying
by jokkel on Mon 17th Nov 2008 10:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Annoying"
jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

Well the first link is broken so I can't relly see what you want to compare the MacBook Pro to. People often forget comparing size, battery life and weight. Macs normally are superior in these categories.
Add to that, that the Mac comes with an illuminated keyboard, Firewire 800, a full metal body instead of plastic, and the clever MagSafe powerbrick.

Comparing included software is harder. But Mac OS X is certainly not Vista Home, but more like Ultimate. The iLife media creation suite is a very competitive package included with every Mac. Yes, software is worth something too.

But when one considers extended warranties Apple ususally is more expensive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Annoying
by NxStY on Mon 17th Nov 2008 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Annoying"
NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

Those laptops are very different. They aren't even based on the same CPU (AMD Turion vs. Core 2). You wont get a laptop with similar specs to a MB Pro for less than $1400 - $1500 but then you wouldn't get OSX, the famous aluminium casing and probably not the other features the MB Pro has (geforce 9600, great battery time, lightweight etc.).

Reply Score: 2

hardly surprising review.
by stabbyjones on Mon 17th Nov 2008 00:55 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

Ends exactly the same as every other ubuntu review. "not ready, not ready, not ready."

Is there a template that these people follow?

Lately since Lenny has been frozen i thought i'd try other distro's on one of my laptops just to play around with 2.6.27 that came default instead of installed by me.

i've tried mandriva gnome/kde4, ubuntu and suse kde4 and none of these distro's are difficult. in fact i think there is too much done for me.

If these distros come pre-installed nobody would have any more trouble than with windows. Hell i install Debian on every pc i get my hands on and my grandma uses lenny almost every day. set and forget.

I also find it's much more satisfying to help a developer drink than to pay an OS tax ;)

Reply Score: 3

circlomanen
Member since:
2008-11-02

Time after time humanity chooses the least good alternative. SACD won over DVD-A, VHS won over betamax, X86 won over Sparc/Mips/PPC and so forth....
"mainstream adoption" is just a sign that the product is cheap and to simple, really low quality.
I want Linux to be a high quality product. Nasa, Pixar, US navy and NSA doesn't use Linux because it is adopted by th large masses. They use it because it is open source, high quality and stable. That is what counts. You want mainstream - buy Vista.

Reply Score: 2

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22


"mainstream adoption" is just a sign that the product is cheap and to simple, really low quality.


Certainly superior technology is no guarantee that a product will win in the market place. My first experience of PCs was Win 3.1 on 386s then a colleague showed me his Acorn which was obviously superior, but Windows is ubiquitous and Acorns are no where.

However, its wrong to suggest MS is dominant because its products are crap. Things are much more complicated than that. It is the case that for a product to survive it must have a viable base (wasn't Acorn dominant in the music industry for a while).

Linux needs a viable mind share which is why the desktop is significant. In Biology there is the competitive exclusion principle, which states that if two organisms compete for the same niche then one will be illiminated from the niche.

I think this is a fair analogy with computers - Linux is undergoing rapid adaptive radiation and occupying new niches in some it will survive in some it wont. How that pans out is hard to predict, taking another Biological analogy.

The technically advanced saber toothed cats have gone, as have the mega herbivores and the dominant mammal on the plant is a gracile, neotenous bipedal ape with out large teeth big muscles but the unlikely adaptation of a large inefficient brain now who could have guessed that?

Ms is dominant because its software successfully occupies niches in the market. The quality of its software is only one variable amongst many, it certainly doesn't occupy those niches because its software is crap.

Edited 2008-11-17 08:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Neither SACD nor DVD-Audio displaced regular CDs. Our best bet for HD audio is Blu-ray.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Traumflug
by Traumflug on Mon 17th Nov 2008 08:37 UTC
Traumflug
Member since:
2008-05-22

Nice to see each review of this sort is counting Ubuntu closer and closer to Mac OS X. Very obviously it's only a matter of time until advantages of Ubuntu & friends appear which a Mac can't match. I've spotted some of them already:

- Ubuntu's application store. Unlike a Mac, you can install as many apps as you want, for tryout, for long-term usage, all for free. No need to download custom installers or to read installation howtos and if you clean up after finding your favorite, no cruft is left, the system is kept tidy. Ubuntu developers take care installer/packages do their work as expected.

- Ubuntu's bug tracking and fixing system. I know, there's much discussion about how they could do better, but did you ever try to get a glitch fixed in Mac OS X? Be assured, there are glitches. If you're hit by them, you're almost left alone.

Good luck in finding a channel to even report the bug. If you've found it (bugreporter.apple.com), good luck in getting the bug fixed. Discussions about the flaws are held to a really minimum, all bug reports are top secret and don't even consider doing more serious debugging or even fixing: Apple won't let you.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Traumflug
by apoclypse on Mon 17th Nov 2008 16:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Traumflug"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

This is true. OSX 10.5.2 had a pretty severe bug where the system would create a kernel panic when you connected a Firewire audio interface. It was a known issue and Apple did not acknowledge the issue until after evry hardware manufacturer pretty much pointed at Apple and said it was their fault (which it was). Ofcourse with 10.5.3 the issue went away and Apple neatly covered it up and only threw out a on-liner in the changelog. Apple has a history of not acknowledging issues with their OS and quietly fixing them and sweeping the damage under the rug.

When there are issue with Ubuntu(or any oher Linux) you can rest assured that there will be plenty of resources (and general whining) in forums, bug lists, and workaround tutorials.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Traumflug
by DavidSan on Tue 18th Nov 2008 00:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by Traumflug"
DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

Sadly that is not absolutely true.

Installing applications in Ubuntu is easy using the Manager. However, uninstalling it is not.

Many library dependencies and files are left in places you are not even imagining. The same happens with preferences.

Besides, all Linux applications seem to have an installing process. Other OSes do not have that.

And the manager does not keep only high quality apps. You can find lots of trash there and beta programs with no maintenance.

Reply Score: 1

hmm
by solarcontrol on Mon 17th Nov 2008 14:25 UTC
solarcontrol
Member since:
2008-11-17

I don't see "mom and pop" using Mac all that much anyway.

The reason (aside from cost) that most people use windows is that it's historically more intuitive and noob-friendly than Mac.

From a mom and pop perspective, I think Linux is better than Mac.
It's just as intuitive, does all the things the avg home user needs, runs on cheap(er) PCs, and it's free.

Reply Score: 1

RE: hmm
by Johann Chua on Mon 17th Nov 2008 20:23 UTC in reply to "hmm"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

The reason (aside from cost) that most people use windows is that it's historically more intuitive and noob-friendly than Mac.


Seriously? Cost has been the main reason Windows PCs were more popular. Macs are way more intuitive. I say this as someone who used Macs before getting an IBM with Windows 3.11 at home.

Reply Score: 2

Good job
by roger64 on Mon 17th Nov 2008 14:34 UTC
roger64
Member since:
2006-08-15

I think the reviewer did a rather good job. I am a two years full time Ubuntu user and I must confess that after two days I was much less advanced that he was.

So I congratulate him for his expertise. Other remarks are less convincing. I don't buy a Mac (I could indeed) only because I do not want to be the prisoner of a greedy brand.

It seems to me that to switch OS, the average user need a lot more than two days...I would say some weeks, with a somewhat "mixed" period when both OSes are used simultaneously in variable proportions.

I also congratulate him for his juvenile enthusiasm for every shining product of Apple. I am happy for him even if it makes me smile.

But OK, that's was a fair review.

Reply Score: 1

A couple of points...
by apoclypse on Mon 17th Nov 2008 17:13 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

My thing about hte article is that you can tell that the person isn;t rely all that versed in Linux(or in this case Ubuntu). First of all why did he go with Picasa instead of comparing the already included by default F-Spot as a photo manager. He also mentioned quicksilver, but i guess he ddn;t know about tracker and the Deskbar, which are also included by default in Ubuntu. Other than that I think he makes a couple of valid points and I hpe to see another when the next version of Ubuntu is released. I do agree with the author that package management in Linux (especially Ubuntu. Just say no to PackageKit!) is a dream come true.

Reply Score: 2

Linux (fedora/redhat) is ready.
by Zyyx on Mon 17th Nov 2008 19:05 UTC
Zyyx
Member since:
2008-10-23

My mom has been using linux (Fedora) for approximately 5 years now. She scans documents, produces family photo albums, uses yahoo email, works in open office (writer), browses the web, watches youtube, listens to cds, changes her desktop background and a host of other typical user stuff. She doesnt run Compiz (who needs to its eye candy with little to no functionality maybe in the future this will change). Shes 68. She never touched a computer until her mid to late 40s. She is anything but a "tech head". Shes the typical mom/grandmother. I can count quite literally the number of times I have needed to help her with her machine on one hand in the past 3 years. This of course does not count upgrading her system although Im convinced she could do that as well. Fedora at least has been ready for the public for many many years. Linux in general has as well. Those who think otherwise have obviously not given it an apples and apples comparison with what real average users do on their computers.

Reply Score: 3

being fair
by backdoc on Mon 17th Nov 2008 20:05 UTC
backdoc
Member since:
2006-01-14

If Linux had the same luxury that Apple has with only supporting a finite set of hardware, it too would work out-of-the-box 100% of the time. But, it has to support every conceivable hardware configuration. Not only that, but there is the issue of non-free and closed source drivers.

The experience is what it is -- but, some inconveniences are justifiable.

Reply Score: 4

yeah
by csynt on Mon 17th Nov 2008 22:51 UTC
csynt
Member since:
2006-03-19

I did the same thing (from osx-> ubuntu) last week.
OS X started to pissed me off.

The difference between me and that guy is that I have a G4 Ibook (1.2Ghz). I did some attemtps (to go to ppcLinux) at the past, tried almost every ppcLinux distro, but faced a lot of problems (for exapmple wifi/sound/pmu)...

I am suppriced that the latest updates of the 8.04 and the 8.10 (I suppose) are JUST stable and works with my Ibook as I want.

I even could sync my Symbian S60 (Nokia 6110) contacts and calendar with evolution.

The only things that I cannot do (but I don't care so much) are:

no SKYPE (there is only for x86 Linux)
no Flash on webpages , and I cannot read PDF 1.7 documents (this a major issue for me, but I only have 2-3 pdf like them and I may convert them to TIFF).

Reply Score: 1

RE: yeah
by h3rman on Tue 18th Nov 2008 20:00 UTC in reply to "yeah"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

I did the same thing (from osx-> ubuntu) last week.
OS X started to pissed me off.

The difference between me and that guy is that I have a G4 Ibook (1.2Ghz). I did some attemtps (to go to ppcLinux) at the past, tried almost every ppcLinux distro, but faced a lot of problems (for exapmple wifi/sound/pmu)...


For me that was a reason to just sell the iBook to an Apple fan. I really liked the machine but in the end I prefer Linux on x86. You might still get at least €350 for it. :-)

Reply Score: 2

Stuck with Apple?
by perspectoff on Wed 19th Nov 2008 00:13 UTC
perspectoff
Member since:
2008-11-06

Ummm, OS X is BDSUnix mixed with Next features.

Many of the programs on Apple OS X started as *nix programs.

Did you know Safari started as KDE's Konqueror?

There are a tremendous number of similarities of OS X to Linux.

I find OS X no more intuitive than Kubuntu Linux.

Yes, Apple controls the hardware -- you can only use specific expensive hardware for OS X.

But if you pay attention to hardware compatibility for Linux, you will have the same experience. In fact, there are more drivers in the Linux world than in the OS X world.

We asked a consultant what hardware to use for our business. His estimate for an Apple shop made me choke -- it was a huge amount compared to PCs with Linux (even with carefully chosen components).

Turns out that starting with Kubuntu Hardy Heron, we had very little hardware problems.

One day i went into Circuit City and asked about buying a Toshiba laptop. I mentioned to the clerk that I was a Linux user.

"Linux won't run on that laptop -- there are no drivers for it."

Boy was he wrong! Kubuntu loaded completely and without intervention on the laptop with only one driver (Madwifi Atheros Wireless card driver) needing manual install.

The problem is people have pre-conceived notions.

The laptop had Windows Vista pre-installed. turns out I couldn't find several drivers for pieces of equipment I use with it, and many old programs were only compatible with Windows XP.

Guess what I use on that laptop? Kubuntu.

So how much did this laptop cost me? On sale $369.

Apple iBook? Cheapest is $599.

And none of my old programs run on Apple without a lot of fiddling and tweaking.

Reply Score: 2

Im psychic
by computrius on Wed 19th Nov 2008 13:37 UTC
computrius
Member since:
2006-03-26

Before reading any of this article I closed my eyes and said "Even though ubuntu has come a long way its still not ready for the average user.".

Guess what one of the last lines was. Its either because im psychic or because EVERY frigging linux review ends the same way.

Reply Score: 2