Linked by Shahar Weiss on Thu 1st Mar 2007 18:58 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu I've been an Arch user for roughly 3 years. I'm pretty much familiar with it all - The way it boots, its configuration and its package management. I've also heard a lot of good things about Ubuntu, and wanted to try it for a long time. So, two weeks ago, I took the plunge. These are my findings.
Thread beginning with comment 217788
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by SEJeff on Thu 1st Mar 2007 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch"
Member since:

You might try Ubuntu again when Feisty is released. By default, when Feisty attempts to play an audio file it doesn't have codecs for, it searches for and displays the package needed for the proper codec. Not only that, after the package is installed, it restarts the media.

The magic part is that is works and works well. Here is a few pictures of the process:

When you install windows, it does not come with flash or java. As a matter of fact (unless your OEM pre-installs them), you have to install them after the fact.

In Ubuntu, firefox will prompt if you want to install java or flash and it seems to work fine. Also, you can install both from the repositories using synaptic or apt (the command line) very easily.

My computer ignorant parents seemed to have 0 problems switching from Windows XP to gnome. The only real issue is that my father needed to be taught how to resize images in the gimp.

So there, everything you said has been debunked by someone who actually uses the system.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by wooptoo on Fri 2nd Mar 2007 13:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu vs. Arch"
wooptoo Member since:

The only real issue is that my father needed to be taught how to resize images in the gimp.

I suggest gthumb (image viewer) which has some basic/simpler image manipulation options built-in.

Edited 2007-03-02 13:53

Reply Parent Score: 2