Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 17th Mar 2007 00:26 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu During my 8 years of Linux on and off usage I have tried more distros than I have chocolate bars. Each one of my previous encounters meant that I had to spend at least 2 days configuring before I have a desktop that I was somewhat comfortable with. With Ubuntu Feisty Fawn's latest test beta --for the first time ever-- this was not the case. I was up and running with all the niceties I wanted within 2 hours.
Thread beginning with comment 222163
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Much Better?
by christianhgross on Sat 17th Mar 2007 07:12 UTC
christianhgross
Member since:
2005-11-15

I use Ubuntu myself and do like it quite a bit. But the article did stretch things a bit. Here is what the article ends with.

"Ubuntu is a distro that obviously has paid attention to detail (and everyone who knows me from my past writings knows how much I can bitch about "defaults" and "details") and has found a good middle ground between hard core Linux users and new users from the Windows/OSX land."

Yet the article starts with.

"There was a problem though and X11 would crash on load -- and the graphical safe mode would not work either (confirmed bug). The 915resolution hack was not needed for my Intel graphics card, but I needed to have more information for my laptop's LCD. By manually entering the vertical and horizontal sync in the xorg.conf file it fixed the problem for my 1440x900 screen and I was able to load the LiveCD and finally install Feisty on the hard drive."

Sure this is a beta, but if a new user from Windows or OSX has to start twiddling with an xorg.conf file there is a problem. Again not knocking Ubuntu because I personally have never had problems with drivers. Though I also recognize as nice as Ubuntu is, there is still a long way to go as a desktop operating system. This is not the fault of Ubuntu, but the fact that nobody is producing commercial for purchase software for Linux.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Much Better?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 07:36 in reply to "Much Better?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{Sure this is a beta, but if a new user from Windows or OSX has to start twiddling with an xorg.conf file there is a problem.}

You can't be serious.

A new install of Windows is likely to be 640x480 VGA 16 colours no 3D, because Windows doesn't have the video card driver at all. You have to find the CD that comes with your video card to get a driver. More than likely that will be an XP (or older) driver that doesn't work with Vista, so forget about upgrades.

OSX won't run at all with the vast majority of desktop hardware out there.

Linux is immeasurably better than both Windows and OSX at a new install for the significant majority of desktop hardware.

Edited 2007-03-17 07:42

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Much Better?
by henrikmk on Sat 17th Mar 2007 07:55 in reply to "RE: Much Better?"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

You can't be serious.

A new install of Windows is likely to be 640x480 VGA 16 colours no 3D, because Windows doesn't have the video card driver at all. You have to find the CD that comes with your video card to get a driver. More than likely that will be an XP (or older) driver that doesn't work with Vista, so forget about upgrades.


Well, this doesn't have much to do with fiddling with complex config files, does it? It is, in fact, easier for the end user to grab a CD with a driver and click Next a few times in the installer dialog box, than it is to learn the syntax and read manuals on how to change X.org configuration.
And yes, I've seen X.org's on consumer machines that magically stop working, stop with a blinking cursor at a console after reboot due to a configuration error during an upgrade, rendering the machine useless. The user has absolutely no idea how to fix this, other than to reinstall the whole thing. In Windows, at least you can still point and click. :-)

But this wouldn't have to be a problem if the complexity and fragility of X.org was completely removed and replaced with a simpler and much more robust graphics system.
Something that is guaranteed to start up in graphics mode, even when all options fail, so users at least see something familiar. 99% of consumers do not require the nifty networking features of X.org to do work.
It seems that even after so many years of work developing X, it's still possible and relatively easy to screw up configuration in ways that are unique to X.

Edited 2007-03-17 07:57

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Much Better?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 17th Mar 2007 16:38 in reply to "RE: Much Better?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"A new install of Windows is likely to be 640x480 VGA 16 colours no 3D, because Windows doesn't have the video card driver at all. You have to find the CD that comes with your video card to get a driver. More than likely that will be an XP (or older) driver that doesn't work with Vista, so forget about upgrades."

It's been years since I have seen that behaviour, seeing as radeon and Nvidia drivers come with Vista and XP, and you don't need to find the CD if it does happen, because Windows update will have drivers, or you can download them from the manufacturer's website

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Much Better?
by kristoph on Sat 17th Mar 2007 16:47 in reply to "RE: Much Better?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

You can't be serious.

I think the comment is a fair one. In Windows XP you can at least install the OS before you hunt for a driver that you then install graphically. In most cases, if you know who made your card, you can be a general novice and do this.
Eugenia had to hack config files before she could install the OS which means she had to know which config file and how to hack it. That's _way_ beyond 99% of home users.
So having said that, in general, and let's be honest here ... Ubuntu may be ready for the average user, once configured, but it is far beyond the average user to install and configure.
]{

Reply Parent Score: 3