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 222164
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Much Better?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 07:36 UTC 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[3]: Much Better? / BulletProofX
by ubit on Sat 17th Mar 2007 08:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Much Better?"
ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

BTW, does anyone know if BulletProofX is still going into Feisty? https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu shows the status as "unknown". It's understandable if they don't do it because of Xorg 7.3 coming soon though, just like they're waiting on 7.3 before including any graphic X configuration tools.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Much Better?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Much Better?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{ 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. }

You must compare apples with apples. In this case, you are talking about an ordinary user installing the OS. Most ordinary users trying to install Windows wouldn't know that they had to put in the driver CD for a video card, they wouldn't even know that default 640x480x16 wasn't the best resolution that their computer was capable of. Even if they did know about it all, they wouldn't be able to find the CD that came with the video card, and they probably wouldn't even know that the computer even had a video card.

Windows out-of-the-box will fail to install some drivers for most hardware configurations. Most drivers for Windows aren't written by Microsoft. Most users would be unable to rectify such an installation problem, and they are almost certainly guaranteed to encounter one.

On the other hand, Linux will install correctly at the correct resolution for most hardware. It is only the odd configuration that has a problem, and Linux can use the Vesa-modes fall-back just as easily as Windows can.

Finally, many Linux distributions offer a live CD version. You can boot the live CD, and tell instantly if Linux has drivers for all your hardware, even before you try to install. There is nothing like this sort of ease-of-install available for Windows.

Linux is easily miles ahead of Windows when it comes to ease-of-install.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[3]: Much Better?
by lemur2 on Sun 18th Mar 2007 01:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Much Better?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{{"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}}

Windows will not recognise your video card correctly out-of-the-box if either: (1) your video card was made after the install CD image for your version of Windows was made, or (2) your video card ceased production before the install CD image for your version of Windows was made.

I personally have three or four video cards that have had to be scrapped for no other reason than video drivers were no longer available for Windows, because the card was out of production (this was before I discovered how easy Linux was to install).

Yes, if your situation is category (1), you can typically go on-line and get drivers, but that is the very thing that Windows fanboys like to try to bash Linux about. If your situation is case (2), you are out of luck with Windows, and your only option is to install Linux. Mac OSX won't work at all if your hardware isn't Mac.

Reply Parent Score: 5

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