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 222195
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What?
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:09 UTC
ride01
Member since:
2005-09-23

I am still just dumbfounded that someone could actually claim that Ubuntu is somehow easier to install AND more likely to support hardware than Windows XP/Vista.

I read OSnews.com every day. I do this because I am interested in operating systems.

I am not obsessed with Microsoft in any way. I actually prefer the user experience of BeOS and the various Apple operating systems.

However, to claim that Linux is "easier" to deal with than Windows Xp/Vista is just intellectually dishonest in every way.

If you want to be a Linux evangelist, talk about security, servers, or attempt to explain some kind of open source philosophy.

Just be honest, please. If you lie, people will not listen to you.

Reply Score: 4

RE: What?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:31 in reply to "What?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{ I am still just dumbfounded that someone could actually claim that Ubuntu is somehow easier to install AND more likely to support hardware than Windows XP/Vista.

...

However, to claim that Linux is "easier" to deal with than Windows Xp/Vista is just intellectually dishonest in every way.
}

Not at all. I have installed both OSes onto blank systems many many times.

Invariably the Windows install is far far more difficult ... even just for the bare OS install.

With a recent Linux liveCD install (such as PCLinuxOS, MEPIS or Ubuntu/Kubuntu) it takes just one (1) liveCD and perhaps 30 minutes, and you end up with a complete system plus desktop applications such as an Office suite (and it does not depend on the particular x86 system you have).

To get to the same state starting with the exact same blank system and a Windows install CD ... it will take far longer, it will require entry of many keys, several reboots and "activation" ... and you will need a lot of additional third-party CDs that are not from Microsoft, and many of them will be specific to the computer you are trying to install on. And after all that fuss you will still not have hardly any actual applications installed for all your effort.

Point out even one (1) incorrect fact in the above and you will win the prize.

Installing Linux (from nothing) is far, far easier than Windows. There is simply no question about it.

Edited 2007-03-17 11:39

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: What?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:07 in reply to "RE: What?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Perhaps replying to myself is a bit strange, but I have been accused of lying and intellectual dishonesty here, and I object strongly to that.

So, to back up what I am saying, here is a complete set of screenshots from an Ubuntu Edgy Eft install to hard disk from a liveCD:

http://www.debianadmin.com/ubuntu-edgy-eft-desktop-installation-wit...

If you have a blank system, you do not even have to worry about partitioning ... just accept the default (as you would for Windows install on a blank system).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: What?
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 13:43 in reply to "RE: What?"
ride01 Member since:
2005-09-23

Invariably the Windows install is far far more difficult ... even just for the bare OS install.
With a recent Linux liveCD install ... it takes just one liveCD and perhaps 30 minutes..


Installation time is the same.

To get to the same state starting with the exact same blank system and a Windows install CD ... it will require entry of many keys

Windows requires only one key.

several reboots

You can get free operating system updates if you choose to. This is also true of every other OS, including Linux. Doing this is incredibly easy.

and "activation" ...

If connected to the internet, this occurs automatically when you enter your key. If not connected, you may have to call a free 1-800 number. This could be seen as an annoyance.

However, it is not "difficult" to do this. The GUI tells you exactly what to do. Activation could be seen as annoying, but not difficult.

plus desktop applications ... Office suite

The only application you mentioned was an Office Suite. OpenOffice is very easy to download for Windows if one chooses to. I typed "free office" into Google and got this: http://tinyurl.com/3xya55

More importantly, if one chooses to purchase and install Microsoft Office, this as an incredibly easy process as well.

It is almost always far more difficult to seek out and install software on Linux than it is on Windows.

and you will need a lot of additional third-party CDs that are not from Microsoft

Why?

and many of them will be specific to the computer you are trying to install on.

I'm not sure I understand this. I think I once bought a CD drive that came with a free OEM copy of Nero, though. ;)

And after all that fuss you will still not have hardly any actual applications installed for all your effort.

I didn't see any "fuss" noted, save the entering of a single CD key. You will have a very good email program, internet browser, MP3-enabled audio player, video player, and many, many other programs needed for normal computer use.

Your computer will "just work", as well. You will be able to do simple OPERATING SYSTEM tasks such as changing your monitor's resolution and refresh rate. You will be able to listen to MP3's, your network/wifi will work, and video card hardware acceleration will work.

Linux is just more difficult to get working than Windows. Because I make this statement, does NOT mean that I think "Linux sucks" or even that "Windows is better". I LIKE Linux, and I want it to progress. It has progressed EXPONENTIALLY in just the last few years.

Edited 2007-03-17 13:52

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: What?
by oomingmak on Sat 17th Mar 2007 15:40 in reply to "RE: What?"
oomingmak Member since:
2006-09-22

"Invariably the Windows install is far far more difficult ... even just for the bare OS install."

I agree (and that's coming from a Windows user).

While Linux distos aimed at desktop users do still have many problems and annoyances, installation is certainly not one of them, and it has now reached the point where it is easier to install Linux than it is Windows (for default installations at least).

The one area that I personally do find lacking is the section for specifying mount points. This could be made much more user friendly and intelligible, because even Linux beginners sometimes want to specify what goes where (to be sure that existing data does not get touched).

But other than that, I'd say they have the installation problem pretty much licked.

Edited 2007-03-17 15:46

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

I am sorry lemur2 but I have to disagree (and agree with the parent). I also have experience with installing Windows 2000 / XP, Linux (Slackware / RHEL / Ubuntu), and Max OS X.
Needless to say Mac OS X is by far the easiest. Windows 2000 / XP is much easier on random hardware than Linux. Linux is fine if all your hardware is supported by the distro 'out of the box' but if it's not the process of installing an configuring Linux is MUCH harder than Windows 2000 / XP.
]{

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: What?
by rtfa on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:38 in reply to "What?"
rtfa Member since:
2006-02-27

"I am still just dumbfounded that someone could actually claim that Ubuntu is somehow easier to install AND more likely to support hardware than Windows XP/Vista." perhaps try a little more research and then try to comprehend what they are saying. You not read any reports in the press about a lack of drivers for Vista???? I never have to insert a manufacturors disk with drivers into Linux - it just works.

"However, to claim that Linux is "easier" to deal with than Windows Xp/Vista is just intellectually dishonest in every way." - No virus/malware/registry, no reinstallation of drivers/apps/OS to cure problems - perhaps you are the one with the issue as you don;t know enough about Linux/Windows to comment.
I have to show people how to reinstall drivers in windows when their printing suddenly stops (HP drivers on XP) to save me regular trips for support.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: What?
by superstoned on Sat 17th Mar 2007 13:08 in reply to "RE: What?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Offtopic: just stop supporting windows. It's a waste of time, and you're just holding linux back by solving the problems MS has created!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: What?
by NxStY on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:40 in reply to "What?"
NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

I have some relatives that have absolutely no clue about computers. I can't remember how many times I've had to get over there to fix their computer, git rid of some virus/spyware/adware, update windows, fix some problem or even reinstall. That was until last time when I just installed ubuntu instead and they've been quiet since.

Yes, windows is more difficult than modern Linux distributions simply because there is so much maintance work. Especially since you also have to deal with antivirus, firewalls etc. Ubuntu basically handles itself.

And for the drivers, since most drivers are open source you get tyhem with the distribution rather than having to use a bunch of CDs from the vendors. Kind of difficult for a person who doesn't even know what a driver is.

If it wasn't for the not perfect hardware support and problems with proprietary drivers and codecs, that might require manual tweaking, Windows wouldn't have any usability advantages over Linux. And at least the later problem is already solved in feisty.

Edited 2007-03-17 12:43

Reply Parent Score: 5