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 222308
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: What?
by unoengborg on Sat 17th Mar 2007 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What?"
Member since:

I think installation is hard for any OS when the hardware isn't supported by the installation media.
I would say that windows would be harder than most in this situation.

The reason why MacOS-X is easy to install. Apple controls the hardware, so you are at least very likely to get the installed system to boot right away.

Linux supports more devices out of the box than any version of Windows, so statistically, installation on Linux should be easier on random hardware.

However, Linux usually have difficulties with brand new hardware as drivers are often developed after that the device have hit the market due to lack of information from the hardware vendor.

So if you "randomly" select your hardware from new devices you may be right, in that, Linux is harder to install. On the other hand, if you buy a new PC, then why not buy hardware that you know works.

When you judge what OS is the most difficult to get installed, you also have to factor in at what software that actually gets installed. In windows you end up with notepad and paint. In Linux you usually end up with a full office suit, a fairly good image editor and if you check a check box or two more, over the default install, you will also have a mail server, and a very good enterprise level database.

Reply Parent Score: 3