Linked by David Adams on Thu 29th Sep 2011 23:47 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Linux Linux is struggling on the desktop because it only has a small number of "great" apps, according to the Gnome co-creator. Miguel de Icaza, co-creator of the Gnome desktop, told tech journalist Tim Anderson at the recent Windows 8 Build conference "When you count how many great desktop apps there are on Linux, you can probably name 10," de Icaza said, according to a post on Anderson's IT Writing blog. "You work really hard, you can probably name 20. We've managed to p*** off developers every step of the way, breaking APIs all the time."
Thread beginning with comment 491715
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by stabbyjones
by lemur2 on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by stabbyjones"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

The last time you claimed this ... You actually posted evidence that said that Windows 7 was actually faster than Ubuntu at quite a few find (involving I/O)


Excuse me?

I know that for the current versions of Windows 7 and Kubuntu, Kubuntu is quite a bit faster than Windows 7, because I run the both on the same machine for one of my machines.

Laughably, on one occasion Windows 7 took over an hour to boot to a usable desktop. The default browser, IE9, is the next-to-slowest of the pack (I have replaced it with Firefox 7 insofar as it can be removed).

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-7-web-browser,3037-17.h...

Windows 7 came with a pathetic default text editor, and an horrendously slow Office Suite that turned out to be adware. Before I could use it comfortably and safely, I had to spend many hours setting up extra security software, removing the lamentable default Office suite offering, and installing Firefox 7, Thunderbird and LibreOffice.

As a user experience of desktop software, Kubuntu 11.04 won hands-down no contest in every comparison.

Edited 2011-10-03 22:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Excuse me?


Was a while ago ... but you ignored me once I pointed out you were wrong. Like you always do. Because you are too zealous to face facts.

Ubuntu 9.04 in the Link was actually slower than the Win 7 Beta (yes Beta ...).

I can't be bothered to find the post ... it was a while ago now.

I know that for the current versions of Windows 7 and Kubuntu, Kubuntu is quite a bit faster than Windows 7, because I run the both on the same machine for one of my machines.


You run Windows 7 on a horrendously slow machine. My cellphone is faster than your laptop.

When it comes to decent kit ... Windows 7 is faster than XP on new hardware.

Laughably, on one occasion Windows 7 took over an hour to boot to a usable desktop. The default browser, IE9, is the next-to-slowest of the pack (I have replaced it with Firefox 7 insofar as it can be removed).


Well I don't run a crapware laden version of Windows 7. I have a laptop from 2006 with a 1.2ghz processor and 1gb of ram ... and it boots up in 30 seconds.

Also I simply don't believe you, P3 from 1998 booting Win7 in a few minutes ... running latest chrome at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwa7vsyQw7o

Sorry comparing your obviously crapware laden piece of shit Win7 laptop to kubuntu isn't fair.



Browsers are soo fast now ... It honestly doesn't matter if you use any of the new browsers they are all fast.

Internet Explorer 9 is actually pretty decent from a reliablility point of view. I have odd crashes with the new Firefox and Chrome while using the web inspectors.

Windows 7 came with a pathetic default text editor


Yeah because that is all that matters </sarcasm> ... you know you can put "open Source Windows text editor" into google and find many decent websites.

The point is stupid. Win7 is a a whole OS.

You know there is GVIM, Notepad++, NotePad2, JEdit, Emacs (apparently there is a build of emacs for Windows ... promoting the use of a non-free OS very hypocritical by FSF.org) ... those are just off the top of my head.

and an horrendously slow Office Suite that turned out to be adware.


Don't buy crapware laden laptops ... I don't.

Before I could use it comfortably and safely, I had to spend many hours setting up extra security software, removing the lamentable default Office suite offering, and installing Firefox 7, Thunderbird and LibreOffice.


Again not my fault you bought a crap ware laden laptop.

I bought my dell by a local reseller that gave me a vanilla Windows install ... I had no such problems.

If you got a bad deal because you didn't do your research before that is your fault and not Microsoft's.

As a user experience of desktop software, Kubuntu 11.04 won hands-down no contest in every comparison


You are a zealot, you would have found a way to find yourself at that conclusion anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by stabbyjones
by lemur2 on Tue 4th Oct 2011 09:24 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by stabbyjones"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Excuse me?


Was a while ago ... but you ignored me once I pointed out you were wrong. Like you always do. Because you are too zealous to face facts.

Ubuntu 9.04 in the Link was actually slower than the Win 7 Beta (yes Beta ...).

I can't be bothered to find the post ... it was a while ago now.
"

You've lost the plot entirely. You've gone bonkers. You are making it up.

" I know that for the current versions of Windows 7 and Kubuntu, Kubuntu is quite a bit faster than Windows 7, because I run the both on the same machine for one of my machines.


You run Windows 7 on a horrendously slow machine. My cellphone is faster than your laptop.
"

Yep. Exactly the kind of machine needed to show up poor performance, because it isn't masked by a very fast but expensive, power-hungry CPU.

When it comes to decent kit ... Windows 7 is faster than XP on new hardware.


Hilarious.

" Laughably, on one occasion Windows 7 took over an hour to boot to a usable desktop. The default browser, IE9, is the next-to-slowest of the pack (I have replaced it with Firefox 7 insofar as it can be removed).


Well I don't run a crapware laden version of Windows 7. I have a laptop from 2006 with a 1.2ghz processor and 1gb of ram ... and it boots up in 30 seconds.
"

The software on this machine is, essentially, Windows 7, MS Office 2010, IE9 and MSE. I agree this machine isn't really suited to run crapware like that.

Also I simply don't believe you, P3 from 1998 booting Win7 in a few minutes ... running latest chrome at the time.


I said that Windows 7 took over an hour to boot on one occasion. This was when it had to do updates, it wouldn't let anyone log on to the desktop for over an hour. It displayed a "please do not turn off" message for the whole time.

Normally, as you say, the machine can boot to a usable Windows 7 desktop in two to three minutes. It certainly doesn't have to do updates all the time. Mind you, the Kubuntu OS on the same machine also updates, but it has never taken longer than about 35 seconds to boot to a useable desktop. Often it is less than 25 seconds.

Sorry comparing your obviously crapware laden piece of shit Win7 laptop to kubuntu isn't fair.


Why not? The crapware is Windows 7, IE9, MS Office 2010 and MSE, and the Kubuntu equivalents are Linux 3.0, Firefox 7, LibreOffice 3.4.3 and (not required).



Browsers are soo fast now ... It honestly doesn't matter if you use any of the new browsers they are all fast.
"

Not on my machine. On my machine, Firefox 7 is usable, and IE9 isn't.

Internet Explorer 9 is actually pretty decent from a reliablility point of view. I have odd crashes with the new Firefox and Chrome while using the web inspectors.


Anecdotes. Not credible.

" Windows 7 came with a pathetic default text editor


Yeah because that is all that matters ... you know you can put "open Source Windows text editor" into google and find many decent websites.
"

I thought you Windows fans were the ones always saying that "my time is worth something, I can't be wasting time setting up my OS"?

The point is stupid. Win7 is a a whole OS.


I am comparing what came with each OS after installation on my machine, without requiring me to invest setup time. (If you want to count the time it took me to install Kubuntu itself from a LiveCD, then I will point out that you must also count the time it took to install MSE for Windows 7).

You know there is GVIM, Notepad++, NotePad2, JEdit, Emacs (apparently there is a build of emacs for Windows ... promoting the use of a non-free OS very hypocritical by FSF.org) ... those are just off the top of my head.


Is your time worth nothing?

Those programs do nothing to add to the value proposition of Windows, because they are also available on Linux. Since they can be searched and installed in a few clicks on Linux via the package manager, if anything they count more towards Linux as they are much easier and quicker to find and install. Since Linux uses signed repositories and package managers, installing these programs on Linux carries no risk of trojan horse malware.

"and an horrendously slow Office Suite that turned out to be adware.


Don't buy crapware laden laptops ... I don't.
"

You don't use MS Office 2010?

" Before I could use it comfortably and safely, I had to spend many hours setting up extra security software, removing the lamentable default Office suite offering, and installing Firefox 7, Thunderbird and LibreOffice.


Again not my fault you bought a crap ware laden laptop.
"

It was all that was on offer. I didn't buy it, it was an award. Not to worry, even though it struggles with Microsoft crapware, it runs Kubuntu moderately well.

I bought my dell by a local reseller that gave me a vanilla Windows install ... I had no such problems.


Fair enough. Your more expensive machine was fast enough to mask the problems with Microsoft crapware. My inexpensive machine wasn't nearly as fast, and the Microsoft crapware was exposed for what it is. Your point? Perhaps you are trying to say that you have to pay more in order to run Windows tolerably well?

Yep. That is what I am saying, also. Much more.

If you got a bad deal because you didn't do your research before that is your fault and not Microsoft's.


As i said, it was all that was on offer, it was a reward so I didn't buy it, and I am happy that it can run Kubuntu tolerably well. I have ended up with a level of functionality and performance that would have cost more than twice as much, possibly as much as three times, to get to the same level using Windows 7 and MS crapware, as you call it.

" As a user experience of desktop software, Kubuntu 11.04 won hands-down no contest in every comparison


You are a zealot, you would have found a way to find yourself at that conclusion anyway.
"

My but you are confused. Why don't you try to find a description, somewhere, of what "value for money" actually means, you lying-for-Microsoft zealot.

Edited 2011-10-04 09:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2