Vista Vs. Gutsy Gibbon

ricegf writes in with the account of one Rupert Goodwins writing in ZDNet UK. Goodwins has 7 computers running various versions of Windows and Linux, and explains why he chooses to do most of his work on the Gibbon. "So here's the funny thing. I've used Windows since 1.0. I've lived through the bad times of Windows/386 and ME, and the good times of NT 3.51 and 2K. I know XP if not backwards, then with a degree of familiarity that only middle-aged co-dependents can afford each other... Then how come I'm so much more at home with Ubuntu than Vista? It boils down to one abiding impression: Ubuntu goes out of its way to get out of your way... Vista goes out of its way to be Vista and enforce the Vista way."

I agree

[LinuxGeek (6139)]

My laptop came with Vista and installed Ubuntu right after purchase. I use Ubuntu much more than my legally purchased windows copy, probably about 10:1 in favor of linux because vista pops up dialog boxes for way too much stuff. For instance, every boot creates about 10 dialog boxes that need to be confirmed. My cpu monitoring app, norton antivirus, etc... all have to be given permission to run, it really pisses me off. I haven't found a way to give permanent permission to those apps without turning UAE off, which strips out some very necessary protection. FU Microsoft.

Re:I agree

[by Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon getting out of your way to let you work: $0

Windows Vista video ad playing under a slashdot article favouring Linux over Windows: Priceless

There's an ad?

[Gr8Apes (679165)]

Darn Firefox plugins, I missed a classic bit of irony

Aside

[IthnkImParanoid (410494)]

In my experience there's really no reason to run Norton antivirus, unless you enjoy giving your operating system the equivalent of 300 pound cell mate named Bubba. Between Avast!, AVG, Clamwin, Panda, and any other free antivirus software out there, there's got to be something to replace Norton.

Re:Aside

[mstahl (701501)]

Agreed. I used to have a job cleaning viruses and spyware and such off of students' laptops at a university campus, which gave me a lot of insight into what not to buy and which AV programs not to trust. There were soooooooooooo many students, faculty, and staff who had entrusted their box entirely to Norton, and it was just an epic fail every single time—even when it was fully up-to-date. The whole of the entire computer security industry would be in Defcon 4 about some virus that'd been out for a week and Norton would still be on its smoke break. Weak.

Between Avast!, AVG, Clamwin, Panda, and any other free antivirus software out there, there's got to be something to replace Norton.

"Avast!"? Sounds awesome, if a touch nautical.... What struck me the most when I was working at Resnet was how many free programs there were that were extremely effective (especially if used together), almost always catching files that Norton missed entirely. Side note: it's really scary that a lot of these antivirus programs were web-based, and somehow Windows is perfectly okay having web applications that are capable of deleting files, analyzing the content of local files, accessing the registry.... Really scary. Way to go on that security model thing, Microsoft!

Re:I agree

[Miltazar (1100457)]

This is definitely not a popular opinion around here but here goes. I've used Vista, along with every other Windows OS ever to haunt our doorstep. I've also used many Linux distro's including Ubuntu Gutsy, Debian(personal preference of the Linux variety), Gentoo, Fedora, Redhat, CentOS, etc. I've been using Vista both at work and at home for about half a year now, and I have absolutely no problem with it.

Despite all the talk of new user friendliness with Ubuntu Gutsy I've yet to see it. My MXL USB Mic doesn't just work when I plug it in. I have to fiddle around with settings for a while. At work, I can't just easily interface with our Active Directory(yes its MS, but its what we use). Sure I've gotten all that working, but it took me a lot of searching and tweaking. Vista may have driver problems, but I've never encountered any major ones. With Linux however, every install is a new driver issue. When it comes down to it, Vista just works. Yes, I can get Linux working with everything, but I don't want to have to spend all that time on an OS when I can just use windows.

Also as a gamer I'm also unable to permanently switch to Linux. Wine works for some, but its just not good enough. I love Linux, but for now it just isn't ready to be my permanent OS. Despite all this trouble with Vista I hear about, I've yet to experience any of it. It runs perfectly on my machine.

When Linux has a dominant share of the market place, and games are put out strictly for Linux, then I'll switch.
Until then, Microsoft will still be king.

Re:I agree

[uglyduckling (103926)]

It's hilarious that he can't seem to figure out how to shut down the computer... But these "opinion articles" with their "I can't be bothered to figure out a slightly different Control Panel - instead, I switched operating systems!" matra are just annoying and stupid.

His point isn't that he couldn't figure it out, it's just that things were "arbitrarily different" - changed for the point of change rather than any great enhancement. Sure he could figure out a different Control Panel, but it's annoying to have to do that for no actual gain.

I think what we're actually seeing here is people who don't have any particular need for the unique strengths of Windows (and it does have some) and could do well with any of the alternative mainstream OSs. See, they already "switched operating systems" going from XP to Vista, and the feedback I'm hearing is that the effort of relearning familiar things makes the jump from XP to Ubuntu seem no worse. Actually, I even get the impression that for some the idea of injecting some excitement into their computer usage by exploring a new OS with different strengths and weeknesses is quite attractive compared to relearning Windows in order to go back to what they already new.

Am I way off the mark here? I've been using Debian then Ubuntu near exclusively for 6 years so I'm actually quite looking forward to having a play with Vista just to see if there's anything about a new Microsoft OS that I find attractive. I installed XP on a machine for my sister 3 weeks ago and it took 4 hours worth of downloading drivers and updates just to get to the stage where I could start installing apps (c.f. Ubuntu less than 1 hour for a fully loaded OS+apps) so I'm pretty sure XP is of no value to me from the 'enjoying using the computer' viewpoint unless I need to run some Windows-only software.

If you use a computer for fun, or for work but like to have fun, Ubuntu is great. Quick to install on new hardware, new release every 6 months with new features, improvements and eye candy if you like that sort of thing. Loads of little apps to choose between for virtually any task, all ready to install from official repositories, properly signed etc.

Re:I agree

[kcbrown (7426)]

I, too keep hearing stories about how bad Vista is, and not just from Slashdot. Cranky Geeks (not a pro-Linux show) went on for five minutes last week about how useless it is.

Still, I walk into any computer store and see only Vista machines for meters and meters. The whole thinig confuses me.;)

It's not confusing at all. What you're seeing is the direct result of Microsoft really being in a monopoly position. People can deny it all they want ("Microsoft doesn't have 100% of the desktop, so they can't be a monopoly!!"), but Microsoft's ability to bend the market against the wishes of the customer and the retailer is precisely what makes them a monopoly.

Your observation is just confirmation of that.

I wanted to say something witty...

[BronsCon (927697)]

like "First Post"

But this insight came out instead.

To the end-user, Windows has "security through obstruction", which annoys and gets disabled. To that same end-user, Linux has "security through obscurity", which stays out of the way.

Yes, I know, open source, all the flaws are right there for everyone to see, not obscured at all. That's not what the end-user sees. The end-user just knows that it's more secure because that's what their geek friend told them; they never see why, they never care why and they never need bother with it. This is a good thing. What doesn't annoy them enough that they go out of their way to disable... I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

Let's review what we've learned so far this year:
Linux - driver issues. Vista - driver issues.
Linux - learning curve. Vista - learning curve.
Linux - secure until you work around the security in the name of convenience. Vista - secure until you work around the security in the name of convenience.
Linux - annoying until you learn it. Vista - annoying until you learn it AND disable the security features.

My take on it

[BlueParrot (965239)]

Some time ago I accidentally fried my motherboard, so, time to get a new computer. My dad's job was throwing out an "old" machine. The new machine was a bit worse than my original one. It didn't have DDR2 memory, it used a Radeon 9200 rather than my nVidia card, the CPU was an old Pentium 4 rather than my faster AMD chip, and the integrated soundcard I had never heard of.

Anyway, I connect my HD which had Ubuntu Edgy installed on it, boot up. X complains about the video card so I change "nvidia" to "ati" in xorg.conf, type: startx, and 2 minutes latter I am reading my mail in thunderbird.

But you know, I'm sure Vista would perfectly well manage me changing ALL hardware except the HD, running on a P4 with 384MB SDRAM, and be up and running without even a reboot. Oh, and does Aero support virtual desktops yet?

Seriously, given the price and system requirements, Vista is a joke.

Re:My take on it

[BlueParrot (965239)]

The problem with you story is that your average "End LUser" is not going to be able to edit the xorg.conf using vi, and even if they could, probably wouldn't know to change "nvidia" to "ati". The CLI is a bit beyond what most people care to know. ...
Until Ubuntu or whatever distro user can do every single thing in the GUI that they can do through the CLI, Window will have an advantage. MS writes Windows with a GUI in mind from the ground up. Linux is designed to work with or without a GUI. On rare occasion, such as the one you listed here, there will be an absolute need to use the CLI in Linux. Some people just can't handle that.

Now what a remarkable and amazing coincidence that Gutsy has such a fall-back GUI for fixing broken X sessions. It is almost as if they are working to make it more accessible to non-technical users...

Different experience here

[by Anonymous Coward]

I did a complete reformat of my system for Gutsy. Installed from the CD, and ended up with the black screen of death on restart.

Of course, I was able to get out of it. That's not really the point. The point is I had to do a bunch of command line hackery just to see the login screen for the first time.

Fill in the blanks and save for future use

[Seismologist (617169)]

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you _____ fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a _____ (a _____ w/_____ gigs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my ancient _____ running _____, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this _____, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that. In addition, during this file transfer, _____ will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even _____ is straining to keep up as I type this. I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various _____'s, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a _____ that has run faster than its _____ counterpart, despite the _____'s same chip architecture. My _____ with _____ megs of ram runs faster than this _____ mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that _____ is a superior operating system. _____ lovers, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use _____ over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Why Vista Security is like the TSA.

[mmclure (26378)]

At work, I got a shiny new machine. Since we need to certify some of our products with Windows Vista, we designated it the Vista certification machine. So far, so good.

We use the MKS Toolkit software suite to simplify several tasks while developing on Windows. Everything seemed to work fine, until I had to use patch to apply a diff to some sources. As soon as I typed

        patch -p0 foo.diff

at the command prompt I got a pop-up window from Vista asking permission to run the executable. If I answered "yes, go ahead" instead of running the program in the same command prompt window it popped it up in another command prompt which promptly disappeared. And, apparently, did absolutely nothing to the files that were supposed to be patched. Experimentation shows that even

        patch --help

pops up the dialog and fails, so it isn't a permissions problem on the files to patch. So I say to myself, "Myself, we're a revision or two back on MKS Toolkit, and this is not the Vista-certified version - let's try another patch.exe." So I go get the GnuWin32 version of patch.exe. I put it first on the PATH, and try again. Another pop-up. I answer yes, and not only does patch run in a window that disappears, but it GPFs as well.

At this point, I'm pissed. But suddenly the penny drops. I rename the MKS toolkit patch.exe to ptch.exe and type

      ptch --help

which produces a nice help message. Trying on the original diff causes the required files to be patched correctly.

Apparently the Windows Vista User Access Control considers patch.exe to be a forbidden executable name. I investigated further and the only way to disable this functionality appears to be to completely turn off UAC, which I did immediately.

But there you have it - Windows Vista's vaunted security is about as logical and effective as banning water bottles in carry-on luggage.
 

Gutsy Gibbon isn't QUITE "there" yet...

[mad_clown (207335)]

Gutsy Gibbon isn't "there" yet as far as being a perfectly consumer-friendly desktop system. It's fairly close -- I'm using it right now, in fact -- but it still has a ways to go. Yes, Compiz is nice. It also has a habit of causing MPlayer to go haywire. Things always seem kind of sluggish. Sure, my machine is a bit old, but even XP wasn't quite as sluggish. It's not unbearable though. Close. But not there yet.

Ipod? Works pretty well. Basic copying of files works nicely (albeit with a few GTKpod kinks here and there). Mounting and un-mounting usually work automatically without any extra prodding after plugging it in. Usually. Smart playlists are dodgy in GTKpod. Giving Amarok a try, so we'll see. But still... Not. Quite. There. Yet.

Program installation? Well, Synaptic/apt-get are great. You got the right repositories in there, and you know what you're looking for -- works like a charm. Can't see my mom learning how to add repositories and public key signatures. Close. But not quite there yet.

On the other hand, it's leaps and bounds ahead of where Linux-on-the-desktop used to be the last time I went down that path (SuSe 7.something? Mandrake something-dot-something?? Few years ago, anyways...). So progress is definitely being made. It all depends on your personal threshold.

For me, Ubuntu has proven to be quite - QUITE - sufficient. I'll probably be sticking with it for everything except ArcGIS. For all the "moms" of the world, though... I just don't think it's quite there yet. Give it a few more years and it might just make it.

Then we just need a good way of marketing it...

Re:Another one

[HybridJeff (717521)]

You're pondering how fed up you are with the success of linux.

Re:Another one

[Donniedarkness (895066)]

Don't fear the penguins.

Geesh, it even says it on the top of the page.

Re:Another one

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

You should try it out by grabbing the DVD Install/LiveCD off of bittorrent here:

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/dvd/current/ [ubuntu.com]

Disclaimer: My download will get faster if you do this.

Re:Why do they always do this

[Chandon Seldon (43083)]

they can't be compared as if they were cars; they are Different Things

They absolutely can be compared like they were cars.

Vista is like a short bed gasoline pickup truck. You can perform most day to day tasks with it, but it gets horrible gas mileage and can't handle edge cases (4 passengers, seven foot long cargo) very well at all.

A distro like Ubuntu is more like a VW Golf TDI that can transform into a panel van or 18 wheeler when necessary. It's obviously superior in every way, but people complain about stupid stuff like gas stations that don't sell diesel and how hard it is to get through a 10' tunnel when you're in 18-wheeler mode.

Re:I hate to say this...

[rustalot42684 (1055008)]

That's odd. My experience was actually quite the opposite: When doing an reinstall of OEM Vista, I had to spend 2 hours poring through howtos, manuals, etc, getting drivers and trying to get everything to work, but installing off the Kubuntu 7.10 alpha 5 worked flawlessly. I'm not going to flame you, because if that was your experience, that was your experience. But it's quite different than what happened to me.

Note: this was an OEM disc, supplied by Dell itself, so I would have to wonder why it wouldn't work..

Re:Easy

[kebes (861706)]

Everybody should use the system they like and stop preaching and advocating. use trhe TOOL you like, not the bible you read.

Fair enough. However your post is somewhat dismissive, as if you're implying "I don't see the point of these kinds of articles" (if I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize). To respond to that hypothetical implication: the point of such discussions is that there has to be some way for people to learn about alternatives.

I, for one, was once at a point where I was quite frustrated with my (Windows) experience. Only because people bothered to mention alternatives did I eventually discover that OSX and Linux solved many of the problems I was having.

As you can tell, I'm now a Linux user, so as you say my opinion is inherently biased towards enjoying Linux. So perhaps I gloss over some of the troubles I had along my migration path to Linux. Yet despite that, the experiences (both positive and negative) of people who have legitimately tried multiple operating systems are valuable to others. In fact, it's rather difficult to claim that the majority of Windows users are actually using "the right tool" because very few of them are aware of (much less have evaluated) the alternate tools out there. For many of them, their needs might actually be better served by a non-Windows OS.

I can understand a dislike of evangelical attempts to convert people... but there's nothing inherently wrong with describing, or even advocating, an alternative.

Re:That's because:

[davecb (6526)]

More generally, poor programmers try to make programs so simple that only simple things are possible.

Good programmers, and I'll point at Apple IPhoto chaps just because I saw one lately, make the things people actually want to do easy. In tis case it was having three sliders, labeled "lighten shadows", "darken highlights" and "brightness". Doing those adjustments is downright hard, but the good developers found that is what real live humans wanted to do, and did the work to make it easy.

Linux programmers, go thou and do likewise!

--dave

Re:Ugh iPhoto

[c_forq (924234)]

I believe this behavior is done for two reasons. One: so it can edit pictures non-destructively (as in none of your original data is destroyed, very important to those of us who might use the same picture multiple times and edit it differently for different occasions). Two: to avoid the issue of loss of data through compression. Almost any slashdotter can tell you of the ability of jpeg to destroy pictures after repeated compression.

Re:Ugh iPhoto

[God'sDuck (837829)]

Simple mathematical transforms, however, can be stored. EG, if you have set the three sliders to "25," "10" and "15," those numbers can be stored (say, 0.5KB of metadata) instead of the resulting file, and then reapplied every time you want to see the changed version. Photoshop calls them filter layers. Much easier on the hard drive and RAM -- but taking that approach means you have to manually export the resulting file to send it to a friend; not necessarily the best approach for consumer software.

Try Gutsy Gibbon

[icsEater (1093717)]

You may want to give Gutsy Gibbon a try. It has a new GUI-based screen configuration utility that handles dual screens. http://www.ubuntu.com/files/GutsyImages/Screen-and-Graphic-Preferences.jpg [ubuntu.com] This is a feature that I've been waiting for :-) Yes, mucking around with xorg.Conf isn't too hard, but this makes life easier for new comers.