OS Combat - Ubuntu Linux Versus Vista

An anonymous reader writes "InformationWeek pits Ubuntu Linux versus Windows Vista in a detailed comparison. They run down a number of points for this comparison, including installation, hardware support, software, and backup. For IW, backup was a crucial feature. As a result, the conclusion are unusual for this type of review because it straddles the fence. The verdict is: 'a tie, but only because both platforms fall short in some ways. Vista's roster of backup features aren't available in every SKU of the product; Ubuntu doesn't have anything like Vista's shadow copy system and its user-friendly backup tools are pretty rudimentary.'"

Not sure how its a tie

[zappepcs]

but the fact that the author complains that their printer requires a special driver lets you know what irks them. I know its a bit fanboi-ish to say that if people think they are equal, then Linux (Ubuntu) wins. The general populace has forced many to believe that Windows *IS* the standard to judge Linux against, and now 'it's a tie' is the verdict. That is clearly a win if you look at it as how the competition shapes up against the Windows flagship.

Personally, I installed Ubuntu 6.x to see how it feels, and I'm pleasantly impressed. A couple of hours and everything I need is working fine (YMMV). I know that most of the users that I help would be good to go with Ubuntu. A great many people don't want or need all that an OS can provide. Hell, some of them probably don't need anything more than email and a browser, but that's another story. I think that Redmond needs to be getting worried soon.

Same old trap

[Anonymous Coward]

The reviewer constantly falls into the same old trap of basing their comments of Ubuntu on how "Windows like" the particular feature is. At that point it's pretty obvious that Windows itself will always win if you're going to use it as the yard stick to measure all others. This isn't a review of both OSes, it's a comparison of Ubuntu to Vista. Take the conclusion for "Software Installation" as an example:

It's a tie. Both operating systems show much the same centralization and efficiency in dealing with applications, protocols, and programs.

Come again? Vista has nothing like the Ubuntu software repository. Just because the two look a little similar in the screen shots doesn't make them the same.

Ho hum. It tries to be balanced, bless it, but its clear the reviewer is just going to go back to using Windows once it's all done. It fails it.

Can we just deal with the obvious trolls now?

[jimicus]

Before we get a bunch of people chiming in to say "but XXXXX is easy in ubuntu, you just open a terminal and type..."

I KNOW.

But the audience this is intended for has no intention of using a terminal. Broadly speaking, they are of the opinion that desktop computing should be easy enough that any idiot can do it without having to spend ages learning the nuances of some command you type in.

They are of this opinion thanks to 20 years of GUI R&D in home computing, from the earliest Apple ][ right the way up to Vista today. That's the whole point of the GUI. You don't have to like it, but at least accept that a lot of people do.

As soon as you say "Open a terminal and type sudo apt-get (package)", you've lost.

(While Ubuntu++ Vista)

[VE3OGG]

Frankly, I don't understand what the problem here is: I pop in an Ubuntu CD, hit yes, yes, yeah, sure, why not, and bam! A Working desktop. Not only that, but I can use the LiveCD for web browsing or what have you while the install is going. No dice for Vista (AFAIK).

Ubuntu recognizes all of my hardware at boot (and I have some rather odd hardware on top of it). No hunting down drivers from a now defunct company, or having to sell my sou^H^H^H^H^H^H^H register to a website that says they have the driver, only to find out they were lying.

Linux has all the security of Vista, minus the UAC.

Ubuntu may not have user-friendly backup out of the box (I wouldn't know, I use ssh+rsync), but the repositories for it have a plethora of options that are free.

And if you are in it for teh shiney!!1!!!!111oneoneone, then Ubuntu can cater (at least on a basic level) with its desktop effects. On top of that, you get immediate (or as near as can be) security updates, and even better a method to upgrade (quite flawlessly, from my experience) to the next version.

Oh yeah, ummm, Ubuntu = free (as in beer, choice, and ideology), Windows = $$$+DRM.

So, why the fence sitting?

Re:There's nothing to compare

[arun_s]

FTA:
Add/Remove Applications lets you search the entire directory of applications recommended for Ubuntu -- dozens of programs in 11 categories -- and install them with little effort. I added applications like Adobe Reader and the Thunderbird mail client without too much difficulty. It all compares pretty favorably to Windows's Add/Remove Programs system, which should be familiar to everyone reading this.

I stopped reading after this. Anyone who thinks Ubuntu's package management 'compares favourably' to add/remove programs is not in his senses.

Less is more

[goombah99]

Your right. it's not the feature count that matters. It's little things like does it have Bash (or for me Perl) that are disprortionately large factors. On the other hand, I'd be kidding my self if I thought there were a lot of perl and bash users out there. it's spit in the ocean of devil spawned end users.

Linux shoul dnot try to play microsoft's game of putting up feature charts and trying to claim them all. What matters to the user is how good a tool it ends up being and that things like consistency of use, intuitiveness and in fact hiding stuff from the user that they don't need to know about.

Windows does a better job than Linux at seemlessness. That is you can configure a lot more things in the gui, and expect them to actually work, before you have to open the hood an dive into the scarey bits. On the other hand things like KDE and GNome, do expose a lot more raw power in a very accessible gui way than windows. For a certain class of user, windows just dumbs things down too much.

For me the sweet spot between power and seemlessness and data hiding is Mac OSX. My mom, who really can't operate a 3 button mouse, is able to use it. Yet Me a power user loves it too. I have hundreds of linux machines yet my desktop machine is nearly always mac osx.

Commenters so far are missing the point

[Jim Morash]

A tie! This is a big frickin' deal, people! Remember "Linux will never work on the desktop"? And now quasi-mainstream press says it's just as good as Windows Vista?

The Ubuntu team should be very proud.

Re:I would have given Ubuntu the edge

[Shadowfoxmi]

In Vista, the package manager is mainly for removing programs unless you are talking about adding a windows component. Ubuntu's package is far superior in this case. It displays available programs in categories and you can also filter for support level such as "Open source applications", "Ubuntu supported", "Any {damn} application", etc..

Re:Can we just deal with the obvious trolls now?

[metlin]

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

I think that an OS should be intuitive, and require as little expertise as possible to use.

The problem with Linux is that it is impossible to get it to do what you want without some serious tweaking, and that usually requires you to either type something in a terminal or edit a file. As long as that is the case, Windows will always be considered superior just because of the ease of use.

It's not the fact that my grandma can use it, it's the fact that my grandma can *install* and use it that's important to me (or at least that I can guide her through the phone). Linux cannot yet do that effectively.

I do not use desktops and own only notebooks - it's hell getting things to work in Linux. Want the widescreen resolution? Wireless? Sound? Video card? USB? Firewire? That printer? At least a few of those would require me to tweak the system to make things work, if at all. At that point, I give up. It's not because I cannot but because I do not want to.

The system should never mess up to the point that I will have to open terminal and do something. Or require that I know even a single shell command to make things work. The moment that happens, it just isn't really user-friendly. It's geek-friendly, but not friendly enough for the common person to use it.

Yeah, here's a bad 50/50

[Mateo_LeFou]

On photo editing

"50-50 -- Vista for its Picture Gallery [> F-spot]; Ubuntu for having a better native image editor than Paint."

Now, maybe the Picture Gallery does edge out Fspot (I've never used it, but author says for example bulk import is backgrounded, and tagging scores of pics at once is easier) but is this comparable to how far Paint falls behind the gimp?

Re:Can we just deal with the obvious trolls now?

[Trelane]

As soon as you say "Open a terminal and type sudo apt-get (package)", you've lost.

And that's why Ubuntu doesn't require that!

Re:Can we just deal with the obvious trolls now?

[Knuckles]

As soon as you say "Open a terminal and type sudo apt-get (package)", you've lost.

Have you even used Ubuntu, or any Linux distro from the last few years? In Ubuntu I open the Applications menu and find a GUI tool to install and remove software that actually can install software as advertised (contrary to the Windows version which in fact can only reinstall or remove)

Re:I would have given Ubuntu the edge

[jonesy16]

Except that this does nothing to protect you from drive failure.

Re:Can we just deal with the obvious trolls now?

[vivaoporto]

As soon as you say "Open a terminal and type sudo apt-get (package)", you've lost.

People usually suggests apt-get because it is faster to describe, but there is nothing you can do with apt-get that you cannot do with Synaptics using only GUI and point and click. Only that its description would be "Click on System->Administration->Synaptics Package Manager. Type your password. Click OK. Click on search and type <name of package>. Press OK. Click on the little square next to <name of package> and mark it. Click Apply. Click OK." That's way harder than "click on Applications->Accessories->Terminal. type 'sudo apt-get install <name of package>' without the quotes. Press Enter. type your password. press Y. Press Enter"

Anyway, the kind of people that would need this amount of details is the same people (and I telling that by personal experience, I performed help desk duties on my former programming job) that would need instructions like this, to install a typical setup.exe: "Open the Windows Explorer. No, not the Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer. Click on Start, Programs, Windows Explorer. Can't find it? Press the key with Windows Logo and "E" simulaneously. GO to C:\Program Files\<My Company Name>. How? Click on the little cross next to the folder called C:. Then click Program Files. Tell it to show the content of this folder anyway. Click on <My Company Name>. Double click setup.exe. Click on Next, select I Agree and click Next, Next, Next, Finish"

It took quite a time for the average people to get used to the Next->I Agree->Next->Next->Next->Finish kind of installation, and now it is muscular memory, a simply reflex on most Windows users memory. They don't even read the fine print anymore, and that explains how a lot of people got/get spyware installed along with Kazaa and alike (die Bonzy Buddy, die!). Given enough time, new migrated ubuntu users will get used to synaptics, and "Add and Remove Programs" (that is even easier than Synaptics) and, if the right wind blows, even eventually opening the terminal and making things much easier for them (and for us poor technical people too).

Re:Can we just deal with the obvious trolls now?

[Trelane]

it is impossible to get it to do what you want without some serious tweaking, and that usually requires you to either type something in a terminal or edit a file.

I humbly disagree.

You can edit files if you want, but you dont' usually have to. The Windows equivalent is editing the registry. What, you've never had to tweak some obscure registry setting to make things work 100%?!

It's not the fact that my grandma can use it, it's the fact that my grandma can *install* and use it that's important to me (or at least that I can guide her through the phone). Linux cannot yet do that effectively.

So, your grandmother cannot install Linux. Not news. But she can install Windows?! Or does she just use what she gets with her PC and what is provided her by her techie granddaughter? I would suspect the latter rather than the former.

it's hell getting things to work in Linux.

How many notebooks have you installed retail Windows on? It's not a valid to compare OEM-customized Windows to vanilla Linux.

Want the widescreen resolution? Wireless? Sound? Video card? USB? Firewire? That printer? At least a few of those would require me to tweak the system to make things work, if at all.

Funny that, it works 100% with me out of the box for the last three releases of Ubuntu (well, I had to use the GUI printer manager to make the printer work, because it's a networked printer and so ubuntu can't just detect it as it would the dwl-g650 or other attached device). Maybe you're still stuck in 1993?

The system should never mess up to the point that I will have to open terminal and do something.

I totally agree with this statement and would add that no system should ever mess up to the point where you have to boot into safe mode or tweak registry keys. Unfortunately, stuff does screw up and you do have to fix it, be it commandline or obscure registry keys.

The moment that happens, it just isn't really user-friendly.

Indeed, Windows is not ready for the desktop!

Re:Yeah, here's a bad 50/50

[jonesy16]

It is when you consider how complicated GIMP is to use for someone who has never been exposed to it. Just about anyone can open Paint and figure out how to do basic operations. GIMP, on the other hand, has a very unintuitive interface where almost everything is accomplished through right mouse clicks and floating toolbars. It feels out of place on every desktop, though it might be more intuitive to Photoshop users.

Re:Aero vs. Beryl, Similar?

[Brunellus]

Can Linux nerds everywhere stop overselling Beryl? Please? Because let's face it--it's a work in progress, and up until this moment it seems to have been more about useless desktop chrome--ooh, look BURNING WINDOWS, BITCHES!--than about a stable, usable working environment.

I'm a Linux user and I resent all the Beryl desktop ricers out there. New users who have no clue about how their system works should not be converted to a new OS because of a admittedly Beta-class desktop bling.

Beryl and its kind aren't bad per se. They just aren't ready for prime-time. I'd still direct new users to GNOME/Metacity or KDE/kwin.

Re:I would have given Ubuntu the edge

[HoosierPeschke]

I agree, the article seems to be covered in the stink of FUD. I don't like throwing that word at just anything (given my bias towards choice) but this statement from the image gallery pushed me to it:

Vista's Add/Remove Programs panel probably served as the inspiration for Ubuntu's software management console.

This disturbs me as the person who has written the article had not previously used Ubuntu until he/she decided to write this article. Ubuntu, I can firmly say, has been around significantly longer than Vista. Granted he/she could have said the "Windows" Add/Remove.

The section concerning Image-Editing/Picture management being a tie also seems to give more credit to Vista. The fact of having GIMP alone blows vista out of the water let alone the several picture managers available on Ubuntu.

Not to change the parameters of the comparison,

[ChrTssu]

but shouldn't Ubuntu win out, all other things being equal, simply because it's free (as in beer)? Come on, last time I checked, not too many people (that I know, anyway) could afford a fully-enabled Vista ($400 retail), but everyone can afford a fully-enabled Ubuntu ($0 via ShipIt).

Re:As soon as you say "Open regedit", you've lost.

[Trelane]

Actually, I would wager that it's very much the other way 'round: Windows is best for the power user (who is generally used to Windows and knows all of its little quirks and tricks and would have to relearn these on another OS). Linux is best for the highly advanced user (who can tweak it as much as they want) or for the beginner user (who just clicks and takes what they're given, because they don't have much to relearn). The main problem is 1) software support and 2) hardware support (especially vendor-customized installations which can work around the quirks and breakage of each individual piece), which is due to market inertia (i.e. Windows is 95% of the desktop market), not innate superiority or inferiority of the platform. Of course, if Windows were not a monopoly, then even the power users would like linux, since they'd already be familiar with it, not Windows.

Re:There's nothing to compare

[Zantetsuken]

So it allows for using features equivalent to cat, grep, and such forth - however, the thing which I believe makes cli on *nix superior is how so many of the programs can be manipulated via command line. For example (ok, so its kinda niche) making a custom script to manipulate a video capture program to take feed from a webcam and put stillshots into an apache web-host directory, making a cheap video surveillance viewable from a browser...

Now to do that in Windows, it would take actual C programming (or a language of the type), correct?

Re:Aero vs. Beryl, Similar?

[soulprivate]

Ok, perhaps Beryl is not a finished product ... but it does not need a fancy video card with 128M of memory to work. It is insulting.

Re:There's nothing to compare

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I stopped reading after this. Anyone who thinks Ubuntu's package management 'compares favourably' to add/remove programs is not in his senses.

While Ubuntu's package management is technically much, much, much better than that on Windows since it includes application discovery and acquisition and updates, it is in some practical, workflows inferior. No matter how large your software repository is, there will always be binaries distributed via a Website or on CD or via some other mechanism. On Windows this means you do discovery, acquisition, and updates by hand, the same as every other program. On Linux it means you have a special case where you do all those by hand as well as installation and uninstallation by hand. This means users have to juggle two techniques and remember which applies to which software. This is an area where Linux in general could improve. Package managers are built around the concept of open source software and thus everything you need can be in a repository. When software is not in a repository, it is not handled well and I don't know any package manager for Linux that supports using a software package from some random Website, and managing the install, registration, and updates for that application through the standard package manager. Hopefully this deficiency can be addressed if linux ever gains serious market share on the desktop.

Re:Can we just deal with the obvious trolls now?

[drinkypoo]

I do not use desktops and own only notebooks - it's hell getting things to work in Linux. Want the widescreen resolution? Wireless? Sound? Video card? USB? Firewire? That printer? At least a few of those would require me to tweak the system to make things work, if at all. At that point, I give up. It's not because I cannot but because I do not want to.

I'm horribly tired of this argument, which is made from a position of ignorance.

When you buy a PC with Windows on it, you're buying something that's certified Windows compatible.

If you want all that shit to work with Linux, you're either going to buy something that's certified Linux compatible, or you're going to have to take your chances.

If you bought your next machine with Linux in mind, everything would just work.

In most cases, everything just works anyway. This is much more true today than say a year ago; wireless support has come amazingly far.

In the case of Ubuntu Feisty, it even comes with ndiswrapper.

But regardless, I've had PLENTY of problems supporting older hardware with Windows. In fact I've got a known good 3com PCMCIA modem, I tested it under windows XP and it worked fine, but for some reason the older Windows 98 drivers aren't working (yes, on a Windows 98 system.) Linux is not unique in this regard.

Er... malware?

[raddan]

The author apparently forgot one important point: you also don't need to pay for antivirus/antispyware tools on Ubuntu. IMHO, that serves as a tiebreaker for Ubuntu.

Let's also not forget what you can do now with Parallels and VMWare while happily running Ubuntu as your main OS.

unhelpful linux geeks

[amyhughes]

A swap of a SATA cable and my Win XP machine becomes an Ubuntu 6.10 machine. I need to be able to support Linux but don't need it very often.

I was shocked that my network connection Just Worked on first install. But my screen was at the wrong resolution, and I had no 3d acceleration. Time to install nVidia drivers.

A day later, now with experience with run modes and editing config files, I had nVidia drivers installed and my 3d app worked fine. It turned out to be simple, but there are an overwhelming number of bad-advice posts to be found on googling for help. This is A Big Problem.

Google a windows problem and you'll find some easy-to-understand magazine editor to explain it, or something on Microsoft's site. Google a linux problem and you get geek-speak. And most of it is bad advice. Usually the bad advice...

"edit the conflabulating confic spec generator and type '@*$&T IU H@U HR@&*&@BFG @&(G' at the third prompt"

is answered with

"No, don't do that! You'll gaspulate the modulating interferometerizing reverse vectral sync mode!"

so you avoid those. Eventually you end up typing '@*$&T IU *^HC* HR@&*&@BFG @&(G' at the *fourth* prompt, because nobody had a heart attack over that suggestion. But then your modulating interferometerizing reverse vectral sync mode is fubar, anyway.

Anyway, I eventually found a suggestion that looked more elegant than the rest and didn't involve editing any conflabulating confic spec generators, wiped to drive and started from scratch, and the nVidia drivers Just Worked.

If I had the power to Make It So, I'd purge 90% of the online linux discussion, because most of it is crap.

Re:I would have given Ubuntu the edge

[jonesy16]

RAID 1 doesn't protect you from user error, such as deleting your home directory accidentally or file system corruption. Nothing replaces the need for backup solutions, whether they're user initiated or scheduled incremental backups.

Re:Same old trap

[SoCalChris]

Another superior aspect of Ubuntu's software repository is its system-wide software update abilities. When I log into Ubuntu, it tells me that there are x number of updates available for the software on my computer. With just a few clicks, I can have all of my programs updated to the latest version. There is NOTHING like that built into Windows. Who knows how many of the programs on any given Windows machine are an old version.

Open your eyes, We have reached the promised land

[Un pobre guey]

Have you used both Vista and Ubuntu? Your comments are at least a couple of years out of date.

I have a couple of Win2k boxes, an XP box, a couple of ubuntu edgy eft boxes, and a Fedora 4 or 5 box at home, some used as desktops, some as servers. My 17 year old utterly non-geek daughter got an HP laptop recently, with Vista Home Premium (whatever that means). It was slow, rebooted occasionally of its own free will, and refused to see a shared printer on a Win2k box or see any of the shared directories on any of the other boxes. I wrestled with it for 20 or 30 minutes, to no avail. Granted, I could have gone online and researched it and figured out the stupid trick, but for what? To make a Windows box see a printer on another Windows box? Isn't that why people resist using Linux, to not have to dig around for every stupid little thing?

Yesterday I set her up with Ubuntu Edgy Eft. Everything went smoothly, just moronically pushing the OK button to very reasonably selected options. Updated all the software, and installed more stuff than she really needs, all in about an hour and a half with a single reboot. Setting up the printer was as easy as it ever has been in Windows, easy, painless, fast. The network server browser immediately shows not only the other linux boxes, but all of the Windows shares as well, and copying files was nothing more than a mouse-driven copy/paste.

Wake up, folks. Linux is ready for the desktop. It will pass the test with most middle-class college-educated grannies, at the very least. The Aunt Tilly's of the world will soon realize that spending hundreds of dollars on software is no longer a requirement.

We are there, people! Hallelujah, we are fucking there!

Games

[pahoran]

For both: Office apps work, I can do clickety fun with file management and search. Blabbity blab blab ad infinium.

If accessibility to great games had been on the list Ubuntu would get creamed. When a distro comes along that can cater to game developers, then the desktop war is won.

Re:There's nothing to compare

[massysett]

dpkg -i foo.deb
rpm -i foo.rpm

Those work quite easily for a software package from some random Website when it's been packaged for your distro. For the people who insist that noobs refuse to open terminals, the GUIs nowadays have support for this integrated in as well. Installations this way won't do updates, but yikes, that's a really tall order and that's what repositories are for. (FWIW Windows won't update randomly installed software either.)

As for things that are not packaged, these are often installed quite easily. I installed RealPlayer (I know, I'm crazy) a few days ago in Ubuntu, straight from the Real website. Worked without a hitch. Google Earth installs very easily. So do many other apps such as Moneydance.

People are making a problem here where there really isn't one. I think people are complaining about ramdom .tar.gz files that they don't know how to compile. That's a legitimate complaint, but these days users who don't want to learn how to compile anything can easily stick with repositories and get everything they need.

Re:There's nothing to compare

[norminator]

What Options are average Windows users messing with in Device Manager? Except for a very few cases, I use the Device Manager just to reinstall drivers, disable a driver, or see if a device hasn't gotten installed correctly. I think the only option I've ever set in there is the COM port for various USB-RS232 adapters... and sometimes that gets set in a separate, custom application, or in a separate Control Panel app. For situations like that, you usually have to find out from the manufacturer, or hunt around for yourself where to find those options anyhow, so there's no advantage to the Windows side there.

Believe it or not, little things like the lack of centralized device management DO bug the living starch out of your average user.

And, this may come as a shock to you, but the average Windows user does not even know the Device Manager exists. For those that have taken the time to learn enough about their Windows computer to know where to find the Device Manager, they could take the same amount of time to learn how to deal with devices in Linux. It's not done in exactly the Windows way, but it's not rocket science either, people who want to can learn how to do it without much more effort.

By the way, if you want to see detailed information on the hardware in an Ubuntu machine, go to Administration -> Preferences -> Hardware Information. The window that comes up is even labeled as "Device Manager".

I understand that Linux still has some growing up to do, but once people understand that things are done differently, not necessarily worse, that can help a lot with people being able to pick it up. And for all of mega-hyped releases with all of the new features... I really think Windows has just as much growing up to do. I certainly have as many annoyances with it as I do Linux, if not more.

Re:There's nothing to compare

[PitaBred]

I love how USB devices in Windows are tied to the port you plug them into. Plug your mouse into a different port on the laptop? "OMG IT'S A NEW DEVICE BRAIN HEMORRHAGE" says Windows. Reinstall yet another copy of the same driver... somewhere, then it eventually works. Seriously... how stupid is that?

Re:I would have given Ubuntu the edge

[PitaBred]

So, when I click on "Add New Programs", it comes up with a list of thousands of programs that I could install? No, you say? I know you were refuting the GPP's point, because you technically can add a program through there, but you almost never do in practice. All programs have their own installers. The Ubuntu package manager takes care of finding the program you want, getting it and installing it. Windows will just install whatever disk or install.exe file you point it at. There is no comparison.

Left out the important part of the comparison.

[forgotten_my_nick]

The price of the product.

If windows can just barely beat it then it is not worth the money your paying for it.

They are right that some install stuff dropping to terminal needs to end. It is a single blocking point to full adoption for a lot of people.

Re:Rudimentary?

[heinousjay]

I'm going to call you on the insulting tone. There was no reason for that at all. Of course, that's the basic problem with open source advocates. Calling people idiots when you're trying to get them to see your point of view isn't really productive but it seems to be the only tool in the box for about 80% of you.

Re:There's nothing to compare

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If you forget which technique applies, you try the first. If you were wrong, you try the other...

You don't understand how that can be a usability issue? Think of a new user who has only used Windows before. They install Linux from a CD, then stick a CD with the Linux program they want to run into the drive and double click on it. Will this user ever realize there is a way to download packages from a repository or will they assume Linux operates like Windows?

Picture the new user who installs Linux and reads how Linux manages packages for them. They then install it and grab some stuff they want from the package manager. One day they download a game from Web site and it has an installer which they run and all is good. A year later they want to trash the game to free up space. Will they remember they used a stand alone installer. How long will they look in the package manager for the application? Will they be frustrated?

Picture the same new user, but instead of a game they are downloading, they download a tax return software package that has an installer. Will they trust the installer of decide maybe it is malware since it does not install the right way? Will they just do their taxes on their roommate's Windows machine?

Windows doesn't make this any easier by 'sticking with one technique,' because all the different vendors have different agendas in mind for you when you install. They set up new tricks, new startup scripts, new registry entries, new 'license managers', which may or may not get wiped clean with the vendor's proscribed uninstallation technique, or and may or may not get fully removed using Windows Add/Remove. This isn't less confusing for anyone, and it's a long way from 'one technique.'

First being as good as Windows for usability is kind of like being as good as China for civil rights. This should not be a goal, but rather an embarrassment. People in general don't choose to use Windows because it is good, they just use it because it is the only option they've seen for sale. If you want them to make a choice, you have to actually give them a good choice. Second, you're not looking at this from an end user perspective. They don't see lots of techniques and problems. They don't know something didn't fully uninstall. They just know to double click on the installer and to go to the remove programs setting.

Now, Linux package managers are far from perfect, but they have a better goal and a better execution. .deb and .rpm managers handle somewhere between most and the vast majority of the software, and they can uninstall that software cleanly.

That's true. It is also true almost all Linux software is OSS distributed via repositories. You don't think this will change if Linux users finally convinced commercial developers like games developers to target their platform? Package managers are significantly better on Linux, but only if developers use them, which most people selling software won't. If Linux wants to retain this advantage, they need to adapt package managers to handle all packages from any source the same, including auto-updates even if the software ships on a DVD or is sent via e-mail or is downloaded from the publisher's Web page. There needs to be a way for commercial publishers to host their own downloads, but also let users discover their software via the package manager. There needs to be an official, built in way for developers to handle registration of their software, so they are discouraged from all doing this differently and using custom installers for that purpose.

Anything that's more trouble than that is a major exception, but it's the same hassle you would get in the Windows world.

And still a huge pain in the ass. Personally, I'd like to see major Linux distros deprecate all their current package formats and move to something portable and contained and with room for expansion, like OpenStep. I'd love

Re:There's nothing to compare

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If you double-click a .DEB package on Ubuntu, using both GNOME and KDE, a nice dialogue will appear asking for you password, and the package will be promptly installed.

Ubuntu will not, however, keep that package up to date by checking anywhere other than the repository for updates. Commercial software developers who are selling a program, won't use .deb or the official repositories. Every repository would need to negotiate redistribution rights. The repository and installer still would not handle registering that software. If the developer already has to handle helping the user discover the software and connecting to their servers for registration and their own update system, then they will almost certainly combine those functions in an installer and bypass the package manager entirely. This is because the package manager is not functional enough for their needs. To fix this problem, you need to expand the functionality of package managers. Unless this happens, installing and maintaining software on Linux, for the home user, will be as bad or even worse than on Windows.

Re:2 Year Old Windows Vs. Ubuntu Experiment

[Das Auge]

If your 2 year old son is already using Linux, you really need to give up any hope of ever having a grandchild. :)

Re:Can we just deal with the obvious trolls now?

[drinkypoo]

While blaming the manufacturers game is all fun and dandy, it does not solve my problem.

You missed the point entirely. I'm not blaming the manufacturers - I'm blaming you.

When you bought hardware, you bought hardware designed for windows. Then you were upset when it didn't work properly with Linux.

If you buy a distributor for a Chevy 350 and try to install it in a Ford 351, it won't fit. Is that Chevy's fault? Ford's? No, it's yours.

Re:I would have given Ubuntu the edge

[Chandon Seldon]

Computers don't exist simply to run Microsoft Office.

Take "creating textual documents". Sometimes a word processor like OOWriter is appropriate, but other times there is a better tool. Sometimes you want a desktop publishing program like Scribus, or a document processor like LyX. You may even really want an HTML editor like Bluefish.

Or image editing. Microsoft office really doesn't do that. Ubuntu comes with GIMP by default, but also provides tools OODraw and Inkscape for when a raster image editor is not appropriate.

Number/data crunching. Sometimes you want a spreadsheet like OOCalc. Sometimes you want a high end toolkit like Numeric Python or even a Fortran compiler.

Sure, you can get tools for most of these tasks on Windows. Sometimes those tools even have features that the Free Software programs that come with Ubuntu don't. Even ignoring software freedom for a moment (which is never a good idea), each one of those programs for Windows requires an expensive single seat software license. If one person wants to legally use Windows, Microsoft Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Acrobat, and Illustrator (for example), that'll cost almost $3000 at full retail. Sure, maybe you can get discounts. On the other hand, maybe that person uses other software occasionally too - and that doesn't even consider later upgrade costs. With Ubuntu, you get very similar functionality to all of that built in at zero cost - for every user in your organization.

Maybe some of the Windows stuff is more feature packed - but with Ubuntu, every user gets all of it automatically. You never have to think "I only use photoshop every two weeks, is it really worth getting the license for *my* desktop?"

Re:I would have given Ubuntu the edge

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the ideal situation is one where you don't need special tools to remove software. You just dump it in the trash. Though some software will inevitably spew files all over your system no matter what OS you run.

Like pretty much all MacOS software, you mean? Seriously, have a look in ~/Library some time. You'd be amazed how much crap is left behind there and never, ever removed, because you deleted the application that created it but there's no facility whatsoever available to clean up after it.

Re:There's nothing to compare

[Optikschmoptik]

You don't understand how that can be a usability issue?

Of course it's a usability issue, but Windows is worse, especially when it comes to uninstalling. No one tells Windows users to use Add/Remove, and a good lot of them don't use it. Half the programs put their uninstall script in the Start Menu, sometimes in Add/Remove, sometimes nowhere (you just have to cross your fingers, search and delete). And then, uninstall only works sometimes. Sometimes, when you click 'uninstall' in Add/Remove, you open a window that looks like you're updating, and maybe even hides uninstall in a submenu like "other actions'. Anyone lazy enough to not figure out that there's a package manager in a Linux isn't going to make it through a Windows uninstall in one piece either. Why do you think these proverbial Joe User people buy new machines to surf the internet and check email? Maybe because dropping $300 at Best Buy is easier than figuring out how to clean off the smiley program that eats up all their processor time.

These are problems with human intelligence and behavior patterns. An OS can only do so much, but at least Linux aspires to enforce some kind of good user habits.

being as good as Windows for usability is kind of like being as good as China for civil rights.

Let me clarify. Linux installation is no better than Windows when Linux's PM system fails, that is, when a developer distributes software that doesn't participate or comply with the PM standards. Civil rights and good organization: both require practice and active participation or you'll lose them.

If Linux wants to retain this advantage, they need to adapt package managers to handle all packages from any source the same, including auto-updates even if the software ships on a DVD or is sent via e-mail or is downloaded from the publisher's Web page. There needs to be a way for commercial publishers to host their own downloads, but also let users discover their software via the package manager. There needs to be an official, built in way for developers to handle registration of their software[...]

Like I said, the Linux system is far from perfect. What you're describing is better than Linux, better than Windows, better than both combined. For now, Linux PMs are a good start. If someone offers a .deb and a couple of .rpms, the package manager will handle it, whether by email, DVD, airmail or ground shipping. We're getting to a point where a few systems cover most bases, and then an 'other distros' .bin hopefully covers the rest. I hope distro developers keep hammering away with their PM system, because I really think it will lead to something like you describe. This is one place where Linux is clearly ahead.

You don't think this will change if Linux users finally convinced commercial developers like games developers to target their platform?

It would be nice if it didn't. Crap/ad/nagware is what drove a lot of us to try out Linux, and it's the only thing you really lose when you comply with a package manager system. Registrations and serial validation systems don't change. It's just as futile to try to prevent piracy in Linux as it is in Windows, so there's nothing stopping you from offering a locked version of your software through a package manager (I've seen this done in SUSE). It would also probably be pretty easy to put a registration-code check in at installation time, if that's not already built in somewhere.

I think most Linux users who cared about having a desktop that worked simply and intuitively have already jumped ship for OS X,

We were discussing Windows, but ok. I like OS X, but I'm the one who has to install OS X apps for my non-computer-savvy girlfriend on her iBook. So there you go. No system is simple enough.

Re:I would have given Ubuntu the edge

[aichpvee]

It seems like he'd be less biased if he didn't assume that the windows way of doing things was somehow the correct way of doing things.

I think the ubuntu devs have done a very good job, in that respect, of copying the windows/mac philosophy of usability. Just like with those two platforms it is very easy to use as long as you want to do what the developers want you to do with it in the way they want you to do it. Too bad none of them ever take into account speed or comfort when designing their systems.

Re:Can we just deal with the obvious trolls now?

[r3m0t]

"dist-upgrading"

You are not supposed to just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and run apt-get dist-upgrade. Ubuntu has complications in the upgrade more complex than the package manager has been made to handle.

The correct thing is to run update-manager (the update GUI). See http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/upgrading [ubuntu.com]. To be honest, I'm not surprised it broke.

Some people just have combinations of hardware that cause problems. Such is life. :( I recommend Feisty to people who get WGA troubles, but if their hardware isn't supported from the Live CD (including wireless if relevant), I wouldn't bother. It just gives people a bad feeling if they see me sitting in front of a text prompt for hours.

Re:Feisty is neat.

[jZnat]

I don't think Windows is ready for the desktop (not even close), but it continues to have at least 85% marketshare around the world.

Desktop computers (and workstations) are not "ready for the desktop", nor will they ever be "ready for the desktop". Computers are a huge advancement from the literal desktop mentality where everything actually is a physical item that doesn't need to be abstracted so the poor user can use it.

Face it; [desktop] computers are a bitch to use, and that's thanks to software patents, greed, and the fact that not everyone can use something as abstract as a computer, they always will be. Until we can interact with them in 3d, forget the desktop metaphor, and not even really care that we're using a computer (it would work almost like a real person responding to you would), there will always be something about them to bitch about.

For instance, why do I have to type on a keyboard to write this? Why can't I just use some sort of pad to write the words on (handwriting recognition sucks in all forms currently), or perhaps even just say out loud what I want to write? Why can't I just think what I want to do and have the computer do it for me? Why must I use a mouse when just pointing at the object on screen in question with a stylus (tablet notebooks didn't take off too well) or with my finger? Why can't I just look at what I want to focus on and have the computer recognise that?

Face it; computers aren't ready for the desktop. I give up; I'm going back to having a [hot] secretary do all the work for me.