Vista Vs. Gutsy Gibbon 806
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."
Another one (Score:2, Insightful)
(I'll leave it up to you as to whether I'm just fed up with them, or am pondering the success of Linux)
Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
And your point is? (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter whether ubuntu is better, because Microsoft already has >90% of the market. Be realistic: 2008 will not be the year of the Linux Desktop. Neither will 2009. Or 2010. When a company has that much marketshare and actively tries to keep others from entering the playing field, it's not really going to happen. Most people just want to sit at the computer and do their work. I use the Vista on my laptop only about 3% of the time; otherwise I'm using Kubuntu. When I'm on the bus and the person asks me about compiz, I happily tell them about Linux. But the momentum of Microsoft Windows is so large that Linux will not become a widely-used desktop OS.
I hate to say this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Before you suggest it, I'm a hardcore geek from way back. Waaaay back. But these days I simply don't have time to spend all day and night just getting an OS to work. I have a wife and kids now, not to mention actual work to accomplish.
There aren't enough hours in a day/night leftover for ploughing through howtos, or trawling usergroups, for the info necessary just to, say, get 7.10 or Mandriva 2008 to connect to the LAN.
On the server, *nix rules, but on the desktop it has a very long way to go before it can compete with XP on an even footing. Vista? Dunno. You couldn't pay me enough to use it.
Yes, I know, I'm going to be modded troll or flamebait or accused of being an MS apologist or fanboy by some raw-nerved *nix zealot. How dare I say such things? Gasp! Shame on me.
Re:Another one (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll just say one thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I run Vista and quite frankly these alleged horror stories amuse me. It's not "slow", it doesn't pop up permission dialogs every five seconds, it didn't deactivate itself when I swapped the network card. After about three days of getting used to where everything was, I'm pretty much as comfortable using it as I was with XP. The only problem I had was a freeware Explorer clone that required elevated privileges, but I really don't use it that much so that's not a big deal. Vim, Komodo Edit, Visual Studio 2005, all my build/config/testing tools, etc. Everything works.
The guy that wrote this article should consider working for the Onion. It's hilarious that he can't seem to figure out how to shut down the computer. I mean, it's the first freaking button next to the search box, and it doesn't even ask for confirmation anymore. I leave the thing on all the time so I'm not big on the shutdown shortcuts, but whatever.
If he doesn't want to migrate to Vista, that's fine. More power to him. 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.
Let me guess (Score:2, Insightful)
Because a linux desktop has the traditional GUI and sometimes even the windows convert in mind while Microsoft needs to redefine the desktop experience in a different way to maintain an edge. They practically would like people to be hostages of the Microsoft way so that linux will look different to them and discourage the switch. Of course in this first period it's the exact opposite, but they have their dominant position to exploit. This opinion is based on the futility of the changes in ie7 UI, but i guess the philosophy is the same for vista.
PS: as a former macOS user I felt towards XP the same WTF attitude people experience in vista today, while Linux is more of a Wow/Damn dichotomy, with a refreshing sense of freedom.
Re:A few years time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And your point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction: "Microsoft still has >80% of the market."
Do not make such mistakes anymore! ;)
N.B. fyi, Ubuntu is distributed freely so it is not part of market.
There is a huge difference between "momentum" and "inertia".
Today you use KUbuntu. You feel like a black sheep. Tomorrow you suddenly find that some other your friend uses . Then one more friend. Then one more. Then you just stop counting.
That's how it happens - w/o anyone really noticing. I'd place any Linux user over 10 Windows users simply because every Linux user made a choice. While more or less every Windows user have what he got with computer - preinstalled. Choice is a barrier. Choice is important. Choice is all the difference between Linux and Windows.
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
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:And your point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, they used to say that about hmm let's see, OS/360, VAX/VMS, DOS... etc. Revolutions DO happen. It's up to you if you want to be late to the game or not. The ONLY thing I can't do in linux is play the latest games, or use some "Internet Explorer only" websites. I can do EVERYTHING else just as well or better.
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:2, Insightful)
For someone who enjoys building their own hardware (for quality and reliability), linux is actually less time-consuming. Especially Ubuntu, which has worked out-of-the-box on the last three machines I've installed it on (including one laptop with wireless, typically a problem case).
Re:Why do they always do this (Score:2, Insightful)
A worthwhile review would be one that covers the top 3-4 operating systems and outlines strengths and weaknesses of each, but I think most people on
Re:I agree (Score:1, Insightful)
Still, I walk into any computer store and see only Vista machines for meters and meters. The whole thinig confuses me.;)
Re:My take on it (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Apples and Oranges (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft Windows Vista is an operating system with a Desktop environment and a few extremely basic applications such as a drawing application, web browser and calculator program. Maybe a few other basic programs that I am missing.
Canonical Ubuntu - Gutsy Gibbon is an operating system with the option of two Desktop environments and over 10,000 applications. I think there are around 45,000 deb files but all of those aren't programs. These applications include a web browser, graphics 3D and sound manipulation programs, games, photo and music management, office suite (out of the box), the list could go on.
With that in mind any comparison would be useless..
Measure by security? You can't because Ubuntu has vastly more applications that could have potential holes. I saw a chart that showed Vista with less security problems but look at the information above, it's obvious that Ubuntu has (possibly) more security holes its software is 100's times bigger then Microsoft's offering.
There are other things that you could possibly compare with but you have to keep in mind the above information and you'll realise that Windows and Ubuntu are quite different even if they are both operating systems. They are both produced, run and distributed in different ways. This means there is a lot of mis-understanding about Linux and distributions in general.
In any case I hope people who dislike previous versions of Ubuntu try it out again, especially if you downloaded breezy badger or older. If you like a windows look then download a version of Kbuntu. I started using Ubuntu when Breezy came out and not much worked on my laptop, but I am currently running an older version of Ubuntu (Feisty) and my laptop works out of the box. I can't wait to try out Gutsy.
If you love using software give it ago. ^_^
Re:My take on it (Score:3, Insightful)
No, a non nerd would do exactly what they do today. He would take his machine to a computer shop. He would be told to come back in 3 days. The techie would change the xorg.conf line, give the non nerd his computer back 3 days later and charge him $400. So what are you complaining about?
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Why do they always do this (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, because if the Linux share of the computing world is going to grow, its got to be at the expense of Windows. There ain't anywhere else for it to come from.
No, its saying that the distro has to provide a reason to choose it over Windows. Now price is one, of course, but often not enough, given the fact that most software that consumers are aware of is written for Windows. So people have to know that what they are doing in Windows can be done in Linux, either with the same software (through Wine or otherwise) or through alternatives which are functionally adequate, and ideally superior in some way (again, price is often one way, but often not enough.)
Windows is the baseline. If people buy computers without actively choosing an OS, its what they are most likely to end up with. It is what most people who might switch to Linux, given an adequate reason, are using now. The facts make it the baseline.
And, ideally, that's what the comparisons show: that the Linux way is better, for which it must first be at least as good and must be usable.
We don't; OTOH, one of the barriers to transition is fear of the difficulty of switching. So demonstrating that things are similar enough that this fear is overblown is a way of overcoming that.
Well, if it doesn't have a windows feature, then people choosing to leave Windows for it will be losing something. So that's a valid reason for it to be rated down. And sometimes missing a bug can result in missing a feature that matters to users, like compatibility with particular software. Though that's, I would assume, less frequently a problem.
Two different cars are different things just as much as two different OS's are; like different cars, different OS's are different tools which can be applied to the same task. Comparing them side-by-side as it relates to that task is not a bad idea, but a good one.
Re:I agree (Score:1, Insightful)
Rdesktop for legacy windows-only apps. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not do what my company does: Run the can't-do-without-'em Windows apps on a central Windows server and access them remotely via rdesktop [rdesktop.org]?
Then you have only as many licenses as you actually need and you can migrate as many desktops and laptops as you please to Linux.
(And since it uses Microsoft's own version of remote desktopping they'll have a hard time breaking it without breaking themselves. B-) )
Re:That's because: (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Different experience here (Score:1, Insightful)
Now if we want to point fingers at who's "trying to copy" lets look at Microsoft for a moment and see what they've "copied". Flippy triangles from OS-X - Check. "TAB completes file/path in command shell" function from Unix - Check. Spinning wheel wait cursor from OS-X - Check. "Mount volume in folder" function from Unix - Check. Window maximize/minimize animations from original MacOS - Check. Clock in the start bar - another MacOS first - Check. IE7 RSS, Windows "version" of the apple searchlight feature, gadgets/widgets - shall I go on?
I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I have all of the above operating systems, and I'm the biggest anti-MS-elitist if you listen to the people around me. But if you listen to me, I'm just in search of a good product that doesn't annoy the hell out of me while I'm trying to work. And I think the world is with me when I say - somewhere, someone seems to have forgotten that the purpose of a computer was to SIT QUIETLY BENEATH A DESK and FACILITATE, or at least NOT INHIBIT ME from DOING WORK. Its primary function should not be to bother me about updates to Quicktime, it should not ask me "did you just click this" - I know I just clicked it; You're the operating system - taking commands from me - you don't know what I'm doing? And if Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, Mandriva, Yellowdog, Redhat, Windows, OS-X, Solaris or anything else can shut up and allow me to work uninhibited, without contributing to spam, botnets, virii, worms, or otherwise destroying the Internet - I'm all in. -=-K-=-
My opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this seem to be a more common occurence than even in Vista, from my experiences anyway.
But this is not really a blame on just Ubuntu, but on hardware support from manufacturers. Not that it matter who it is to blame for the end user.
Re:Why do they always do this (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, it is. It's the most popular desktop OS on the planet. Other than some killer apps (which I admit is a big 'other') and certain hardware, most Linux distros will exceed the baseline of Windows by some margin in a number of areas. It's good to compare and see where Windows is winning or losing. It's certainly not about seeing how far Linux has managed to copy the features of Windows. That's what Wine is for.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
For example I have an old TV card. It's the only old thing I have in my machine because well.. why would I throw away a perfectly good TV card. It won't work for me in windows because the company have gone on to produce different TV cards and don't want to write drivers for old products.
So for me it's the opposite Ubuntu works out of the box with my Hardware where Windows does not. My girlfriend has had real problems getting her Microphone working on windows (opposite to your experience) for use with Skype.
I think it's just you were unlucky with your hardware configuration working on Ubuntu, just as how my girlfriend is unlucky with her hardware configuration working on windows.
I am also a gamer but I fail to see your issues, I have never really had the problems you have described getting windows games to work and there are lots of fun Linux games (tremulous, Battle for wesnoth, Warsow), why not try some out? If you look at the new games coming out Rage, Unreal Tournament, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars all have their own Linux binary and there are lots of commercial games on Linux too (Americas Army, RTCW: Enemy Territory, Doom 3, Quake 4). If you look at the major MMOs such as World of Warcraft and Eve Online they're playable through wine. My own experience with getting Guildwars working with wine was very positive.. I downloaded the small Guildwars.exe program and then did "wine GuildWars.exe". It just worked, no configuration problems at all. It downloaded the programs files and popped up the Guildwars login screen, just like windows.
As for your Microsoft compatibility problems well that is what you have to expect. If you want compatibility with both operating systems with your servers then I suggest slowly replacing your window's server programs with open source programs. You'll find they're more compatible on both operating systems and any staff using windows shouldn't notice any difference if you're changing their server software. Of course this all depends on it being done right. : )
Re:I agree (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah Ubuntu is great, do I still have to find, download, compile and install READLINE? Yeah, XP, and presumably vista has a lot of drivers to download to get the fullest and latest functionality out of one's hardware. It can take hours even on a cable modem, I have no doubt. But it beats the fuck out of finding obscure items, and their dependancies, then downloading, compiling, installing, and configuring. Off a command-line as opposed to a Setup.exe.
I like linux (prefer KDE for a WM though, mainly because Konq rocks my socks and Nautalis is ass). And btw, why is linux still a pain in the ass to install on laptops? Really, more than 50% computers sold are laptops, and they don't have a video configuration method that obviates "give up and die" as a solution to little hiccups? But it runs ok, if a little slow, after the necessary setup period for linux in virtual pc 2007 on my vista laptop, so I can't be too mad.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I have here a legitimate copy of breezy/hoary/whatever. How am I going to get a new CD with all the latest hardware support? Well, I could download it from any working computer I have that also has a disc burner. I could install a just-about-working feisty (networking but not necessarily sound, graphics and other niceties) and then use that to download and burn a gutsy ISO. Or if I have a computer with a CD writer and another disc drive, I can keep the Live CD in one drive and write a CD using the other.
Or I could buy it from a slightly out-of-the-way location at a nominal cost, or get a free copy shipped in about 8 weeks.
So in other words, the legitimate comparison is "what you can easily get now to install XP" (i.e. your old discs) against "what you can easily get now to install ubuntu" (i.e. new discs from the internet)
Excuse for a bit on command line interfaces (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the CLI (command line interfaces) objections - registry or CLI, they are both hard for new users. But now we get to the bit that really puts things in context:
The above poster appears to have not grasped the idea that sometimes it's better to communicate by writing than to point at pictures. A mixed interface is very useful - GUI only is very limiting as in the imaginary example of a word processor with only an on screen keyboard and mouse pointer to click on it as the input device. The GUI is limited to the items the designer put in with a lot of effort - a decent command line shell can pipe things from one command to the next for a lot of flexability. How much space is used in all directories with names starting with "f"? Where's the document that mentions Mr Whatsit and Mr Whosit by name? Trivial questions to answer from the command line but a lot of effort to make GUIs to cover even a small number of possible cases. Even Xorg.conf has so many options in it that the GUI to modify more than the usual bits done by current GUIs would be even more unweildy than powerstrip on windows has to be to cover so many options. Then we get to the experience of many long term windows and early mac users - they grey menu option that you should be able to get to but the GUI designer missed something so you cannot use it in certain conditions where you should. GUIs are quick and easy ways for the user to select stuff but have to work by limiting options a bit more than if the application can parse text.
It's a different system that does things differently - and using a command line shell and text editor is part of that just as "C:" the registry hive and even the find tool is part of MS Windows.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ugh iPhoto (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another one (Score:3, Insightful)
In other countries it is legal and hence your point is moot. But yes, because the powers that be are intentionally disregarding the demand for a legal decoder on Linux many in the US have to resort to less than total legitimacy for DVD playback.
This doesn't mean that the DVDs are stolen, it just means that the codec isn't available, or at least not widely known.
In XP and some Vistas you still can't legally play a DVD without purchasing a 3rd party decoder. Also, keep in mind that Microsoft has 47 different programs under Vista that collect information about your computer and report that back to their offices. In Linux you don't have those privacy violations. Then, on top of all that privacy violation you still have WGA/WGN, the high price tag, and the true lack of any real reason to upgrade. When you are done considering that you have to consider why those codecs may have been provided--as a means to ensure you use those tools that give Microsoft's DRM and the content creators control of your computer. What I'm saying is you can't trust to use those products and would be better off buying another brand. I won't use the media player in XP or Vista because the license agreement tells me that I must allow Microsoft to monitor the content.
I'd rather have a small violation of a non-legit codec then to have this ginormous company that was convicted of illegal monopolistic predatory practices telling me what I can and can't do with my computer.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
It's mostly the application devs' fault. Not that who's fault it is makes one iota of difference. The end result is that it's incredibly annoying and I wouldn't want to use it.
Just like no-one cares that lack of driver support on Linux is not really Linux's fault.
Re:Ugh iPhoto (Score:4, Insightful)
with the 500 GB SATA HDD on sale for $150 tell me why I should care.
Re:I agree (Score:2, Insightful)
That was my point you weren't. You were comparing an XP SP'zero' to the latest version of Ubuntu. If you had the latest version of XP it would have been a fairer comparison. It takes me less than half an hour to patch from a recent SP2 disc.
Comparing 'the Live CD doesn't boot' stories is an unfair comparison - there's plently of dodgy hardware that has problems with XP.
Sorry, but a brand name nvidia 8800GTS is not in the same category as 'dodgy hardware'. I agree there is lots of fringe generic crap out there, and XP has its share of problems. But that's about as mainstream as you can get. It just not the same as not being able to get XP working with some 8 year old Win98 MFP scanner/printer/fax that some company congealed.
XP (grudgingly) and Vista. XP is old, out of date, a pain to install and keep working properly, Vista is expensive, is a resource hog, and as the article said is different for difference' sake. Ubuntu is up-to-date, easy to install, easy to keep working properly and comes with a ton of applications right out of the box.
I'm drowning in your bias.
Your complaint against XP is that its 'old' and 'out of date', yet its been refreshed significantly twice and SP3 is expected to arrive soon. Provided you are working from a recent SP2 disc with USB2, common Gigabit chipsets, common SATA controllers, and other modern hardware support installation is not generally difficult at all. In other words, I call bullshit.
Your complaint against Vista is that its expensive? Really? Its cheaper than XP, unless you want Ultimate and its not like the price of XP went up recently. And ultimate? Its basically MCE which didn't even exist at retail. XP Home is about the same price as Vista Home Premium, and Vista Business so far seems cheaper than XP Pro. Compared to Ubuntu, maybe its expensive, and I'll give you that, but then so was XP before it, and 2k before that; -- hardly a flaw of 'vista'.
Your 2nd was that it was a resource hog. And that's valid. Don't put vista on older or marginal hardware. Stick with XP or Ubuntu. But on a new core 2 duo with 2GB of ram, and a fast video card, vista is perfectly snappy. Should it need that much to be snappy? No. Is linux snappier on much less hardware, yes. But if you've got the hardware, Vista runs just fine.
Your last compaint against vista is absurd: that its 'different than XP'. Well, la-di-da. Ubuntu is arbitrarily different from XP too, yet you don't complain about that. And XP is hardly the ideal we should all be striving for anyways. Personally, I -like- a number of the differences. The add remove programs is -better-, the start menu is -better-, the networking control panel/network places/etc is better although there is a learning curve from XP. The reorganization of the control panels was needless, but 'worse'? No, just different. And is Ubuntu better at control panel/gui configuration organization? Hell no. One can learn it, and get used to it, but its as arbitrary as the others, and lacks the consistency you get in windows. Display settings for example... half of them are X, half of them are in Ruby Compiz, a few more them are somewhere else with no links between them take the user from one to the next... sure it makes sense if you understand the layers and role of each layer in the linux windowing system... but its pretty messed up in terms of being logical from a non-technical end user. And don't get me started on the idiosyncracies of getting multiple monitors working 'just so'.
And ubuntu? up to date? ok. But so is Vista, and even XP can be brought up to date fairly easily. But sure Ubuntu is the best on this front.
Easy to install? Have you installed Vista? A 6 year old who'd never touched a computer before could probably make it through. Ubuntu is -great- for anything that just works, but what about stuff that doesn't. Windows pr
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's because: (Score:5, Insightful)
Intriguing. My experience has been that Apple marketing convinces the end user that they have provided all they need. I see this attitude from several of my classmates, who can't seem to understand that changes in program requirements set forth by the professor require them to change their code. "What? You're making me change my program? But I already wrote it!" The rest of us quietly make the changes and move on with our lives.
Here's the thing though: we see a return on our investment, if you will. Meet the prof's specs, get a good grade, eventually get a degree and a good job. Apple and Windows developers tend to see a return on their investment: Please the end user, they buy the product, money in our pockets, move on with life.
what's the return for a Linux developer? "You flaming tightwad, why doesn't the software you spent the last two years of your life working on do XYZ? You should be more considerate of your end user!" It's of no relevance that the program already does A-R, and that even the big boys of the commercial world are just now getting L and Y working properly. How often have YOU voluntarily donated to the developers of the free software you use? What's the incentive to continue developing that software?
I guess the whole point is: We're working on it, just give us a little more time.
Re:Easy (Score:1, Insightful)
Its not hard but this guy is an exception: he has tried all three OS and made up his mind.
The majority of people only know Windows. Hell, the majority of them only know IE and Outlook.
When you have a choice and choose one over the other, I have no problem. Its called free will.
Still, you wouldnt see me troll a Mac forum and tell them how I think their pride is a toy.
Some people go out of their way to be neutral, hence they feel like trolls.
Of course, I also only support Linux machines in our extended family, so i dont believe in choice
I was sick and tired of cleaning out their crapware problems and told them as much. I know still support 8 machines on top of my 4 and spend about 75% less time on it.... You are free to run a dual boot if you need that specific software or games.
Out of those 8 that moved to Linux (Kubuntu, PCLinuxOS and Mandriva), 2 didnt like the Linux and I had no problems with it. You tried, you dont like is fine with me.
Re:Ugh iPhoto (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bundling (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows has a monopoly, Ubuntu doesn't. Ubuntu don't "own" the office suite they bundle, in fact you have the exact same rights to it as they do.
If MS lost it's monopoly, or bundled open-office, noone would have a problem.
Defeat in Detail (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's the key. Switching operating systems is a big deal if it means switching your entire personal software collection at once, and that's what a lot of people try to do and fail. They switch, get culture shock, and retreat back to XP.
If you can figure out which applications you use and then convert yourself to a FOSS program, one by one, then by the time you have finished you can install Ubuntu Gutsy and the rest of your problems will be restricted to driver issues. I don't know why I didn't think of doing it like that earlier, it seems so obvious now.
Re:I agree (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ugh iPhoto (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, a slipstreamed disk is a third-party modification, so I think it's a little bit shakey using it as a comparison. I did try to create one a year ago but found it tediously difficult command-line sourcery (ironically what people often accuse Linux of) so I gave up. I've found a little utility now so I'll give it a go. I do appreciate that if I walked into a shop and bought a boxed XP I would get an SP2 disk, but then that would cost me a lot of money to be able to easily install and OS I already own.
Yes - really. I have piles of old boxes sitting around with XP license stickers on them. Vista will cost me money, big money that I don't have. Remember that I'm talking about what these OSs mean to me. Remember that the convesation started over frustration about articles where people change to Linux because they don't like Vista and I'm trying to explain why, from my point of view, some people might want to do that.
It's not absurd, it's the whole point of the story. Some people feel that Vista has a lot of changes, but not many actual new features from the end-user point of view. Ubuntu cannot be "arbitrarily different" becuase it was never the same in the first place, it's different for at worst historical reasons. Vista started from XP, so each change should be for a good reason, but nevertheless people are looking at XP->Vista and XP->Ubuntu and seeing less difference in the amount of effort each change would take than they had previously believed and seriously thinking of giving Vista a miss.
Don't forget that in my fist post in this thread I said that I'm actually quite excited about giving Vista a go (I'm getting a boxed Ultimate in a couple of weeks time). I am a biased die-hard Linux fan, although my recent frustrating experience of installing XP was for my sister's Christmas present, so I'm not so far down that path that I don't see the need to let people use what they're comfortable with. What interests me is that I'm hearing XP users say they might be more comfortable with Ubuntu than Vista when the time comes to make the switch. Microsoft should be very worried about that.
Re:That's because: (Score:3, Insightful)
The important thing you missed is Excel. Excel is, by far and away, the most important reason so few comapnies move away from Microsoft. Yes, there are alternatives out there. Yes, for 90% of all Excel users, the alternatives are good enough. However, for the last 10% of users, the alternatives are simply not good enough. (Pivot tables, VBA, specific add-ins, mainly.)
And guess what? It's the 10% of users who use this stuff who have the final say.
Re:Ubuntu "getting out of your way" (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the security of an OS no one uses is pretty good, since you can't hack something that's not running...
Seriously, though, a server running out-of-date software (your posted example) is eventually going to get borked regardless of operating system. Bad troll.
Re:That's because: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple marketing may be good, but it doesn't have supernatural powers. It's not as if it is casting its spell over people so they accept music players that are just solid block of plastic, or email programs that don't have the ability to send or receive messages.
The truth is that a solid block of plastic does everything most people need a music player to do. It just falls short in satisfying their wants. And what they need in a computer does not even include a GUI; folks could get by with vi and LaTex. Who knows? Maybe once they got used to it they'd actually be better off. Having a GUI isn't about needs, it's about experience.
Marketing's great vice is definitely not minimizing their customers' needs. On the contrary, it strives in the customer's mind to promote whims to wants, and wants to needs. Apple marketing is no different than any other company's marketing. What they've done differently is to offer a different proposition to their customers. Instead of, "we'll do everything you want", it's "we'll do the things that matter most to you better." Naturally they don't dwell on the things that they don't do (yet -- that's a huge ingredient on the Apple upgrade treadmill). To be fair, other companies that have products that do more things don't exactly dwell on how poorly they do them.
It's all about which proposition you find more credible, which one is more possible to deliver upon.
Re:That's because: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes the key developers on some high profile projects get paid by someone to work on thier projects. Linus gets paid by the "linux foundation" (which seems to be a trade organisation of firms with a vested interest in linux's sucess). The core devs of openoffice and java (which isn't fully opensource yet but is getting that way) are paid by sun. The commercial linux distros also put some paid development in the direction of projects that matter to them.
However I see no evidence that this is typical, all the smaller opensource projects I have been involved with them have been run by people who have a day job doing something else and propietry software for linux seems to be virtually nonexistant.
Re:Ubuntu "getting out of your way" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's because: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pivot tables. Seriously - you will never get a power user to switch from Excel without a good implementation of pivot tables. And again, power users dictate what tools to use (at least in this case). The last few times this has come up, more than one comment has read "what are those? I have never used them!". The obvious answer to that is "small wonder you can't understand why people stick with Excel".
Also, other power users of Excel may give a different answer to this question, which is why the contenders have such a difficult time getting a foothold. You really have to do very close to 100% of what Excel does at least as well in order to convince the power users to switch. And the perceived loss of giving up known features is larger than the perceived gain from new features, so in practice it's impossible to skip pivot tables and do something else exceedingly well. I have no idea what the alternatives do exceedingly well, my point is simply that that doesn't matter much.
But what is the advantage over XP or Win2K? (Score:3, Insightful)
To msft users, I guess these posts seem logical. But I always think: WTF? why are switching at all?
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Until then, Microsoft will still be king.
Good. Call me back in about seven years. I'll be the guy eating your lunch because I familiarized myself with the next big thing instead of burying my head in the sand of the last big thing.