Shuttleworth Says Ubuntu Can't Just Be Windows 710
ruphus13 writes "When Mark Shuttleworth was asked what role WINE will play in Ubuntu's success, he said that Ubuntu cannot simply be a better platform to run Windows apps. From the post, according to Shuttleworth, '[Windows and Linux] both play an important role but fundamentally, the free software ecosystem needs to thrive on its own rules. it is *different* to the proprietary software universe. We need to make a success of our own platform on our own terms. if Linux is just another way to run Windows
apps, we can't win. OS/2 tried that ...' The post goes on to say, 'Linux simply isn't Windows (nor is Windows Linux) and to expect fundamentally different approaches (and I'm not just thinking closed versus open) to look, feel, and operate the same way is senseless.'"
Well, not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps, while XP was a $100 way of running Windows apps. And compared to XP, Vista also needed $400 worth of hardware.
Depressing proof that it's all in the marketing.
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps, while XP was a $100 way of running Windows apps. And compared to XP, Vista also needed $400 worth of hardware.
Depressing proof that it's all in the marketing.
But the $100 option meant you couldn't have "Team OS/2" in your Usenet signature.
The cost is beside the point. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a long-time Linux (and much more recently OS X) user, and if I am presented with a piece of software that requires Windows to run it, I usually prefer to just do without.
Fortunately in my discipline (biotech) developers are beginning to realise there are alternatives - for instance, Geneious [geneious.com] is a stupendously fine example. It's definitely not free, but it is available on multiple platforms, which is a big step away from where we were a couple of years ago.
Compare this with Endnote [endnote.com] which is rapidly losing ground to Zotero [zotero.org] because the developers refuse to cooperate with the *nix world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think Endnote is losing out to Zotero because Zotero is available for Linux (Endnote exists for OS X, too)? I doubt that's the reason. I'd say it's because Zotero is free!
Re:The cost is beside the point. (Score:5, Interesting)
Zotero fills that gap on both counts, and works perfectly well with OpenOffice. I'm not interested in starting a flamewar here, since any mention of OOo on
Bibtex (Score:5, Informative)
That's because you shouldn't be using OpenOffice for academic writing. It's ok, but it's painful if you have to say.. typeset equations.
You should be using LaTeX. If you need a gui, then use LyX, which has, to date, the most efficient and capable equation editor I've seen so far. It's helped, of course, by including a pass-through feature for anything it doesn't understand.
LyX integrates with a few bibtex managers, or flat text files.
And of course, the big advantage is that you don't even bother writing the style file. You just use the standard one from the appropriate body (ams, for instance), or get it from the publisher. You use the markup for what it was intended for: telling the software where the sections are, and what bits of text are the titles for those sections, subsections, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Vista cost me $100 the week it came out - legally at that. You're either doing it wrong or you're being disingenuous for the sake of argument.
That was for a retail license? If you are not actually a system builder, ie. someone who assembles and and sells said hardware to customers, then you in a legal gray area. MSFT produces retail version of the full version and upgrades for purpose. It is not for fun.
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Informative)
Home Basic? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the version that's Vista without the "Vista"? Most people I know when they talk about Vista never even include the Basic version. $400 MIGHT be what Ultimate goes for, but also isn't what most people think of when they think Vista. I think the amount for Home Premium or Business is closer to $250 which might be more accurate. Far less then $400 but also far more then $100.
I think $250 for full retail of an OS is a bit much, but that's just me.
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think $250 for full retail of an OS is a bit much, but that's just me.
Its all relative.
It does a hell of a lot more than most software. And its a hell of a lot more complicated than most software too. File systems, threading, memory management, security, networking, printing, hardware abstraction...
Yet people drop more than that amount for 'Apple remote desktop' which is SSH, VNC, SCP, and a few tricks. Or check out the price of Acrobat 9, Simply Accounting Premium (with Reports!!!111), or Filemaker Pro 10...
Suddenly retail OSes seems cheap.
It just goes to prove that 'Price' and 'how much it can do / how complicated that stuff is' are completely unrelated.
Re: (Score:3)
When you can buy a computer (with the windows OS) for almost the same price AS the OS.. no I don't think it's good value. Add in the fact their competitors are Apple ($150 I think for OS X?) and Linux (don't need to go there)... I find it rather expensive. Comparing an OS to a software package that is completely different doesn't validate it.
I don't run Windows at home because I'm not about to fork over that kinda money for each machine.
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Funny)
It's still about $200 more than its worth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps, while XP was a $100 way of running Windows apps.
And that's why XP is still vastly more popular than Vista.
Or maybe because it isn't bloatware?
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an insightful commentary on the vast bloatiness of Vista that XP can be considered not to be bloatware in comparison.
I can remember testing computers that were marginal on 2000, which became unusable with XP, even after cutting out all the unnecessary crap I could. And these computers ran quite well on NT 4.0. (The testing was part of an attempt to convince management that no, we couldn't continue to use our 8 year old computers.)
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah but how many *brand new* XP machines did you buy that ran like crap? I suspect the answer is "none" because Microsoft's recommendations to hardware manufacturers were realistic (128 meg recommended). Now compare that to Vista:
My brother bought himself a brand-new Vista machine, with 512 meg of RAM, and it's as slow as a snail through molasses. Microsoft gave the hardware manufacturers bad advice when they said 512 meg was enough space.
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Interesting)
When XP was launched on board graphics cards were 16MB at most (more often 4MB). When the manufactures did that they were selling machines which had 92% of the recommended ram. When Manufactures sold Vista machines they were selling them with 60% of the minimum required ram. In modern terms its the equivilent of running XP on 48MB's of ram. Possible but makes the system seem like a bloated piece of rubbish.
I honestly think most of Vista's perception problems were caused by manufacturer's being stingy on their hardware and lazy in writing their drivers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, as we all know, the plural of 'anecdote' is 'data'... so I guess XP was about the same as 2000. ;)
I remember reading an article when 2000 was released, claiming that it was "the world's largest commercial software program" in terms of the amount of code. I wonder how Vista compares in that respect...
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Funny)
My 8 year old computer ran xp just fine... celeron 1.1 with 512 ram Vista wants that as a minimum, if that's just for the os how are you going to use it for anything else? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx [microsoft.com]
Best use? comic relief! press the "ON" button, and look at Vista trying to squeeze itself in the RAM. the Funniest half an hour you'll get.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps, while XP was a $100 way of running Windows apps.
And that's why XP is still vastly more popular than Vista.
Or maybe because it isn't bloatware?
Wasn't XP considered bloatware when it first came out?
O_o (Score:4, Insightful)
XP isn't bloatware.
...
Amazing. People really can get used to anything. How an OS that needs a FULL CD when it doesn't actually CONTAIN anything can not be called bloatware I shall never understand. Don't link to linux images, those contain a full suit of software not just simple editor, a basic media player with no codec support.
I hope your defence is that you are just young.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, how many people did buy XP or Vista as a software box?
Now, Vista is by no way a failure (albeit technically can be just trash) because it actually got shipped inside millions of brand new computers.
And in top of that, Microsoft is in a position of getting more revenue from its "failure": those people with the "ruinous Vista" will buy (again) their "solution" named 7.
So, from the M$ POV, Vista is a total commercial success, and that's what really matters for them, despite all the complains from ang
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Informative)
I remember only paying $75 for my first version of OS/2 Warp 3.0. Then, a few years later, I was willing to pay up to $119 to upgrade to OS/2 Warp 4.0 to avoid having to use Windows on my home PC the way I was forced to use it at work. I can't remember any of my OS/2 colleagues paying any more than that. Where did you get those pricing figures?
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at the history.
If IBM had gotten its shit together and gotten OS/2 out the door in the early 1990s as originally intended, Windows would have been known only as the GUI interface. Windows would have been to OS/2 as Gnome is to Ubuntu: a pretty front end to a powerful and secure operating system.
But OS/2 was crippled by infighting among the divisions of IBM, and was tilting at windmills in its pursuit of true multitasking on the Intel 80286 microprocessor. (One of the best quotes ever from Bill Gates was when he described the 286 as being "brain dead"). While IBM got itself all tangled up trying to do something never done before-- true pre-emptive multitasking on a microchip with all the appropriate security that would need-- Microsoft took advantage of an escape clause in its contract to develop Windows for IBM, and tied this GUI front-end on top of DOS, which could not do multitasking and had no security model at all. Micorsoft also jumped over the 286 and developed for the 80386 microprocessor (then backfilled to provide some limited capabilities on the 80286). Thus Win3.0 came on the scene, complete with "cooperative multitasking"-- which meant no true multitasking at all.
If OS/2 had been released even as late as 1992, Microsoft would have been unable to compete with its technical superiority. We would have OS/2 and not Windows. A lot of things would have happened very differently... the delay in OS/2 was a significant historical cusp.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>IBM was tilting at windmills in its pursuit of true multitasking on the Intel 80286 microprocessor.
>>>(One of the best quotes ever from Bill Gates was when he described the 286 as being "brain dead").
Why is that? The much-older 1979 Motorola 68000 was capable of doing preemptive multitasking, so why couldn't the 286 perform multitasking too? I don't see why the task would be impossible. Although if your story is accurate, developing for the 286 does seem a waste considering the i386
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The 286 had all the infrastructure needed to do multitasking. However, the segmentation model was still the same 16-bit model with segments of at most 64 kB. I suppose that was the braindead-ness that Gates referred to.
The 386 built really extended the 286 hardware by adding a segment selection size so that segments of 4Gb could be addressed and then added paging on top of it to provide a good virtual memory system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was. However the GP is correct that IBM tried to protect their server market by neutering OS/2 through tying it to the 286. They also made the API gratuitously incompatible with Windows for some reason.
Nevertheless, if OS/2 had been a popular and successful operating system, Microsoft probably would have killed Windows after the 2.x line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think cost had that much to do with OS/2's failure. Note that at one point IBM was basically giving away OS/2 to people who bought PCs from them, with machines that dual booted OS/2 and Windows. And towards the end, you could buy OS/2 for a lot less than $500! Anyway, the retail cost of a shrinkwrap copy of an OS doesn't have much to do with its adoption, because most people adopt an OS by buying a machine with it pre-installed.
One day I read that even IBM sales pushed Windows and ignored OS/2. That
Ubuntu should be MORE than windows (Score:5, Insightful)
If Ubuntu were a $0 way of running windows applications it would take over the world.
Ubuntu shouldn't be *just* windows, it should be windows and more. The problem is that the "and more" part Ubuntu already does perfectly but the "just windows" part is still not complete.
If wine could run every relevant windows applications, people could forget the applications and concentrate on what the system itself does.
Linux is so much better, so much more powerful, easier to use, secure, and stable than windows it's a shame so many people are turned off Linux because their work requires exactly this or that application.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ubuntu shouldn't be *just* windows, it should be windows and more.
Wanting a better windows is like wanting a better Ford Escort. A better version of an obsolete piece of crap seems like a good idea to people who are accustomed to the piece of crap, but it's holding back the rest of the world who isn't interested in compatibility with old things done in a retarded way. Desktop Linux has been on a long march sideways since about RedHat 4, with its FVWM-95 Windows theme. (So yes, for some of us, the Year of the Linux Desktop was around 1997. We've moved on.)
The basic prob
Re:Ubuntu should be MORE than windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from running Photoshop and Quicken, it does everything a computer should do, perfectly. I run work and entertainment applications. Play movies, browse the web, play music, invert matrixes, find eigenvalues, do fourier transforms, administer databases, etc.
And what I don't need to do: no need to run virus scan, no need to defrag disks, no need to buy memory upgrades, no need to buy software, no need to run regedit, etc.
What windows can do but is much easier in Linux: run a web server, run a mail server, run a file server, run *any* server.
No hassle, no regedit, no googling forum after forum looking for answers, no downloading drivers, no reformatting, no reinstalling. The "and more" that Linux does perfectly now is what a computer should do, it runs year after year without any intervention. I have a Linux server running without *any* input at all since 1992. It does its simple task exactly as it was meant to.
On the desktop side, the "and more" means I can configure my desktop and icons in the way I prefer without any problem, I just select whatever I want without having to worry about "security". The system is secure because it was designed that way, I don't need to buy or download anything. I can configure the way the desktop works. I can select between several different desktop managers. High performance (KDE), easy to configure (Gnome), low hardware requirements (IceWM), you name it.
And, if something doesn't work the way it should, I have no need to reformat and reinstall, download newer drivers, repeat, ad infinitum. With Linux there's always one more resource, google the problem and you'll find a forum somewhere with the answer, even if it means you'll have to recompile something. It's better to recompile than to fall back to reformat and reinstall...
Re:Well, not quite... (Score:5, Informative)
I never paid anywhere near $500 for OS/2.
I could be misremembering -- it's been so long -- but $99 for upgrades is what I recall. Once I paid full price for a standard edition because for some fool reason I didn't want to wait a month for the upgrade, but I'm pretty sure even that wasn't anywhere near $500
I got OS/2 Warp 3.0 for about $60-80 soon after it came out. I also got a full legal Vista Home Premium for $109. The GP was just making up numbers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What on earth were you doing that was causing it to swap in 8MB? I ran Windows 3.1 for years on a 386SX with 4MB of RAM. It ran Word 2 without much swapping, and only hit the virtual memory hard when I edited large images (a 400dpi scan could quickly fill up 4MB of RAM).
Maybe you're confusing it with Windows 95, which claimed to only need 4MB, needed 8MB to actually work, and 16MB to run more than one program at a time.
But running windows would help (Score:5, Insightful)
With me...there are some windows applications I have to use (Quickbooks pro for my company I contract through), and on jobsites often there are tools they have that are only windows based.
I find when I have to use those windows boxes on site, I often really, really miss having my unix tools (sed, awk, etc...) around. If I could have my linux install, and have the hard core tools to use, and be able to also run windows apps when I needed to, I'd be happy to go.
That need, obviously isn't one Joe User needs, but, maybe it would work the other way around with JU. He has his windows apps, and over time, discovers the neat tools and functionality that Linux offers. Frankly, as long as he has his apps he needs from windows, he doesn't care what the OS is.
Re:But running windows would help (Score:5, Informative)
I find when I have to use those windows boxes on site, I often really, really miss having my unix tools (sed, awk, etc...) around.
1) Install Cygwin [cygwin.com].
2) Add the Cygwin bin directory to your path.
3) Enjoy - The Command Prompt just got a helluva lot more useful.
Wasted 3 mod points that I'd contributed before posting, but felt the need to share the joy of Cygwin. Makes Windows damned near tolerable for people that have to have it.
rxvt - better command window (Score:3, Informative)
And to have a nice, beautiful terminal window, instead of running bash in the default WinXP's terminal window, install RXVT [sourceforge.net] (available in Cygwin's installer) and run bash in it.
Support fast mouse cut'n'paste, nice window resizing, acceptable scroll back buffer, etc.
If you're forced to endure windows, Cygwin's bash+rxvt help soothing part of the pain.
Re:But running windows would help (Score:4, Informative)
You don't even have to go that far. Just install the free unix tools for windows. I carry these around on a usb thumbdrive. I even set up a custom zsh environment that allows me to write she-bang scripts, including activestate perl (also running from the usb drive).
http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mintty is what I currently use.
http://code.google.com/p/mintty/ [google.com]
If you must have tabs console works pretty well too
http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/ [sourceforge.net]
Re:But running windows would help (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I use Cygwin...or more precisely CygwinX [cygwin.com] ...basically cygwin, with xwindows thrown in. I fire up cygwin. Start X from that...and open up a bunch of xterm windows. Works pretty well...
Re:But running windows would help (Score:4, Informative)
You may look at andLinux [andlinux.org]. A real Linux distro (specifically, Ubuntu) running inside Windows, by way of Cooperative Linux. It seemed dead for awhile, though it seems to have come back to life.
Also, the new version can now make Windows file associations point to andLinux programs.
Only real caveat for this is it will not currently work on any 64-bit version of Windows.
Re:But running windows would help (Score:4, Insightful)
Wine is getting there, but it's not there yet. Emulation might work, but then it needs to be seamless. Until Ubuntu can beard the dragon in its own lair, it will be fighting the overwhelming advantage of incumbent software Windows has rather than making it work for it.
Re:But running windows would help (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never bearded a dragon, that sounds difficult. What if the dragon hasn't gone through puberty yet? :-o
Joking aside, I disagree. Linux needs to be good (and easy, if you want the same market share and same market demographic) at the SAME THINGS, but not necessarily the SAME PROGRAMS. There's a vast difference.
Now, being able to go between the two - including file formats - is important. But I don't need to run, say, MS Office on Linux. I do use OpenOffice 3 and it works well (except for Impress, last time I tried using it). And going between MS and OO.org isn't a problem, for the most part.
Firefox, chatting (I even used Pidgin on Windows), etc.
Where I see Ubuntu (8.10 and just upgraded to 9.04) right now is multimedia. Video playback isn't all that great, Flash video full screen is jerky (not related to sound) ... (I know, video drivers [ATI], but you're not going to convince the average person that Linux IS better, it's ATI that's the problem...). Sound can sometimes get tied up between applications. PulseAudio is not very standard yet and doesn't work with all apps. Songbird is an OK itunes replacement but it's not as good. Amarok 2 doesn't play well with Gnome/ALSA/Pulse as far as it running and other sound-enabled apps running.
I think the Linux community needs to focus more on being able to do the basic stuff easily and well, and forget trying to run Quake 3 or Far Cry or Half-Life 2 [or whatever] with a higher FPS than native in Windows.
(and by the way, lest anyone think I'm just an Ubuntu guy and not a Linux guy, I used opensuse and only recently switched to ubuntu [after trying a variety of other ones, including Mint, Mandriva, etc) at home, and redhat/SLES[/hpux/solaris/aix] at work)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the clearcut question here is whether or not program substitution works; that is, can FOSS program X beat proprietary program Y. In some cases that's a resounding YES. In some cases, that seems to be a very likely no.
The obvious examples that spring to my mind are things like specific engineering applications which do not have a linux port. Admittedly, that number is shrinking, and I
Re:But running windows would help (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, Wine is not "getting there" at all. If the Windows API specs were open, it would be a different matter. As it stands, the specs are closed, and Microsoft is as willing as usual to spoil any attempts to make things compatible. Would it not be easier to rewrite core apps from scratch? Office, Photoshop, Exchange. What else do you guys need? No one really cares about games. If Windows remains the primary game platform, no big loss. We have plenty of other proprietary game platforms, and it seems to be the natural way. Can we finally have a productivity platform running free software, though?
We already have OpenOffice, which is comparable to MS Office in both feature set and performance. While it may be wise at the time for most people to delay the transition, those who say that MS Office is better for anything are insane. Today, those who build a solution from scratch and are not tied to DOC format will automatically choose OO. Here we won already.
Gimp is not Photoshop, but it would be a Photoshop Jr. if only we added more color depth. That seems to be easier to do than to make Wine work.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but Exchange server is a database with a web interface. Don't we have all the components already? Compared to the Wine project goals, it would be almost trivial to throw some stuff together to make a feature-equivalent app.
I greatly respect the effort that went into Wine, but it seems like we could do better by simply filling the few remaining gaps in the desktop application world. Wine offers quickly diminishing returns because MS will never publish (let alone free) the code and will never stop intentionally breaking compatibility. Aside from very simple cases, Wine will never be used for OS transition, as that would require 100% compatibility, which is impossible to achieve.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm I dunno. Games are great for generating interest in young people, especially interest in programming, but I seriously doubt that the presence of high-profile games will be a deciding factor in any office or workplace.
Also, if you want to make your own game and you do not care about making bajillions of dollars, you are much better off with GNU/Linux anyway. There you have the entire development toolchain free, documented, community-supported. You are as free to hack out something quick and dirty as y
Re:But running windows would help (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. That's exactly what Shuttleworth is saying. If linux can run windows programs, then traditional windows programmers have no reason to try to develop natively for the platform. This is one thing that ended up killing OS/2. But Linux, luckily, cannot be killed in this way thanks to the community of open source developers around it. OS/2 didn't have that advantage, so died when nobody wrote native apps for it. Not to discredit the WINE developers for the work they have done, but native apps are the better approach here.
Shuttleworth has it right. We don't want to be another way to run windows programs. We need to be our own environment, and not ape things just for the sake of doing it the same, tired, broken way. I am happy to see that many of the wonderful things from OS/2's WPS are slowly making their way into the linux environments. There's still a way to go, but it's already better in many ways than the windows UI 'experience'.
New record for least content in an article? (Score:5, Insightful)
So this news story is fluff spun out of two lines of IRC chat?
Re:New record for least content in an article? (Score:5, Informative)
TFStory
(12:24:03 PM) jcastro: jcastro: QUESTION: Do you see Wine (and Windows-compatibilty in general) or native Linux ports as the more important ingredient in the success of Ubuntu, or do they each play an important role?
(12:24:18 PM) sabdfl: they both play an important role
(12:24:30 PM) sabdfl: but fundamentally, the free software ecosystem needs to thrive on its own rules
(12:24:41 PM) sabdfl: it is *different* to the proprietary software universe
(12:24:54 PM) sabdfl: we need to make a success of our own platform on our own terms
(12:25:08 PM) sabdfl: if Linux is just another way to run Windows apps, we can't win
(12:25:13 PM) sabdfl: OS/2 tried that
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not going to try and base our business model on WINE.
Much better to have native apps.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read what he said:
"they both play an important role
but fundamentally, the free software ecosystem needs to thrive on its own rules
it is *different* to the proprietary software universe
we need to make a success of our own platform on our own terms
if Linux is just another way to run Windows apps, we can't win
OS/2 tried that"
much better to have open source apps! Proprietary apps running natively on Linux affect the free software ecosystem in the same way that prop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the business model for Canonical was enterprise desktop Linux? I mean, they have to grow up and become a profitable firm at some point right, even Shuttleworth will run out of money one day. But if their marketing for Ubuntu is "it's good because it DOESN'T run your existing line-of-business applications" I don't think they're going to get far. Canonical is a toy company, still, and always has been.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In an ideal world however we live in a world where there are millions of Win32-only apps and the cost of rewriting them is prohibitive. People are not going to leave Windows if their software doesn't work, and that doesn't mean things like Office and Photoshop, it means much more obscure stuff.
Ubuntu is just not as cool as its competitor (Score:3, Funny)
In a stunning public relations coup, Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MNPLY) has successfully overshadowed Ubuntu Linux 9.04 "Juicy Jubblies" [today.com] by announcing that it is laying even more people off.
Microsoft announced new and expanded roles for remaining key executives as another several lesser, losing quitters deserted upper management. "It shows the fantastic opportunity available to everyone at Microsoft to climb seven or eight reporting levels up the org chart," said marketing marketer Steve Ballmer to pitchfork-wielding Wall Street analysts today. "If we haven't laid them off for making too much money or not kissing enough ass."
The Yahoo! deal is expected to go ahead. "We figure they'll go broke before we do. Probably." Mr Ballmer also plans to run the Yahoo! servers on Windows NT rather than FreeBSD after a similar change worked so well at Hotmail. "Some say synergy's another word for two plus two equals one, but you just have to make the value of one work for you."
Windows 7 betas have been greeted with remarkable positive press. "Of course, the betas preview the 'champagne and hookers' edition, which would be way too much for netbooks and explode users' brains. Imagine thinking those little things are computers! So we're releasing what we call Windows 7 Dumbass Edition(tm). It lets you log in and look at the shiny. Even Spider Solitaire has the ribbon toolbar! And you can buy an upgrade to the version that runs programs! It lets you do that!"
Dumbass Edition(tm) comes with pre-installed viruses to make the computer part of the Storm, Conficker and FBI botnets. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
However, Microsoft has indicated to its press corps, Microsoft Completely Enderlependent Analysts, to ixnay on the evensay and highlight the job openings for work on Windows 8, firmly penciled in for a 2012 release. Windows 8 will be optimised for low-end 32-core systems with a mere 16 gigabytes of memory -- 28 cores for the interface, 3 cores for the DRM and one core for everything else. "'Seven' is just so this year. I hear they'll get $DATABASE_FILESYSTEM done next release for sure!" said ZDNet marketing marketer Mary-Jo Enderle. "It'll be awesome(tm)!"
"I'm sure it'll be fine, fine," said Bill Gates, upping his hours at his charitable foundation and scheduling the sale of several more packages of Microsoft stock.
Larry Ellison of Oracle, who recently purchased Sun Microsystems, merely snickered, muttered "Java. OpenOffice." and let out a long and resounding laugh.
Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical, speaking from his castle on a crag high on a mountaintop in west London, was sanguine at Ubuntu's news being overshadowed. "I lost ten million dollars on Ubuntu last year. I'm losing ten million dollars on Ubuntu this year. I expect to lose ten million dollars on Ubuntu next year. At this rate, I'll be broke in ... sixty years."
I think he's wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
I normally agree with Shuttleworth, but I don't think he's right here. He's right in the long-term, Ubuntu shouldn't just be another platform for running Windows apps, because ideally long-term all apps will be written cross-platform to hit both markets.
However, in the short term, I firmly believe that Wine is the only way to massively increase Ubuntu's market share. It's the appications that people care about, like iTunes, Photoshop or Autocad. If Wine can run your Windows apps, what do you have to lose by migrating? If Ubuntu doesn't run Windows apps, then whole crowds of people just can't dump Windows for it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
However, in the short term, I firmly believe that Wine is the only way to massively increase Ubuntu's market share.
Embrace, extend, extinguish!
Re:I think he's wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
If your going to be using windows apps anyway, what do you have to gain by migrating?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Wine can run your Windows apps, what do you have to lose by migrating?
Support.
Company X: Hi I'm having problems with your software.
Tech support: Sorry to hear that, to start off, can I have the software version and the version of Windows you're using.
Company X: Sure. I'm running v3.4.5 and I'm running it on WINE.
Tech support: Our product wasn't designed to work while the user is intoxicated.
Company X: No, I meant I'm running it on Ubuntu under WINE.
Tech support: Do experience this problem when running on Windows?
Company X:No.
Tech support: I'm sorry, but our software is only
But They Need a Story! (Score:5, Funny)
Reporter A: So
Shuttleworth: Ok, for the last time, I am going to go over this very very slowly.
*Shuttleworth writes Ubuntu and Windows on the chalkboard and puts a massive "does not equal" sign in between them.*
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu cannot and will not ever "be" Windows. I've been over this for the past two hours, can we move away from Windows/Ubuntu comparisons here?
Reporter B: But you want to be a widely used operating system?
Shuttleworth: That is correct.
Reporter B: And Windows is the most widely user operating system?
Shuttleworth: Also correct.
Reporter B:
*Shuttleworth lets out a long drawn-out sigh, massages his forehead and takes a drink from his glass of water*
Shuttleworth: *holds up two pieces of fruit* In my left hand I hold an apple. In my right hand I hold an orange. Although both are round, the two taste different and have different colors and subtle shapes
Reporter C: Hold on, an "Apple"? I'm not following you, are you saying you're trying to "be" OS X?
Shuttleworth: This press conference is over!
WINE is irrelevant... (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM, Oracle, Shuttleworth, and redhat (Score:3, Interesting)
The question ppl should be asking is WHY is Apple gaining desktop? because they PUSH to get the apps that are needed. Just like Safari. Jobs hit all the banks and got after them to make it work with safari. And Safari is now up and coming. If the Linux world would learn from that, and push a few of the top companies to port their app to Linux, then we would see massive surge in it. As it is, Shuttleworth has realized that having Linux INSTALLED at time of purchase is big.
Actually (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a proper time to push WINE compatibility with Ubuntu -- after a few major industry players, as you describe, put out an Ubuntu version of their software.
The key is to get a user's most important apps running natively, so that there's an incentive to switch. Then you add the compatibility layer for their other miscellaneous apps to take away the disincentive to switch.
Bravo (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu cannot simply be a better platform to run Windows apps.
Exactly right. Morphing Linux into a Windows software platform would be a major mistake. You'd still be locking users into one way of doing things. I'm sitting here looking at our developers, all working on Linux. One uses pico, one a text editor another uses Eclipse. We all work differently, even different distros, and all manage to get our work done.
In a Windows shop we were all using the same OS, the same development environment and the same tools. Everything was regimented into MSFT's way of doing things and limited by the latitude they decide you get. Their tools, their rules, their training, their way. And it seemed we were always dancing on their string over something. Licensing, product activation, version compatibility issues, so we'd get paid to rewrite working applications for new frameworks, security patches that break things, the upgrade treadmill. Hours of undocumented time pouring through knowledge base articles. It was a constant waterfall of nit-picky little things that we would have to bend our schedule, manage our time to accommodate. The bonus was you always looked stressed out and busy and it was job security. Without regular maintenance, apps would stop working. You have no idea how much time you spend digging sand in a MSFT environment until you move off it.
I think it's nice that Wine exists for those odd times you need to run a Windows app. But that should never be the OS focus. And in the bigger picture of proprietary v free, as long as MSFT dictates your application environment, you're still dancing on their string.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lokcing users into one way of doing things is a Good Thing(tm). With Windows or OS X, there's a finite learning curve. With Linux, skills are far less portable. In Window
Re:Bravo (Score:4, Informative)
I think most devs would tend to agree that having uniformity is a good thing indeed. It's why the Linux kernel is popular and nobody really cares about Hurd. Linux is good, people know it, and so for the vast majority of people it's the way to fun FOSS.
However there is nothing wrong with some flexibility. Is it a bad thing that we have both Gnome and KDE? I'd further argue that the MS platform is, as the GP said, filled with a ton of little issues that can make working with it not as much as a 'finite learning curve' as you think. Digging to see why some API call is not working correctly because MS wants to obscure it for whatever reason is no fun.
Re:Bravo (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes.
Freedom is great. However, freedom requires choices. Choices impede adoption. Imagine there was one Linux distro. Well, now to convince people to try it out, they have to partition their drive and set up a dual-boot. Icky, but a well-written setup program can accomidate this. So, let's say you can make a Windows installer that re-partitions the drive, and installs Linux, sets up the dual-boot properly. Now, you can convince people to download and try Linux.
Now, every choice you make means I have to try to research what I want, and every bit of extra time you ask for me to make a choice between two things, I have three options. A, B or screw it.
I don't mind reparitioning and installing a new OS... I did that so I could dualboot 2000 and XP. But I really don't want to have to make tons of little choices. I don't give a shit, but my pride doesn't let me choose arbitarily. Give me one thing that works. I don't want to tinker with the OS.
So, KDE + Gnome slows adoption by quite a bit, which means that fewer people write apps, which has a chilling effect, etc.
Sure. And as a developer I have to do dig through a heap of inaccurate documentation. I hate it. But my customers (for the reasons I outlined above and many others) use Windows. I create software to make money, so I create software for Windows.
And yes, we try to abstract out the OS, so that we can port it later. But it's never been worth our while to actually do so.
Thumbs down (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly right. Morphing Linux into a Windows software platform would be a major mistake.
This is the developer speaking.
Not the user. Not the office manager. Not the kid manning the help desk.
Users like having one way of doing things.
It makes their life easier.
The astonishing thing about The Ribbon in Office 2007 is how quickly and easily this fundamental change in the Office UI took hold.
That doesn't happen unless you really, really, understand the user and the task.
The proprietary developer has to do th
users don't figure out how to install apps (Score:5, Informative)
I've gotten several people in my family started with Ubuntu, and one weird thing I've observed is that none of them ever seem to spontaneously figure out how to install applications -- they don't even seem to realize that the open-source apps are out there, or that it might be desirable to install them.
Okay, maybe this is a good thing, because maybe it just means that a default Ubuntu does a very good job of including enough apps that the average user can do everything they need to do. Or maybe it just means that most people, unlike me, don't enjoy playing with software.
But it really does make me wonder whether the Linux community could be doing a better job of selling itself based on the availability of a huge number of free, high-quality applications. Apt-cache stats says that I have 25,000 packages installed on my desktop machine at home, all of them free. If even 1% of those cost $10 each, we'd be talking about a massive investment in order to build up a similar software library using proprietary software.
Now it might seem obvious to linux geeks that you should say, "I want to do x, therefore I search on freshmeat for an app that does x, and then I install it." But most people don't even think that way about computer software. They're in the habit of buying it in a store, or on amazon, and they expect it to cost money. Synaptic doesn't exactly advertise itself very well, either. Users seem to putter around for years in Gnome without ever noticing that there's a utility built into the menus that would allow them to download a ton of free software.
Re:users don't figure out how to install apps (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely agree. Synaptic and the whole "Add/Remove Software..." (I think that's what Ubuntu calls it) thing are fundamentally different ways of obtaining software than what people are used to with Windows or Mac. I told someone today that I had only paid for one (non-game) piece of software in my life, and they thought I meant I was a huge pirate or something. "Download" has become synonymous with "illegal" for most people and telling folks they can just download whatever software they want for free is going to require some serious de-indoctrination.
When that lightbulb goes off in someone's head that they can download any of the software in that big list for free, legally, and easily, and then that it (generally) just works... it's a beautiful thing. That's when I think people start to realize how awesome OSS can be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've gotten several people in my family started with Ubuntu, and one weird thing I've observed is that none of them ever seem to spontaneously figure out how to install applications
Not weird: they're used to Windows, which doesn't have a "go get free software" button - and if they have found the "Add/Remove programs button" in Windows, that is almost exclusively used to remove software, so the natural assumption is that the similarly-named button in Ubuntu does the same.
Perhaps that tool should be re-styled, and re-named, along the lines of an "App Store" with a bit of hoopla - user reviews, featured products etc. and kept restricted to end-user friendly, GUI-driven application soft
Re:users don't figure out how to install apps (Score:5, Interesting)
We casual computer users will use the applications we find unless they don't do what we want.
I never wanted to learn computer science, I wanted to use a word processor instead of a typewriter back in 1990 when I got my first PC. I used WordPerfect-5.1, had to learn DOS memory management to get WP to run in (faster) expanded memory mode. Note I said "had to" not "wanted to." I even wrote macros to make editing docs more rational than WP's infamous interface.
When Windows 95 came out, DOS was obviously deprecated, and I got on the upgrade treadmill, installing WP-6.0a for WIndows. Alas, my macros wouldn't work. Also I hated Windows' registry. I could still run WP-5.1 under DOS, but W95 kept crashing under it.
I tried Linux in 1997. Got SuSE 5.0 installed and it was ugly. Tried again in 1998 when WP ported version 8 to Linux. My distro was Caldera 1.3; I liked KDE, which seemed more advanced than W95 to me, and ran WP-5.1 under DOSemu. I moved to Red Hat 6.0, which I used for six years, learning to update and upgrade with RPM and by compiling. By then, I needed a newsgroup client; Pan was just coming into existence, and I volunteered to build RPMs for that project while using NX under Wine as Pan was still unstable as all hell.
Now I use an Ubuntu variant and run WP-5,1 under QEMU. Pan is now useful, so I quit using FA; VLC, Dragon Player, Gnome viewer and Digikam have replaced Irfanview under WINE for me. Ytree has replaced Xtree Gold. Sylpheed mail replaced Forte Free Agent under Wine.
I found Linux programs I needed on the internet, gradually, over time, the same way I found Windows apps.
As I said, I never *wanted* to learn CS. But I have, I have.
And doubtless many other unwilling CS hobbyists will do the same, find Adept or Synaptic and explore it, or find mention of an app on the internet and try to install it.
Shuttleworth is quite right, but after almost twenty years, I have NOT replaced WP-5.1 with emacs or the like; I most profoundly do NOT want to learn another macro language. WP-5.1 serves me very, very well still, thanks to Freedos http://www.freedos.org/ [freedos.org] Ultimate Ubuntu and QEMU.
Re:users don't figure out how to install apps (Score:5, Insightful)
As I said, I never *wanted* to learn CS. But I have, I have.
With due respect, you learned IT and not CS - not that the former is anything to sneeze at.
Freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu won't "just be windows" because it is free (NOT as in beer). The more I use my 360 and PS3 to try to play media from my PC the more I understand how bad the protected DRM-everything model is for consumers. That's the future of Windows, guys. People are not going to put up with their hardware refusing to do what should easily be able to do as long as there is an alternative that will do everything else too. Convenience is king, and DRM is becoming increasingly restrictive and annoying.
Re:Freedom. (Score:5, Informative)
DRM is a series of restrictions that are there to prevent people from stealing (media) intellectual property.
The GPL is a series of restrictions that are there to prevent people from stealing (source code) intellectual property.
This is only a superficial similarity emphasized by your borderline-incorrect choice of wording. Any closer examination reveals that DRM and GPL are serving opposite ends using opposite means.
DRM is a technical framework that prevents you from doing things that are legal, and often does so in an unfriendly way. If it weren't for the DRM applied to a certain piece of media content you receive, you could do more with it.
GPL is a legal framework that allows you to do things that are otherwise illegal. If it weren't for GPL applied to a certain piece of software you receive, you could do less with it (due to copyright law). There are certainly copyright licenses which give you greater permissions than the GPL does, but using the GPL is still an act of freedom compared to the default of no license.
Its all about the service (Score:4, Interesting)
To me the difference between purchasing Windows and choosing to go open source can be compared to the difference between getting a Dell desktop or going to Newegg and making your own.
Sure you can save a lot of money at newegg and make a powerful machine. You need to assemble it yourself (which for myself was much fun). Service wise its only adequate. I had a DVD burner break down, it was still under warranty I consulted my return policy, did what I had to do and had a new DVD burner back in my machine in a week.
But with Dell. You pay much more for a really good rig. You dont have to assemble it (and while assembly is fun - it can be a hassle). Service wise, as someone who works in the industry - Dell is fantastic. With the right warranty they will send a local technician straight to your office to repair anything. Peace of mind can be bought. You can have a warranty so good you can toss your insanely expensive laptop out a window for kicks and have it replaced shortly.
As long as there are people in the world who cant handle the extra hassle of servicing open source - there will be a market for Windows. But given the direction the world economy is taking that could change fairly soon (in my lifetime anyways). Right now whoever provides the best service wins. And in an environment like Open Source. Its hard (not impossible) to guarantee top notch service. Sad but true.
Re:Its all about the service (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you ever tried calling Microsoft Tech Support?
Don't lie. I used to work for them. I know the idea of getting any kind of /useful/ support out of them is a /joke/. You can yak about support all day long, but it's lies. In windows, the problems fall into two categories:
1) Problems you can diagnose and repair yourself.
2) Problems that will go unsolved until Microsoft decides to patch it.
That it, that's all there is. That leaves absolutely no reason or room for support. Either you don't need it because you can solve the problem yourself, or you do need it but it can't /do/ anything to help.
Failure on the horizon (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>"if Linux is just another way to run Windows apps, we can't win. OS/2 tried that ..."
If Linux tries to be proprietary, you can't win that way either. Atari ST and Commodore Amiga tried that approach, and they went bankrupt. People want and need to be able to run the same stuff they run at work, or in school, or wherever. If they cannot move their files back-and-forth, then they won't be choosing your proprietary OS - they'll be choosing Windows.
But we must do somethings the "Windows" way (Score:3, Insightful)
...Linux simply isn't Windows (nor is Windows Linux) and to expect fundamentally different approaches (and I'm not just thinking closed versus open) to look, feel, and operate the same way is senseless....
There are things Windows does better than Linux especially software installation.
I know apt and yum resolve dependencies well to a large extent but in some cases, there are version conflicts and lots of chaos in the Linux domain. This does not help at all.
In my opinion, software for Linux should be developed for a particular kernel period. So that one can say, This software will work with this kernel and users should expect it to work.
That label applies to you, I am afraid... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many people who will not agree with you and that explains why the Linux market share numbers are still as low as compared to other platforms.
What I will do is to quote this [daileymuse.com] very intelligent man:
Have a read.
"Until the Linux community comes together under a common vision for Linux it has virtually no chance of competing with Microsoft Windows for a place on the desktop. As long as the Linux community is split between the different Linux distros, and as long as Linux continues to be designed for power users, by power users, it will remain out of reach for the broader desktop user community. The Linux community needs to agree on one flavor of Linux. The Linux community needs to focus on that one single Linux platform, developing not to the needs of the power user but the common user. The Linux community needs to simplify Linux. Until this happens Linux will remain in the shadow of Microsoft Windows. And that's right where Steve Ballmer wants it."
He goes further:
"I love Linux. I deploy Linux in the data center all the time. Linux is a very capable, flexible, and reliable platform that can easily run major enterprise systems such as databases and web sites. But it takes someone with a higher degree of technical skill to install, support, and maintain Linux as compared to Microsoft server solutions. You find those skills more readily available in the IT world. Those skills do not exist in the world of the common desktop user."
And further more:
"Until the Linux community stops whining about the evils of Microsoft and begins to deliver a Linux-based desktop OS that is as simple and user-friendly as Microsoft Windows there will be no real deployment of Linux on the desktop. For the common desktop user Microsoft Windows is the solution to their needs. Linux may be more secure. Linux may be less prone to fault or failure. But Linux isn't worth a dime if it is too complex to use, and for the vast majority of desktop users that is exactly what it is."
These are not my words. He seems to be right. Linux has been around for a decade but its [usage] numbers are still low. Why? Read above.
I don't think so . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
... after all, MSDOS had huge popularity and it was totally useless compared the the Atari ST or MacOS or whatever - much less friendly and much harder to use.
That "wise" man is just another one of the people who don't know but have a much expressed and not very insightful opinion.
I think that people get their software from the "king of the hill" and the that being the "king of the hill" makes everything much easier for an OS. It's just self reinforcing because everyone pays respect to the king e.g. manufac
Reinvent wheel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me ask a dumb question (Score:3, Insightful)
I genuinely don't know the answer to this: what did Mac do to allow people to run Windows programs on their machines? Did they emulate a Windows box? Did they dual-boot? What's the experience like of using programs from both operating systems?
All I know is that when I heard you could do that, I thought, "hmmm, that takes most of the risk out of switching." And maybe instead of trying to guess how to run things under WINE, it's wiser to use a solution where "in this little Window in Ubuntu, I've got XP itself running and such-and-such program running in it." Ship Linux boxes with that feature installed.
Yes, Linux needs to compete on its own strengths. But if you want average consumers to switch, they need to perceive that they won't lose anything in the process. "Keep running your Windows programs AND get all this cool stuff for free." Maybe later they'll give up the Windows programs, too.
(If my implementation ideas sound screwy or naiive, I apologize.)
Re:Ubuntu is not up to scratch (Score:5, Interesting)
I like it much better.
On windows I can't set up my own dns forwarding proxy with a few simple commands, or add a powerful compiler or set of scripting language interpreters and libraries with equal ease.
Ubuntu is great for me. I don't give a crap about running windows apps.
Time to eat your own ass.
Re:Ubuntu is not up to scratch (Score:5, Funny)
Now I'm probably just being a dumbass, but I'm a reasonably technical dumbass. Even reasonably non-technical dumbasses could do such a thing in windows.
Re:Ubuntu is not up to scratch (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/how-to-set-a-static-ip-address-in-ubuntu-810-intrepid-ibex.html
Keep in mind that the 8.10 release is not designed for broad use and that most users (even now that 9.04 has been released) should still be using 8.04, the last stable LTS release.
Re:Ubuntu is not up to scratch (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the 8.10 release is not designed for broad use and that most users (even now that 9.04 has been released) should still be using 8.04, the last stable LTS release.
Untrue.
While there is no long term support (LTS) for anything since 8.04, but for those of us who don't need it, that isn't a concern. There is 18 months of support for every Ubuntu release. That is plenty long enough for most uses.
If I were designing a process that required multi-year support and maintenance, then I'd certainly think about LTS, but that isn't the world I work in.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Evan only there was some sort of integration of small networks on a global scale that could be searched...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=ubuntu+8.10+to+use+a+static+IP&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=ubuntu+8.10+to+use+a+static+IP&fp=KqtEvp1-d7s [google.com]
Re:Ubuntu is not up to scratch (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you aren't a dumb ass at all... Ubuntu switched networking configuration to a total mess with the so called network manager, and configuring a static IP with that is infamously error prone. The most common advise is to remove network manager and replace it with either WICD or gnome-network-admin, depending on your needs.
Re:Ubuntu is not up to scratch (Score:5, Interesting)
And with Windows it's Right-click on 'My Network Places' -> Properties. Then pick the connection ->Properties. Pick the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) option ->Properties. All mouse-driven, all GUI, all easy. Adjust away.
That's the difference. With Ubuntu|Linux, you've got to *know* how to get to the Terminal, then you've got to type stuff, then you've got to edit config files. Then restart things. Then something else breaks, which requires not the usual 'Add/Remove' program function to fix it, but a trip into 'sudo aptitude blah-blah-blah'. Then maybe that works, maybe it doesn't. Of course, it's trivially easy to find umpteen tutorials on *how* to do this stuff. Linux-lovers get excited over that. And that's totally cool. And I'll buy the argument that it is "better" to actually learn how your O/S works. But casual users, mainstream users, money-spending users, no way. They just want it to work.
I have three notebooks; one running Vista, one running Ubuntu 9.04, and a Macbook. I use them interchangeably, depending on what I'm doing. Ubuntu 9.04 is the best release of Ubuntu yet, but it's still kludgy compared to Vista or Mac. And when things break in Ubuntu (like when my WiFi simply stopped working after a recommended update & reboot) it required quite a bit of troubleshooting and 'tinkering' to get it working again. After a half-hour, I was back in business. But it required a half-hour of work to fix. Enjoyable fun for the computer nerd. But not for Grandma. People want apps that are easily installed, easily removed, and consistent in their method of installation.
And until some Linux distro figures that out (Ubuntu 9.04 is *damn* close) they'll never capture enough market share to hit critical mass. Based on the improvements I've witnessed from Ubuntu 6.xxx through today's 9.04, they may be there by Ubuntu 10 or 11. Here's to hoping. :-)
Re:Ubuntu is not up to scratch (Score:5, Insightful)
With your Windows example, you demonstrated that it is easy, if you already know how to do it. There isn't anything particularly intuitive about it. Grandma wouldn't be able to do this.
I'm not trying to flame; it is just that the out of the box intuitiveness of Windows is tremendously overstated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No i expect a normal person to use the GUI such as network manager or just google it. However my solution is a pretty good guide that will work 99% of the time across every release of most distros and is quicker than using a GUI.
Try giving somebody instructions for setting up a static IP on windows, that will work on windows XP/vista/7. For configuration GUIs can suck my balls, i'll take a text file with a nice header over a fancy GUI, especially as you only configure something once!
Re:Ubuntu is not up to scratch (Score:4, Interesting)
"Even reasonably non-technical dumbasses could do such a thing in windows."
No they can't.
But this does not solve your problem. How have you tried to do it? Perhaps we can help.
Every single person in my dorm in college in 1998 was able to figure this out on their first day with no help from the school. They were all using Windows or Mac OS Whatever Was out Then. I can't comment on the difficulty of setting up a static IP in Ubuntu, but in windows and MacOS, even 10.5 years ago it was trivial for even first time computer owners.
Have YOU ever downloaded it and used it? (Score:3, Informative)
I recently switched to Ubuntu (from running other versions of Linux on my main home computer since 2000) and I have to say it is quite nice. I use WIndows at work because that's what we're told to run. I honestly don't understand why people like you exist that find Linux to be so absolutely terrible. At home I have a laser printer, scanner, webcam, gps, sony ebook reader, digital camera, digital video camera and wireless. All these things work on my Linux boxes and I have no problems with them. I am v
Re:Have YOU ever downloaded it and used it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had quite the opposite experience.
I have given up on Linux for the desktop completely.
It never just works. I have been waiting since 1999 and even switched to FreeBSD for a couple of years. I spent hours twinking the FreeBSD ports or Gentoo portage and it almost works or some bugs happen like an issue of bleeding high volume without hte volume control and a kill -9 will kill only the gui part of the application and my speakers get blown out because the sound system is still blasting, etc.
Anyway Ubuntu sort of worked on my laptop. Then all of the sudden during an apt-get upgrade my hardware became unsupported.
To this day Ubuntu will not run on any non intel AMD chipset. They refuse to provide drivers and the instructions to enable them require a cvs to madwifi which I could do if I had internet access in the first place which I lost. I do not know if Ubuntu is trying to take a stance on principles of supporting proprietary drivers but as a user I do not care. All I know is it used to work and now I have Ethernet, 3d video, or wifi.
And please do not give me the lecture that I should have checked my hardware. I am on a strict budget in this economy and do not have time to check every component in every chipset to find a laptop under $750 to see how stable the Linux drivers are. The intel ones had crappy video or were too expensive.
I had nothing but problems and I use MS Office which is a superior to openoffice. My computers just work with Windows with zero hassles.
Linux is great in the computer room where it does not have to pretend to be the operating system for everyone like Windows tries to be. Windows is now stable for desktop usage and comes with the computer anyway. Unless your a php or Unix developer why switch? Only servers need six sigma %99.97 uptime or better and Windows server 2008 is getting close to this.
Do not get me wrong I think its a great operating system. But I have noticed hardware compatibility has gone down rather than up in recent years due to wifi and users switching from standard desktops to proprietary laptops.
This is what Linux truly needs. Alot of anti Microsoft users are switching to Macs which ends up hurting Linux on anything but servers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to admit having used MS Windows in various guises, Linux in various flavours and Mac OS/X currently, OS/X is *everything* I want in an OS. I don't ever expect to leave Mac systems while this OS is as good as it is. I adapted to it more or less intuitively and enjoy the experience immensely mostly because it doesn't get in my way the way Windows (BSOD or something just failing unexpectedly and requiring hours to debug or a complete reinstall etc) or Linux (works wonderfully until something changes, th
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because we all know games = Good selling OS.
That's why AS400 is used in my company! Man, oh man I can't wait for Tetris for iSeries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that has routinely annoyed me is when some of the Gnome devs do stuff and their reasoning consists of nothing more than "that is what Windows does". COM, the awfulness of gconf (*actually* modeled on the Windows registry), and so on.
Big problem is that if your aim is to catch up, then, by definition, you can never lead.
Anywhere I have a choice, I don't use Windows because I do not like it. I never used Photoshop or Visio or Office (I don't like word processors either). I did play a lot of games
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it can't just be "just as easy" or even "a good bit easier". It pretty much needs to be a game changer.
That is exactly right.
Going on with some of your other points...
Even if cutting edge game developers wanted to dev for Linux, they couldnt. A good standards API just isnt there, and graphics drivers are quite frankly pathetic. Linux has no shot to offer a better gaming machine than Windows today, and there is also no sign that that will change any time soon. Yeah I know that there are some modern games running on Linux, and yes in some cases they run 'better', but many people have serious unsolvable is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
multiple desktops
customization
multiple taskbars
fancy 3d effects / low resource uses