5 ms·

I am convert now; using ubuntu linux full time on laptop & desktop both.(I just posted the same here http://ketankhairnar.blogspot.com http://ketankhairnar.blog

I am convert now; using ubuntu linux full time on laptop & desktop both.(I just posted the same here http://ketankhairnar.blogspot.com http://ketankhairnar.blogspot.com ) Actually linux still has to go long way and programmers have to contribute more not only by improving the desktop experience(which distros like fedora/debian are doing); but also by showcasing alternative approaches like ubuntu/fedora and its usability to other people who are lost into windows world. I know this shift is happening faster than ever before. I may not do significant contrubution on development part but surely would make people around me aware of alternative (which in turn would make lot of people happy about hardware/cost and performance )

Tichy 19y ago
Why do you think it still has a long way to go? It works fine for me (also Ubuntu) - more than fine actually. So fine that I don't want to use anything else atm. Sure, there were some rough spots in the beginning (solve them once and you are done), but every operating system has them. Overall Ubuntu seems more usable than the alternatives to me (unless you can wrap your mind around the Apple way of thinking maybe - I can't). Everybody is laughing, but I'll say it again: the single coolest move Microsoft could make would be to switch over to Linux. They could provide a fancy theme (they are actually reasonably good with user interfaces, having a research lab and all), port their applications to Linux, and everybody would be happy. I don't think Windows itself is the big moneymaker, anyway. Rather, I suspect they tend to pay people for using it, so they could save money by moving away from it.
- dhimes 19y ago
  Linux is difficult with new hardware. I have a low-end HP that I've loaded with Fedora 8, and am still (months later) unable to use the wifi or my new (low end) epson printer. Now, before I get lectured on the fact that it's not the fault of Linux (drivers are proprietary), it is nevertheless the problem of Linux. I love to fool around with that stuff, but I simply don't have time to learn and hack my own solution. And there is no way that someone like my wife would even consider it. With Linux, you really have to pay attention. Most people don't want to do that with their computers any more than they do with their cars.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    OK, I forgot about that, because I bought my hardware accordingly. You can't run OS X on a normal PC either, and nobody considers it a dealbreaker ;-) If you buy a new computer, it should be possible to buy it with Linux drivers (Dell does it).
    - cturner 19y ago
      "You can't run OS X on a normal PC either, and nobody considers it a dealbreaker" Still - it's easy to buy hardware in which you can have confidence that OSX will work seamlessly. Not so with Ubuntu. Ubuntu is my preferred OS and I went through this recently while getting a new laptop. Part of the problem is that people in the Linux world are so accustomed to having to do tweaks to get hardware working (and sneering at people like me who can't be bothered) that there's always a blur between hardware that "works with ubuntu" in the sense that you turn it on and get all functionality; or "works with ubuntu" in the sense that you can install it, invest lots of energy tweaking in order to get some functionality kind of working until you do the next major kernel upgrade. Another example of Ubuntu not doing so well - wireless networking. The UI doesn't make sense, and is unhelpful when you can't get a connection. These are complete deal-breakers in terms of Ubuntu as a consumer OS.
      - Tichy 19y ago
        I agree that it is a bit difficult to find out what hardware works and what doesn't. I have a working printer and a working scanner, though, and I didn't do much tweaking. The tweaking only applies if you have some weird hardware that you want to get running no matter what. But remember the "stuff" discussion - it really is not very expensive anymore to buy a scanner or a printer that works with Linux, so maybe that is an easier route. Wireless Networking: not sure what you mean, it works flawless for me.
        dhimes 19y ago
        I have an x_64 machine with an Atheros card (5007, I think). Nobody can make this work yet to my knowledge (it works on i386). Typically, it just takes a while for open source versions to come out for proprietary drivers. Same (I'm hoping!) for my Epson R280 printer. So it's not really weirdness that sets you back, as much as it is using linux-friendly stuff. It's riskier to go with Linux. Kinda like stick-shift vs. auto transmission: Stick-shift is way more fun, but it takes more effort to learn and is inconvenient in heavy traffic when you are trying to do other stuff....
- cturner 19y ago
  > Why do you think it still has a long way to go? Have a play around with keyboard shortcuts and try to get WindowsKey+E to open your home folder. The bugs in keyboard shortcuts has been an exercise in balloon squeezing for as long as ubuntu has been around. Another - audio. On a default install to my laptop sound didn't work at all, and now I can only play from one device at a time. I don't have these problems on my Apple. Much as I love my ubuntu, it simply doesn't compare to the level of polish in XP, Vista and OSX. > I don't think Windows itself is the big moneymaker, anyway Why do you think that? I think that Windows is an spectacular moneymaker. > Rather, I suspect they tend to pay people for using it, so they > could save money by moving away from it. Not sure what you mean by this. Can you rephrase?
  - Tichy 19y ago
    Can't comment on your hardware problems, as I don't have them. Windows: maybe I am wrong, but I would suspect that Microsoft pays PC vendors to put Windows on their machine.
    - cturner 19y ago
      If Microsoft were paying people to take its product then it wouldn't have a business model :) What causes you to think that they pay other people to distribute it?
      - Tichy 19y ago
        They sell lots of other stuff, for example Office. I think if Microsoft were not paying the vendors, more vendors would offer PCs with Linux or without any OS at all. Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the Windows variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)?
        cturner 18y ago
        I think if Microsoft were not paying the vendors, more vendors would offer PCs with Linux or without any OS at all. They're totally not paying the vendors to install Windows. The reasons the vendors don't offer linux is because in the past when they've done it they've done a really half-assed job of it, and as a result sales have been bad, and they've been burnt. Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the Windows variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)? I remember that. This is all speculation: perhaps their OEM agreement with Microsoft said that they had to pay costs for Windows for each machine they shipped (regardless of whether it had Windows or not), OR maybe they paid RedHat a per-license deal for the linux and the margin on redhat installs was greater.

Tichy 19y ago

Why do you think it still has a long way to go? It works fine for me (also Ubuntu) - more than fine actually. So fine that I don't want to use anything else atm. Sure, there were some rough spots in the beginning (solve them once and you are done), but every operating system has them. Overall Ubuntu seems more usable than the alternatives to me (unless you can wrap your mind around the Apple way of thinking maybe - I can't). Everybody is laughing, but I'll say it again: the single coolest move Microsoft could make would be to switch over to Linux. They could provide a fancy theme (they are actually reasonably good with user interfaces, having a research lab and all), port their applications to Linux, and everybody would be happy. I don't think Windows itself is the big moneymaker, anyway. Rather, I suspect they tend to pay people for using it, so they could save money by moving away from it.

dhimes 19y ago
Linux is difficult with new hardware. I have a low-end HP that I've loaded with Fedora 8, and am still (months later) unable to use the wifi or my new (low end) epson printer. Now, before I get lectured on the fact that it's not the fault of Linux (drivers are proprietary), it is nevertheless the problem of Linux. I love to fool around with that stuff, but I simply don't have time to learn and hack my own solution. And there is no way that someone like my wife would even consider it. With Linux, you really have to pay attention. Most people don't want to do that with their computers any more than they do with their cars.
- Tichy 19y ago
  OK, I forgot about that, because I bought my hardware accordingly. You can't run OS X on a normal PC either, and nobody considers it a dealbreaker ;-) If you buy a new computer, it should be possible to buy it with Linux drivers (Dell does it).
  - cturner 19y ago
    "You can't run OS X on a normal PC either, and nobody considers it a dealbreaker" Still - it's easy to buy hardware in which you can have confidence that OSX will work seamlessly. Not so with Ubuntu. Ubuntu is my preferred OS and I went through this recently while getting a new laptop. Part of the problem is that people in the Linux world are so accustomed to having to do tweaks to get hardware working (and sneering at people like me who can't be bothered) that there's always a blur between hardware that "works with ubuntu" in the sense that you turn it on and get all functionality; or "works with ubuntu" in the sense that you can install it, invest lots of energy tweaking in order to get some functionality kind of working until you do the next major kernel upgrade. Another example of Ubuntu not doing so well - wireless networking. The UI doesn't make sense, and is unhelpful when you can't get a connection. These are complete deal-breakers in terms of Ubuntu as a consumer OS.
    - Tichy 19y ago
      I agree that it is a bit difficult to find out what hardware works and what doesn't. I have a working printer and a working scanner, though, and I didn't do much tweaking. The tweaking only applies if you have some weird hardware that you want to get running no matter what. But remember the "stuff" discussion - it really is not very expensive anymore to buy a scanner or a printer that works with Linux, so maybe that is an easier route. Wireless Networking: not sure what you mean, it works flawless for me.
      - dhimes 19y ago
        I have an x_64 machine with an Atheros card (5007, I think). Nobody can make this work yet to my knowledge (it works on i386). Typically, it just takes a while for open source versions to come out for proprietary drivers. Same (I'm hoping!) for my Epson R280 printer. So it's not really weirdness that sets you back, as much as it is using linux-friendly stuff. It's riskier to go with Linux. Kinda like stick-shift vs. auto transmission: Stick-shift is way more fun, but it takes more effort to learn and is inconvenient in heavy traffic when you are trying to do other stuff....
cturner 19y ago
> Why do you think it still has a long way to go? Have a play around with keyboard shortcuts and try to get WindowsKey+E to open your home folder. The bugs in keyboard shortcuts has been an exercise in balloon squeezing for as long as ubuntu has been around. Another - audio. On a default install to my laptop sound didn't work at all, and now I can only play from one device at a time. I don't have these problems on my Apple. Much as I love my ubuntu, it simply doesn't compare to the level of polish in XP, Vista and OSX. > I don't think Windows itself is the big moneymaker, anyway Why do you think that? I think that Windows is an spectacular moneymaker. > Rather, I suspect they tend to pay people for using it, so they > could save money by moving away from it. Not sure what you mean by this. Can you rephrase?
- Tichy 19y ago
  Can't comment on your hardware problems, as I don't have them. Windows: maybe I am wrong, but I would suspect that Microsoft pays PC vendors to put Windows on their machine.
  - cturner 19y ago
    If Microsoft were paying people to take its product then it wouldn't have a business model :) What causes you to think that they pay other people to distribute it?
    - Tichy 19y ago
      They sell lots of other stuff, for example Office. I think if Microsoft were not paying the vendors, more vendors would offer PCs with Linux or without any OS at all. Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the Windows variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)?
      - cturner 18y ago
        I think if Microsoft were not paying the vendors, more vendors would offer PCs with Linux or without any OS at all. They're totally not paying the vendors to install Windows. The reasons the vendors don't offer linux is because in the past when they've done it they've done a really half-assed job of it, and as a result sales have been bad, and they've been burnt. Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the Windows variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)? I remember that. This is all speculation: perhaps their OEM agreement with Microsoft said that they had to pay costs for Windows for each machine they shipped (regardless of whether it had Windows or not), OR maybe they paid RedHat a per-license deal for the linux and the margin on redhat installs was greater.