10 ms·

There's no way the "average computer user" is going to be satisfied with an operating system that doesn't come preinstalled on their computer, that isn't offici

by mgunes 16y ago

There's no way the "average computer user" is going to be satisfied with an operating system that doesn't come preinstalled on their computer, that isn't officially supported by the manufacturer of their computer, and that they consequently have to deal with the various possible technical problems of. Non-technical users don't install operating systems. Ubuntu is the closest candidate to fixing the structural problem of "very few computers come preinstalled with a supported, free-as-in-freedom operating system". Until that problem is fixed, and as long as people are ending up having to install an operating system on arbitrary computers with millions of different hardware combinations, such annoyances will continue at some level.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>Non-technical users don't install operating systems. Look, this is probably generally true - however, the last bare metal Ubuntu install I did was as simply as insert disc, click the install prompts, accept all defaults and your done. Yeah, it took an hour or two all told. It certainly has been quite different in the past but any user that can watch a DVD on their computer can install an [selected] OS if they want to. Hardware compatibility is another question. If the manufacturers would just test and have a "Ubuntu ready" label then that issue would be largely moot, at least as much so as with MS Windows.
- mgunes 16y ago
  I do agree that unless you're particularly unlucky hardware-wise, an Ubuntu installation is more likely to succeed nowadays than fail. But they may be able to survive the installation, yet end up with minor to moderate problems that degrade the entire experience, which wouldn't be there, had their operating system been preinstalled, tested and supported with their hardware. The question of hardware compatibility and other technicalities aside, the entire notion of the "operating system" being decoupled from the computer and installable separately is alien to most non-technical computer users, and the idea of installing a "third party" operating system is simply uninteresting; which is why I said "don't", not "can't". Why should they, when they already bought a computer with an "operating system", and it largely works? My point is that the "download an .iso file from the internet, burn a CD / flash disk and install something called an operating system" model, while it's largely successful for the audience it's intended for today, is not way to advance the use of free operating systems in the broader computing ecosystem; striving towards more viable and widespread Linux-preinstalled devices is. But surely the success of the former will reinforce the latter, since a critical mass is needed.

by mgunes 16y ago

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>Non-technical users don't install operating systems. Look, this is probably generally true - however, the last bare metal Ubuntu install I did was as simply as insert disc, click the install prompts, accept all defaults and your done. Yeah, it took an hour or two all told. It certainly has been quite different in the past but any user that can watch a DVD on their computer can install an [selected] OS if they want to. Hardware compatibility is another question. If the manufacturers would just test and have a "Ubuntu ready" label then that issue would be largely moot, at least as much so as with MS Windows.

mgunes 16y ago
I do agree that unless you're particularly unlucky hardware-wise, an Ubuntu installation is more likely to succeed nowadays than fail. But they may be able to survive the installation, yet end up with minor to moderate problems that degrade the entire experience, which wouldn't be there, had their operating system been preinstalled, tested and supported with their hardware. The question of hardware compatibility and other technicalities aside, the entire notion of the "operating system" being decoupled from the computer and installable separately is alien to most non-technical computer users, and the idea of installing a "third party" operating system is simply uninteresting; which is why I said "don't", not "can't". Why should they, when they already bought a computer with an "operating system", and it largely works? My point is that the "download an .iso file from the internet, burn a CD / flash disk and install something called an operating system" model, while it's largely successful for the audience it's intended for today, is not way to advance the use of free operating systems in the broader computing ecosystem; striving towards more viable and widespread Linux-preinstalled devices is. But surely the success of the former will reinforce the latter, since a critical mass is needed.