4 ms·

"Avoid the pain of Windows 8" If you think Windows 8 is going to be a pain, I don't recommend moving to Ubuntu. BTW, I really like Ubuntu. I don't like that

by adamman 14y ago

"Avoid the pain of Windows 8" If you think Windows 8 is going to be a pain, I don't recommend moving to Ubuntu. BTW, I really like Ubuntu. I don't like that sales pitch though.

untog 14y ago
Very much so. The pain with Windows 8 is going to be the UI change- switching to Ubuntu will require a very similar adjustment to a new UI (one that, ironically, Canonical forced on a userbase that was unsure about it).
- mistercow 14y ago
  >(one that, ironically, Canonical forced on a userbase that was unsure about it). You don't have to use Unity. I see Unity as a potential innovation driver but something I probably won't use for a long time. You will have to switch to an unfamiliar UI, but you get to decide which one it will be. And if you use Gnome or KDE, you will have a ton of control to make the UI bend to your will (assuming you don't mind banging your head against it for a few hours to get it configured just right).
  - untog 14y ago
    Sure. But when you start factoring in switching your OS UI after installing it... well, Windows 8 doesn't look so "painful" to the average consumer.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      Why would the average consumer care? It is old school diehards who are angry about Gnome 2, not new consumers who are slightly more likely to switch in the light of Windows 8 upheaval.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  Users who upgraded ubuntu versions were able to simply select gnome from a drop down menu at the login screen. People who installed 11.04+ (I think) had to install gnome after the main installation. Changing the default is the only way you can get rapid improvement in a market. Making it easy to switch back satisfies those who are significantly upset with the change. It is the best compromise I have seen between progress and supporting legacy users. Also, unity only changed the desktop. The apps you run were the same. Metro has a different UI paradigm for the apps themselves.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Unity also broke compatibility with every panel applet, Mich like Metro.
- bad_user 14y ago
  I've been on Ubuntu for years. Whatever pains I had were minor annoyances compared to pains experienced while using Windows up to version 7, which was considered to be good compared to the others. Windows is only friendly until you have a problem, after which you're screwed. I mean I'm a freaking dev and I can't figure out how to investigate problems on Windows which start to happen after maybe 4-5 months of usage, after which the probability of reinstalling it completely converges to one. OSX is the most user-friendly of the 3. However with Ubuntu you get freedom in all senses of the word. People complain that Ubuntu has hardware issues, yet they never tried building a Hackintosh, not to mention that you're not allowed to do it anyway. Of course you have more problems on Ubuntu with hardware, but there is hardware supported out of the box and for the others for any issue you may have at least you'll find a solution. For me Ubuntu represents freedom. Freedom to fix issues with it, freedom from a gatekeeper, freedom to own it entirely in every possible way. I see that few people, few devs actually, place emphasis on the ability to own something. And then they get pissed off when the gatekeeper changes the rules. Well, you make your bed, you sleep in it and so on.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    I installed Ubuntu after Windows lost track of its installed components (the list was blank), and realised that I could at least use an OS for which such a problem was fixable without needing a MS technician.
    - pjmlp 14y ago
      Just wait until you get a corrupt .deb database...
      - vidarh 14y ago
        I manage 100+ VM images and 20+ hosts, and we've run Debian on all of them for many years, and I also run Ubuntu on a number of machines. We've never once managed to get a corrupt database, so it's not exactly something that's common. And should it happen, you have backups, right? Now, some quick searches reveal that if you don't have a backup, it is still just a matter of forcibly install dpkg, debconf, apt and apt-utils with appropriate switches to prevent the dependency resolution from complaining, copying the dpkg.status backups that are automatically copied to /var/backups/ to /var/lib/dpkg, and then force a "reinstall" of all the packages that are listed as installed to get the rest of the data (.info files etc. back). If you somehow managed to wipe out both /var/lib/dpkg and /var/backups _and_ not have a backup of your system, I'd have little sympathy, but even then you can restore most of a system by getting package lists for your specific distro version and force reinstalls of all the base packages. Restoring dpkg info for any custom installs would be a bit more work, but not worse than getting an iso of the distro, mounting it, and obtaining a list of matching packages for the files in your system directories. But the latter is not necessary. Your system will keep working. You'll just run into occasional problems installing new packages and having to force installs when something pulls in a package you actually have installed but don't have a record of.
ladzoppelin 14y ago
Exactly. It's also awkward because Windows 8 is really good. I have been running it for a month and will definitely upgrade when it comes out. I like Ubuntu and it definitely runs great under Windows 8's new hyper-v client so "avoid the pain of Windows 8" makes no sense to me.

by adamman 14y ago

"Avoid the pain of Windows 8" If you think Windows 8 is going to be a pain, I don't recommend moving to Ubuntu. BTW, I really like Ubuntu. I don't like that sales pitch though.

untog 14y ago

Very much so. The pain with Windows 8 is going to be the UI change- switching to Ubuntu will require a very similar adjustment to a new UI (one that, ironically, Canonical forced on a userbase that was unsure about it).

mistercow 14y ago
>(one that, ironically, Canonical forced on a userbase that was unsure about it). You don't have to use Unity. I see Unity as a potential innovation driver but something I probably won't use for a long time. You will have to switch to an unfamiliar UI, but you get to decide which one it will be. And if you use Gnome or KDE, you will have a ton of control to make the UI bend to your will (assuming you don't mind banging your head against it for a few hours to get it configured just right).
- untog 14y ago
  Sure. But when you start factoring in switching your OS UI after installing it... well, Windows 8 doesn't look so "painful" to the average consumer.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    Why would the average consumer care? It is old school diehards who are angry about Gnome 2, not new consumers who are slightly more likely to switch in the light of Windows 8 upheaval.
gizmo686 14y ago
Users who upgraded ubuntu versions were able to simply select gnome from a drop down menu at the login screen. People who installed 11.04+ (I think) had to install gnome after the main installation. Changing the default is the only way you can get rapid improvement in a market. Making it easy to switch back satisfies those who are significantly upset with the change. It is the best compromise I have seen between progress and supporting legacy users. Also, unity only changed the desktop. The apps you run were the same. Metro has a different UI paradigm for the apps themselves.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Unity also broke compatibility with every panel applet, Mich like Metro.
bad_user 14y ago
I've been on Ubuntu for years. Whatever pains I had were minor annoyances compared to pains experienced while using Windows up to version 7, which was considered to be good compared to the others. Windows is only friendly until you have a problem, after which you're screwed. I mean I'm a freaking dev and I can't figure out how to investigate problems on Windows which start to happen after maybe 4-5 months of usage, after which the probability of reinstalling it completely converges to one. OSX is the most user-friendly of the 3. However with Ubuntu you get freedom in all senses of the word. People complain that Ubuntu has hardware issues, yet they never tried building a Hackintosh, not to mention that you're not allowed to do it anyway. Of course you have more problems on Ubuntu with hardware, but there is hardware supported out of the box and for the others for any issue you may have at least you'll find a solution. For me Ubuntu represents freedom. Freedom to fix issues with it, freedom from a gatekeeper, freedom to own it entirely in every possible way. I see that few people, few devs actually, place emphasis on the ability to own something. And then they get pissed off when the gatekeeper changes the rules. Well, you make your bed, you sleep in it and so on.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  I installed Ubuntu after Windows lost track of its installed components (the list was blank), and realised that I could at least use an OS for which such a problem was fixable without needing a MS technician.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    Just wait until you get a corrupt .deb database...
    - vidarh 14y ago
      I manage 100+ VM images and 20+ hosts, and we've run Debian on all of them for many years, and I also run Ubuntu on a number of machines. We've never once managed to get a corrupt database, so it's not exactly something that's common. And should it happen, you have backups, right? Now, some quick searches reveal that if you don't have a backup, it is still just a matter of forcibly install dpkg, debconf, apt and apt-utils with appropriate switches to prevent the dependency resolution from complaining, copying the dpkg.status backups that are automatically copied to /var/backups/ to /var/lib/dpkg, and then force a "reinstall" of all the packages that are listed as installed to get the rest of the data (.info files etc. back). If you somehow managed to wipe out both /var/lib/dpkg and /var/backups _and_ not have a backup of your system, I'd have little sympathy, but even then you can restore most of a system by getting package lists for your specific distro version and force reinstalls of all the base packages. Restoring dpkg info for any custom installs would be a bit more work, but not worse than getting an iso of the distro, mounting it, and obtaining a list of matching packages for the files in your system directories. But the latter is not necessary. Your system will keep working. You'll just run into occasional problems installing new packages and having to force installs when something pulls in a package you actually have installed but don't have a record of.

ladzoppelin 14y ago

Exactly. It's also awkward because Windows 8 is really good. I have been running it for a month and will definitely upgrade when it comes out. I like Ubuntu and it definitely runs great under Windows 8's new hyper-v client so "avoid the pain of Windows 8" makes no sense to me.