6 ms·

I think I’m tired of Desktop Linux

58 points by r11t 17y ago

ilyak 17y ago
We are tired of you being loudly tired of Desktop Linux, FAVO you.
- mahmud 17y ago
  What does "FAVO" mean?
  - shimon 17y ago
    for all values of
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
Slashed 17y ago
Using Ubuntu 9.10 and everything works out of the box. Although, I had a problem with WiFi on my other laptop, but doing some /etc configuration solved the problem. Is it that hard to write a few configuration lines only once?
- forensic 17y ago
  >Is it that hard to write a few configuration lines only once? Yes. Having to know the magic words is definitely a problem. Most of these conf options should be available as checkboxes in a UI, if manual config is essential.
  - Slashed 17y ago
    In fact, most of the configurations are available in UI, but what makes *nix different is, it allows you to make it work the way you want(that's what /etc is for). On the other hand, I'm not happy with Windows until some registry tweaks are done and some useless services are turned off. On hardware compatibility, I don't think it's Linux' fault that some vendors don't publish hardware documentation. This should be considered before installing Linux at all.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  If you're not a geek, yes. Most non-programmers find the Unix command line a hostile environment and are not that interested in tweaking the operating system as an end in itself. Would you want a TV that required a soldering iron as part of the installation process?
  - chris100 17y ago
    That sounds like fun. I know so many software developers who wouldn't find their way around a soldering iron, your analogy is very vivid.
  - Slashed 17y ago
    Let me say it this way, if I really ever wanted this TV set then I wouldn't mind. The same is with Linux: if you want free, open-source OS then you should know that there's no Photoshop, IE and all those games you can have on Windows. Also, before installing Linux you should be aware that not every piece of hardware can work in Linux. I agree, these are big disadvantages for normal user - the choice depends on users' priorities.
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      Agreed. However, a key goal of desktop Linux is to be sufficiently useful and easy that user-facing software will find an audience, and it becomes worth a developer's time to code for that platform.
Tichy 17y ago
Once again: if you want to run Linux on a notebook, check for compatibility before you buy the notebook. Don't know about Apple, but in general hardware support tends to be better if the vendor communicates the necessary specs to the open source community. Somehow I doubt that Apple is very supportive to the "Linux on a MacBook" cause.
- gaius 17y ago
  Linux runs just fine in VirtualBox.
- AGorilla 17y ago
  If you had read the article, you would know that he was comparing the user experience of Skype in Ubuntu on a Thinkpad to Skype in Mac OS X. This sort of blame-the-user mentality is what's really holding back Linux on the desktop.
  - astine 17y ago
    comparing the user experience of Skype in Ubuntu on a Thinkpad to Skype in Mac OS X. But isn't that an issue with Skype? It's a massive nuisance that Linux still doesn't have the hardware and application support of MasOS/OSX and Windows, but there's not much that can be done about that without the cooperation of proprietary vendors, many of whom still treat Linux as a second class citizen.
    - jodrellblank 17y ago
      "But isn't that an issue with Skype?" No. OS-X, Windows, iPhone and Android are sufficiently different that we can tell the Skype developers are putting a decent amount of effort into cross-platform compatibility. That there is a Linux client shows they are also trying to do that with Linux. Could they put more effort in and get a polished shiny Linux client? Maybe. Is it Skype's fault that Linux is bad enough to need this while at the same time not good enough to get a large enough userbase to make this worthwhile? Again, no.
  - Tichy 17y ago
CitizenKane 17y ago
For the sake of context, Jason is a KDE developer and if you read through the comments you'll find out that he's not alone in this sentiment. It's an interesting issue and it's sad to see that desktop Linux has so much trouble providing a stable user experience.
- rayvega 17y ago
  I recently got a laptop because I needed mobility in and outside my home. So, I bought a Dell laptop with Ubuntu pre-installed after years of using Windows. I was very excited. My enthusiasm deteriorated very quickly upon discovering that the wireless did not work out of the box which immediately negated the main reason for my purchase. I am someone who writes code for a living (and for fun) and I found the experience disappointing and frustrating. Imagine how your average non-technical consumer would feel.
  - psranga 17y ago
    Similar situation here. Try using the latest modwifi drivers , the drivers in the 9.04 distro did not work for me. (sorry I forgot how I did that, but the info was easy to find).
  - hernan7 17y ago
    Wow, they sell a machine with non-functioning WiFi? Actually, I was planning to buy one of those Dell Lnux laptops; thanks for the heads-up.
    - meatbag 17y ago
      No, it probably won't "work" out of the box, meaning that it requires configuration. With a fresh install, typically the first thing I do is plug in an ethernet cable, download all available updates (including wifi drivers and other software if needed) and then configure the wifi. I did this when I bought a netbook preinstalled with Linux, but I might not have needed to install anything, I probably just didn't find the "switch" at first.
  - DELLChrisM 17y ago
anigbrowl 17y ago
This could have been written 10 years ago - I recall similar 'almost there' experiences with audio and USB on a dell laptop at the time, though I can't blame the Linux community for lack of access to bespoke drivers. Not to belittle the tremendous advances that have taken place in the interim, but something died after development of Enlightenment stalled.
- psranga 17y ago
  I thought his complaint was mainly about closed-source vendors who don't polish their Linux apps enough.
  - unalone 17y ago
    His complaint is about the entire system, which includes people who refuse to admit closed-source Linux apps aren't the best because they insist that closed-source is bad and should be done away with.
  - zmimon 17y ago
    He was much more insightful than that. He acknowledged that Linux itself makes it hard for those vendors to make polished apps by changing and reinventing every damned thing every few years.
nzmsv 17y ago
In a week or two it is possible to configure a desktop Linux machine to almost-perfection. Not working on it full time, of course, just fixing broken things as they are discovered. But then there's always one tiny nagging thing that doesn't quite work right. So, an upgrade. Everything is shinier, and that one bug is finally fixed. Too bad a lot of the programs and libraries are obsolete now, and the software that did survive in the repos is rewritten to use the new interfaces. Along with their bugs. And after a couple weeks setting everything up just so, there is one tiny nagging bug... I use a Debian machine exclusively. After I upgraded to testing, my video stopped crashing. That's great. But now bluetooth is broken. It's been replaced with a completely new HAL framework, and I still can't figure out how to pair a device.
- Periodic 17y ago
  That's how it seems to be these days. Something is always not working quite right. I got a new Macbook Air a while ago and decided to install Linux. After messing with it for a few hours I realized I didn't have time to hunt down all the bugs and Google the various solutions. So I'm back in OS X. For my desktops I'm used to Linux. It works perfectly and I'm so used to the way I do things there that doing them on any other operating system or in a different window manager is annoying.
- cheriot 17y ago
  How much of the trouble can be avoided by getting a machine with linux preinstalled? Let someone else research drivers and do the testing. I've had a great experience with the pangolin model from system76.com.
  - meatbag 17y ago
    A LOT of trouble can be saved if the hardware is confirmed to work with the OS. I bought a System76 Starling. Haven't upgraded it to Karmic yet - I figure I'll let more people tread the upgrade path until it is smoother.
- awa 17y ago
  A similar thing happened to me last fall. I wanted to switch to ubuntu, Installed it and found that the audio won't work. After some google-fu, I found a setting described in ubuntu forums which made it work, but the sound from my laptop speaker kept playing even after plugging in the headphone jack :(.
mattmaroon 17y ago
I wish I could understand people who describe inanimate objects as sexy. I have no idea how to relate to people who choose a laptop because of its sex appeal, which would be a big disadvantage if I ever need to sell to them. There probably aren't that many of them, but they seem to have a lot of money.
- abstractbill 17y ago
  I wouldn't necessarily describe macs as "sexy", but I would describe pretty much every other laptop on the market as "gouge-your-eyes-out ugly", if that helps.
- unalone 17y ago
  You don't buy a Mac because of its sex appeal. You buy it because it's a damn good computer. A part of that just happens to be that it's sexy. There are such things as sexy suits and sexy dresses. They're inanimate, but there are ugly dresses and sexy dresses. Similarly, computers exist that have blinking lights and bulges and edges where they don't need them, and they are perceived to be ugly; when you have a computer that doesn't have a line it doesn't need to have, then it's sexy. But that's not what you're saying, Matt. We know what you're saying; you've been saying it for years, occasionally with an attempt at subtlety, as now. What you're saying is that you don't like the Mac or Mac users. You and I have had this argument before, only instead of sexy you didn't understand people who were willing to pay two thousand dollars for a computer, or who couldn't tinker with certain settings. But your arguments are shallow every time and it's tiring talking to somebody who won't say what he's actually thinking.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    He specifically said he wanted his computer to be sexy. The exact quote is "and while they’re sturdy as heck and are well built and last forever, they’re not really all that sexy. I wanted sexy." He literally said that he was choosing form over function there, and it has nothing to do with operating systems. Suits and dresses aren't sexy, the person wearing them is. Suits or dresses may make them more or less sexy, but hanging on a rack they're devoid of such ability. Can a laptop someone is holding do the same? Perhaps that's what I'm missing. If I see a beautiful woman holding a laptop I'm 0% likely to notice what brand it is, or likely that it even exists. My guess is that my wife wouldn't notice whether George Clooney was holding a Macbook Pro or a Lenovo x60 either. I say exactly what I'm thinking. You read into it and assume I did not say what I meant, I cannot help that. I wasn't commenting on Macs at all, and I came to that thought before the word was ever mentioned in the article, though to be honest, I probably wouldn't have had trouble guessing where it was going. Nobody ever says "Lenovos are great, but they aren't sexy, so I got a Dell." But regardless there's a much broader point there, as this probably applies to a range of things from clothing, to cars to laptops.
prometheus_ 17y ago
Why would you buy a marked-up mac to put ubuntu on it?
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Because Apple hardware is well-designed, and well put together. Played with a Dell recently? Thick, heavy clunkers of machines with flimsy plastic flaps all over the place. Even the vaunted Lenovos have mushy keyboards and bits that just should not flex like that when pushed. I'd gladly pay for Mac hardware and run some other OS on it - just the keyboard alone on the unibody is worth some money.
  - trafficlight 17y ago
    Then buy a decent keyboard. It's not like you're driving your Dell PC to work everyday. It just sits on the desk.
    - unalone 17y ago
      It's not just the keyboard. It's all the hardware. It's the keyboard, the various buttons, the speaker grilles, the indicator light, the camera... everything on the Macbook Pro is gorgeous, and it works all sleeklike.
      - jodrellblank 17y ago
        The way this thread is playing out about hardware is the way this page/this situation/this argument is playing out with OS-X/Linux. "Just use modwifi 0.9.4.1 I don't see why it's a problem you can find it with Google in a few seconds" "It's not just the wifi, it's all the software. The audio stack, the BSD underpinnings, the coherent feel over many apps. I'd gladly pay more for things to just work, but it's not even that, things just work /nicely/."
        unalone 17y ago
        The frustrating thing is that both viewpoints are valid, and there're people on both sides that don't seem to get that, and they're the only reason that people are getting into these arguments to begin with.
neilo 17y ago
I totally sympathize with this kind of issue, it's what keeps me from putting Linux on my parents' computers (though this latest "Alpha Antivirus" thing my dad got is ... pushing my limits). For myself, I am pleasantly surprised at the experience I've had with Ubuntu since I first installed 8.04 and deciding to give Linux desktop yet-another-go. The improvements between releases are apparent and usually make sense. Hardware device recognition and drivers are getting better. Overall it IS getting better, and seemingly faster, so have hope for it. In the meantime it's going to be a bumpy ride not just because of stiff competition from existing "just works" platforms, but because it challenges some fundamental commercial assumptions about operating software and THAT is inevitably going to cause opposition through politics, support bias, etc. Strong supporters are going to shed blood in the hope that future generations won't have to. Isn't that the way it always is?
psranga 17y ago
Linux is great for software development (i.e., stick with terminal windows) and simple web browsing. And I love it because that's what I do. But it sucks for many other tasks. The Unix haters handbook has a great rant about X11 where they say that for many years the only programs that X ran were xterm and clock. Just yesterday I kicked off an MP3 playback using Rhythmbox on Ubuntu 9.04 and forgot to pause. When I came back a couple of hours later, two cores were pegged at 100% and the song was fast forwarding like crazy with no obvious UI control to slow it down. And this is after wrestling with Adobe's 64-bit Flash plugin that doesn't play nice with USB audio (not sure if the 32-b version does; I'm not going to reinstall Ubuntu just for that).
- b05us 17y ago
  on what platforms does flash actually work correctly and not go crazy consuming resources???
- hernan7 17y ago
  Yes, back in the day the Unix desktop was OK for development, compared to alternatives like DOS. But then, the Unix vendors also had almost complete control of the hardware stack. Seems that Alan Kay is right again: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware".
  - riobard 17y ago
    Alan Kay is right again: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware". That explains Mac and iPhone's success I guess
- hristov 17y ago
  Wow, Adobe's alpha 64 bit flash plugin doesn't work for you? Alpha software broken? Who would have thought. And certainly if you used OSX or Windows you would get a completely different Adobe 64 bit flash plugin that works seamlessly. Right. Regarding rhythmbox there is plenty of software on windows and mac that has memory leaks and resource leaks. Of course on windows or mac nobody blames the operating system for faulty software. But on Linux, well Linux is to be blamed for everything.
b05us 17y ago
he doesn't heap nearly enough indignation on the current mbp, which in my opinion is inferior in many ways to the plain ol macbook firstly, the wifi chipset in the mbp is from broadcom, its vastly inferior to the atheros in the macbook. and yes, i'm using broadcom's own proprietary driver for linux so don't tell me its OS fail. the broadcom wifi drops its connection probably once an hour, and that is when it is ten feet away from the wifi router the pointing device on the mbp is also an absolute disaster. even when used with osx, all i hear is groans. sorry stever, as simple as possible but no simpler. eliminating the physical mouse button from the macbook is not an upgrade oh wait lets talk about video. okay the mbp has nvidia...you'll be glad to know you either use nvidia's proprietary driver or you are out of luck as of a week or so ago. meanwhile the intel chip in the macbook has great open support and performs just fine. shutup about 3d and video games, no one is buying a mbp to play games what gets me is how people completely suspend critical reasoning when talking about apple products
igorgue 17y ago
I think it's getting harder to defend the Linux Desktop, since Pulseaudio (which is finally working perfectly on my laptop). But still I'll stay with my Ubuntu, I just don't like using Windows or OS X, every time I use my mac I miss Gnome Terminal, Banshee, X-Chat, F-Spot, even VIM (since the mac terminal doesn't support 256 colors :(), I miss my wobbly windows, the desktop cube (not that crap you get with OS X)... I would just use the mac if there is no other option. And don't get me started with Windows and the un-resizable terminal ugh!
- Periodic 17y ago
  I use OS X secondary to Linux. There are just a few things that start to bug me every time. Why can't I change the slide time and have a non-standard shortcut for Spaces? Why can't I auto-hide the menu bar? Why can't I use a different window manager? But things work. I don't have to worry about any hardware configuration, not even installing restricted drivers. It's a trade off I'm still evaluating.
- maukdaddy 17y ago
  FYI: right click to configure windows terminal. You can set any width/height you'd like. OSX is far superior still ;)
  - igorgue 17y ago
    thank you so much for the tip is helping me already!, still it sucks...
roqetman 17y ago
I think this is a problem with perspective. Linux on the desktop is not a homogeneous collection controlled by a single entity. It is a collection of individual pieces. Software vendors have little incentive to make their software work 100% with those individual pieces on the Linux desktop, unlike they do on platforms where they sell other software and services. You get what you pay for, on the Linux desktop, your payment will be in time and effort to get the (usually substandard) free offerings from these software vendors to work properly.
- Periodic 17y ago
  It does seem that this is one of the problems, though surely not the only problem. If you're a hardware vendor making a new USB device, you're going to alter your device and your drivers (if you have them) so that the item works well under Windows and maybe OS X. You're probably not going to try to tweak it to make it work with the Linux USB drivers. Linux is in this odd position of having to try to copy all the functionality and interface of the Windows systems because that's what all the hardware has been written for. It makes for a buggy and error prone process. I don't agree that you get what you pay for though. At this point it's all about market penetration. If Linux was 90% of the PC market, don't you think those USB webcams would be likely to work the first time? Don't you think that if a company wanted to enable new functionality they'd submit a driver to the kernel? It wouldn't take any more effort from them (less if you consider programming for Linux easier than programming for Windows) and the Linux users would get the benefit.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    """ If Linux was 90% of the PC market""" Let's branch into another universe where everything is exactly the same as this one, except Linux (in the same state it's in now) is 90% of the PC market. But how can such a world exist except by ignoring the reasons that exist in our universe why Linux is not the OS for 90% of the PC market. It's not a sensible "if". If Linux was forced onto 90% of computers early on, it would have been forced to be a lot more stable, backwards compatible and rigid than it is now. The webcams would work but the OS wouldn't be the Linux you know today.
daemianmack 17y ago
I've recently come to the same conclusion as the author. I've long been an advocate of Linux, but a few years go I sort of gradually switched off Linux on the desktop back to Windows. It wasn't premeditated; I built a new box, made it Windows for gaming, and then one day realized I was using it exclusively for desktop stuff. Well, I say desktop, but I think the real differentiator here is X Window... I use Linux command-line programs for much of my daily desktop productivity stuff -- email (sup+fetchmail), irc/aim (irssi, bitlbee), text editing (emacs), etc. At work we recently rebuilt our boxes using Ubuntu. I was thrilled for about two weeks, and then all those little X annoyances started creeping back in. Frankly, I was kind of surprised; I had assumed that it would have come a lot farther in the few years since I had last used Linux for desktop. Actually using X Window programs has become annoying. I can sort of feel that legion of disparate programmers all taking their own stab at desktop GUI programming and all arriving there somewhat differently. Eventually a few of us broke down and hackintoshed our boxes, and I couldn't be happier. Linux on the server? Absolutely. But on the desktop? OS/X.
dkarl 17y ago
Geez, simple solution. Keep another box around, a Mac Mini or a cheap Windows box, for the stuff Linux doesn't do. If you try to get by with a single desktop environment, you'll get fed up with any of the choices out there. It isn't worth the pain. You'll get tired of the Mac when you realize that nice interface is the only... environment... you'll... ever... have. Everything that takes three clicks will always take three clicks. You'll never be able to switch to a tiling window manager for the afternoon. I won't bother listing Windows' shortcomings. And under Linux you will always run into things like Skype that are broken and not worth the trouble of fixing, because you aren't in college anymore and you have real work to do. If I had to do a lot of work on the road, I think I would have to get a Windows or Mac laptop and set up a Linux VM for doing real work. Otherwise I'd go crazy and start carrying two laptops (and forget about ever getting another date.)
endlessvoid94 17y ago
I had a similar experience. I've now been running a new MacBook for three days and I am not going back to linux. I couldn't believe it when I booted into Snow Leopard and zsh was already installed and configured. I'm sure my jaw actually dropped. That's just one example. So much stuff on OS X just freaking works. It just works. I literally had my whole machine configured and working within around 2 hours. Most of that time was spent simply installing software, not configuring it. </rant>
- vetinari 17y ago
  You are now in the excitement phase about your new toy. Check back in few months, after you know that there are other things, that are broken in OSX.
  - generalk 17y ago
    What things are that broken in OS X? I use it every day, I'm sure I could come up with a list if pressed, but compared to when I used to run earlier versions of Ubuntu on my laptops, it's a dream.
    - vetinari 17y ago
      I've used OSX since 10.0 up to 10.5 and classic MacOS before that. I've never upgraded to 10.6 and do not plan to do so (I got Thinkpad and Windows last summer). I remember times when dlopen/dlsym didn't work (later it did); never managed to build some command line utilities and other required porting effort; macports was never functioning properly; Aquamacs ignored my customizations; was there X11.app release that did work at all?; no jdk6 for ppc; etc. From proprietary side: you could have either Office 2004 for PPC running in emulation and working macros and custom language dictionaries; or intel Office 2008 without these two things. Since switching to OSX, the Adobe suite got worse and has distinct second-class feel compared to windows version. I had some favourite software, that was originaly developed for classic MacOS (both m68k and ppc) and it does not work on modern Macs. Even software that was updated for OSX does not work, because the installer is for classic and then the updater updates the program to carbon (or whatever) version. With every switch in OSX focus there is software that is getting lost (with switch to intel, we lost some. With switch to 64b, we will lose more due to no Carbon). In short, in all those years I was using OSX I got fed up and made a full circle (dos/windows -> linux -> mac -> windows).
yason 17y ago
It's about trade-offs. Yes, there are issues with Linux; there have always been different various issues in any Linux distribution I've used since 1995 which is when I started. But there are issues with Windows and OS X too. And that's where Linux's advantages kick in again. You'll always miss something from the other side of the fence. You'll have to weigh in, and some people weigh to Linux and some people don't. I've never got too far with Windows. I ditched OS X after over two years of everyday use. Despite the uncertainty regarding hardware compatibility in Linux, I really like the way it, namely Debian and recently Ubuntu, gets rid of the _other_ problems so irritatingly present in other operating systems. A Linux system is just too user friendly for users who aren't too system friendly.
dschobel 17y ago
Now, I am very aware that the Linux Desktop is SO much better than it was even 5 years ago. We have eye candy up the wahzoo. That was most definitely not the major issue 5 years ago. The issue 5 years ago was configuring hardware and god help you if you want to do some multimedia work on a stock linux distro. Things are a ton better today. I don't remember the last time I had to manually edit an xorg.conf. But Linux has neither the standardized hardware of Apple nor the dominant market share of Windows to compel vendors to make their hardware work with linux. Really the best you can do to get that level of compatibility is to get your Ubuntu laptop through Dell.
tarkin2 17y ago
Well, I'm in two minds. I've often disliked how Ubuntu, Mint, Gnome, Kde et al have attempted to ape Microsoft's and Apple's desktop experience with only a few new novel features in an attempt to gain mass acceptance, more often than not completely ignoring the fundamental philosophy of Unix, the philosophy that makes Unix-derivatives so great. Then again, it has made more desktop hardware manufacturers take notice of Linux, due to its increasing mass appeal, which has improved hardware support. At least there's enough diversity in the Unix eco-system for me to completely ignore the aforementioned for more novel systems, even though most of the effort seems to be going into aping Windows and OS X.
- bitwize 17y ago
  The "philosophy that makes Unix-derivatives so great" is completely antithetical to a pleasing desktop experience. Hint: Mac OS X may be Unix underneath, but Cocoa is most emphatically not Unix.
olaf 17y ago
I think the problem is, that some people (including me) have much too high expectations. Linux does cost nothing, so nobody is really responsible. I think Windows 7 is lightyears ahead, if you compare the organized manpower and level of professionalism involved (I say this as a 90% Linux User). If anybody talks about being on par with Windows soon, I think that's nothing but hubris. I decided to see Desktop-Linux as some kind of stagecoach in the 21st century, and seen as a stagecoach it does a good job. Lowering my expectations made it possible to get over my initial frustration and get back to work, concentrating on what works.
scythe 17y ago
>Have you tried anything but Ubuntu? I had this question in my head through the whole essay and the top commenter beat me to it. I've heard thousands of issues with the new Ubuntu release (never bothered trying it myself). I doubt I'll recommend Ubuntu to anyone I know who's interested in Linux for quite a while. I've had great experiences with several of non-Ubuntu distros and will probably recommend them instead.
- landyman 17y ago
  I personally haven't had a problem with the new Ubuntu release. I moved back to Ubuntu after having a lot of problems with Fedora 11. I originally moved to Fedora 10 after having a lot of problems with Ubuntu. But I guess this is the problem, right? New problems always arise in different distros and different versions. I can't say I've found one distro to commonly recommend because it seems like all of them have had problems at some point, even in newer releases. For me, I don't care as much about switching distros. I have my .emacs setup and my files, it's easy to move. But for a lot of people, I think they want something that is almost always stable so they don't have to switch distros or put up with bugs.
- petsos 17y ago
  "Oh, I've been saturated with Unix-peanut-gallery effluvia for so long that it no longer even surprises me when every question -- no matter how simple -- results in someone suggestion that you either A) patch your kernel or B) change distros. It's inevitable and inescapable, like Hitler." -- jwz, 2002
- meatbag 17y ago
  I agree, Ubuntu can be unwieldy compared with the solidity of other distros. I usually put up with some slowness or instability because Ubuntu automates stupid little tasks like uncompressing files (which I really should learn how to do on the CLI anyway). Can't say for sure, but it also seems like Firefox behaves differently between distros, as if the code in the repositories differs drastically enough to offer a dramatic performance boost. Granted these are not scientific observations and I'd defer to someone who ran *buntu vs another distro on two boxes with identical specs.
vicaya 17y ago
I've used a 2nd generation Macbook Pro that costs my employer close to $3000 (4GB RAM, 2.4GHz, 160GB HD) for 2 years, during which time the graphic card (Nvidia 9600M GT) died twice (screen suddenly went blank); battery died once (could not hold charge for an hour and would shut everything down without warning); Apple Mail corrupted its IMAP data countless times; much software annoyance: maximize/unmaximize/resize surprise etc. Before the MBP, I've been using a $1000 amd64 notebook with 1.5GB RAM for 3 years without any issues, running Gentoo (! did need to google to fix multi-monitor support and ndiswrapper/wpa-supplicant for wifi) and it felt snappier than the mac with much faster processor running Leopard (up to 10.5.8). Now I'm using a $600 laptop (with 4GB RAM and 320GB HD with higher display resolution than the MBP: 1680x945 vs 1440x900) and a 2.5lb $200 netbook running Ubuntu Jaunty. Everything worked out of the box including wifi, webcam and desktop effects. Feels much snappier than the Mac as well. All it took is a little googling _before_ buying the machines :) It's much easier for Apple to QA limited configurations. Frankly, I'm quite pleased with the progress of Linux desktop. Just another experience and perspective...
- fortes 17y ago
  What's your current laptop? I'm in the market for one, and plan on running Ubuntu (with Windows in a VirtualBox)
  - vicaya 17y ago
    The laptop is a desktop replacement 18.4" Acer with intel chipset (4500HD graphics etc.) bought from Amazon (free shipping and no tax! Looks like it's not available anymore, probably discontinued) 6 months ago. The netbook is a Dell mini 10v from Dell outlet on one of its 15% off offers. The Acer has an HDMI output. I connected it to my 24" 1920x1200 Samsung and point and clicked the monitor applet on the gnome panel and viola, dual monitor support at full resolution without having to fiddle xorg.conf! Point and clicked to configure the wifi on both machines without any problems. Man, I was ecstatic, probably due to the low expectation from my Gentoo experience -- I was expecting to vi a few things to make them work :) To be honest, I did have to add a fixmtrr.sh to gdm PostLogin and a line (MigrationHeuristic greedy) to xorg.conf to fix the intel video performance regression in Jaunty on both machines, when I felt the desktop effect was a bit sluggish. Now the desktop animations are smooth as butter even on the netbook. I did choose to install 32-bit Ubuntu with server kernel (to get PAE in Jaunty) to take advantage of the full 4GB RAM, instead of 64-bit because flash and a few other things don't work as well as in 32-bit.
hristov 17y ago
BooHoo ... skype doesnt work so it must be Linux's fault. Macbook pros are intentionally designed to be difficult to dual boot so it must be Linux's fault. Hey I have an idea. Why don't you buy a desktop and laptop with linux preinstalled (they are available online) and then try to install OSX on top of it and dual boot. Then you are really in for a nightmare. You will have to do a lot of hacking and in the end you are still pretty much guaranteed to fail. And then you can write a blog post about how you really love OSX but you are so tired of it.
- tjarratt 17y ago
  Hint : macbook pros are incredibly easy to dual boot if you use the OS that comes with the hardware. edit: feel free to mod me down, but it's the truth.
  - hristov 17y ago
    Right, and Linux has no compatibility issues if you use the OS that comes with the hardware. But then again when people do not use the OS that comes with the hardware there may be some issues. And then bizarrely people inevitably blame Linux. I am pretty sure that installing OSX on a PC is just as hard or probably harder than installing Linux on a Mac. But people always complain about Linux.

58 points by r11t 17y ago

ilyak 17y ago

We are tired of you being loudly tired of Desktop Linux, FAVO you.

mahmud 17y ago
What does "FAVO" mean?
- shimon 17y ago
  for all values of
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

Slashed 17y ago

Using Ubuntu 9.10 and everything works out of the box. Although, I had a problem with WiFi on my other laptop, but doing some /etc configuration solved the problem. Is it that hard to write a few configuration lines only once?

forensic 17y ago
>Is it that hard to write a few configuration lines only once? Yes. Having to know the magic words is definitely a problem. Most of these conf options should be available as checkboxes in a UI, if manual config is essential.
- Slashed 17y ago
  In fact, most of the configurations are available in UI, but what makes *nix different is, it allows you to make it work the way you want(that's what /etc is for). On the other hand, I'm not happy with Windows until some registry tweaks are done and some useless services are turned off. On hardware compatibility, I don't think it's Linux' fault that some vendors don't publish hardware documentation. This should be considered before installing Linux at all.
anigbrowl 17y ago
If you're not a geek, yes. Most non-programmers find the Unix command line a hostile environment and are not that interested in tweaking the operating system as an end in itself. Would you want a TV that required a soldering iron as part of the installation process?
- chris100 17y ago
  That sounds like fun. I know so many software developers who wouldn't find their way around a soldering iron, your analogy is very vivid.
- Slashed 17y ago
  Let me say it this way, if I really ever wanted this TV set then I wouldn't mind. The same is with Linux: if you want free, open-source OS then you should know that there's no Photoshop, IE and all those games you can have on Windows. Also, before installing Linux you should be aware that not every piece of hardware can work in Linux. I agree, these are big disadvantages for normal user - the choice depends on users' priorities.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Agreed. However, a key goal of desktop Linux is to be sufficiently useful and easy that user-facing software will find an audience, and it becomes worth a developer's time to code for that platform.

Tichy 17y ago

Once again: if you want to run Linux on a notebook, check for compatibility before you buy the notebook. Don't know about Apple, but in general hardware support tends to be better if the vendor communicates the necessary specs to the open source community. Somehow I doubt that Apple is very supportive to the "Linux on a MacBook" cause.

gaius 17y ago
Linux runs just fine in VirtualBox.
AGorilla 17y ago
If you had read the article, you would know that he was comparing the user experience of Skype in Ubuntu on a Thinkpad to Skype in Mac OS X. This sort of blame-the-user mentality is what's really holding back Linux on the desktop.
- astine 17y ago
  comparing the user experience of Skype in Ubuntu on a Thinkpad to Skype in Mac OS X. But isn't that an issue with Skype? It's a massive nuisance that Linux still doesn't have the hardware and application support of MasOS/OSX and Windows, but there's not much that can be done about that without the cooperation of proprietary vendors, many of whom still treat Linux as a second class citizen.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    "But isn't that an issue with Skype?" No. OS-X, Windows, iPhone and Android are sufficiently different that we can tell the Skype developers are putting a decent amount of effort into cross-platform compatibility. That there is a Linux client shows they are also trying to do that with Linux. Could they put more effort in and get a polished shiny Linux client? Maybe. Is it Skype's fault that Linux is bad enough to need this while at the same time not good enough to get a large enough userbase to make this worthwhile? Again, no.
- Tichy 17y ago

CitizenKane 17y ago

For the sake of context, Jason is a KDE developer and if you read through the comments you'll find out that he's not alone in this sentiment. It's an interesting issue and it's sad to see that desktop Linux has so much trouble providing a stable user experience.

rayvega 17y ago
I recently got a laptop because I needed mobility in and outside my home. So, I bought a Dell laptop with Ubuntu pre-installed after years of using Windows. I was very excited. My enthusiasm deteriorated very quickly upon discovering that the wireless did not work out of the box which immediately negated the main reason for my purchase. I am someone who writes code for a living (and for fun) and I found the experience disappointing and frustrating. Imagine how your average non-technical consumer would feel.
- psranga 17y ago
  Similar situation here. Try using the latest modwifi drivers , the drivers in the 9.04 distro did not work for me. (sorry I forgot how I did that, but the info was easy to find).
- hernan7 17y ago
  Wow, they sell a machine with non-functioning WiFi? Actually, I was planning to buy one of those Dell Lnux laptops; thanks for the heads-up.
  - meatbag 17y ago
    No, it probably won't "work" out of the box, meaning that it requires configuration. With a fresh install, typically the first thing I do is plug in an ethernet cable, download all available updates (including wifi drivers and other software if needed) and then configure the wifi. I did this when I bought a netbook preinstalled with Linux, but I might not have needed to install anything, I probably just didn't find the "switch" at first.
- DELLChrisM 17y ago

anigbrowl 17y ago

This could have been written 10 years ago - I recall similar 'almost there' experiences with audio and USB on a dell laptop at the time, though I can't blame the Linux community for lack of access to bespoke drivers. Not to belittle the tremendous advances that have taken place in the interim, but something died after development of Enlightenment stalled.

psranga 17y ago
I thought his complaint was mainly about closed-source vendors who don't polish their Linux apps enough.
- unalone 17y ago
  His complaint is about the entire system, which includes people who refuse to admit closed-source Linux apps aren't the best because they insist that closed-source is bad and should be done away with.
- zmimon 17y ago
  He was much more insightful than that. He acknowledged that Linux itself makes it hard for those vendors to make polished apps by changing and reinventing every damned thing every few years.

nzmsv 17y ago

In a week or two it is possible to configure a desktop Linux machine to almost-perfection. Not working on it full time, of course, just fixing broken things as they are discovered. But then there's always one tiny nagging thing that doesn't quite work right. So, an upgrade. Everything is shinier, and that one bug is finally fixed. Too bad a lot of the programs and libraries are obsolete now, and the software that did survive in the repos is rewritten to use the new interfaces. Along with their bugs. And after a couple weeks setting everything up just so, there is one tiny nagging bug... I use a Debian machine exclusively. After I upgraded to testing, my video stopped crashing. That's great. But now bluetooth is broken. It's been replaced with a completely new HAL framework, and I still can't figure out how to pair a device.

Periodic 17y ago
That's how it seems to be these days. Something is always not working quite right. I got a new Macbook Air a while ago and decided to install Linux. After messing with it for a few hours I realized I didn't have time to hunt down all the bugs and Google the various solutions. So I'm back in OS X. For my desktops I'm used to Linux. It works perfectly and I'm so used to the way I do things there that doing them on any other operating system or in a different window manager is annoying.
cheriot 17y ago
How much of the trouble can be avoided by getting a machine with linux preinstalled? Let someone else research drivers and do the testing. I've had a great experience with the pangolin model from system76.com.
- meatbag 17y ago
  A LOT of trouble can be saved if the hardware is confirmed to work with the OS. I bought a System76 Starling. Haven't upgraded it to Karmic yet - I figure I'll let more people tread the upgrade path until it is smoother.
awa 17y ago
A similar thing happened to me last fall. I wanted to switch to ubuntu, Installed it and found that the audio won't work. After some google-fu, I found a setting described in ubuntu forums which made it work, but the sound from my laptop speaker kept playing even after plugging in the headphone jack :(.

mattmaroon 17y ago

I wish I could understand people who describe inanimate objects as sexy. I have no idea how to relate to people who choose a laptop because of its sex appeal, which would be a big disadvantage if I ever need to sell to them. There probably aren't that many of them, but they seem to have a lot of money.

abstractbill 17y ago
I wouldn't necessarily describe macs as "sexy", but I would describe pretty much every other laptop on the market as "gouge-your-eyes-out ugly", if that helps.
unalone 17y ago
You don't buy a Mac because of its sex appeal. You buy it because it's a damn good computer. A part of that just happens to be that it's sexy. There are such things as sexy suits and sexy dresses. They're inanimate, but there are ugly dresses and sexy dresses. Similarly, computers exist that have blinking lights and bulges and edges where they don't need them, and they are perceived to be ugly; when you have a computer that doesn't have a line it doesn't need to have, then it's sexy. But that's not what you're saying, Matt. We know what you're saying; you've been saying it for years, occasionally with an attempt at subtlety, as now. What you're saying is that you don't like the Mac or Mac users. You and I have had this argument before, only instead of sexy you didn't understand people who were willing to pay two thousand dollars for a computer, or who couldn't tinker with certain settings. But your arguments are shallow every time and it's tiring talking to somebody who won't say what he's actually thinking.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  He specifically said he wanted his computer to be sexy. The exact quote is "and while they’re sturdy as heck and are well built and last forever, they’re not really all that sexy. I wanted sexy." He literally said that he was choosing form over function there, and it has nothing to do with operating systems. Suits and dresses aren't sexy, the person wearing them is. Suits or dresses may make them more or less sexy, but hanging on a rack they're devoid of such ability. Can a laptop someone is holding do the same? Perhaps that's what I'm missing. If I see a beautiful woman holding a laptop I'm 0% likely to notice what brand it is, or likely that it even exists. My guess is that my wife wouldn't notice whether George Clooney was holding a Macbook Pro or a Lenovo x60 either. I say exactly what I'm thinking. You read into it and assume I did not say what I meant, I cannot help that. I wasn't commenting on Macs at all, and I came to that thought before the word was ever mentioned in the article, though to be honest, I probably wouldn't have had trouble guessing where it was going. Nobody ever says "Lenovos are great, but they aren't sexy, so I got a Dell." But regardless there's a much broader point there, as this probably applies to a range of things from clothing, to cars to laptops.

prometheus_ 17y ago

Why would you buy a marked-up mac to put ubuntu on it?

potatolicious 17y ago
Because Apple hardware is well-designed, and well put together. Played with a Dell recently? Thick, heavy clunkers of machines with flimsy plastic flaps all over the place. Even the vaunted Lenovos have mushy keyboards and bits that just should not flex like that when pushed. I'd gladly pay for Mac hardware and run some other OS on it - just the keyboard alone on the unibody is worth some money.
- trafficlight 17y ago
  Then buy a decent keyboard. It's not like you're driving your Dell PC to work everyday. It just sits on the desk.
  - unalone 17y ago
    It's not just the keyboard. It's all the hardware. It's the keyboard, the various buttons, the speaker grilles, the indicator light, the camera... everything on the Macbook Pro is gorgeous, and it works all sleeklike.
    - jodrellblank 17y ago
      The way this thread is playing out about hardware is the way this page/this situation/this argument is playing out with OS-X/Linux. "Just use modwifi 0.9.4.1 I don't see why it's a problem you can find it with Google in a few seconds" "It's not just the wifi, it's all the software. The audio stack, the BSD underpinnings, the coherent feel over many apps. I'd gladly pay more for things to just work, but it's not even that, things just work /nicely/."
      - unalone 17y ago
        The frustrating thing is that both viewpoints are valid, and there're people on both sides that don't seem to get that, and they're the only reason that people are getting into these arguments to begin with.

neilo 17y ago

I totally sympathize with this kind of issue, it's what keeps me from putting Linux on my parents' computers (though this latest "Alpha Antivirus" thing my dad got is ... pushing my limits). For myself, I am pleasantly surprised at the experience I've had with Ubuntu since I first installed 8.04 and deciding to give Linux desktop yet-another-go. The improvements between releases are apparent and usually make sense. Hardware device recognition and drivers are getting better. Overall it IS getting better, and seemingly faster, so have hope for it. In the meantime it's going to be a bumpy ride not just because of stiff competition from existing "just works" platforms, but because it challenges some fundamental commercial assumptions about operating software and THAT is inevitably going to cause opposition through politics, support bias, etc. Strong supporters are going to shed blood in the hope that future generations won't have to. Isn't that the way it always is?

psranga 17y ago

Linux is great for software development (i.e., stick with terminal windows) and simple web browsing. And I love it because that's what I do. But it sucks for many other tasks. The Unix haters handbook has a great rant about X11 where they say that for many years the only programs that X ran were xterm and clock. Just yesterday I kicked off an MP3 playback using Rhythmbox on Ubuntu 9.04 and forgot to pause. When I came back a couple of hours later, two cores were pegged at 100% and the song was fast forwarding like crazy with no obvious UI control to slow it down. And this is after wrestling with Adobe's 64-bit Flash plugin that doesn't play nice with USB audio (not sure if the 32-b version does; I'm not going to reinstall Ubuntu just for that).

b05us 17y ago
on what platforms does flash actually work correctly and not go crazy consuming resources???
hernan7 17y ago
Yes, back in the day the Unix desktop was OK for development, compared to alternatives like DOS. But then, the Unix vendors also had almost complete control of the hardware stack. Seems that Alan Kay is right again: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware".
- riobard 17y ago
  Alan Kay is right again: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware". That explains Mac and iPhone's success I guess
hristov 17y ago
Wow, Adobe's alpha 64 bit flash plugin doesn't work for you? Alpha software broken? Who would have thought. And certainly if you used OSX or Windows you would get a completely different Adobe 64 bit flash plugin that works seamlessly. Right. Regarding rhythmbox there is plenty of software on windows and mac that has memory leaks and resource leaks. Of course on windows or mac nobody blames the operating system for faulty software. But on Linux, well Linux is to be blamed for everything.

b05us 17y ago

he doesn't heap nearly enough indignation on the current mbp, which in my opinion is inferior in many ways to the plain ol macbook firstly, the wifi chipset in the mbp is from broadcom, its vastly inferior to the atheros in the macbook. and yes, i'm using broadcom's own proprietary driver for linux so don't tell me its OS fail. the broadcom wifi drops its connection probably once an hour, and that is when it is ten feet away from the wifi router the pointing device on the mbp is also an absolute disaster. even when used with osx, all i hear is groans. sorry stever, as simple as possible but no simpler. eliminating the physical mouse button from the macbook is not an upgrade oh wait lets talk about video. okay the mbp has nvidia...you'll be glad to know you either use nvidia's proprietary driver or you are out of luck as of a week or so ago. meanwhile the intel chip in the macbook has great open support and performs just fine. shutup about 3d and video games, no one is buying a mbp to play games what gets me is how people completely suspend critical reasoning when talking about apple products

igorgue 17y ago

I think it's getting harder to defend the Linux Desktop, since Pulseaudio (which is finally working perfectly on my laptop). But still I'll stay with my Ubuntu, I just don't like using Windows or OS X, every time I use my mac I miss Gnome Terminal, Banshee, X-Chat, F-Spot, even VIM (since the mac terminal doesn't support 256 colors :(), I miss my wobbly windows, the desktop cube (not that crap you get with OS X)... I would just use the mac if there is no other option. And don't get me started with Windows and the un-resizable terminal ugh!

Periodic 17y ago
I use OS X secondary to Linux. There are just a few things that start to bug me every time. Why can't I change the slide time and have a non-standard shortcut for Spaces? Why can't I auto-hide the menu bar? Why can't I use a different window manager? But things work. I don't have to worry about any hardware configuration, not even installing restricted drivers. It's a trade off I'm still evaluating.
maukdaddy 17y ago
FYI: right click to configure windows terminal. You can set any width/height you'd like. OSX is far superior still ;)
- igorgue 17y ago
  thank you so much for the tip is helping me already!, still it sucks...

roqetman 17y ago

I think this is a problem with perspective. Linux on the desktop is not a homogeneous collection controlled by a single entity. It is a collection of individual pieces. Software vendors have little incentive to make their software work 100% with those individual pieces on the Linux desktop, unlike they do on platforms where they sell other software and services. You get what you pay for, on the Linux desktop, your payment will be in time and effort to get the (usually substandard) free offerings from these software vendors to work properly.

Periodic 17y ago
It does seem that this is one of the problems, though surely not the only problem. If you're a hardware vendor making a new USB device, you're going to alter your device and your drivers (if you have them) so that the item works well under Windows and maybe OS X. You're probably not going to try to tweak it to make it work with the Linux USB drivers. Linux is in this odd position of having to try to copy all the functionality and interface of the Windows systems because that's what all the hardware has been written for. It makes for a buggy and error prone process. I don't agree that you get what you pay for though. At this point it's all about market penetration. If Linux was 90% of the PC market, don't you think those USB webcams would be likely to work the first time? Don't you think that if a company wanted to enable new functionality they'd submit a driver to the kernel? It wouldn't take any more effort from them (less if you consider programming for Linux easier than programming for Windows) and the Linux users would get the benefit.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  """ If Linux was 90% of the PC market""" Let's branch into another universe where everything is exactly the same as this one, except Linux (in the same state it's in now) is 90% of the PC market. But how can such a world exist except by ignoring the reasons that exist in our universe why Linux is not the OS for 90% of the PC market. It's not a sensible "if". If Linux was forced onto 90% of computers early on, it would have been forced to be a lot more stable, backwards compatible and rigid than it is now. The webcams would work but the OS wouldn't be the Linux you know today.

daemianmack 17y ago

I've recently come to the same conclusion as the author. I've long been an advocate of Linux, but a few years go I sort of gradually switched off Linux on the desktop back to Windows. It wasn't premeditated; I built a new box, made it Windows for gaming, and then one day realized I was using it exclusively for desktop stuff. Well, I say desktop, but I think the real differentiator here is X Window... I use Linux command-line programs for much of my daily desktop productivity stuff -- email (sup+fetchmail), irc/aim (irssi, bitlbee), text editing (emacs), etc. At work we recently rebuilt our boxes using Ubuntu. I was thrilled for about two weeks, and then all those little X annoyances started creeping back in. Frankly, I was kind of surprised; I had assumed that it would have come a lot farther in the few years since I had last used Linux for desktop. Actually using X Window programs has become annoying. I can sort of feel that legion of disparate programmers all taking their own stab at desktop GUI programming and all arriving there somewhat differently. Eventually a few of us broke down and hackintoshed our boxes, and I couldn't be happier. Linux on the server? Absolutely. But on the desktop? OS/X.

dkarl 17y ago

Geez, simple solution. Keep another box around, a Mac Mini or a cheap Windows box, for the stuff Linux doesn't do. If you try to get by with a single desktop environment, you'll get fed up with any of the choices out there. It isn't worth the pain. You'll get tired of the Mac when you realize that nice interface is the only... environment... you'll... ever... have. Everything that takes three clicks will always take three clicks. You'll never be able to switch to a tiling window manager for the afternoon. I won't bother listing Windows' shortcomings. And under Linux you will always run into things like Skype that are broken and not worth the trouble of fixing, because you aren't in college anymore and you have real work to do. If I had to do a lot of work on the road, I think I would have to get a Windows or Mac laptop and set up a Linux VM for doing real work. Otherwise I'd go crazy and start carrying two laptops (and forget about ever getting another date.)

endlessvoid94 17y ago

I had a similar experience. I've now been running a new MacBook for three days and I am not going back to linux. I couldn't believe it when I booted into Snow Leopard and zsh was already installed and configured. I'm sure my jaw actually dropped. That's just one example. So much stuff on OS X just freaking works. It just works. I literally had my whole machine configured and working within around 2 hours. Most of that time was spent simply installing software, not configuring it. </rant>

vetinari 17y ago
You are now in the excitement phase about your new toy. Check back in few months, after you know that there are other things, that are broken in OSX.
- generalk 17y ago
  What things are that broken in OS X? I use it every day, I'm sure I could come up with a list if pressed, but compared to when I used to run earlier versions of Ubuntu on my laptops, it's a dream.
  - vetinari 17y ago
    I've used OSX since 10.0 up to 10.5 and classic MacOS before that. I've never upgraded to 10.6 and do not plan to do so (I got Thinkpad and Windows last summer). I remember times when dlopen/dlsym didn't work (later it did); never managed to build some command line utilities and other required porting effort; macports was never functioning properly; Aquamacs ignored my customizations; was there X11.app release that did work at all?; no jdk6 for ppc; etc. From proprietary side: you could have either Office 2004 for PPC running in emulation and working macros and custom language dictionaries; or intel Office 2008 without these two things. Since switching to OSX, the Adobe suite got worse and has distinct second-class feel compared to windows version. I had some favourite software, that was originaly developed for classic MacOS (both m68k and ppc) and it does not work on modern Macs. Even software that was updated for OSX does not work, because the installer is for classic and then the updater updates the program to carbon (or whatever) version. With every switch in OSX focus there is software that is getting lost (with switch to intel, we lost some. With switch to 64b, we will lose more due to no Carbon). In short, in all those years I was using OSX I got fed up and made a full circle (dos/windows -> linux -> mac -> windows).

yason 17y ago

It's about trade-offs. Yes, there are issues with Linux; there have always been different various issues in any Linux distribution I've used since 1995 which is when I started. But there are issues with Windows and OS X too. And that's where Linux's advantages kick in again. You'll always miss something from the other side of the fence. You'll have to weigh in, and some people weigh to Linux and some people don't. I've never got too far with Windows. I ditched OS X after over two years of everyday use. Despite the uncertainty regarding hardware compatibility in Linux, I really like the way it, namely Debian and recently Ubuntu, gets rid of the _other_ problems so irritatingly present in other operating systems. A Linux system is just too user friendly for users who aren't too system friendly.

dschobel 17y ago

Now, I am very aware that the Linux Desktop is SO much better than it was even 5 years ago. We have eye candy up the wahzoo. That was most definitely not the major issue 5 years ago. The issue 5 years ago was configuring hardware and god help you if you want to do some multimedia work on a stock linux distro. Things are a ton better today. I don't remember the last time I had to manually edit an xorg.conf. But Linux has neither the standardized hardware of Apple nor the dominant market share of Windows to compel vendors to make their hardware work with linux. Really the best you can do to get that level of compatibility is to get your Ubuntu laptop through Dell.

tarkin2 17y ago

Well, I'm in two minds. I've often disliked how Ubuntu, Mint, Gnome, Kde et al have attempted to ape Microsoft's and Apple's desktop experience with only a few new novel features in an attempt to gain mass acceptance, more often than not completely ignoring the fundamental philosophy of Unix, the philosophy that makes Unix-derivatives so great. Then again, it has made more desktop hardware manufacturers take notice of Linux, due to its increasing mass appeal, which has improved hardware support. At least there's enough diversity in the Unix eco-system for me to completely ignore the aforementioned for more novel systems, even though most of the effort seems to be going into aping Windows and OS X.

bitwize 17y ago
The "philosophy that makes Unix-derivatives so great" is completely antithetical to a pleasing desktop experience. Hint: Mac OS X may be Unix underneath, but Cocoa is most emphatically not Unix.

olaf 17y ago

I think the problem is, that some people (including me) have much too high expectations. Linux does cost nothing, so nobody is really responsible. I think Windows 7 is lightyears ahead, if you compare the organized manpower and level of professionalism involved (I say this as a 90% Linux User). If anybody talks about being on par with Windows soon, I think that's nothing but hubris. I decided to see Desktop-Linux as some kind of stagecoach in the 21st century, and seen as a stagecoach it does a good job. Lowering my expectations made it possible to get over my initial frustration and get back to work, concentrating on what works.

scythe 17y ago

>Have you tried anything but Ubuntu? I had this question in my head through the whole essay and the top commenter beat me to it. I've heard thousands of issues with the new Ubuntu release (never bothered trying it myself). I doubt I'll recommend Ubuntu to anyone I know who's interested in Linux for quite a while. I've had great experiences with several of non-Ubuntu distros and will probably recommend them instead.

landyman 17y ago
I personally haven't had a problem with the new Ubuntu release. I moved back to Ubuntu after having a lot of problems with Fedora 11. I originally moved to Fedora 10 after having a lot of problems with Ubuntu. But I guess this is the problem, right? New problems always arise in different distros and different versions. I can't say I've found one distro to commonly recommend because it seems like all of them have had problems at some point, even in newer releases. For me, I don't care as much about switching distros. I have my .emacs setup and my files, it's easy to move. But for a lot of people, I think they want something that is almost always stable so they don't have to switch distros or put up with bugs.
petsos 17y ago
"Oh, I've been saturated with Unix-peanut-gallery effluvia for so long that it no longer even surprises me when every question -- no matter how simple -- results in someone suggestion that you either A) patch your kernel or B) change distros. It's inevitable and inescapable, like Hitler." -- jwz, 2002
meatbag 17y ago
I agree, Ubuntu can be unwieldy compared with the solidity of other distros. I usually put up with some slowness or instability because Ubuntu automates stupid little tasks like uncompressing files (which I really should learn how to do on the CLI anyway). Can't say for sure, but it also seems like Firefox behaves differently between distros, as if the code in the repositories differs drastically enough to offer a dramatic performance boost. Granted these are not scientific observations and I'd defer to someone who ran *buntu vs another distro on two boxes with identical specs.

vicaya 17y ago

I've used a 2nd generation Macbook Pro that costs my employer close to $3000 (4GB RAM, 2.4GHz, 160GB HD) for 2 years, during which time the graphic card (Nvidia 9600M GT) died twice (screen suddenly went blank); battery died once (could not hold charge for an hour and would shut everything down without warning); Apple Mail corrupted its IMAP data countless times; much software annoyance: maximize/unmaximize/resize surprise etc. Before the MBP, I've been using a $1000 amd64 notebook with 1.5GB RAM for 3 years without any issues, running Gentoo (! did need to google to fix multi-monitor support and ndiswrapper/wpa-supplicant for wifi) and it felt snappier than the mac with much faster processor running Leopard (up to 10.5.8). Now I'm using a $600 laptop (with 4GB RAM and 320GB HD with higher display resolution than the MBP: 1680x945 vs 1440x900) and a 2.5lb $200 netbook running Ubuntu Jaunty. Everything worked out of the box including wifi, webcam and desktop effects. Feels much snappier than the Mac as well. All it took is a little googling _before_ buying the machines :) It's much easier for Apple to QA limited configurations. Frankly, I'm quite pleased with the progress of Linux desktop. Just another experience and perspective...

fortes 17y ago
What's your current laptop? I'm in the market for one, and plan on running Ubuntu (with Windows in a VirtualBox)
- vicaya 17y ago
  The laptop is a desktop replacement 18.4" Acer with intel chipset (4500HD graphics etc.) bought from Amazon (free shipping and no tax! Looks like it's not available anymore, probably discontinued) 6 months ago. The netbook is a Dell mini 10v from Dell outlet on one of its 15% off offers. The Acer has an HDMI output. I connected it to my 24" 1920x1200 Samsung and point and clicked the monitor applet on the gnome panel and viola, dual monitor support at full resolution without having to fiddle xorg.conf! Point and clicked to configure the wifi on both machines without any problems. Man, I was ecstatic, probably due to the low expectation from my Gentoo experience -- I was expecting to vi a few things to make them work :) To be honest, I did have to add a fixmtrr.sh to gdm PostLogin and a line (MigrationHeuristic greedy) to xorg.conf to fix the intel video performance regression in Jaunty on both machines, when I felt the desktop effect was a bit sluggish. Now the desktop animations are smooth as butter even on the netbook. I did choose to install 32-bit Ubuntu with server kernel (to get PAE in Jaunty) to take advantage of the full 4GB RAM, instead of 64-bit because flash and a few other things don't work as well as in 32-bit.

hristov 17y ago

BooHoo ... skype doesnt work so it must be Linux's fault. Macbook pros are intentionally designed to be difficult to dual boot so it must be Linux's fault. Hey I have an idea. Why don't you buy a desktop and laptop with linux preinstalled (they are available online) and then try to install OSX on top of it and dual boot. Then you are really in for a nightmare. You will have to do a lot of hacking and in the end you are still pretty much guaranteed to fail. And then you can write a blog post about how you really love OSX but you are so tired of it.

tjarratt 17y ago
Hint : macbook pros are incredibly easy to dual boot if you use the OS that comes with the hardware. edit: feel free to mod me down, but it's the truth.
- hristov 17y ago
  Right, and Linux has no compatibility issues if you use the OS that comes with the hardware. But then again when people do not use the OS that comes with the hardware there may be some issues. And then bizarrely people inevitably blame Linux. I am pretty sure that installing OSX on a PC is just as hard or probably harder than installing Linux on a Mac. But people always complain about Linux.