ubuntu's popularity

Bralkein · 2010-02-16 22:17:17

Seriously, I think Ubuntu is pretty cool, I threw it on my sister's laptop to fix a virus-riddled XP install and it was easy enough for her to use with no additional knowledge, which in turn stopped her coming to bother me with her problems

I don't think I'd give Arch to my sister, but then again there's no way I'd use Ubuntu on my own machine. Oh, and I don't get why they have a server version. Ubuntu on the server? No thanks.

fsckd · 2010-02-16 23:14:36

Likewise, I threw an Ubuntu CD at my sister and she stopped bothering me.

Anikom15 · 2010-02-16 23:16:07

The problem is indeed a lack of standardization, especially between the window managers, you have KDE doing it's own thing, GNOME doing it's own, and then the lightweights that actually adhere to some standards. About security, I'm confident that if I was attacked I could get through it, however, Linux is not secure, not at all. Especially with this rise in popularity of passwordless sudo and auto logins.

urist · 2010-02-17 00:27:42

Passwordless sudo and autologin may be a convenience, but I'll happily be inconvenienced.

pogeymanz · 2010-02-17 01:17:21

I'm glad that Ubuntu is popular. In fact, I hope that some Linux attacks start happening so that people(and devs) learn to lock down their systems. This whole 5 minute sudo window is silly. I think Ubuntu has a decent default IP tables set up, though.

P.S. Arch needs package signing.

Anikom15 · 2010-02-17 03:14:21

Second package signing.

Peasantoid · 2010-02-17 03:26:39

@{pogeymanz,Anikom15}: Package signing is in the pipeline, or so I've heard.

Lich · 2010-02-17 06:46:26

raf_kig wrote:

Lich wrote:
Yes, but you can't render the system unusable with only user permissions. Why settle for ~/ when you can kill / ?
Because you don't want to kill anything. You want passwords (online-banking anyone?), you want nice little bots (spam mail, ddos, ...) but you sure as hell don't want to kill a box that you just owned.

That's not what a virus does. A virus is set on destruction.

@Misfit: If a user is lucky to get a working ootb vid card then he's a happy bloke indeed. But, remember, vid cards don't usually work on Windows either on a fresh install. Do you get full resolution when you install Windows? I never do, only 800x600, because I have no driver, I have to manually install it. Do you get drivers for everything? No! On Linux, your wifi and vid card will work ootb in most cases (we're still talking Ubuntu here). On Windows, you will have to manually install drivers, that's considered normal. I don't think Linux would be "that" scary for a WIndows user. I have Windows-zealot friends that tried Ubuntu just for the hell of it. They are dualbooting now. Without any help from me might I add?! Oh, and I didn't even suggest Ubuntu, that's the thing they came up with, so I guess it really is popular. Back in the Hoary/Gutsy days I so prayed everytime I popped a new Ubuntu version in. Prayed because my card would never work, so I had to manually install fglrx. After that nasty period Ubuntu came through, X and fullres OOTB. You people may bash it all you want, but I believe they are doing a really good job lately, it works, ffs!

Last edited by Lich (2010-02-17 06:57:59)

raf_kig · 2010-02-17 07:37:15

Lich wrote:

That's not what a virus does. A virus is set on destruction.

Yeah go on nitpicking, who cares if we are talking about a worm, trojan, rootkit, virus or spyware.
The point is - you can do all the harm you want with user privileges.

b9anders · 2010-02-17 09:14:39

a +1 for ubuntu for me to.

Suggesting it should just branch off entirely from the gnu/linux community completely mistakes the purpose of the project. It is first and foremost making a community-based and free OS that attempts to make a usable desktop experience for the average pc user. World conquest is secondary to this aim. Ubuntu will never leave Debian because Debian is the major community-based distro out there.

I don't think trying to compete compete on equal terms with windows and os x is a realistic aim (at least in the next 5 years. anything can happen in the software world beyond such a timeframe though), but I think they have done an excellent job of providing a viable and usable alternative for the average user. For 9 out of 10 users, it does just work as it should and that's a very good thing to accomplish.

I think it's great Ubuntu came around. It is an introduction to linux that is far more wellknown than any predecessor and is gaining a reputation of being usable among regular people. And for those who think of their design philosophy as fundamentally flawed, it is nevertheless a great gateway distro to the wider world of gnu/linux. When people look at my desktop, like what they see and ask if it would be easy for someone like them to use I have to say 'no' because Arch is simply too arcane for a regular pc user. But I can happily recommend them Ubuntu to give them a similar desktop experience.

Last edited by b9anders (2010-02-17 09:15:12)

Misfit138 · 2010-02-17 15:32:40

Lich wrote:

@Misfit: If a user is lucky to get a working ootb vid card then he's a happy bloke indeed. But, remember, vid cards don't usually work on Windows either on a fresh install.

Well, from Windows 3.1 to Windows 7, I have never had a screen go black at first boot, rendering a system unusable. Ubuntu and other autoconfigured distros invariably load the nv (Fedora loads nouveau) driver, which has consistently frozen 3 of my machines with 3 different Nvidia cards. Just imagine a casual PC user staring at a dark screen after being coaxed to "try this Linux(sic) thing".

Do you get full resolution when you install Windows? I never do, only 800x600, because I have no driver, I have to manually install it.

Allow me to clarify; full resolution is always dead-simple on Windows, though not out of the box. The casual user pops a CD into the optical drive and reboots. It works every time.

Do you get drivers for everything? No!

Windows 7 detects hardware and downloads drivers, with 100% reliability in my experience. As a last resort, every PC hardware manufacturer has a driver download page. It's reliable and simple enough (though somewhat backward if you are used to pacman from the shell) for a casual user.

On Linux, your wifi and vid card will work ootb in most cases (we're still talking Ubuntu here).

I strongly disagree. I am certain that you or I could get virtually any wifi and video card working with Arch or another distro in our sleep, but it has never been my experience for either to work flawlessly OOTB with any distro. Proper resolution, 2d acceleration, 3d performance and wifi are still a dice-roll at best for a casual user.

On Windows, you will have to manually install drivers, that's considered normal. I don't think Linux would be "that" scary for a WIndows user. I have Windows-zealot friends that tried Ubuntu just for the hell of it. They are dualbooting now. Without any help from me might I add?! Oh, and I didn't even suggest Ubuntu, that's the thing they came up with, so I guess it really is popular. Back in the Hoary/Gutsy days I so prayed everytime I popped a new Ubuntu version in. Prayed because my card would never work, so I had to manually install fglrx. After that nasty period Ubuntu came through, X and fullres OOTB. You people may bash it all you want, but I believe they are doing a really good job lately, it works, ffs!

Anecdotally, you have techy friends. And I am not bashing Ubuntu at all. I simply feel that it fails at what it is designed to do; bring a free OS that anyone can use to the masses.
I don't hate Ubuntu, and I happen to love Arch and GNU/Linux in general. My perspective is that it is not a viable desktop alternative at this time for a casual PC user.
Personally, I don't really care what OS people use, I am just observing the cold, hard facts.

oliver · 2010-02-17 16:03:01

Misfit138 wrote:

Allow me to clarify; full resolution is always dead-simple on Windows, though not out of the box. The casual user pops a CD into the optical drive and reboots. It works every time.

not every time. It was much much easier to get full screen resolution to work on Arch than XP for my HP laptop with an ATI card. HP have re-branded the card so you can't get the driver from ATI and the HP one doesn't work properly with my monitor. Only fix I found was to find some software that patched the official ATI drivers so they'd install properly.

Arch didn't even require an Xorg.conf file anymore.

What could I have done if someone with windows skills hadn't encountered the same problem as I did?

Last edited by oliver (2010-02-17 16:03:32)

Misfit138 · 2010-02-17 16:15:49

Let it be sufficient to say that once you get comfortable using a particular computer platform, it is easy and natural to see the drawbacks of a competing product. We are probably all using GNU/Linux here, and therefore it is expected that discussions like this become polarized.
I will simply conclude by saying that in my view, distros like Ubuntu have failed because they have not yet gone beyond the "plop in tray and pray" level at this point.
I hope they do, but I don't see it so far.

pogeymanz · 2010-02-17 16:32:16

Misfit138 wrote:

Let it be sufficient to say that once you get comfortable using a particular computer platform, it is easy and natural to see the drawbacks of a competing product. We are probably all using GNU/Linux here, and therefore it is expected that discussions like this become polarized.
I will simply conclude by saying that in my view, distros like Ubuntu have failed because they have not yet gone beyond the "plop in tray and pray" level at this point.
I hope they do, but I don't see it so far.

But they're getting closer at least.

I do agree with a post above that said that a distro should just freeze all core utilities at some version and then keep that for a few years and only update stuff on top. That's the only way to compete with OSX and Windows. Would I use that distro? Nope. But it would make more people use Linux. Distros like SimplyMEPIS are already doing this: They take Debian Stable and then the user-level applications are rolling release (things like Firefox, Openoffice, etc). I don't understand why that one isn't more popular. Ubuntu's six-month release cycle seems absurd to me.

Misfit138 · 2010-02-17 16:43:22

pogeymanz wrote:

But they're getting closer at least.
I do agree with a post above that said that a distro should just freeze all core utilities at some version and then keep that for a few years and only update stuff on top. That's the only way to compete with OSX and Windows. Would I use that distro? Nope. But it would make more people use Linux. Distros like SimplyMEPIS are already doing this: They take Debian Stable and then the user-level applications are rolling release (things like Firefox, Openoffice, etc). I don't understand why that one isn't more popular. Ubuntu's six-month release cycle seems absurd to me.

Completely agreed.

Obi-Lan · 2010-02-17 17:52:37

Most OEM vendors provide computer Windows preinstalled with drivers and some do provide installation CD with Windows and drivers bundled. These work for users even though preinstalled Windows is full of useless software.

Good thing with Ubuntu is that you get working desktop installed quite fast. No need to tinker with anything if you don't want (and if it works..).

milomak · 2010-02-17 20:15:01

urist wrote:

Passwordless sudo and autologin may be a convenience, but I'll happily be inconvenienced.

if your PC is physically secure (ie people who have access to it), how is autologin a problem?

hatten · 2010-02-17 20:27:15

The day that computer manufacturers doesn't roll out systems that doesn't work ootb in ubuntu, that is the day that ubuntu works ootb with all computers.

Last edited by hatten (2010-02-17 20:27:43)

JohannesSM64 · 2010-02-17 20:43:28

pogeymanz wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
Let it be sufficient to say that once you get comfortable using a particular computer platform, it is easy and natural to see the drawbacks of a competing product. We are probably all using GNU/Linux here, and therefore it is expected that discussions like this become polarized.
I will simply conclude by saying that in my view, distros like Ubuntu have failed because they have not yet gone beyond the "plop in tray and pray" level at this point.
I hope they do, but I don't see it so far.
But they're getting closer at least.
I do agree with a post above that said that a distro should just freeze all core utilities at some version and then keep that for a few years and only update stuff on top. That's the only way to compete with OSX and Windows. Would I use that distro? Nope. But it would make more people use Linux. Distros like SimplyMEPIS are already doing this: They take Debian Stable and then the user-level applications are rolling release (things like Firefox, Openoffice, etc). I don't understand why that one isn't more popular. Ubuntu's six-month release cycle seems absurd to me.

^

winch · 2010-02-17 22:39:36

So you have this distro where you break away from upstream for several years and maintain it yourself. That means you need to hire lots of developers to work on your forked software, who is going to pay for that?

That model works for severs. Customers don't want a hug range of software and the software they do want is generally pretty stable to start with. Corporations also tend to want someone they can pay so things get fixed when there are problems so there is a revenue stream. Plus if they are spending big bucks in the first place it isn't much of a hardship for someone to check hardware is supported before they buy it.

Doing the same thing for desktops will be a lot harder. You need to support a huge range of software and many users want the features from the latest releases. Some of this software is going to be under heavy development and pretty unstable. Then they want every piece of cheap hardware they own to just work out of the box. Good luck getting any money out of them.
I think you would just end up spending a huge amount of money on developers that you would never get back. The only way I can see it making money is if you strike a deal with a device manufacture to supply an OS for royalties, hit the jackpot and end up selling 10 million devices.

Snakeye · 2010-02-18 03:35:18

If you can install Windows you can install Ubuntu. Most Windows users never installed their operating systems, so they are probably screwed in either case.

pw_f100_220 · 2010-03-03 20:28:20

Ubuntu was my gateway into the linux world, and for that I am forever grateful.

It was easy-> i learned more -> i wanted to customize something -> i learned more -> i wanted to customize more -> i discovered Arch -> i customize everything, and learn more every day

jshield · 2010-03-04 02:01:59

Ubuntu is great for everyday people. My mother has it installed on her laptop and she rarely has issues, I run it in a VM because I find Arch too much fun not to piss fart around with it instead of doing work.

Army · 2010-03-06 13:05:18

pw_f100_220 wrote:

Ubuntu was my gateway into the linux world, and for that I am forever grateful.
It was easy-> i learned more -> i wanted to customize something -> i learned more -> i wanted to customize more -> i discovered Arch -> i customize everything, and learn more every day

Totally what I wanted to say :-)

jelly · 2010-03-06 16:43:25

Army wrote:

pw_f100_220 wrote:
Ubuntu was my gateway into the linux world, and for that I am forever grateful.
It was easy-> i learned more -> i wanted to customize something -> i learned more -> i wanted to customize more -> i discovered Arch -> i customize everything, and learn more every day
Totally what I wanted to say :-)

Same story here. Today ubuntu is getting popular which is ok for me, more people using open source software! But i needed Adobe PhotoShop and Flash CS4 for work, so i installed windows 7 and it actually works great. The out of the box experience is good, i can see that Windows has woken up and is working harder. Vista was good for Ubuntu, i would say that 7 is good for windows, let's see what 8 does.

The only way ubuntu would become more popular is ofcourse driver support, games and things like Photoshop.

Arch Linux

#26 2010-02-16 22:17:17

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#27 2010-02-16 23:14:36

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#28 2010-02-16 23:16:07

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#29 2010-02-17 00:27:42

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#30 2010-02-17 01:17:21

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#31 2010-02-17 03:14:21

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#32 2010-02-17 03:26:39

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#33 2010-02-17 06:46:26

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#34 2010-02-17 07:37:15

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#35 2010-02-17 09:14:39

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#36 2010-02-17 15:32:40

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#37 2010-02-17 16:03:01

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#38 2010-02-17 16:15:49

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#39 2010-02-17 16:32:16

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#40 2010-02-17 16:43:22

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#41 2010-02-17 17:52:37

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#42 2010-02-17 20:15:01

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#43 2010-02-17 20:27:15

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#44 2010-02-17 20:43:28

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#45 2010-02-17 22:39:36

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#46 2010-02-18 03:35:18

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#47 2010-03-03 20:28:20

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#48 2010-03-04 02:01:59

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#49 2010-03-06 13:05:18

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#50 2010-03-06 16:43:25

Re: ubuntu's popularity

Board footer