Why is Ubuntu so popular? - Phoronix Forums found that thread while looking around, and a lot makes sense, i had no idea that a dude with a crap ton of money promoted Ubuntu. Yeah, that and Ubuntu gets the tag, Linux for newbies, but i have to disagree there. Truly, the best distro i have found for beginners is Mint Linux, fresh install comes with compiz-fusion, Samba, all the java and web video stuff, and plus all the other obvious stuff, and also wireless networking drivers. Not only that, but all that stuff works, no messing around, while on Ubuntu, you have to get all that stuff, and then get it to work, like a lot of things with Linux. I'm not saying Ubuntu is bad, cause its not, its great, granted it has WAY more support and followers than most other distros, but yeah. So i was just wondering what your guys' opinions are.
well personally i haven't used Mint, but, ages ago when i was choosing a distro to use & i tried Dreamlinux & it was very easy, but, i wanted "a proper / hard" *nix, because i'm a masochist & i have learnt much more by using Kubuntu
Ubuntu is very popular because you don't have to manually configure most parts, and it's possble to get the distro sent to you for free. Because of those reasons, it's very popular. But the problem with linux is the lack of being user friendly. Distros like Ubuntu and Mint Linux do make it easier than other distros, but it's not all about the user interface. - Most basic computer users want to have the same 'environment' like the 'guy next door'. If they need help, they can ask others for help. - To be honest: Installations in Linux are harder to perform, than in Windows or Mac OS. The command prompt is necccesary to use in most cases. Installing a driver is more difficult. You can't just select an INF file in device manager. You'll need to compile it or use an installation wizard by command. - The interface is different. No Start button, different location of buttons and different procedures, like shutting down or installing software. Moderate and Expert computer users won't have a problem with the above challenges, but basic computer users do. But if someone wants to switch to Linux, it's best to start with Ubuntu or Mint Linux, instead of the more difficult distros like Debian and SUSE.
Yeah, i think thats half the reason behind Ubuntu, just kinda of a bandwagon thing, plus you can get a million copies sent to your house, but really though. Right now, Ubuntu isn't much better off than say Fedora, or Mandriva. I dunno, ether way, i'm not really complaining, the more focus on one distribution, the better.
Top 10 Things I Don't Like About Ubuntu: To a power user, Ubuntu is like road covered in speed-bumps. It's frustrating to even try and get anything low-level done. In Linux/UNIX, 'sudo' is used to delegate certain specific privileges to an otherwise unprivileged user. This is so they don't have to have access to the full root account in order to accomplish certain normal tasks that can potentially affect other users, such as performing system-wide updates or rebooting a machine remotely. Ubuntu completely disregards this, and in one fell swoop breaks the sudo concept, the wheel concept and the root concept. The Ubuntu design philosophy is to protect users from themselves by dumbing everything down. OK fine, maybe my grandma doesn't need to understand how her BASH shell works. But where it becomes hypocritical is that users essentially run as root full-time, and have the potential to break the whole system at any given moment. They are in fact conditioned to simply "sudo" whenever they can't do something, rather than understanding and fixing the underlying privilege issue. Ubuntu is often based on non-production versions of key software. This is bad for two reasons: a) It makes Ubuntu the least stable Linux distribution I've ever used, including even Debian "Sid", which is Debian's pre-pre-release branch. b) Software developers sometimes build software against Ubuntu, which usually uses pre-production libraries. That makes the software incompatible with any other Linux distros that might actually want to use the production (i.e. reliable) library versions. Ubuntu is slower and less stable than any other Linux distribution I've ever encountered. It's also the most popular by far. As such, it's slowly eroding the reputation of Linux in general. Ubuntu simply repackages a mixture of the Unstable and Experimental branches of Debian, changes and adds some things, and calls it a "stable" build of Ubuntu. In the process they manage to break a good many things which never had a problem (or were quickly fixed in the "Testing" branch) in Debian, and they never give anything back to Debian in terms of financial, development, or even moral support. In other words, not so much as a pat on the back. It may be OK by the terms of the GPL, but I call bad form on this one. Kubuntu is Ubuntu's KDE-based distribution. It manages to break and hinder the KDE environment in a way I've never seen matched in any other distro. In my experiences, Ubuntu needs about twice the hardware specs as Debian to run well. Ubuntu installs all kinds of junk by default. My personal philosophy of software/OS installation on a computer, be it a desktop or a server, is to install only the bare minimum software, then install the specific programs you want. In my opinion, there's no point in having a million programs installed that you'll never use. The reasons are three-fold: a) It's good to know your system well, what's installed and what isn't. That way, you know when something has changed, what's changed, and why. b) It takes up less space on your HDD. c) Less programs mean lower update times and fewer potential bugs/vulnerabilities. The default color themes in Ubuntu are really, really stupid looking, IMHO. Brown is supposed to be soothing, sure. But I still don't want my desktop to look like a warm cup of dog poop. That all said, I'd rather use *any* Linux distro, including even Ubuntu, rather than have to use Windows on my own desktops or servers. Even so, Ubuntu would be my last choice, not my first.
Looking over what you just wrote... dont you feel like you're the reason that MS can make bad software and just get away with it? So you're basically saying that all people should have the same OS, no matter how good or how bad? I mean, man up and be willing to make a change for the better. Oh, and about everyone having it so you can "ask your neighbor for help"... How many of your neighbors have a clue in the slightest how to do even basic things like remove a couple of infections in Windows or reinstall the OS? I'd assume not many because I have an insane amount of people that pay me a lot of money to install things like drivers, OS', and NIC cards in Windows. A big difference between MS and Linux is that with MS, if you get it "properly set up," there is still a big chance it will break (see: registry ) where in Linux, if your system is set up right, it will keep on running for years without an issue. You really think its harder? And you've done both a Mac and Windows installation? I'd say they're all pretty similar in terms of difficulty, and as of Vista, the installers are all equally "pretty". On any of the three, you can more or less press next, next next, finish and be done with it. Linux just offers you more options. That doesn't mean you have to take them up on it. And just like AT said, you have the choice of what's on and not on your system from the get go. Once again, I dont quite follow where you're getting this from. If you're referring to the difference between the GUI's of Gnome, KDE, Enlightenment, XFCE, etc then well... duh. But every KDE interface I've seen has had it in the lower left by default and then you click logout and shut down to power the computer off. You are able to change it, but that's no fault of KDE. And of course all the GUI's are different, they are meant to be different and give users a different look and feel. But I will give you a little when it comes to a few of the additional configurations. Some drivers can be difficult to install for a Windows user, and the installation method varies a bit with different drivers. Although to be fair, when vendors support Linux officially it becomes loads easier if not supported out of the "box". Once again, if set up properly the first time, none of this is an issue as it will "just work" for years. Like I said before, I get about 20 people in eight hours asking me to install RAM, drivers, games, other misc software at between 30 and 60 dollars each. They dont have a clue how to do these simple things. I am not exaggerating. I've told them how and they get overwhelmed and ask me to "do it anyways." I should also mention that I've seen drivers just stop working in Vista several times a day where it just needs to reinstall itself (namely sound, networking, and cdroms). Users cannot figure this out and pay me 30 dollars to fix it for them. Actually, it'd be best if they started with something not as broken, like debian and just had it configured before they get a hold of it. If they are a power user, they should opt to build it themselves, but then again at that point they shouldn't have a problem figuring it out themselves.
No, i didn't say that. People who are starting to get used to use a PC, they get used to specific methods of operating a PC. So if everything is different, they need to learn it again, but on a different method. And not everyone likes that. I think that there are more people who know how to troubleshoot Windows, then to troubleshoot Linux. That's because Windows is the most popular OS. If Linux was more popular than Windows, then more people would know how to troublesshoot linux, and less to do Windows. When using Linux, you'll need to use the console for most tasks. That's what basic computer users don't want to do. That happened until 20 years ago. To install software, people just want to pop in the installation disc, and click Next > Next > Next ..... Don't use the console in Linux, and try to configure the same thing in both Linux and Windows. And remember, don't use commands. Then what's easier, Windows or Linux? In this case is it Windows. But an OS that's easier to use, doesn't mean that it's better than the other OS. But because of the user friendliness, most people prefer Windows and OS X instead of Linux.
I'm unconvinced. In my experience, it largely depends on which distro you're talking about. If we're comparing Slackware to Windows, then yeah, Windows is easier if you're afraid of typing and only like your mouse finger. Distros like Slackware are for power users who understand how computers work, know the UNIX architecture, and prefer to have full control over what their system does. But there are a lot of things that are easier to do in-GUI in Linux for an uninitiated beginner. For instance, in any distro, you can rip CDs in KDE just by dragging and dropping files in the normal file browser. Can you do that in Windows? Let me illustrate. In this example on Debian "Lenny", I've inserted a normal, run-of-the-mill, red book CD with no data tracks. In other words, just a plain old audio disc. #1) I've just inserted an audio CD without doing anything else. KDE prompts me for action. #2) Since I'm a n00b, I've forgone the obvious "Extract and Encode Audio Tracks" option and instead chosen "Open In New Window". This is what I'm greeted with. #3) I want the MP3 format, so I simply drill down into the MP3 folder, then 'copy' and 'paste' the files to where I want them on my HDD. #4) What looks like a normal file-copy dialog to the user is actually ripping the audio CD to MP3 on the fly. The files are automatically ID3 tagged, named accordingly, and are fully compliant variable-bitrate MP3s which will play anywhere. You can do the same with the flac, ogg, or wav formats. Copy & paste ripping!
That is a good option indeed. If almost everything in Linux was as easy as that, there might be more Linux users in the future. I think that in most cases the change would keep people from using a different OS. For example, if you would give a Mac user (who grow up with a Mac) a PC with Windows, he would say that Windows is difficult to use. The same is for people who use Windows. Switching to a Mac would make them say "that's easy. Why didn't I use it before?". While switching to Linux would make then say "damn, this is difficult". If Linux was just as easy as Windows or Mac OS, it would attrackt more users. But as you just mentioned the easy way of ripping CDs, it's certainly getting more user friendly because this wasn't possible about 1-2 years ago, if I'm right.
It's always been at least as easy to rip CDs in Linux than Windows or Mac OS, especially to non-DRM'ed formats. But this feature is somewhat new, maybe a few years old. I maintain that the biggest difficulties for new users of any OS is to install and configure the system initially. Once you're past that, Linux can be easier to use than Windows, even for your grandmother. She can install software by picking it from a list and putting a tick mark next to it, and last I checked Mac OS and Windows don't do that. The system will also keep all packages up to date, not just the core OS like Windows and Mac. How about things users in Windows normally have problems with, such as network file sharing? Network printing? Secure wireless? IKE/IPSec VPNs? Can Windows users even share files securely over the internet without installing 3rd-party apps? My point is simply that there are a lot of misconceptions about the difficulty of Linux, and equally so about the "simplicity" of Windows. If you haven't already, check out the latter half of this post for my views for why Windows isn't as user-friendly as it's implied to be. And of course, Fred's views as a Geek-Squad PC Technician (who has to basically fix broken Windows installs for a living) are only a few panels up.
OMG FLAMED um, on a side note, you can drag and drop stuff in windows to burn cd's, oh yeah wait, you can't use MP3's legally on Linux hmm. Yeah, and people are very afraid of having to type anything, because that means you have to understand something about what they are using, so YES. NO, not on a side note, ON TOPIC, why people use Ubuntu, because Ubuntu does get a crap ton of publicity for anyone in the computer world, especially for your "advanced" users. I just asked a bunch of kids in my computer classes about Linux and all that, MOST of them didn't really have any idea of what else there was outside Ubuntu, Ubuntu is like the cool geek thing, its like oh yeah, i use ubuntu, and everyone starts listening. The same given situation, only some one said, yeah, i use Fedora, most people would be like, "whats Fedora???" I have no real idea how it gets around, but it just does, even for people who don't use Linux, but have decent knowledge of the computer world, seem to know the name Ubuntu. Lastly, its very easy to get, and its free, in every way, and that the second thing that comes out of some ones mouth when talking about Ubuntu/Linux.
Yes, you can do that in Linux and Mac OS also. On the other hand, Windows XP uses an integrated version of Roxio, which is total crap. There are patents on MP3 technology, but they are untested in court and Fraunhoffer has not persued legal action against anyone for encoding MP3s. There are also several patents on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, but I still make those too. When the BSA comes knocking on my door on behalf of Fraunhoffer, I'll worry. Until then, you can play and encode MP3s anywhere, including Linux. LAME - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Once the OS is setup, you really don't have to... *gasp* ...type... anything. Even so, it doesn't bother me that Joe User doesn't want to have to learn to use a CLI. It's the so-called industry pro's who feel a GUI on a dedicated server is not just a good idea, it's a necessity. That mindset, and all the added baggage that comes with it, is what really bugs me. So much for skilled IT these days.
The only thing that really troubles me with Linux, is the lack of hardware support. It's not the fault of Linux, but the manufacturers of the hardware for not providing linux drivers. But the problem is, that you don't know if a new piece of hardware, or parts of your PC will work fine on Linux. It's a bit like plug n pray. If my X-Fi soundcard and my monitor where recognised properly, I would certainly try to use Linux. But I can't do that for now.
To be fair, Linux actually runs on more hardware than any other OS in existence. In the server market, Linux is king. However, some vendors are more interested in fully supporting Linux than others, and this is especially true on the desktop. If you're buying exotic hardware on a whim and just praying Linux will be compatible, I'm afraid you can't expect 100% success every time. It was definitely a culture change for me, as I ended up selling off my ATI graphics cards for Nvidia ones when I switched to Linux. But after that, I was more conscious in my hardware purchases, and haven't had a hardware support issue since that time.
RHochstenbach, I really do understand what you're saying about the CLI and how normal users could find some things in linux difficult. However, I completely agree with AT in his comment about the setup being most difficult part. And like I said before, most Windows users cannot install a driver on their own either. Day in and day out, I meet people who cannot find the device manager. I meet people that did a restore themselves and cannot figure out why the video, NIC, and sound dont work. I show them the device manager with the little yellow exclamation mark and explain they have to install the drivers for Windows to recognize and utilize the devices. This is not an exaggeration or the exception; this is the norm [unfortunately, all day]. And again, I charge them $30 for each missing driver to get their computer working properly. So while the Linux CLI is difficult to use for unfamiliar users, apparently to Windows users the GUI is also. And I assure you, I'm not trying to bash you or anything. Its just that from a technician's perspective, I see Windows users all day who dont have a clue about how to protect or repair any part of their computer or OS. Earlier you mentioned that a benefit of Windows is that their neighbors know how to fix it.... Apparently not.
Yep, Exactly. Like Fred, I used to work with Windows for a living, and let me tell you, even most "Windows IT/IS-Pros" have no idea what they're doing. They think they do, but they don't. I got so frustrated with the whole mess that when I finally switched to Linux, I even told my friends and family members that I couldn't help them with computer problems if they ran Windows. It's like constantly bailing out a sinking ship, and I just don't have the heart for it any more. At least with Linux, if they have a problem I can fix it, and fix it for good.
I agree with that. But people who are new to Linux, won't be able to configure it as well. Just tell a new Linux user to configure the xorg.conf file. In most cases, you'll get a reply like "uhh, you want fries with that?". But I agree, when comparing a fully configured Windows install and a Linux install that Linux is more stable than Windows.
You have raised some good points. I don't think all of them are right, but I can understand why you might have come to those conclusions. I can't see anything bad about Ubuntu "dumbing down" the desktop, or the GNOME desktop in general. What they have done is kept the configuration and settings to a minimum. They've kept the settings that are actually important and removed the less important / unused settings that are taking up real estate. In contrast to KDE which provides every setting under the sun, which results in a very cluttered interface. And most settings I, or planet earth, would never use. That being said, if you really want to go mad with configuration options, GNOME makes Gconf available. I disagree with your statement that Ubuntu is like a road with speed bumps for a power user. I consider myself a power user and I like the fact that I can open a terminal and go bash crazy. But I also like the fact I can use a nice GUI interface and have Ubuntu do the hard work for me. It's about choice and I believe Ubuntu leaves neither new user nor power user out in the cold. I half agree with you regarding Ubuntu's stability and use of beta packages for essential libraries. But Ubuntu has always been an bleeding edge distribution, so it figures. LTS versions are different though. I've deployed 6.06.2 on a number of systems and it's extremely stable - the most stable Linux OS I have ever used. Hardy Heron will take the LTS series to the next level and is shaping up to be a cracking release. I thought your last choice for desktop Linux is SUSE?
Here we differ ideologically, so we must agree to dissagree I'm afraid. I'm with Linus on this one. This is not a putdown or a personal attack, but using BASH doesn't make somebody a power user any more than driving a car with a manual transmission makes someone a racecar driver. Correction: Ubuntu has always been a repackage of a bleeding-edge distro, rebranded as a stable release. Ahhh, Ubuntu or Suse... tough choice. Suse isn't even really being developed anymore, since Novell has fired a buttload of their engineers, thrown most of their budget into marketing, and partnered with Microsoft. Does Suse even count anymore? :O
Fair cop on all your points. We can agree to disagree! What really matters is that we are both happy with the distributions we are using, and above all else, we aren't using Windows Vista!
