I keep try to evangelize the fact that things like apt are one of the biggest wins for the various UNIX-like OS's. In Windows world installing software takes both finding it and configuring the installer. On a Mac you have to at least find it. On Ubuntu/Debian/etc you just have to know the name (or you can search a central database). Also no more Java/Flash player/Acrobat Reader "needs to be updated" messages. You update everything at once. And it can all be scripted. And you can update your entire OS to the next major release in three commands. I can go on and on.
It's so true - when I configure a Windows machine I can't believe what a pain it is to go find and install all the needed software (go to web page... click... find download area... download... double click... click 800 more times...). And then, uninstallation is a mess. That's one of the things that I think is so silly when people say Linux isn't user friendly, that the package management is really so amazing, and people who have never used Linux really just have no idea.
The package manager concept is actually what I hate most about Linux systems and Ubuntu's strategy to not let you upgrade some packages without upgrading the OS itself is insane.
Packages tend to thrust some completely idiosyncratic configuration scheme down my throat that is documented nowhere and that creates conflicts of its own. They don't just solve dependencies they encourage dependencies because they are supposed to be resolved automatically anyway. But they're not. Things break all the time. The Linux dependency hell has far surpassed the infamous Windows DLL hell of the 90s.
I was called to help people fix their Ubuntu installation after some package upgrade had uninstalled half the system. I had an upgrade replace a working but proprietary wifi driver with a non functional "free" one, etc, etc.
Most of the problems I ever had with Ubuntu were caused by that completely broken package management idea. If I want Python 2 and 3 on the same system I can't have a package manager tell me that's not supposed to be when I know full well that it's no problem.
yeah, until the repository maintainers mess up, create two packages that are in conflict, and yet both installed on your system, and now every attempt to update your software fails because you have out-of-date dependencies that can't be updated due to the conflict.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a bit bitter about my fedora install at the moment :)
That said, I think you overestimate the delta between OSX and the various linuxes. On the Mac, as with linux, if you want to use a package that isn't part of the core system, you should package it into your app/lib yourself. The big advantage that the linuxes have is that they have a far bigger range of packages in the repository than you have in a mac's standard install. But by the same token, you can't have as much confidence that all the libs play well together, because they haven't been tested as thoroughly as Mac OSX's set of libs...
http://ninite.com is getting close to apt-get for Windows. We're working on a Mac version too.
Things are better on Linux, but not all rosy. Installing Dropbox, for example, is a surprisingly crappy experience (windows popping up, separate proprietary daemon download, etc). That, and way more user requests than you'd imagine, is why we have http://ninite.com/linux now too.
Bah, it's not really that easy. I remember having an annoyingly difficult time getting a working up-to-date Glade on the latest LTS version. Sure, it worked on the latest Ubuntu just fine, but shouldn't we able to have some popular applications up-to-date without a big mess? But yeah, in general its pretty great.
I've been using Ubuntu since 6.04, longer than any other Linux distribution (one or the other has been my main desktop since 1999). I have to say, though that of course, Ubuntu wouldn't exist as it is without the grandeur of Debian - thanks, Debian.
"it runs on every piece of hardware you throw at it"
That's what continues to impress me about Ubuntu - I've installed it on everything from PPC-era Macs to dodgy little netbooks and it invariably 'just works'.
There was a time when you had to carefully choose your hardware to work with Linux. These days, you have to carefully choose your hardware in order to experience problems.
Nevertheless, I'd advice reading the release notes before installing. My mom's laptop happened to have the precise laptop configuration that Lucid Lynx release notes warned I'd have trouble with ... and I hadn't read it :)
Not all hardware. I couldn't even get the install disc for 10.04 to boot on my 2010 13" MacBook Pro. I'll give it another try when 10.10 comes out, but Ubintu definitely does not "just work" on all hardware.
Considering they have problems with two of the three graphics card vendors and wubi doesn't work if you have more than one hard disk partition, just works isn't how I would describe it. Good when it does and mostly works pretty much describes it.
Not every hardware. There's still problems from time to time but in 95% of cases it works. And that's still better than having to deal with Windows and its problems.
Odd, I regularly see complaints here on HN of this or that not working, and the response seems to often be that you have to pay attention to what hardware you buy and you can't expect everything to work... often with a snarky comment about OSX only being made for Apple hardware.
The new ubuntus do not work with intel graphics cards. I do not want to go through workarounds just to get rid of the screen freeze when it boots. I used Ubuntu for like 7.04 but after 8.10 I think the gfx started to break and by 9.10 they are totally unworkable, I have to restart (hard) several times to start xorg.
Ahh... Ubuntu. I've been using Linux since pretty much forever and I've gone through Debian, Mandrake, Gentoo, Slackware, you name it.
Sure, Ubuntu has its fair share of idiosyncrasies, not to mention idiotic bits and a... peculiar developer community, to say the least, but on the whole it manages to combine the flexibility and openness of Linux with some of the nicer aspects of closed platforms like OS X.
I started using Ubuntu on my desktop when I started developing for the web and because my web-server ran ubuntu. Love the fact that I can have a server-like OS on my desktop, that also does pretty much does everything that windows and macs do
I've been having a lot of problems with Ubuntu. First of all,
wireless on Ubuntu sucks. I can't be bothered reading tons of articles on how to fix wireless, i just want it to work like it does on Windows. Ubuntu doesn't detect a few of my webcams. I can't even install Ubuntu 10.04 on my new laptop (though it seems they're busy fixing it), so i'm stuck with 9.04. I'm also having some trouble with Chrome on Ubuntu, but i should probably blame Chrome for that. Rebooting on Ubuntu doesn't even work. I can only shut it down. I could probably fix it in a timely fashion, but i don't see why it broke in the first place. I've never had any trouble with Windows of this kind.
Anyway, It's still a great OS, but there's no way the average computer user is going to be satisfied with Ubuntu unless the developers somehow fix these little annoyances.
There's no way the "average computer user" is going to be satisfied with an operating system that doesn't come preinstalled on their computer, that isn't officially supported by the manufacturer of their computer, and that they consequently have to deal with the various possible technical problems of.
Ubuntu is the closest candidate to fixing the structural problem of "very few computers come preinstalled with a supported, free-as-in-freedom operating system". Until that problem is fixed, and as long as people are ending up having to install an operating system on arbitrary computers with millions of different hardware combinations, such annoyances will continue at some level.
The drivers problems are a manufacturer problem, not Ubuntu's. Complain against the manufacturer, so that they know that people actually want linux drivers. Vote with your wallet, buy linux compatible hardware. Don't blame Ubuntu for others' mistakes.
It's weird. I used to love Ubuntu, but after 8.04 I just stopped liking it. The little things niggled away at me. The bloat, the fear of upgrades breaking things (this is why my main home file server still runs 8.04, something I'm not happy about) if you have a slightly nonstandard install. I switched to Arch for my main home laptop and breathed new life into a PIII-850 with 128mb of RAM. Ubuntu would've killed it.
In a bizarre twist of fate, work requirements meant having to use Windows Vista (the horror!) then 7, where so far the best feature seems to be "It's not vista", so no more Ubuntu at work for me, except through VMs.
Still, Ubuntu did a heck of a lot to make Linux easier for the masses, and I have to say thanks to all those at Canonical and the Ubuntu community that made it possible.
I run AwesomeWM on top of minimal Ubuntu install, and I enjoy the best of both worlds. I get access to the whole .deb racket while at the same time getting rid of all the bloat. But you're completely right about upgrades breaking things. Since Jaunty, I can't remember a single upgrade which didn't make me thank god for Dropbox.
My workplace experience is that most of these so called "average Windows users" don't even understand the Windows environment to a functional level and need hand holding to use basic features like Remote Desktop, create a mapped drive, or navigate the file system. They don't have any interest in learning more about computers, they just absorb the minimum possible computer skills to perform required office work. They don't even really understand the office tools they use everyday like Microsoft Office. As ignorant as they are about Windows they are more than willing to jump ship to an unfamiliar Apple computer as they have heard it is even more simple to use. These "office workers" know how to click(oops), then double click the big motha icon to open the data entry application, and type away all day, then leave the application open so they don't have to open it again. This stuff is going to simplify down to something like a fast food restaurant cash register with food icons on the keys.
I like Ubuntu quite a bit, I just wish they would offer a Base install option. I like their hardware detection, Gnome modifications, and font smoothing, but I am not a fan of the Ubuntu One stuff or its kitchen sink approach to including software.
Basically, I just want Ubuntu's Base Gnome package, so that from there I can add want I want.
Try the gnome-stracciatella-session package, or choose the "Install a command-line system" option in the alternate installer and add what you like later.
I'm so sad that so many HNers can not understand what is the real value added by Ubuntu.
If more hardware is supported, it's because the kernel tends to get drivers for most hardware nowadays. If apps are getting better, it's not because of Ubuntu, but because of the apps developers.
The power of Ubuntu is only on marketting.
I kind of agree with this. The article is not really about Ubuntu, it is about Linux distros in general. I have been using Mandrake/Mandriva for at least eight years. I tried Ubuntu a while ago to see if the buzz was justified. I was unconvinced. The "user-friendliness" was lower than Mandriva. But it seems Mandriva does not have the mind share that Ubuntu seems to have captured.
On the other hand, Ubuntu's success is success for Linux in general, so I have nothing against it. It just surprises me.
i am considering moving to fedora from ubuntu. one of my motivations is descriptions of better user experiences overall, plus more cutting edge stuff like systemd. morever i think i am growing more and more colored by the notion thar ubuntu doesnt really employ a significant number of core developers.
does anyone have experience of the differences in the daily experience of using fedora vs ubuntu, especially for a clean simple experience, as a developer machine setup?
I'm a Fedora contributor and closet Ubuntu user. While I can get extremely upset at how difficult things can be in Fedora, like python and ruby, I generally try and take care of these things myself anyway. And who's not using RVM so why does it matter in the first place?
Truth is, I spend way too much time hacking at my Fedora system to make things work. It gets frustrating. I fall back to the Ubuntu systems and somehow, it's just easier. I'd comment on the details here, but it is madness.
So why even bother with Fedora at all? People. I can't stand Ubuntu people. From uneducated bloggers to Ubuntu fanbois, it drives me insane. You know there's a popular blog called OMG Ubuntu!? As far as uneducated views, there's a lot of talk about how awesome NetworkManager is in Ubuntu... you know where all that awesomeness came from? Fedora!
The Fedora community? Just amazing talented people all over the place. I can't stand to give them up. Some of the most awesome, unique, thoughtful and mindful people I've ever met all have Fedora in common.
In the end, I can't see how much feature X has to do with anything over it not existing in another distro. I can sort of see how something as shiny and new as a new Ubuntu release can be appealing, but not enough to move me. It all comes down to people, and Fedora has what really matters here.
I love ubuntu! Although Lucid has done something that drives me nuts. The devs decided it would be nice to add a Gnome login to Netbook-Remix Sounds nice, but they decided limit a bunch of features in the old interface so it would not conflict. I love you ubuntu but you need to stop taking away my power!
I too used to think like you do. But I've been using Ubuntu at work, and now when I go on a Mac I actually miss the usability features of Ubuntu.
Just a tiny example: hitting alt and clicking anywhere on a window to move it instead of going to that top bar. Or the multiple different ways to switch between apps. etc. etc. There's probably 100 small things that I now can't live without. So I would say the statement "Mac Os X is not as usable as Ubuntu" is actually true. Surprisingly.
[+] [-] IgorPartola|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|15 years ago|reply
Packages tend to thrust some completely idiosyncratic configuration scheme down my throat that is documented nowhere and that creates conflicts of its own. They don't just solve dependencies they encourage dependencies because they are supposed to be resolved automatically anyway. But they're not. Things break all the time. The Linux dependency hell has far surpassed the infamous Windows DLL hell of the 90s.
I was called to help people fix their Ubuntu installation after some package upgrade had uninstalled half the system. I had an upgrade replace a working but proprietary wifi driver with a non functional "free" one, etc, etc.
Most of the problems I ever had with Ubuntu were caused by that completely broken package management idea. If I want Python 2 and 3 on the same system I can't have a package manager tell me that's not supposed to be when I know full well that it's no problem.
[+] [-] demallien|15 years ago|reply
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a bit bitter about my fedora install at the moment :)
That said, I think you overestimate the delta between OSX and the various linuxes. On the Mac, as with linux, if you want to use a package that isn't part of the core system, you should package it into your app/lib yourself. The big advantage that the linuxes have is that they have a far bigger range of packages in the repository than you have in a mac's standard install. But by the same token, you can't have as much confidence that all the libs play well together, because they haven't been tested as thoroughly as Mac OSX's set of libs...
[+] [-] swies|15 years ago|reply
Things are better on Linux, but not all rosy. Installing Dropbox, for example, is a surprisingly crappy experience (windows popping up, separate proprietary daemon download, etc). That, and way more user requests than you'd imagine, is why we have http://ninite.com/linux now too.
[+] [-] mdwrigh2|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dinkumthinkum|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c00p3r|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unwantedLetters|15 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu_releases
[+] [-] 1tw|15 years ago|reply
That's what continues to impress me about Ubuntu - I've installed it on everything from PPC-era Macs to dodgy little netbooks and it invariably 'just works'.
[+] [-] rbanffy|15 years ago|reply
I am surprised by how many people do the latter.
[+] [-] aufreak3|15 years ago|reply
My mom's been using Ubuntu! 'Nuff said I think.
[+] [-] kylec|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stonemetal|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scrrr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tvon|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rick_2047|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pastiche|15 years ago|reply
Sure, Ubuntu has its fair share of idiosyncrasies, not to mention idiotic bits and a... peculiar developer community, to say the least, but on the whole it manages to combine the flexibility and openness of Linux with some of the nicer aspects of closed platforms like OS X.
Bring on 10.10 and beyond!
[+] [-] grease|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] borisk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MisterWebz|15 years ago|reply
Anyway, It's still a great OS, but there's no way the average computer user is going to be satisfied with Ubuntu unless the developers somehow fix these little annoyances.
[+] [-] mgunes|15 years ago|reply
Non-technical users don't install operating systems.
Ubuntu is the closest candidate to fixing the structural problem of "very few computers come preinstalled with a supported, free-as-in-freedom operating system". Until that problem is fixed, and as long as people are ending up having to install an operating system on arbitrary computers with millions of different hardware combinations, such annoyances will continue at some level.
[+] [-] wazoox|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _b8r0|15 years ago|reply
In a bizarre twist of fate, work requirements meant having to use Windows Vista (the horror!) then 7, where so far the best feature seems to be "It's not vista", so no more Ubuntu at work for me, except through VMs.
Still, Ubuntu did a heck of a lot to make Linux easier for the masses, and I have to say thanks to all those at Canonical and the Ubuntu community that made it possible.
[+] [-] Andys|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiffworks|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RexRollman|15 years ago|reply
Basically, I just want Ubuntu's Base Gnome package, so that from there I can add want I want.
[+] [-] mgunes|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billiob|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CaseOfEmergency|15 years ago|reply
On the other hand, Ubuntu's success is success for Linux in general, so I have nothing against it. It just surprises me.
[+] [-] nivertech|15 years ago|reply
1. Firefox and Chrome are very slow and freezing, when opening many tabs.
2. Flash plugin is crashing constantly
3. OpenOffice is very slow and freezing. Can't render properly MS Office documents.
[+] [-] rbanffy|15 years ago|reply
> 2. Flash plugin is crashing constantly
Try that without the flash plugin.
> 3. OpenOffice is very slow and freezing. Can't render properly MS Office documents.
I find it more likely that Office can't save its files according to whatever is the current Office file spec.
[+] [-] anodari|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wyclif|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandGorgon|15 years ago|reply
does anyone have experience of the differences in the daily experience of using fedora vs ubuntu, especially for a clean simple experience, as a developer machine setup?
[+] [-] mikedanko|15 years ago|reply
Truth is, I spend way too much time hacking at my Fedora system to make things work. It gets frustrating. I fall back to the Ubuntu systems and somehow, it's just easier. I'd comment on the details here, but it is madness.
So why even bother with Fedora at all? People. I can't stand Ubuntu people. From uneducated bloggers to Ubuntu fanbois, it drives me insane. You know there's a popular blog called OMG Ubuntu!? As far as uneducated views, there's a lot of talk about how awesome NetworkManager is in Ubuntu... you know where all that awesomeness came from? Fedora!
The Fedora community? Just amazing talented people all over the place. I can't stand to give them up. Some of the most awesome, unique, thoughtful and mindful people I've ever met all have Fedora in common.
In the end, I can't see how much feature X has to do with anything over it not existing in another distro. I can sort of see how something as shiny and new as a new Ubuntu release can be appealing, but not enough to move me. It all comes down to people, and Fedora has what really matters here.
[+] [-] Rhapso|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mfukar|15 years ago|reply
Too bad that Canonical is unsustainable, and we'll soon lose it if FOSS enthusiasts don't shift their mindset a little bit.
[+] [-] tzury|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endlessvoid94|15 years ago|reply
But to say that Mac OS X is not as usable as ubuntu is blatantly wrong.
[+] [-] barnaby|15 years ago|reply
Just a tiny example: hitting alt and clicking anywhere on a window to move it instead of going to that top bar. Or the multiple different ways to switch between apps. etc. etc. There's probably 100 small things that I now can't live without. So I would say the statement "Mac Os X is not as usable as Ubuntu" is actually true. Surprisingly.
[+] [-] nagnatron|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sami_b|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] known|15 years ago|reply