The 2007 road map for the Ubuntu Linux operating system includes continuing its focus on the desktop, paying more attention to the server and garnering additional corporate support. Speaking at Ubuntu user conference UbuCon at Google’s New York complex on Feb. 16, Steve George, director of support and services at Canonical, said, “The view from the Ubuntu side is that Microsoft has too much of the market. We’re going to continue rolling out and making Ubuntu easy to use on the desktop and we’ll add increased focus on the server this year.”
… a little bit to worry for Microsoft
… very much to worry for Debian
Ubuntu is not seriously attacking Microsoft, is it? Somewhat silly. But it is going to attack Debian on the server — well, this “relationship” between Debian and Ubuntu can get very rough, I suspect.
I think it’s Ubuntu Bug #1: Microsoft has too much market share.
I’m not joking.
This is a good thing for everyone, though (except maybe Microsoft, though it’d be good for the devs there because they must get pretty bored with no serious competition).
I think it’s Ubuntu Bug #1: Microsoft has too much market share.
I’m not joking.
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
Yep !
this “relationship” between Debian and Ubuntu can get very rough, I suspect.
In the short term, you’re right. As it stands, Debian is in the position of maintaining the best package repositories in the free software universe while producing a distribution that is increasingly passed-up in favor of more focused derivatives. The Debian Project suffers from having the greatest development community mated to one of the most incompetent project leadership bodies. The Dunc Tank fiasco illustrates this point perfectly.
My suggestion is that whole project should dissolve and reform as a non-profit project with a mandate to oversee the development of the repositories in a manner consistent with the spirit of the original Debian Project. No more Debian releases. Just official repositories and a sprawling development community comprising input from all Debian-based distributors. Make it these distributor’s responsibility to make Debian as great as it can be, and it will continue to thrive.
Of course, some new derivatives will be necessary to fill all of the voids not addressed by the current fleet of Debian derivatives. If anything, specialized focus on these niche fringes (i.e. think Debian on s/390) will result in better results for these interest groups.
The idea of creating a universal distribution for everyone is deeply flawed, and it doesn’t scale with the demands of a growing free software community. It should be replaced by the notion of a universal package repository for everyone and a thriving ecosystem of distributions to address all corners of the community.
Instead of fostering resentment towards derivatives such as Ubuntu, Debian developers should consider for themselves whether they would be happier using a derivative that focuses on their particular needs. If Ubuntu or the other current derivatives aren’t their style, then perhaps they should gather a few of their fellow like-minded developers and start their own project. This trend of derivative proliferation should only benefit Debian (in the long run if done properly), and it isn’t a trend that’s going away. The demand for focus is very real and very natural.
Are there problems with the current Debian/derivative relationship model? Of course, and the following is my suggestion:
All derivatives should be required to use a common issue tracker, and this tracker must be free software (i.e. not Launchpad). All commits by any derivative must have an associated issue opened in this tracker. The tracker will attempt to generate patches by merging the changes with the package version against which the derivative release was frozen and the latest version in Debian (i.e. with diff3), and the issue owner must resolve any conflicts before the commit can complete. The coherency of Debian should be the combined responsibility of all derivatives, mediated by the aforementioned and newly ordained Debian Project. There will only be one Debian branch–the equivalent of unstable. The testing and stable branches will go away, and stability-oriented derivatives will assume responsibility for freezing and stabilizing unstable. The tracker should make it easy for upstream package developers to open Debian issues in response to new versions, and these issues will propagate down to all derivatives such that any project can update the package in Debian.
All derivatives must allow sub-derivatives, and sub-derivatives have the same responsibility to their parent as derivatives do to Debian. The tracker will handle sub-derivative commits by generating patches and opening issues against all parents up the chain (including Debian). Children can only differentiate from their parent by means of the parent electing to close the issue without committing the patch. At the top is a Debian maintainer (elected to maintain a certain set of packages with input from all first-level derivatives) whose primary objective is maximizing commonality with first-level derivatives. Debian issues opened in response to downstream commits can only be resolved by committing the patch or by retaining it separately in Debian. When a package in Debian (or any of its dependencies) changes, an issue is opened against the highest-level derivative(s) that applied each retained patch.
That’s the general idea. As long as we keep the tree of Debian derivatives on the same page via a unified issue tracker, the Debian community can scale effectively to at least a dozen first-level derivatives with a number of sub-derivatives appropriate for their size. But what is clear from the woes of the Debian Project is that it is not scaling to meet the demands of the free software community. The community needs focus, and Debian needs collaboration. Now I feel like pitching this idea, and maybe I’ll write an OSAlert article about the responses I get.
The idea of creating a universal distribution for everyone is deeply flawed, and it doesn’t scale with the demands of a growing free software community. It should be replaced by the notion of a universal package repository for everyone and a thriving ecosystem of distributions to address all corners of the community.
Nice sandcastles you’re building there … just make sure you don’t try to move in and live in any of them …
Debian’s fundamental purpose in its own charter is to offer a universal operating system. The ideal inherent in that is what attracts many of us to the Debian universe. Take that away, and you are reducing the role of Debian folks to glorified shelf-stackers for a kind of software supermarket where others come to find the parts for their own distros.
No one worth their salt is going to relish that kind of de-skilling. In addition, a package repository like that would be even more vulnerable to commercial interests trying to knock it off and replicate it for money. This is likely to become more not less of a risk as Linux matures and grows.
I don’t think for a moment that the idea of a universal operating system is deeply flawed. In fact offering such a system, free of charge, without fear or favour, to anyone anywhere who may want it strikes me as a noble ideal and worth fighting for even if the reality never quite matches the intention. Just compare this with the “ideals” offered by the likes of Windows or even mobile phone companies. You are skinned alive financially and then the kind of software put in front of you is usually to do with porno, gambling, football and pay-for wallpapers and tones. It’s a tawdry and utterly repulsive view of human life.
Imho, Debian really doesn’t need to do much more than a little reorganization. The leadership needs to be given some real power to direct the project’s future and where needed lay down the law, which in turn will attract quality candidates capable of inspiring people. And those who clearly don’t fit in with the Debian community or who persistently bring the project into disrepute, should be invited to leave, failing which they should be sacked. Imho, as just a user and outsider, being a DD is a privilege. Those who can’t live up to it have no place in Debian. OTOH, if Debian chooses to sit on its hands and let the present situation persist, it will have been fairly comprehensively replaced by Ubuntu in a few years – say, five.
you are reducing the role of Debian folks to glorified shelf-stackers for a kind of software supermarket where others come to find the parts for their own distros.
Don’t you think the free software community needs a unified software supermarket?
The idea is that there wouldn’t be a Debian release, so Debian developers would actually be running one of the derivatives, and by contributing to their derivative, the tracker takes care of contributing to Debian.
No one worth their salt is going to relish that kind of de-skilling. In addition, a package repository like that would be even more vulnerable to commercial interests trying to knock it off and replicate it for money. This is likely to become more not less of a risk as Linux matures and grows.
There is no “de-skilling” going on. Before, they were contributing to a distribution that many other distributions relied upon. With this proposal, they would be contributing to a distribution (a derivative) that shares work with many other distributions. The supermarket gets populated merely because it facilitates this sharing.
There will need to be some “stock boys” taking care of the supermarket, and these folks will ensure that derivatives don’t hijack the central Debian repository for their own purposes.
I don’t think for a moment that the idea of a universal operating system is deeply flawed.
I guess you’re right. The idea isn’t flawed, and it is a noble cause. But the implementation is flawed. The fundamental principle of community OSS development is to distribute the workload wherever possible. From the development perspective, Debian does a great job at this. However, from a release management perspective, producing a release with such a broad focus is just too much. They need to distribute the work of producing releases. At the very least, they need to produce more focused releases, and derivatives do a better job at this than Debian could.
The leadership needs to be given some real power to direct the project’s future and where needed lay down the law. If Debian chooses to sit on its hands and let the present situation persist, it will have been fairly comprehensively replaced by Ubuntu in a few years
Whenever a company feels like it’s a sinking ship, they usually recommend installing a new leader and giving them more power. This usually fails, because it takes power away from the people doing the work, makes the stakeholders nervous, and generally reinforces the practices that got them in trouble in the first place. I don’t think it’ll work for Debian either, but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Ubuntu can’t replace Debian. It’s focus is too narrow. But because most Debian developers want a nice desktop for their development workstation, Ubuntu (and other desktop-oriented derivatives) could end up attracting so many DDs that Debian could not even hope to continue making its own releases. Then they’d be forced against their will to adopt a system much like the one I proposed.
Face it: Debian is on its way to becoming a supermarket. It’s just a matter of how long they can continue to fight the realization that people don’t want a distribution for everybody if there’s a distribution that’s better for them.
Face it: Debian is on its way to becoming a supermarket. It’s just a matter of how long they can continue to fight the realization that people don’t want a distribution for everybody if there’s a distribution that’s better for them
Lol, only time is really going to tell on this one. On the face of it, I’d say you may have been reading too many of Ubuntu’s marketing materials. Debian becoming a supermarket suits everyone except Debian so there’s an element of they would say that, wouldn’t they. HP clearly don’t think so , for example, having recently discovered to their surprise that offering Debian installs and support is a USD 25 million business for them.
In addition, Debian’s basic form could be fairly well tweaked by a more sophisticated tasksel routine during installation. The present range of options is a bit limited but I doubt it would be all that hard to increase the choices and their sophistication.
The idea of creating a universal distribution for everyone is deeply flawed, and it doesn’t scale with the demands of a growing free software community.
But what is clear from the woes of the Debian Project is that it is not scaling to meet the demands of the free software community.
I disagree. Debian already contributes to the Free Software community by making a great distro, a “universal operating system”, and by submitting patches to upstream software developers. Debian doesn’t need to become a “universal supermarket of packages” for derivative distros. Collaboration between different distros is good, of course, but Debian’s main responsibility should always be serving the needs of its own users — not the needs of derivative distros or their users.
The Debian Project suffers from having the greatest development community mated to one of the most incompetent project leadership bodies. The Dunc Tank fiasco illustrates this point perfectly.
You seem to think that leading more than a thousand volunteer developers is easy. If you think you can do a better job than the current leders, why not become a Debian developer and nominate yourself as a Debian Project Leader candidate?
The Dunc-Tank project is a very welcome experiment in funding the Debian development. Maybe hiring individual developers (even for a limited period of time) isn’t the best possible way to use these funds but, IMO, there’s basically nothing wrong with the idea of collecting donations and using them to boost the development in Debian.
Unlike Canonical Ltd. and Ubuntu, Debian isn’t on a mission to squeeze money from its users. If Canonical can turn out a good profit from Ubuntu (which it, AFAIK, hasn’t done yet), people will think that as a great success. It’s perhaps a bit ironic that Hewlett-Packard has already succeeded in making a big chunk of money by selling support for Debian servers — and yet people generally seem to think that Debian should follow Ubuntu’s lead to become more successful.
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3661481
If Canonical makes bad investments, that will be the end of Ubuntu. Debian, as a non-profit distro, doesn’t suffer from such unpredictability. In order to survive, Ubuntu needs to push hard to make more profit and to become ever more popular. But Debian doesn’t need any of that. Debian has a solid developer and user community and it just needs to continue making incremental adjustments in building the best universal operating system in the world.
Just my two euro cents.
You seem to think that leading more than a thousand volunteer developers is easy.
No, I think it’s nearly impossible. That’s the crux of my argument.
Debian’s main responsibility should always be serving the needs of its own users — not the needs of derivative distros or their users.
You’ll probably ask for numbers and call me a liar, but users are leaving Debian for derivatives at a troubling rate. If this is their responsibility, then they are failing.
Hewlett-Packard has already succeeded in making a big chunk of money by selling support for Debian servers
Commercial platform vendors will increasingly begin to make money selling support services for Linux distributions. But if it’s HP, who knows if those revenues will find their way back into free software development. At least if Canonical is making money, we have a reasonable assurance that the money will be used to invest in free software.
people generally seem to think that Debian should follow Ubuntu’s lead to become more successful.
Not me. I don’t even think Debian should make releases, let alone follow Ubuntu’s lead!
You’ll probably ask for numbers and call me a liar, but users are leaving Debian for derivatives at a troubling rate. If this is their responsibility, then they are failing.
I don’t think they are failing, I think the “market” is readjusting because new options appeared.
At some point it will reach a balance and there will still be a lot of Debian users, because there are people that use Debian because of its qualities.
Naturally all people who had been using Debian because it was the closest thing to their needs might have now found something fitting their needs even better.
I think the assumption that there should be no distribution of the packages in their “Debian” state is kind of flawed, because why should the package be in that state if it wasn’t of any use and just became “distributable” by further derivation?
there will still be a lot of Debian users, because there are people that use Debian because of its qualities.
Besides being fashionably late, Debian’s major qualities (as a distribution) are pretty thorough vetting of packages in stable and its ability to run on a wide variety of architectures. Those that want ultimate stability would probably rather go with a commercial distribution with comprehensive long-term support. Niche architectures are niche markets that don’t contain lots of users.
My work involves being able to figure out what went wrong when a customer’s system goes down. These customers are royally pissed if their problem get to me, and they want a fix yesterday. They need a commercial platform (OSS is fine, but definitely commercial) that provides complete accountability and guarantees involving liquidated damages (where you pay big bucks if your customer is down for too long). These kinds of customers would never use Debian because they don’t get a phone number to call where they can yell and scream at kernel engineers until their problem gets solved.
why should the package be in that state if it wasn’t of any use and just became “distributable” by further derivation?
Most packages in Debian derivatives are identical to the version in Debian unstable (at the time it was frozen). Relatively few packages are added or changed. Debian unstable is usually fairly stable, but not always. Derivatives craft a stable release from Debian unstable in a fraction of time that it takes Debian to create a stable release. I don’t really understand why it takes them quite so long to make a release. It seems like they get cold feet when they’re about to release, deciding to update a few more things and re-stabilize.
Once again, we’ll see. Only time will tell if Debian’s distribution model is sustainable.
Besides being fashionably late, Debian’s major qualities (as a distribution) are pretty thorough vetting of packages in stable and its ability to run on a wide variety of architectures
I’d say my main favorite qualities are sensible packaging, no or less politics envolved in defaults, actually working upgrade paths, integration tested packages.
These kinds of customers would never use Debian because they don’t get a phone number to call where they can yell and scream at kernel engineers until their problem gets solved.
They would never use Debian directly, which is why companies have a business model offering that missing part.
Other “commercial” distributions, e.g. Novell, Redhat, can often not compete with a commerciall supported Debian for various, reasons (e.g. being too bulky, one of the reasons Munich is using Debian with a support contract of two local companies)
Most packages in Debian derivatives are identical to the version in Debian unstable
As you say *most*
Some changes are certainly favorable for a specific user group, however some changes just mess up the stability, especially the package integration stability.
Derivatives craft a stable release from Debian unstable in a fraction of time that it takes Debian to create a stable release.
Sometimes with a fraction of the stability of a Debian stable release.
Just to avoid a misunderstanding: basing their stabled releases on Debian unstable is a fine thing, their users understand that some upgrades might break the system and that they need to do a re-install, but since most of them are converts from Windows, they don’t have a problem with that.
However, some of us Debian users really prefer the long term stability of Debian unstable, which we can keep as up to date as we want to, without risking that some last-minute-before-release-hack will mess up something like X11
Sometimes it seems that people talking about Debian are exclusivley referring to the Debian stable releases.
Almost all traditional distributions (e.g. not counting Linspire, Xandros) have at least two separate outlets: a stable release (e.g. RHEL) and a community release (e.g. Fedora).
Debian has this as well, the difference is that the “community release” is released whenever a users want it to happen for them: dialy, weekly, monthly, …
Debian’s main responsibility should always be serving the needs of its own users — not the needs of derivative distros or their users.
You’ll probably ask for numbers and call me a liar, but users are leaving Debian for derivatives at a troubling rate. If this is their responsibility, then they are failing.
Yes, I question the validity of your statement. You don’t need to provide numbers (that would be almost impossible) but you could perhaps explain how you came to such weird conclusion?
See the DistroWatch chart that attempts to measure the general interest toward different distros among the “desktop Linux” users. Do you perceive a decline in Debian’s popularity? (Check also the “last seven days” data span on the DistroWatch main page.)
http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity
How about Debian’s server use? Is there any noticeable shrinking tendency for Debian?
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/12/05/strong_growth_for_debi…
It is quite natural that some Debian users switch to other distros but if you visit one of the several (unofficial) Debian forums, you’ll quickly notice that there is a constant flow of new users coming from various other distros. Quite a large percentage of these new Debian users say that they’ve migrated to Debian from Ubuntu. Ubuntu has introduced them to the joys of APT package management and in Debian they’ve found the ideal implementation of APT — less bugs, more packages and overall a faster and more reliable system.
Commercial platform vendors will increasingly begin to make money selling support services for Linux distributions. But if it’s HP, who knows if those revenues will find their way back into free software development. At least if Canonical is making money, we have a reasonable assurance that the money will be used to invest in free software.
Also HP invests large sums of money in free software. See, for example, the list of companies that have employed the contributors to the latest Linux kernel. You’ll see HP on that list but not Canonical.
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/222773/7dc8842ae75eef38/
Canonical has a known policy to employ developers for working only inside their own project. Jeff Waugh, for example, had to leave Canonical’s employment when he wanted to concentrate on developing GNOME.
HP also (as Joey Hess explains) “contributes to Debian by providing and hosting some servers, by funding some developers (such as past DPL Bdale Garbee), and by being one of the major contributors to funding for the yearly DebConf.”
http://lwn.net/Articles/223606/
I don’t even think Debian should make releases
It seems that releases are a good way to bring the general bug level down. Without stable Debian releases there wouldn’t be much motivation to squash some difficult-to-fix long-term bugs that can cause major problems in the future if they’re left unsolved. Releases can be painful for Debian (because of the huge size of the project and its volunteer-nature) but releases keep Debian healthy.
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
Well, that’s it for me. I’m done arguing. Apparently nobody cares to comment on my suggestion for how Debian and its derivatives can share work in a more effective manner, preferring to sit in their ivory tower and hope that the derivatives are just a passing fad. I’m not a Debian or Debian derivative user, I’m just a free software advocate who thinks that Debian could even more central to free software if they just embraced better tools and strategies for collaborating with other projects.
If this is the kind of closed-minded people that make up the Debian community, then I won’t even bother trying to offer my ideas. They’ll probably just accuse me of being an Ubuntu shill or wanting to make Debian more like Windows or just not understanding what Debian is all about. After all, collaborating with the derivatives just gives them more credibility, and you guys wish they would just disappear and stop stealing developers from your project.
Apparently nobody cares to comment on my suggestion for how Debian and its derivatives can share work in a more effective manner […] If this is the kind of closed-minded people that make up the Debian community, then I won’t even bother trying to offer my ideas.
You know, it takes more than writing an OSAlert article to change the Debian-based segment of the FOSS ecology (if, indeed, there should be a need to change it — we disagree on this specific issue). Mark Shuttleworth wanted to change Debian’s course and the only way he could do that was by starting his own Debian-based distro. Of course, not everyone has the financial resources to do the same. Anyway, don’t let my personal (and possibly closed-minded) opinions discourage you.
Amen brother.
And probably, for Debian, centering around unstable would not mean shifting that many resources. I don’t know how are Debian developers allocating their work among unstable-testing-stable, but probably unstable takes the lion share (which might be the reason why stable is perpetually scheduled for really-soon).
Debian could very well pass on the flag of stabilization and beautification to other distros such as Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Knoppix, Mepis ,Xandros or Linspire. They are already doing an extremely good job at exactly the task that completely defeats Debian: leveraging all the work they’ve done in packaging and stabilizing the huge software system that is debian-unstable, to produce polished and focused end-user distributions, TIMELY.
Debian could very well pass on the flag of stabilization and beautification to other distros such as Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Knoppix, Mepis ,Xandros or Linspire. They are already doing an extremely good job at exactly the task that completely defeats Debian: leveraging all the work they’ve done in packaging and stabilizing the huge software system that is debian-unstable, to produce polished and focused end-user distributions, TIMELY.
I think you’re here giving the derivative distros more credit than they deserve. Most of the time Debian manages to publish weekly snapshots of debian-unstable, TIMELY. That’s 52 releases within one calendar year! And in most cases these automatically built weekly snapshots are just as stable as the end-products of the derivative distros, only debian-unstable contains a lot more packages and it supports many more architectures.
I’ve used Debian Unstable in the past and my perception was that most of the time it’s just as stable than the final releases of other distros. What is different in Debian Unstable, however, is that it is updated daily and packages change very often. This brings in a certain degree of unpredictability when dependencies break — although such breakages are actually quite rare.
The important point is that you never know when something is going to break. Tracking Debian Unstable, you may run a perfectly stable system for many, many months. But sooner or later something will break. Maybe it would be more correct to call Unstable “Debian Unpredictable”?
Anyway, my actual point is that it’s really not as difficult as you seem to think to release a stable snapshot of Debian Unstable. The problem with the actual Debian Stable releases is that Debian requires much higher quality for its stable releases than any of the derivative distros — those derivatives don’t hesitate to put their releases out even though there are known serious, unresolved bugs.
Though I enjoy the optimism behind it, I hope that it’s not TOO much to attack for one distro. I don’t think it’ll be an attack on Debian per se. If you want to be somewhat technical about it, it could very well bolster Debian support since Ubuntu is built upon Debian. It doesn’t seem like there’s a direct attack at Debian by doing this, and again, it could very well improve Debian’s standing. Maybe it could go wrong, however if some actions are misinterpreted.
At any rate, more power to Ubuntu for trying. I hope the best for them, but I also hope they don’t lose too much value from this. I don’t think the Ubuntu community will, but you can never be sure.
Only mega bucks can scare Microsoft.
If the Ubuntu foundatition manages to gather millions for fundraising radio, TV, newspaper, and magazine ads then Microsoft might eventually consider Ubuntu a small bump in the carpet.
It’s not advertising on TV that will help. They need to get it on OEMs and corporations. Only a zealot will bother to install it at home until they’ve seen it at work. Get the corps and the OEMs and you’ll get the desktop eventually.
…as a matter of fact I’ve been hearing it for the last 4 years – linux has failed to make a dent. Linux already has good web browsers and since ubuntu is KDE based – they have a decent desktop. What does linux need to succeed?
Most importantly it needs a good office product, something as ‘easy’ as microsoft office and FULL compatibility with MS office. Also a good email client that supports the exchange format fully (email, calendars, etc)
Secondly it needs a good way to upgrade – get rid of those dependency hell predicaments that scare people away
Finally – CRAM IT DOWN PEOPLE’S THROATS! Just like microsoft does, this is the only way that it will gain more marketshare on the desktop
Ubuntu is gnome based.
You got it from my mouth. Let the folks at Ubuntu put more effort into the KDE desktop and also give people what they want. I believe that if Ubuntu put more effort into KDE it would be way ahead.
To me, GNOME and especially its file dialog, is a non starter with its inability to open remote file systems by default, and the assumption that non of us would like to type a URL of file path.
“To me, GNOME and especially its file dialog, is a non starter with its inability to open remote file systems by default, and the assumption that non of us would like to type a URL of file path.”
It does allow you to type the file path if you wish, just use ctrl-l to show the location bar.
Is there a button to do this? Otherwise this smacks of poor UI design.
Yes, there is.
It doesn’t only allow to type the path as bpepple already stated. It even remembers if you had the urlbar shown or hidden before.
*sigh* Time for some new FUD. Just a tip: The old “GNOME is for idiots” is becoming old too. At least be a bit more creative.
and also give people what they want
Looking at the polls on the ubuntu forums, many people are happy with their GNOME. No need to give the expression like everyone is screaming for better KDE support.
“and also give people what they want”
“Looking at the polls on the ubuntu forums, many people are happy with their GNOME.”
Well what do you expect a poll of people already using Ubuntu would say? OPs point was that better KDE support might draw in more people, people who wouldn’t be on Ubuntu’s forum voting in the first place. Obviously Ubuntu is doing fine with Gnome, and I don’t see anything terribly wrong with Kubuntu, I just found it amusing you cited a poll of the already converted
No, he made it look like everyone wants KDE and noone likes GNOME.
Well what do you expect a poll of people already using Ubuntu would say?
The funny thing is that another poll asking what people where using before, about 50% were actually using a windows os before they made a switch. I doubt anyone of them knew the difference between KDE or GNOME. Still they are happy with their choice.
The funny thing is that another poll asking what people where using before, about 50% were actually using a windows os before they made a switch. I doubt anyone of them knew the difference between KDE or GNOME. Still they are happy with their choice.
If they didn’t know the difference, who’s to say they wouldn’t have been happier with KDE had that been the default in Ubuntu? It’s hard to call Gnome “their” choice if the DE was chosen for them.
The question then still open whether even more Linux and Windows users would switch if KDE was an option, and polls of people already using Gnome and polls of people who might not even know of the difference between Gnome and KDE still don’t mean anything. The manifest popularity of Ubuntu is its own argument really, I just don’t see the point in citing polls whose outcome is obvious based on who is being polled.
If you are talking about choice between KDE and GNOME I believe most of those users didn’t even choose.
*sigh* Time for some new FUD. Just a tip: The old “GNOME is for idiots” is becoming old too. At least be a bit more creative.
It ain’t FUD, if you’d been reading the discussions of course. The whole ‘Gnome is for idiots’ thing came from the fact that Gnome simply doesn’t expose the CUPS and PPD features in its print dialogues that many people, such as administrators, do actually need. That is still very much the case the last time I looked.
Do you have anything useful to add to this discussion in way of useful comment, or are you just shouting “FUD!” at every available opportunity?
Looking at the polls on the ubuntu forums, many people are happy with their GNOME.
Probably because they are people who liked Gnome anyway, before they even started using Ubuntu?
No need to give the expression like everyone is screaming for better KDE support.
It’s not a question of people screaming for KDE support, it’s very much a question of what is actually going to work – in the cold hard light of day. Hey, Canonical is the one saying they want to make a dent in Windows’ world. It’s not a time for emotions.
If Canonical actually wants to make a dent in the Windows world they need a desktop that is not taking features out, and actively discouraging new ones from being added, and they need a desktop with a technical and development base that gives them a chance of doing all that they want and need, along with third party developers they need to attract and nurture.
KDE has quite a bit of work ahead of it to really achieve this more fully, but they have the underpinnings which are vitally important. Gnome is so far away from this it isn’t even funny, but hey, it ‘Just Works’, it’s for human beings and it looks the part.
If Canonical actually wants to make a dent in the Windows world they need a desktop that is not taking features out, and actively discouraging new ones from being added […]
Actually that’s exactly what they do need. A desktop that is stable and instantly recognizable. A desktop that users can simply find their applications and get to work on. IMHO Gnome provides this to its users. The Administrative desktop can be whatever the administrator wants, but the user desktop must not change too much or it spooks them.
–bornagainpenguin
IMHO Gnome provides this to its users.
And exactly who are Gnome’s users?
The Administrative desktop can be whatever the administrator wants
Considering that administrators are going to have to run these desktops, that doesn’t exactly help.
…but the user desktop must not change too much or it spooks them.
And this is where it breaks down. Do you have any empirical evidence, or can point to some, that says many IT users, who are already computer literate, are absolutely scared to death of using any features within a desktop environment – or is that just something you’ve heard?
Probably because they are people who liked Gnome anyway, before they even started using Ubuntu?
This is not true at all. Every user I have introduced to gnome take an instant liking to it. This not true about KDE, either they complain about too many buttons or they ask why does it look like a souped up win95/98/me. I personally am a gnome user, I sued to be a kde user up until I started using Ubuntu and saw how aesthetically pleasing it was compared to kde’s clutter. Not to say that I don’t have high hopes for KDE4. I’m using the snapshot now and Dolphin is great so far, just a couple of things they still need to work on but it looking interesting in so far. The fact is that if you give the users something simple they will be attracted to it. Hiding complexity in simplicity is something that neither gnome or KDE has gotten right. I’m hoping KDE4 hits that sweet spot, where we can all benefit, new users and advanced users alike.
Edited 2007-02-25 02:28
This is not true at all. Every user I have introduced to gnome take an instant liking to it.
Once I’ve given a user the option of using one environment and then the other, and then let them grow with it over a few weeks, it’s the exact opposite for me. Go figure.
This not true about KDE, either they complain about too many buttons or they ask why does it look like a souped up win95/98/me.
Personally, I doubt whether anyone has ever said that, because all you’re doing is projecting your perceptions and pretending that they’re an average user’s (whatever average happens to mean in the context of Gnome). I hear the same arguments and exactly the same words every time from some people – “It’s cluttered”, “It has too many *insert phrase here*”, “It looks like Windows *insert version here*” etc. The latter has long been a classic regurgitated by some people over many years, and it doesn’t even matter to anyone apart from people who think a desktop should look like a Mac – which ordinary users don’t care or even know about and is something they would never say. All this simply proves that you’ve never been near a user at all.
Besides, the point in my original comment wasn’t based on some usability, “human beings” or the well known mythical average users thing, it was based on what was technically possible from a development point of view and what was going to work in the context of going up against Windows. The simple fact is, a desktop that will take on Windows will have to be a top quality development environment with the infrastructure to go with it. Gnome just hasn’t got it, and no amount of usability or chopping of features is going to change that. No one ever got anywhere by cutting features, and the notion of it has become a real endemic disease in the Gnome world.
Edited 2007-02-25 02:52
Oh the KDE trolls will never learn that GNOME > KDE.
I don’t particularly care if you believe me or not. The fact is I work in IT. I didn’t just give them gnome, I gave them Ubuntu and installed the Kubuntu packages so that they could use it. They rejected KDE as soon as they started using it. They liked gnome better because it “looked” like OSX. They didn’t want to use KDE because of the reasons I stated and considering that we are all testing vista in our office saying kde looks dated is an understatement. I don’t enforce anything on anybody least of all my opinion, I install as requested and get out of the way. In fact all of them seemed to really like E17 for some reason I can’t fathom. I even installed KDE BECAUSE it looked like windows, i figured they would be more comfortable using it. Saying I regurgitated there response makes no sense, and in the end the fact that you point out that many others have said the same means what? That KDE looks like win9x. It certainly doesn’t look like XP default, and it certainly doesn’t look like vista. What do you want me to say its not my fault that this is what users see. Blame it on the KDE dev’s choice of design.
As for gnome not being configurable enough, I agree with you on a technical point, but that doesn’t explain why KDE apps have a settings menu then have 3 different configure options in there. How is that useful?
Edited 2007-02-25 06:30
I believe you.
I’ve tried KDE many times and I can’t stand it for more than one day, I try but I simple don’t feel as comfortable with it like I feel with GNOME, is clean, polished good looking and with excellent defaults, I can’t live w/o it anymore.
I don’t particularly care if you believe me or not. The fact is I work in IT. I didn’t just give them gnome, I gave them Ubuntu and installed the Kubuntu packages…
Sorry, but the lines that you’re coming out and the classic “It looks like Windows” are simply not lines users come out with. They are lines people who want to push Gnome use.
They liked gnome better because it “looked” like OSX.
That’s simply not a reason why a user uses a desktop. I find it amusing that ‘looking like OS X’ is somehow better than ‘looking like Windows’. Go figure.
Saying I regurgitated there response makes no sense, and in the end the fact that you point out that many others have said the same means what?
No. I pointed out that people who push Gnome use the same lines, and then pretend that is what ordinary users have actually said.
That KDE looks like win9x.
No. That’s something you came up with. KDE doesn’t look an awful lot like Windows at all, other than in general first impression, default look. It also isn’t a reason for not using a desktop that I can see, so I’m not sure where this is coming from.
What do you want me to say its not my fault that this is what users see.
What users see isn’t a problem. It’s you who has a problem with it. It doesn’t make it unusable in any, and is simply not something the vast majority of users would complain about, unless they’d used a Mac and wanted a Mac clone – which is very few.
…but that doesn’t explain why KDE apps have a settings menu then have 3 different configure options in there.
That’s another classic. “KDE has too many configuration options”, yadda, yadda, yadda. Again, in many ways KDE has to improve on its organisation here, but having configuration options isn’t a showstopper for a desktop. This whole ‘Too many configuration options thing’ really is a widespread disease.
Once I’ve given a user the option of using one environment and then the other, and then let them grow with it over a few weeks, it’s the exact opposite for me. Go figure.
It’s funny. When I look at our corporate network, the biggest complaint users have is dealing with the group policies that lock them out of being able to configure Windows they way they want to. I’m always dubious whenever I hear of people claiming that their users prefer Gnome because it’s “simpler”. Novell’s own usability studies showed that while “new” users were immediately comfortable with Gnome, they eventually grew frustrated as they became more familiar with it, which led to some of the changes they’ve implemented in the SLED Gnome desktop. Which, coincidentally, is beginning to look more and more like KDE.
Personally, I doubt whether anyone has ever said that, because all you’re doing is projecting your perceptions and pretending that they’re an average user’s (whatever average happens to mean in the context of Gnome). I hear the same arguments and exactly the same words every time from some people – “It’s cluttered”, “It has too many *insert phrase here*”, “It looks like Windows *insert version here*” etc. The latter has long been a classic regurgitated by some people over many years, and it doesn’t even matter to anyone apart from people who think a desktop should look like a Mac – which ordinary users don’t care or even know about and is something they would never say. All this simply proves that you’ve never been near a user at all.
Agreed. Gnome represents a snapshot of what the developers believe a desktop should be, and no doubt it works for a large number of users. But it’s a rigid snapshot, and as soon as you try and veer away, you’re in trouble. In 15 years of dealing with corporate IT departments, I’ve never heard “clean interface” as being a primary concern for deployment considerations. My own company, with 2,000+ global users, was dragged from NT and grudgingly moved to XP a couple of years ago, and we still haven’t pushed out SP2. Too many people assume that corporate users are driven by the same requirements that knowledable, standalone power-users are.
I haven’t dealt with any customers committing to a linux desktop deployment, but the ones that are experimenting with it are far more attracted to KDE’s kiosk framework than Gnome’s HIG. They don’t care about what their user’s may or may not prefer to have on their desktop appearance wise, they care more about what will be easier for them to manage and deploy.
Gnome has made their choice to focus on HIG and interface guidelines at the expense of all else, and that’s fine, it obviously appeals to a great number of users. But it’s a mistake to assume that appeal automatically extends to the rest of the computing public that hasn’t consciously chosen to use linux over Windows. And it’s a bigger mistake to assume that’s a primary concern for the people making decisions on computing infrastructures, because frankly, my experience says they just don’t care.
That’s not to say the road is paved for KDE, either, but at least in their situation, it’s easier to dial back the interface than to build upon functionality and extensability that doesn’t exist. Either way, both projects better take a good, long look at what administrators, not *users*, prioritize, if they want to make a serious run at enterprise acceptance.
Let me get this straight – because there’s a couple of missing features in the Print dialog, “GNOME is for idiots”?
Sheesh. I’m just shaking my head at that one.
Let me get this straight – because there’s a couple of missing features in the Print dialog, “GNOME is for idiots”?
Sheesh. I’m just shaking my head at that one.
You aren't looking at the bigger picture here, AdamW. The Print dialog was the last straw for Linus himself – and I have to agree with him – but the thing with the Print dialog can be observed in the entire GNOME DE. Also, please note that he never said that GNOME is for idiots. He said that its devs treat their users as idiots with the condescending attitude “We know what is better for you” which is hardly the same thing.
I had to use a Fedora box one of these days and it was terrible. They even ship Nautilus with that stupid spatial behaviour by default. To work with GNOME feels believe or not worst than to work with Windows! I can't imagine how they managed to make that thing so limited. Windows is at least customizable to some extent so that you can make it adapt to your usage pattern. GNOME? Pfft!
I'm all for a simplified interface as long as they don't take away useful options from the power users. Instead of thinking on a smart layout that could accomodate power users options, the GNOME developers thought that take options away is a better idea. All for the sake of usability, nonetheless. How is that? What happens when the user outgrows his DE or if he needs more options than what is presented? Resort to that atrocity that Gconf is?!?!?!?
Have you ever noticed how pure GTK apps are more powerful than applications that belong to GNOME? I remember the bullshit that the GAIM devs had to put up with when they originally said that they wouldn't pursuit compliance with the GNOME HIG as that could hinder their development. They are hardly alone on that point of view.
Sometimes I also feel that some of KDE's dialogs should be streamlined a little and that some of them do look over-engineered indeed, but I know that if I need something, KDE will have it on an accessible fashion to me and that I can customize it to look and behave like GNOME, Windows or OSX if I want to, or change all of its keybindings to behave like Emacs if I want and that the small trade off for that power and flexibility is what some people call “bloat”.
But even with this “perceived/alledged” bloat, KDE runs circle around GNOME and that is one of the reasons that I chose it for my desktop. GNOME is slow as molasses! I still play around with it every once in a while, but everytime it makes me remember why I settled with KDE.
I use Kubuntu, it’s my main desktop right now, and I think it’s one of the best KDE desktops out there, miles above the rest
…. so?
Yeap, Gnome based. You might be thinking of Kubuntu but hey, if you don’t know, you don’t know.
Also, being involved in the printing industry as I am I have been trialling Open Office 2.1 on Windows as an alternative to MS Office. We get a lot of print material still suplied to us unfortunately in Office native formats. Open Office has not had any issues with this what so ever. Also with its Export to PDF capabilities, it makes my like much easier.
Only thing I think could do with improvement is for OO to have similar merge field placement capabilities to MS Office.
I’m also not just talking about Word documents here but also Excell and Power Point as the MS Office files we get print work submitted to us in. Open Office handles them all extremely well and in some cases better than MS Office which as you know has a tendency to screw with the original documents formatting from computer to computer. I hope they have fixed that bug in Office 2007.
Given this being the case and OO is cross platform, I think Linux will have minor issues getting a foothold into the corporate space which intern will lead people to using it at home, eventually.
Also, dependency hell no longer exists within distributions, it’s called package management.
Also, dependency hell no longer exists within distributions, it’s called package management.
I’m a huge Linux fan, but I’m sorry I simply must disagree with this statement. Dependency Hell will always exist on Linux so long as there is no good (easy) way to install software and update packages offline. Period.
You can call it a feature all you want — and you’ll probably be correct — but so long as I am unable to install a working system (drivers, codecs, selected apps, etc…) to the average person Dependency Hell is very much alive.
I know! It’s because of this I am unable to install Linux on my non-networked box at home and must resort to an install of Windows XP until I am able to afford to upgrade my connection. As it currently stands there is no good (easy) way for me to select my packages and download them all for offline installation. Yet I can do exactly this in Windows…..
–bornagainpenguin
so long as there is no good (easy) way to install software and update packages offline
I did almost all my early installs offline (just had a modem), if I remember correctly my SuSE 6.3 had six or seven CDROMs, I think current versions come as a DVD.
I think it should also be possible to do a even a full distribution upgrade this way, back then I usually did a full reinstall since I never liked by current partitioning scheme
And if the software is available, but not on the install DVD (or a newer version with slightly upgraded dependency requirements), what does he do then?
OS X handles this by staticly linking libraries, and including all within the package.
Windows handles this by making sure everyone knows what libraries the current version comes with, so they can use those or include their own if need be. With Windows there’s no central distribution mechanism; the software people HAVE to compile and bundle the program themselves. On Linux, there ARE central distribution mechanisms and so many different library version schemes that the software people are largely better off just distributing source for others to compile.
Actually, you are mistaken. There is a project that is designed for users in your situation called AptonCD:
http://aptoncd.sourceforge.net/
It allows you to download all of the deb files apt needs to install or update something and then burn them to a cd to be later used as a cd based repository.
You are right though in that Linux generally requires a decent network connection.
The first public beta of APTonCD 0.1 is out!
I think I’ll wait a bit before I try it. (I know I know but at the moment I don’t have time to test out stuff like that nor am I knowledgeable enough in *nix coding to be of use in testing. I need to be USING, not testing at the moment…)
–bornagainpenguin
Cool, thanks for the link on AptOnCD. But I wish there was some sort of a way of linking to your selection of packages so you can download them all with one click on a Windows machine at the library or at work.
You are right though in that Linux generally requires a decent network connection.
On the other hand, tell me what modern OS that don’t, and its only getting worse. Today many products require Internet to get license keys, or for some form of software activation or upgrade process.
If you buy new hardware, the drivers you find on the supplied diskettes are often out of date and the only help offered from the manuals is download driver/firmware this or that to make it work.
Then there are security patches. They are usually too large and change too often be handled without a network connection. Naturally some of the patches are not needed if you have no Internet connection, but you may still be exposed to dangers if you swap media with people that have an Internet connection, and some of the flaws may even affect stand alone systems.
But there is such a system in Ubuntu: plug-in a flashbar with a package, click on it, done. If the package was built for the Ubuntu version you’re using, that’s all there is to it.
If the new package needs extra libraries or whatever, they need to be available: the system will ask for the installation CD it that’s where those pieces are, but if not, you evidently need to get them otherwise. Still, commercial software distributors can package all the dependencies on a CD or DVD (just as Windows software does), to get you a click-and-install procedure again.
I guess the real problem is that of different packages for different distros or even different versions of the same distro. Actually, it is quite possible to package something that works on a wide array of current and past debian-based distributions, but it will still be far from universal. I do agree that a universally installable executable à la Windows would be very desirable.
Edited 2007-02-26 08:33
Are you sure you’re not mistaking ubuntu for with another distro?
First of all Ubuntu is Gnome based. There is another distro sponsored by canonical named Kubuntu, which is basicly the sames as Ubuntu but with KDE and KDE apps instead of the Gnome/GTK apps.
About the office suite, Open Office is our best bet for the time being. So is evolution, although i don’t use it so i really can’t comment on that. Yes, I know open office is far from perfect, but it keeps improving with every release. Give it time. Eventual MS will end up porting Office 2010, it’s just a question of having enough market share. I think a linux version of office is way more justified than an OSX version, because linux is a platform with more prospects for growth in the near future than OSX.
Installing apps is trivial. Use synaptic or add/remove to install or uninstall stuff, or search the web for ubuntu debs. Try to Ubuntu specific debs before trying to install Debians cause sometimes they won’t work. About upgrading from one version to another, though the latest upgrade was far from flawless, and most people only managed to do it flawlessly after a fresh reinstall of dapper, the guys over at ubuntu promised they would work on it. Lets wait and see. My main concerns about Feisty Fawn have to do with funky behavior from the installer (doesn’t detect my nv properly and loads X using vesa which is makes the part when you click on the world map a pain) and that aparently the latest kernel version has some bugs that make the my whole system just stop from time to time, for 30 seconds/1 min.
About the clamming, hey I’m all for a violent resolution! :p
Most importantly it needs a good office product, something as ‘easy’ as microsoft office and FULL compatibility with MS office. Also a good email client that supports the exchange format fully (email, calendars, etc)
As for Office compatibility, the next version of MS Office can save to ODF with a free download from MS, and the Da Vinci plugin for MS Office will offer compatibility with MS’ OOXML files.
As for an email client that supports exchange, you already have that with Evolution, I believe.
Secondly it needs a good way to upgrade – get rid of those dependency hell predicaments that scare people away
Dependency Hell is as much a thing of the past for Linux as it is for Windows.
So far, so good!
Finally – CRAM IT DOWN PEOPLE’S THROATS! Just like microsoft does, this is the only way that it will gain more marketshare on the desktop
Well, I don’t know about cramming it down people’s throats…I think getting more OEM deals is important, though.
Actually if you look at the ODF exporter’s list of “can’t support” features, you’ll see that the ODF exporter from MS is garbage:
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/features.html
ODF and OOXML are just not compatible and many export/reimports will not look good. It also requires that you save the file first to OOXML before the export and doesn’t integrate into the MS “Save as” menu (it’s a separate button).
However, this doesn’t invalidate what you’ve been saying about an ODF exporter for MS Office. From what I’ve read (sorry, no reference), the Sun ODF exporter is a lot better since it doesn’t try to convert OOXML to ODF. It’s a regular MSOffice exporter implemented in the “Save as”, so it has access to MS Office’s full internal structures and is more natural for MS Office workers. This extra access would give the exporter a lot more information to work with when deciding how to export to ODF and thus lead to a better export. (i.e. no dreaded double-conversion format loss)
To tell the truth I haven’t had the chance to test Microsoft’s ODF filter, so I don’t know how good/crappy it is, but I think it’s good to see that there are alternatives for other vendors.
Erm.. Ubuntu is Gnome based. Kubuntu is for the KDE groupies
[ducks]
“The view from the Ubuntu side is that Microsoft has too much of the market.”
Isn’t that what pretty much *everyone* other than Microsoft in the OS industry believes?
I have been using Debian for a while and was fed up with the time between 2 releases. Ubuntu (or kubuntu, xubuntu) does ally power of Debian packaging, configuration and ease of use with up to date packages. Ubuntu also proposes support which is essential for a lot of companies to install soft on their machines, so I think Ubuntu is more a complement to Debian rather an opponent.
I think also Ubuntu should develop more partnership to settle in the commercial environment, it sounds Dell is willing to preinstall Linux on their Laptops and servers ? Go Ubuntu
ubucon ;-p
I think we should not underestimate the power of open source.
Ubuntu is a good alternative to Vista, you can do everything you could also do with Vista.
But there are some points, that are positive and negative on ubuntu:
– you get an office package right from the start
– you are very secure when you are going only; without learning how to use antivirus and firewall software
– you get good software for photos (GIMP to edit, F-SPOT to manage)
– you get it for free and free upgrades (and the opensource world is developing fast)
– in the most cases you don’t need to install drivers
but:
– you get trouble if you want to play games
– if you are new to the computer you don’t want to learn commandos and so on (there are still things you can’t do without using the terminal in linux)
– double clicking a setup file is easier as searching in synaptic for the right programm (and solving depencies, and what are you doing if it’s no in synaptic? and so on…)
– you are more compatible (thinking on flash, it took a while until it was avaible for linux, also DRM and iTunes + iPod and so on,)
– there is not enough multimedia software for linux. Especially good video editing software and so on.
So I think Ubuntu has not just to make some tools, a own theme, and a few modifications for usability. They should test it on Windows users, and people that are new to the computer when they really want to “attack” microsoft.
you can do everything you could also do with Vista.
Are you joking? You must be 8 years old.
please tell me what you can not do with Ubuntu that you can do with vista?
Try running Cubase on Ubuntu, and let me know how it works out for you. Try running Autocad on Ubuntu, and let me know how it works out for you. Try running Adobe Flash Pro on Ubuntu, and let me know how it works out for you. The list is endless.
I am a heavy Linux/Unix user (this browser is on Knoppix), but I wish people would stop making statements as to how you can do everything on Linux. This is not where linux excels.
There are alternatives for Autocad, and you could also try Cubase with wine. As far as I know Adobe Flash is working fine with wine.
And I know what I am talking about.
/*There are alternatives for Autocad, and you could also try Cubase with wine. As far as I know Adobe Flash is working fine with wine.
And I know what I am talking about. */
Perhaps you do, but Cubase in Wine is not an option. If you are using Cubase, Reason, or any of the other pro tool music software without a port you should be using it in the OS it was written for. I like Linux a great deal but trying to run Cubase in wine would be frustrating and counter productive.
Autocad is not something I have had to work with but, again, a somewhat specialized market. Here though you are correct there are alternatives. However chances are whatever firm an autocad user works for requires autocad.
Flash generally works though.
I find it interesting that so many people seem to consider specialized, vertical market products as “must haves” before migration. Photoshop I can understand to a certain extent. I still feel that it is a specialized product many do not need though it has a much broader market then autocad and Cubase.
EDIT: spelling
Edited 2007-02-25 19:22
citrix? exchange?
Linux is ready for the desktop, but other software isn’t ready to run on Linux. As soon as they start porting things, I believe we’ll see a larger uptake of linux, especially in IT.
Ubuntu is a good alternative to Vista, you can do everything you could also do with Vista.
Sure everything, ummm…well except running your applications and games…
You’re right
Vista cannot play your windows games or your windows applications. But Linux can. Because of Wine, Linux is more compatible with Windows XP than Vista is
However, there is nothing you can do on Vista you cannot do on Linux. You can create 3D CAD drawings, create end edit MIDI files (graphically), burn CD/DVD, play movies, play 3D-games, play 2D-games.
Not all Windows applications can run in Wine – nor can all *nix apps run in Cygwin. Nor have all been ported to Windows. And it doesn’t matter. What matters is the fact you can use Linux to solve the same problems you can solve with Vista. You can just do it with 1/16th of the resources required for Vista
I had the crazy idea to triple boot XP, Vista, and Linux this weekend, and the distro I chose was Ubuntu due to the size of their forum. I’ve tried it in the past a couple of times and it’s typically been pretty good at recognizing hardware and getting network printers, etc. setup. After the 3rd lockup of v6.10 in less than an hour I wiped it.
I’m in Suse right now. I’m working on getting Beryl going, but even without it I like it. Linux still isn’t forgiving enough if you jack your xorg.conf (video settings) file, and many things are unnecessarily difficult (printer setup in some distros, simply seeing samba shares in Suse, etc.). I’m also unable to find anything in the software repository that compares to ACDSee (and no, digikam doesn’t) or PSPad (programmers editor w/built in FTP support), but for surfing/email duties it’s pretty good. Suse has locked up a couple of times, but mostly when testing (not actually applying) new video settings. I guess the benefit to testing before applying is that when it doesn’t work during testing all you have to do is hit the reset button (rolleyes). And no, Ctrl-Alt-Backspace didn’t do anything, nor did Ctrl-Alt-F1 or Ctrl-Alt-Del.
Microsoft has nothing to worry about for awhile. While Linux is improving, it’s not improving fast enough to catch MS anytime soon. It would be nice if it were, I’d love to save a few hundred bucks per PC.
that compares to ACDSee
Gwenview maybe?
or PSPad
Kate maybe?
You’ve never seen PSPad have you?
I haven’t checked out Gwenview yet, but Kate is closer to Wordpad than PSPad.
You’ve never seen PSPad have you?
No, I haven’t.
What kind of features are you missing in Kate?
Kate is closer to Wordpad than PSPad
Are we talking about the same Wordpad here?
You can’t even compare Wordpad with KWrite, even less with Kate.
PSPad is essentially a programmers editor. It has syntax highlighting for HTML, Javascript PHP, etc. It also has FTP functionality built in so you can connect to an FTP server and edit files there just as if they were on your local PC.
PSPad is essentially a programmers editor.
So is Kate.
It has syntax highlighting for HTML, Javascript PHP, etc.
So does Kate. It even allows collapsing of “if…then” sections and other niceties. The integrated terminal is also very useful.
It also has FTP functionality built in so you can connect to an FTP server and edit files there just as if they were on your local PC.
So does Kate, through Kparts. Just click on the file explorer sidebar and enter the ftp adress, as you would when using Konqueror.
It seems that you haven’t really used Kate, because so far it does everything you’ve mentioned.
So does Kate, through Kparts.
Not KParts, IO slaves
Otherwise that’s what I would also have answered.
Actually it can do a lot better protocols than FTP, which can only be used through a VPN or other secure tunnel.
Not KParts, IO slaves
Yes, of course, sorry about that…
Actually it can do a lot better protocols than FTP, which can only be used through a VPN or other secure tunnel.
True, it can use fish:/ (file browser over SSH).
Uhhh… Did you take the time to open Kate? And by the way, ALL KDE apps can connect to remote FTP servers!
That's what KIOSlaves are for.
Actually, yes. I had opened it. It resembled Wordpad to me. I actually typed a couple of lines of code into it, looked around a little for some syntax highlighting, didn’t see anything, and promptly closed it.
The entire OS is now gone, as I got tired of it locking up. I’d initially had issues with Ubuntu locking up (although an ealier version never had that problem), then moved on to Suse which locked up frequently as well. Granted, I’d installed Beryl which could have had a lot to do with it, but it was locking up too often to use nonetheless.
If you are using beryl, since you didn’t mention what hardware you have i’m going to guess an ati card which would explain why you are having lovkups. Mu suggestion don’t install any proprietary driver from ati unless you are willing to reboot evry now and then. Beryl isn’t stable which is another reason you probably get lockups. Ubuntu is as stable as what you put in it. My guess is that when you move to opensuse you might get the same issues if you instal beryl and proprietary video drivers.
I guess the benefit to testing before applying is that when it doesn’t work during testing all you have to do is hit the reset button (rolleyes). And no, Ctrl-Alt-Backspace didn’t do anything, nor did Ctrl-Alt-F1 or Ctrl-Alt-Del.
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_SysRq_key
Edited 2007-02-25 08:04
Thanks for the link. I just tried Alt-SysReq-b and nothing happened though.
I’m not sure if SuSE enables this by default. Ubuntu does, but some people say it’s a security risk if someone has physical access to your computer (because they can kill processes/reboot it). Personally, I think if someone has physical access to your PC you’re pretty much screwed anyway, and I prefer having the SysRq feature turned on.
BTW, you shouldn’t do Atl-SysRq-B right away…for a safe reboot, you should follow the “Raising Skinny Elephants Is Utterly Boring” mnemonic sequence for the series of keys to press.
From the Wikipedia page:
“Raising Skinny Elephants Is Utterly Boring” is a mnemonic device for remembering a keystroke sequence that should be used as an alternative to hitting the power button if a linux system should ever “hang” and need to be rebooted.
1. Alt + SysRq + R — takes the keyboard out of raw mode
2. Alt + SysRq + S — synchronizes the disk
3. Alt + SysRq + E — terminates all processes (Except init)
4. Alt + SysRq + I — kills all processes (Except init)
5. Alt + SysRq + U — remounts all filesystems read-only
6. Alt + SysRq + B — reboots the machine
At the very least, you should always do “S”, “U” and “B” (the “sub” sequence) to make sure disks are synced and unmounted before rebooting. If the keys do not work, and you know the SysRq feature is activated in the kernel, pressing Alt-SysRq-R should help give you back keyboard control.
I think that Opensource developers spend too much time working on the OS and making new competing software then just working together and making one decent OS and tools that will be consistent and not confuse the new user. KDE vs Gnome. Autopacke vs.. etc For crying out loud, I hear all the time opensource is about sharing and freedom. But everyone wants to shine in the spotlight like Linus instead of working with someone else who already started a project. I understand that yea we may need a DE for slow computers and one for fast. But why do we need two fast. and Twenty slow. Freedom of choice. Does anyone really need that freedom. I really think most ppl are wasting there precious programming talent. Sure they can do whatever they want, but don’t come here or on forums talking about how Linux will take over or crying about how Microsoft sucks. At least microsoft is consistent. As is apple. They don’t confuse there customers with cult and crazy amounts of choices.
What we need:
One Desktop: KDE and Gnome should be melded by someone.
One Filesystem: One by default, don’t confuse the ppl by whats better for what etc. just give them one that works.
One:Internet Browser. If they want another one let them download it.
One office: KDE vs Openoffice. How am I supposed to know which is better, or works better with my DE
One Music Player: I choose Amarok, would I care if someone else picked something better for me no. It’s just music.
One working Video editor:Kino or something should be installed by default.
One Media player: Mplayer, gstreamer, Xine, wtf? pick one for us.
ONe email client. Kmail, Evolution, Thunderbird? pick one.
I’m to angry to continue but I think you get my point. Quit trying to get the spotlight and work together if you care so much about ppl knowing about the fsf ideals and trying to evangelize the world with linux.
pick one
You know, that’s the point.
Pick one!
If you don’t want to be the one who does the pick, pick a distribution that does it for you.
This is just silly. Why doesn’t a multiplicity of apps in Windows make you angry? And why would you think that all people will like the same thing?
Every application you named has a large following who would be pissed as hell if the developer merged their project with another. No one who uses Nautilus wants to use Konqueror. No one who uses Amarok wants to use Rhythmbox, etc.
And as for the confusion of new users thing: man, I’m so sick of hearing this stupid argument. It’s like people think Windows users become retarded as soon as they start using Linux. They knew how to pick and choose the software they liked in Windows, and they can do it in Linux.
He has a pretty legitimate point of view, you know … if the Linux community was able to do all that it did while duplicating their efforts and reinventing the wheel so many times, imagine what it could do if it would focus on one project.
I believe that would also be good for commercial software on Linux, because then they would have to support only one distro – we might actually see Photoshop and the likes on Linux.
The reason we have multiple projects is often because the the people involved disagreed with the design decisions of the original project. Competetion also drives projects as much as anything. Improvements in GNOME drives KDE to become better and vice versa.
I never meant to reply choice is bad, and that windows users are idiots, but they don’t choose ten different DE, they don’t choose more than three browsers, most use winamp. All I’m saying is there was more focus on working with others instead of trying to reinvent the wheel each time someone wants the spotlight we would be far ahead by now. The same if for heard. Why would Stallman even bother with that? Whats wrong with the linux kernel. It’s just he’s jealous imho of Linus spotlight. YOu alway’s hear about linux and seldomly about stallman I hope someone get’s this. And know I’m I don’t want a nazi type or OS, Just sane defaults and less cofusion and more cooperation. Like the freedesktop foundation.
Edited 2007-02-25 18:50
Ok, see, I have tons of choice thanks to Ubuntu’s repositories, and I actually made choices.
See, people don’t need 13 movie players, no. They pick one and stick with it. I use one: Xine.
The problem with choosing ONE of each thing you stated is when the ONE application people want is not what you picked.
I use XFCE, JFS, Opera, OpenOffice, Amarok (WAV/MP3/OGG), Audacious (MOD/XM/IT/S3M/MTM/OKT/SID/669/FC3/FC4/etc), Xine, Webmail/Thunderbird, and nano…
Aside from XFCE4, Thunderbird and Nano, I don’t think any of those are standard on Xubuntu. I had to install them, but at least X/K/Ubuntu gives me the option to set things up the way I want (using the aptitude package manager, which is… not standard!)
Choice is good. If you don’t like it, use Windows. Linux is NOT going to change the way you suggest, it’s a waste of time to even consider it (nor should we want it – I like competition, it leads to improvement).
But what if the picks we do are not good in the long run?
I suggest you put your effort (ranting) on haiku-os instead. You share visions with those guys…
http://haiku-os.org/
(sorry haiku-people for sending this guy to your place =/)
One Desktop: KDE and Gnome should be melded by someone.
What on earth makes you think that melding two DEs written in two diffent languages against two different APIs with two different design philosophies won’t produce a horrid mess far far worse then either KDE or GNOME.
I understand your vision, but for the better or the worse, Linux isn’t going that way. Distributions are currently filling the gap by providing one and only one solution for every problem (the user-centric distros, that is). The whole of Linux isn’t; they are going for diversity. I don’t see that changing soon.
If you have the motivation, I suggest promoting a distribution that meets your vision. Choose one distro wisely, then do what you can do to make them reach your (and their) goals: take part in discussion about which application should be “the one” to solve a problem. Help them become popular. And so on.
ilnux,
You are correct.
Frankly, to compete, the Linux community has to decide.
Decide if you all want to take on the “Big BoysTM”, what’s it going to be, more posturing – or some tough decisions?
Get your leaders, Linus and Stallman together, make a P-L-A-N.
Allow everyone to polish their Applications / APIs for competition and compete for those slots in “The Linux OS”.
Figure out an installer – you people CAN do this, but you must co-operate.
What’s IN, what’s OUT.
What W-O-R-K-S best.
You all want hearts and minds?, start using yours.
Get on with it already, dress rehearsal’s over.
It’s time to “put up”.
hylas
Well the power of opensource is to give enough choices to pick what you want. If, everything is streamlined to ‘one’ app per application basis then their is no difference between open and closed source.
Why do depend on distributors or whom so ever, you can make a wise choice by choosing what you want.
Good Luck.
I migrated servers from Slackware, which was great, to Ubuntu.
After using Ubuntu for a while, it was great, no real problems, that was until it came for an upgrade.
Of which managed to completely blow apart my network card preventing me from getting back into the system remotely.
After finally getting infront of it, and countless hours trying to figure out the problem, which was a simple permission on the interfaces file.
I switched to Debian and kept very happy for a while, now that I’m back onto FreeBSD after many many years, I’d never go back.
Don’t get me wrong, Ubuntu has done some great things, but nearly EVERY release the upgrade path from the previous version has had some serious show stopping bug, whether it was the networking, or rendering some machines unbootable.
If I have server work to do, I don’t use anything but FreeBSD, and if I really need Linux, it’s Debian.
I think it would be very difficult for Ubuntu to convince me to put it back onto any server I own or manage.
You know, if it’s free, it shouldn’t be hard to market at all. It would be almost as nothing to get ‘free’ Linux CDs in the hands of every person in America… just ask AOL, they do it five or six times per year. Heck, get someone to partner with Wal-Mart or even McDonald’s.
Oh man the last thing we need is a massive shipment of Ubuntu cd’s acting as coasters and Frisbees. Ubuntu needs to start putting ads in technical magazines, they already have gotten some amount of marketing due to them getting on a couple of top ten lists here and there. Right now Ubuntu gets a lot of its marketing through word of mouth in terms of average users. Having it pre-installed with all the effects turned on and working properly and having it showcased at major computer stores would be great. i always build my own PCs because i don’t want to pay the MS tax on something MS is not going to touch.
doesn’t mean that people are going to hand it over to you.
I WANT 10 million dollars……doesn’t mean I’m going to get it tomorrow or in a year. I’ll have to work my butt off for it.
Edited 2007-02-25 06:43
Yes, it is, its the applications stupid – Ubuntu is already ready IMHO for the desktop – sure, some tweaks here and there for some nicities, but it isn’t as though it is as problem proned as some linux-haters make it out to be.
What Ubuntu needs is more mainstream application support; Nero to pull its finger out of its ass and get its application working with gtk2 rather than relying on gtk 1.x; Adobe to actually realise that there are a tonne of people, both Mac and Windows users who would be more than happy to dump their OS if their software became available.
The problem isn’t Linux, the problem is the industry and its lust for sucking money out of people rather than addressing the customers needs and wants – Microsoft is suffering from this same problem; and awesome operating system is released (Windows Vista) and all the software industy can do is twiddle their fingers up their ass rather than delivering ontime, applications which are compatible or patches which improve compatibility.
Linux has been a viable desktop for almost 2 years, Windows Vista has been in development for almost 2 1/2 years with over 18 months worth of betas and rc’s being made available; the software has *NO* excuses for no delivering.
What I *HOPE* that in 2 years or so, if the big names don’t pull finger, we start to see Sun, Novell and Red Hat grow some balls and pump man power and dollars into producing opensource equals to the big names like Photoshop – and it bloody well means copying every aspect of the GUI, then so be it.
Right now the vendors of popular proprietary software like for example Photoshop or Cubase SX don’t see Linux desktop as a big enough market for their software to return the huge investment associated with porting their Windows or Mac software to Linux. And they are probably right: people who use Linux desktops because it is free as in freedom, are not going to buy proprietary stuff, and people who use Linux desktops because it is free as in beer, do not have the money to buy their software anyway. People who use Linux desktops mainly because they deem it technically superior, seem to be the minority. And for most people I know who use the abovementioned software, Windows is not that much of a hassle nowadays to justify switching to Linux and learning a new system even if the apps they need existed on Linux. The inertia is huge.
Right now the vendors of popular proprietary software like for example Photoshop or Cubase SX don’t see Linux desktop as a big enough market for their software to return the huge investment associated with porting their Windows or Mac software to Linux.
Cubase I can understand, a very specialised application which only a very few people use, and not to give Linux a hard time, I’m sure there are probably some things missing which the application might take advantage of – Photoshop on the other hand is like the Microsoft Office of the software world, if you haven’t got the ‘full version’, you’ll be running Elements, and if you don’t have that, you would have atleast used it on someone elses computer.
Adobe already ported Framemaker to Linux, but they stopped just as they were getting ready to ship it – there are a huge number, and if Adobe people spent some time outside their ivory tower, they would tell you that.
I talk to Mac people all the time who run MacOS X because they can’t stand Windows, but would be more than happy to pick up a Dell running a version of Linux with GNOME 2.x – the problem as one guy said, is simply the applications he wants, aren’t there; and quite frankly, I can’t blame him, he needs those applications for his work, he can’t compromise when it comes to delivering the goods to his client.
The only alternative to that, hopefully, is for the big players to pump more money into Wine and get compatibility up to speed – atleast Adobe spend some time improving compatibility so atleast their Creative Suite can work ‘out of the box’ with minimal problems, then atleast use that as a benchmark as to whether there is significant demand out there for Creative Suite native for Linux.
And they are probably right: people who use Linux desktops because it is free as in freedom, are not going to buy proprietary stuff, and people who use Linux desktops because it is free as in beer, do not have the money to buy their software anyway. People who use Linux desktops mainly because they deem it technically superior, seem to be the minority. And for most people I know who use the abovementioned software, Windows is not that much of a hassle nowadays to justify switching to Linux and learning a new system even if the apps they need existed on Linux. The inertia is huge.
I would say that conclusion is false, the vast majority sit in either one of two camps; those who want a low cost UNIX like operating system which has great hardware and software (when compared to other free UNIX’s like OpenSolaris) support, and Linux fits that mould; the other group are those looking for a, what they deem, ‘superior’ to Windows; they’ve had bad experiences with Windows (mostly due to their own stupidity rather than any problem with Windows per-say) and are now using it.
Yes, there are those fundamentalist elements who do it for altruistic reasons such as freedom and so forth, but their number is very small when compared to the other two camps.
End users in the Linux community are more than happy to pay for software; Red Hat and Novell sales prove it, Crossover sales prove it; there is demand, the problem is that the likes of Adobe would rather throw money around rather than sitting down and looking at the long term, the potential money they could save my making their applications available for Linux.
For example, lets hypothetically say that Adobe is porting their application natively to GTK2, they trip over a bug, in Windows world, they have to tell Microsoft and *pray* that maybe Microsoft will fix it up, in the mean time, they have to spend hours trying to work around that bug; in the Linux world, they can pull down the source, diagnose the problem, make a fix to GTK2 and submit it back to the GTK maintainers to inclusion in their next release.
That alone will save dollars in the form of being able to correct and focus on the product development.
“I would say that conclusion is false, the vast majority sit in either one of two camps; those who want a low cost UNIX like operating system which has great hardware and software (when compared to other free UNIX’s like OpenSolaris) support, and Linux fits that mould; the other group are those looking for a, what they deem, ‘superior’ to Windows; they’ve had bad experiences with Windows (mostly due to their own stupidity rather than any problem with Windows per-say) and are now using it. ”
I don’t actually know anybody who has trashed their Windows install out of ‘stupidity’ that has turned toward any flavour of GNU/Linux as a simpler alternative!
It depends on your definition of stupidity I guess. One can be stupid enough to drive a windows install to destruction for the sheer hell of it, or one can simply destroy a windows install out of ignorance (of its limitations). The latter is sufficiently easy to do in GNU/Linux also IMO (especially for those new to Linux).
Most ex Windows users I know have switched to alternative OS’s out of disdain (sp?) for Microsoft or, are simply sick and tired of Windows as a platform.
Users in either of the above categories above do not equate to stupid in my book. I would have to disagree with you on this one ;o)
When I mean stupidity, I am talking about those who complain about crashing and instability and yet over clock their machine knowing full well the risks which they’re entering into – I have seen people on Neowin complain about instability of Windows and yet, do the the exact things that would *cause* instability.
Moving on; those who tweak, patch and replace key components of Windows with hacked up patches off the web to allow them to run some sort of theme they’ve acquired off a website; again, thats stupid, don’t f*ck around with key system components and you won’t suffer from problems later.
Then there are drivers; runningt the ultra-super-duper-alpha-mega-turbo optimised driver and wondering why there are nothing but problems? then stick a stable driver, generally the WHQL one provided by your vendor; when in doubt about hardware, get feedback from those who have their sh*t together and know what they’re talking about, they might just be able to inform you what to avoid – advice here, don’t purchase a Creative product if you want it to work with Creative; got with Realtek, not sexy, but atleast it works.
As for my reason for wanting to run a UNIX like operating system, its how the whole system is run and interacted with, the command line in Windows sucks, and if weren’t for PowerShell or Services for UNIX – what is holding me back, is the lack of applications from the big names or a decent quality alternative; the alternatives right now are terrible, and what is worse, any attempt to offer help falls on deaf ears.
I usually stay away from commenting at all. But seriously Im all for someone pushing linux into the main stream. However, I don’t feel ubuntu is going to be the one to do it. I installed it this past year on systems I built and ones Ive fixed and Ive had the majority of these users complain about a lot of it. The system as well as gnome and just a general feeling of not having liked it. Its really not a newbie distro as these people were former windows users who could’nt find or have their disks and what not.
Ive since have switched to some other distro, which isnt my point here, just that Ive seen a large majority of people with issues with ubuntu. I really dont think its a good contender to be pushing out there as it will likely remind most why they dont like linux to begin with.
just my experiences.
Who do you have your money on? Suse, Linspire, Mandriva? Or some other as-yet-unknown player?
I really don’t have my money on any of those. I just found something that works for former window users real well, at least in my experience. PCLinuxOS. It just works, period. I dont have my money on it, but I do think it takes alot out of the mystery of linux for many people.
Just my thought and experience so far.
Cool that you say that, I was just eying PCLinuxOS recently after I heard it was based on Mandriva but uses AptRPM, Synaptic and KDE. It thought it looked very nice, and now that you recommend it I am even more intrigued.
Well I really am not commenting to start a flame war, but I do recommend it as it is very easy to load the video drivers and the rest needed for a smooth running system. I think its one of the few out there, where things work, and when you press “Mark all Upgrades” in synaptic, that works without a hitch. Its a nice system, especially the control center which is by far the best Ive seen. Those coming from windows appreciate doing stuff the gui rather than have to drop to command line to do stuff, you know how that goes.
Mmmm… Dell said they’re looking into supporting options other than Novell. I need a new computer in the next couple of years…. Maybe I could get a nice Dell laptop with some Kubuntu goodness pre-installed. Sweet!
Dear Ubuntu developers, if you want to take over the world you need to fix this bug first:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/67369
With love:
A very dissapointed user.
If Ubuntu wants a bigger piece, they should base their OS off of something better than Debian.
I’ve used (and I do mean used, not just installed) quite a few distros. My line of work I have to know linux in and out to help the customer get back online.
In a datacenter with +3000 dedicated servers and presently hosting 500 Sq Ft of colocation, we only have 3 customers with Ubuntu, and only 2 that have requested Debian Sarge. We have a strict policy in the Engineering department – “We do not support Debian <period>.” We will install it if we have too, but after that its up to the customer.
After having only worked at this particular datacenter for 4 months and another before that for 15 months, I now have confirmation that the opinion I have had about Debian (and all distros based on it) does have merit.
LOL, if you’re not going to support Debian, is it really so surprising that almost nobody asks to have it installed?
I can think of any number of reasons why the datacenter you work at doesn’t support Debian–such as, they depend on the Linux distro to provide support (Debian doesn’t offer this, because Debian is not a commercial distro), or the people in charge of administering the systems have more experience with Red Hat or Suse, and therefore prefer them. Under no circumstances, however, can I wrap my head around the logic that if your datacenter does not support Debian, it means Debian and/or Ubuntu are inferior.
First let me say that I am not a Ubuntu user but I am very proficient with SuSE and to some extent Fedora. I do like what Ubuntu has done and is trying to do but, if they want to play in MS’s sandbox then they have to do everything MS can but only better and easier for the average (read: ignorant) user.
Recently we tried to get Ubuntu 6.x working with our company (MS)VPN server using pptp per the howto at the link provided below. This experience is why I say, if they want more of the desktop market then they need to ensure stuff that is old hat works out of the shoot.
1. Incorporate VPN setup & config into the desktop. They should also recognize that many, if not most, vpn servers out there are running ms-vpn so it should be no more painfull to setup, connect, and browse a MS domain than is a Windows box. Currently the 6.x Ubuntu pptp client is broken. SuSE and Fedora’s pptp client works flawlessly.
2. They need to use Sun’s JRE not whatever hosebag jvm they install by default. The default doesn’t support Swing as we rudely discovered when trying to get SmartSVN working on Ubuntu. (SmartSVN is a fabulous client for subversion btw, please support it.)
Simple bugs such as these will kill their efforts. I had considered switching to Ubuntu as my primary OS when I ran into these issues but they made me decide to postpone my move and stick with SuSE for a while or maybe use Fedora instead. The reason for considering a switch is that I am not thrilled with the MS-Novell pact. I do hope the deal will get Linux on the corporate desktop faster but the idea that Ballmer is getting one single damn penny out of any sale of a Linux distro pisses me off to the moon. (I’m not crazy about Fedora either but at least they aren’t paying the MS tax.)
That’s my rant and I’m sticking to it.
Ubuntu VPN Howto Link:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=28396&highlight=pptp
I connect from Ubuntu (Edgy) to my company’s MS VPN (Win Server 2003) without problems using NetworkManager (you need to install network-manager-pptp as it’s not installed automatically with NetworkManager; but it’s in the repository so it’s easy). Have you tried that? It worked out of the box for me. (I’ve had mixed results with pptp-config).
I do like what Ubuntu has done and is trying to do but, if they want to play in MS’s sandbox then they have to do everything MS can but only better and easier for the average (read: ignorant) user.
Actually, I’d argue Ubuntu really only has to do things as well as MS, not much better, provided enough computer makers start pre-installing it. The recent Dell comments look promising–they said they wanted to support multiple Linux distros (starting with Novell/Suse) in their business desktops and laptops, and I imagine Ubuntu is near the top of that list.
Assuming Linux is available on enough models and is not poorly marketed or hidden on the manufacturers’ websites (as has been the case in the past with all the big names–HP, Dell and IBM–when they brought out Linux desktop/notebook products), then I think we’ll see more and more small businesses and individuals moving to Linux in the next few years, because they don’t want to pay $500 per desktop for the MS Vista/Office combination when they buy a new computer. With larger businesses it will probably take more time, due to the greater complexity of their infrastructure and the general overabundance of Windows IT technicians on the market. However, the next time a large business goes to buy its next round of replacement desktops/laptops from Dell, it might think twice before paying for those Windows and Office licenses.
So, yes Ubuntu has a few things to polish, but the fact that it is a free OS with free applications provides a much bigger incentive to use it than I think you account for.
2. They need to use Sun’s JRE not whatever hosebag jvm they install by default. The default doesn’t support Swing as we rudely discovered when trying to get SmartSVN working on Ubuntu. (SmartSVN is a fabulous client for subversion btw, please support it.)
AFAIK they don’t install Sun’s version because of licensing issues; however, Sun’s JRE is not difficult to install, so it doesn’t seem like that big an deal to me. It’s a moot point anyway, though, since Sun’s GPLing of Java will solve the problem in the near future.
if ubuntu, kubuntu… want to be #1 on desktop, alot of improvement needed
if you go to kde bug, a lot of bug exist only for kubuntu… not for other linux distribution…
don’t know what the packager do..
kubuntu is easily the worst kde based distro i’ve ever used, i have no idea what their problem is.
Just curious, why do you say that? I have actually never used Kubuntu, but based on screenshots I definitely prefer its Control Center
http://shots.linuxquestions.org/scaled/Kubuntu%206.10/21.gif
to the normal KControl. And I find it quite nice that they’re developing a Qt-based front-end to apt (Adept):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Adept.jpg
Plus of course it supports all of Ubuntu’s packages. So what is so bad about it?
Edited 2007-02-25 22:41
Kubuntu looks polished but it is probably the buggiest KDE distro of all times. And I mean it!
See this posting from an article that ran a few weeks ago where I just started to describe what's wrong with this distro:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17073&comment_id=206065
Also, see the follow up for that post. Back then, I was giving a try but as you will see, it became too much of a hassle, specially for a “newbie” distro. In the end, I went to Etch with KDE and never looked back.
I like Kubuntu and Ubuntu.
Kubuntu is by far the best KDE based distro I have ever used, I love it. (K)Ubuntu does a fine job, and compared to Fedora and Suse, they just work.
I also like Debian, and have had horrible experiences with RPM based distros, and Fedora in particular. I don’t want to restart that particular war, I am just chiming in on my preference, and hope that Canonical is at least as successful as Red Hat.
Kubuntu is by far the best KDE based distro I have ever used, I love it. (K)Ubuntu does a fine job, and compared to Fedora and Suse, they just work.
============
Sorry man, but you should better try Mandriva, PClinuxOS or openSuSE – these are more polished KDE distros than Kubuntu. Ubuntu is more or less ok. but Kubuntu is very rough and unstable. KDE runs like sh.. in Kubuntu.
Ubuntu is more or less ok. but Kubuntu is very rough and unstable. KDE runs like sh.. in Kubuntu.
I disagree. I run Kubuntu Edgy, and I find it quite stable and relatively polished.
And, yes, I used to be a Mandriva user.
I am not going to argue about that (althoug to my mind Ubuntu is one of the most overrated distros around) but I just reported my experience. I shifted from Kubuntu / Ubuntu 6.10 to openSuSE 10.2 and suddenly realized that KDE is faster, more stable and more polished on SuSE than on Ubuntu. I ahd many issues with Kubuntu – sometimes apps did not start after clicking, sometimes x windows crashed unexpectedly. As a result I was fed with this stuff and tried SuSE. None of thoes problems.
Well, if Kubuntu works for you, that’s good.
You’re kidding when you say faster right?
Not at all. SuSE is a bit slow at booting (not slower than my XP box in fact) but it runs quite fast in fact. I don’t see any difference with Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a bit overrated in this are too.
As a result I was fed with this stuff and tried SuSE. None of thoes problems.
Well, if Kubuntu works for you, that’s good.
Same to you. I guess different distros work better/worse on different hardware. Also, someone may have personal preferences for the way a particular distro does things.
To each his own. It’s all good.