Linux Sucks! Video from LinuxFest NW

[MrGuvernment]

been saying it from the start, all the linux dev needs to stop thinking they can all do it better then the last guy!

Fedora was on the right track - got fat and bloated
Ubuntu is on the right track. but sure it will hit a wall somewhere.

 

[djBon2112]

I have to ask, did your vostro come with windows?

Yes it did, though I'd rather not have to pay for it, few places give you a choice.

Your sig says it all...

What is that supposed to mean? I come right out and say I support the open source movement and Linux. That doesn't make my points any less valid.

I have the Wacom-based tx2500, which does work perfectly in Win7 RC.

I don't really care about the tablet functionality under Ubuntu 9.04 (assuming it even works in the 64-bit version ), but when basic stuff like suspend, hibernate, wireless and sound don't work, there's a bit of a problem. You don't even get accelerated 3D out of the box. Thankfully the ATI installer went smoothly.

snip

Well, that was a jackass post. Being into Ubuntu or Gentoo is irrelevant, it's still Linux, and Ubuntu has still made a huge headway into usability, that's a fact. The rest of your post, thanks for that bout of confidence. I'd insult you now too, but I think I'm above that on a public forum.

 

[djBon2112]

Sorry pxc your quote was added in there my mistake for some reason, I didn't intend to. Stupid quick reply.

 

[RanceJustice]

I've been a "casual" linux user for some time now. I don't pretend to be a guru of any sort, but I can fumble my way through a basic Arch install,and that is one of the more "hardcore" distros around. Ubuntu 9.04, is what I would describe as perfect for the average desktop user, so long as you're not forcing it to do something it isn't supposed to do.

Lets look at 99% of complaints regarding Linux - its always "X won't work" when most of the time, X is either 1) a windows program or 2) an unsupported driver for unsupported hardware. Is this really linux fault? Its kind of like asking "why wont my non-hackintosh OSX CD install on this PC I built?".

When you really consider what Linux is often asked to do in terms of running non-native OS programs, WINE and its derivatives are rather amazing. Sure, its far from perfect, but what is pretty much reverse engineered software often works well enough for most 2d applications, and can even hack in DirectX support for 3d ones , in a limited fashion. Its hardly the fault of the Linux community if software developers continue to use proprietary APIs like DirectX, use DRM schemes, or insist on writing their programs in such a way they are difficult to port, much less make work on other OSes.

When it comes to hardware, companies are getting better about providing Linux drivers for non-server grade hardware, but many (like broadcom) continually fail to supply even binary linux drivers, if not open source ones. In cases like Intel video, problems are minimized greatly by the hardware manufacturer's attention to the platform. Even Nvidia and ATI provide both binary closed-source drivers, and contribute to the less featured but more stable open source 2d drivers. On other OSes, most hardware would be useless without the CD or download of driver software as well.

Linux's faults really aren't its own in the case of the most criticized aspect of the OS: compatibility. Lets continue to lobby hardware and software makers for Linux support, open source when possible.

 

[MrGuvernment]

On a personal level, it's not about being too "tight" to buy the OS, I feel that I shouldn't have to: why should I have to pay for the hardware, pay for a whole bunch of applications (though this is also negated by OSS, but that's not my point), then pay another $200+ to get a system to install those on! Think about that logically for a sec: you have to pay for a computer, you have to pay to get the computer to do anything, then you have to pay for software to accomplish that task. You may have no problem with that, and I respect that, but I do: I won't pay the Microsoft tax, so I'll use a free OS. But that's just my personal opinion

So then why should i have to buy a car, buy the gas to make it run, buy the tires to keep them running and so on and so on...

they are all seperate companies, they dont get profit from each other, MS doesnt get % of NVIDIA sales or Corsairs ram sales...

Why should i buy a house, then have to pay the power company to turn on the lights, i have the hardware....

 

[djBon2112]

I've been a "casual" linux user for some time now. I don't pretend to be a guru of any sort, but I can fumble my way through a basic Arch install,and that is one of the more "hardcore" distros around. Ubuntu 9.04, is what I would describe as perfect for the average desktop user, so long as you're not forcing it to do something it isn't supposed to do.

Lets look at 99% of complaints regarding Linux - its always "X won't work" when most of the time, X is either 1) a windows program or 2) an unsupported driver for unsupported hardware. Is this really linux fault? Its kind of like asking "why wont my non-hackintosh OSX CD install on this PC I built?".

When you really consider what Linux is often asked to do in terms of running non-native OS programs, WINE and its derivatives are rather amazing. Sure, its far from perfect, but what is pretty much reverse engineered software often works well enough for most 2d applications, and can even hack in DirectX support for 3d ones , in a limited fashion. Its hardly the fault of the Linux community if software developers continue to use proprietary APIs like DirectX, use DRM schemes, or insist on writing their programs in such a way they are difficult to port, much less make work on other OSes.

When it comes to hardware, companies are getting better about providing Linux drivers for non-server grade hardware, but many (like broadcom) continually fail to supply even binary linux drivers, if not open source ones. In cases like Intel video, problems are minimized greatly by the hardware manufacturer's attention to the platform. Even Nvidia and ATI provide both binary closed-source drivers, and contribute to the less featured but more stable open source 2d drivers. On other OSes, most hardware would be useless without the CD or download of driver software as well.

Linux's faults really aren't its own in the case of the most criticized aspect of the OS: compatibility. Lets continue to lobby hardware and software makers for Linux support, open source when possible.

Very well said, that basically sums up my position. Linux is (or is close to) a perfect OS. Everywhere it's "lacking" is frankly another party's responsibility. In an ideal world Wine shouldn't have to exist, ndiswrapper shouldn't have to exist, but it isn't a perfect world, and they do a fantastic job at making (often poorly-coded) programs and drivers run. Unfortunately, for some that will never be good enough, but that's fine, I'll take my free (as in speech and beer), customizable and stable OS any day, even if it does have a few "bugs".

 

[MrGuvernment]

The problem is not LInux, the problem is the 3rd party driver and software support of Linux.

I hate no edit

It is Linux's fault, because they are always changing builds and kernals and there are too dam many distro's, why should a company write drivers when a week later they could be broken and not work...

 

[djBon2112]

So then why should i have to buy a car, buy the gas to make it run, buy the tires to keep them running and so on and so on...

they are all seperate companies, they dont get profit from each other, MS doesnt get % of NVIDIA sales or Corsairs ram sales...

Why should i buy a house, then have to pay the power company to turn on the lights, i have the hardware....

That analogy is a little flawed. A better one would be like saying you have your house, your pipes, taps etc. that you paid for. You have your water paid for. Now, you need to pay for a piece of software to let you turn the tap on. I'm not saying that Windows should be free, I'm saying why I personally don't feel I should be forced to pay for the OS. Hence why I make a choice to use a free OS.

 

[djBon2112]

I hate no edit

I'll agree with you there.

It is Linux's fault, because they are always changing builds and kernals and there are too dam many distro's, why should a company write drivers when a week later they could be broken and not work...

Not really... the Linux kernel hasn't fundamentally changed in close to 10 years (2.x series). Linux driver modules (LKMs, or Loadable Kernel Modules) are completely separate programs that will work with any modern kernel in the same series. They aren't like Windows drivers that will work for XP and won't work for Vista. And while different distros use different package managers, binary packages (i.e. .run and .sh installers) work across all platforms. I'm sorry, but it isn't Linux's "fault", it is still the fault of lazy software and hardware developers who refuse to write for Linux.

 

[djBon2112]

Damnit, I hate being an edit whore in a non-editable forum!

"that will work with any modern kernel in the same series" would be better worded:

"that will work with the modern kernel series (i.e. 2.x) regardless of the minor revision."

 

[niconx]

I'll agree with you there.
Not really... the Linux kernel hasn't fundamentally changed in close to 10 years (2.x series). Linux driver modules (LKMs, or Loadable Kernel Modules) are completely separate programs that will work with any modern kernel in the same series. They aren't like Windows drivers that will work for XP and won't work for Vista. And while different distros use different package managers, binary packages (i.e. .run and .sh installers) work across all platforms. I'm sorry, but it isn't Linux's "fault", it is still the fault of lazy software and hardware developers who refuse to write for Linux.

Making sure your driver works on 20 different variants of an OS isn't exactly quick and easy. Unless that is you expect your users to compile from source which is just laughable. It all comes down to what he was saying in the video about package management.

 

[RanceJustice]

Don't forget that as far as packaging your driver or program, if you don't want to just dump a shell script or whatever, the community will do it FOR you. There are maintainers that take binary or source drivers and put them into the packaging repositories for their particular distros, all without the manufacturer having to offer anything but a basic blob or tarball.

In truth, there are really only a handful of commonly used packages anyway.

.rpm for all Redhat derivatives such as Mandriva/Fedora/Suse
.deb for all Debian derivatives such as Ubuntu/Mint/CrunchBang
These two alone will take up most of the common and "easy use" distros.

 

[MrGuvernment]

That analogy is a little flawed. A better one would be like saying you have your house, your pipes, taps etc. that you paid for. You have your water paid for. Now, you need to pay for a piece of software to let you turn the tap on. I'm not saying that Windows should be free, I'm saying why I personally don't feel I should be forced to pay for the OS. Hence why I make a choice to use a free OS.

No one is forcing you to do anything really, sure, OEM's could be considered , forcing you to buy an OS with a specific model of computer, but then no one is forcing you to buy that specific computer.


I do agree that you should be able to buy any computer with or without an OS, but then the issue arrises on support costs for companies.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Making sure your driver works on 20 different variants of an OS isn't exactly quick and easy. Unless that is you expect your users to compile from source which is just laughable. It all comes down to what he was saying in the video about package management.

But thats the point, all distro's are not that different
They all use the same linux (which has been very stable and compatibly for a very long time w.r.t. drivers), the same glibc (for even longer)

Back in the linux-2.4.x days you may have had a case. Kernel development was slow as well as other key libs (the killer was glibc) and as such distro's would apply their own patches and for extreme cases the behaviour from one distro to another could be slightly different - and actually tracking down and cross-porting the patchset was even harder.

HOWEVER since linux-2.6.x the main tree became the dev tree which ment a distro patch would get into the tree alot quicker, meaning the actual variation between distro's is very small (if any).

As such the likes of nvidia does not actually have to change their kernel interface that much. In fact there has been one breakage in the last 4years and that was due to nvidia misusing a legacy kernel call to gain direct memory access, a call the kernel-dev's pulled and as such nvidia had todo some rework on their kernel interface.
As far as driver interface is concerned linux has been more stable then windows... I mean XP drivers for nvidia don't work in Vista do they?


All this FUD abt linux being a moving target is just that... FUD and there is nothing it it, well not in the last 10years...


plus as far as drivers are concerned you don't actually have to goto the hardware manu website to get the drivers (in which case you prob will have to compile yrself) YOU LET YOUR DISTRO MANAGE IT!!!! stop trying to treat linux like windows and you will see all this FUD you and other keep spread is just that XXXXXXXXX

I have never had to goto nvidia's website to get drivers, gentoo pulls in the drivers for me, ubuntu pulls in the drivers for me, Fedora pulls in the drivers for me, I don't have to compile at all
in fact for ubuntu and fedora, the main repo ships out nvidia.ko file (ie driver files) for yr present running kernel, you don't have todo anything

 

[Cerulean]

lol, what's really funny is that most of the people here who are pro-Linux can never come to humble themselves and admit that Linux does have flaws and problems, and instead, through their own arrogance and ignorance, shift the blame to other things.

 

[Chilly]

Well, that was a jackass post. Being into Ubuntu or Gentoo is irrelevant, it's still Linux, and Ubuntu has still made a huge headway into usability, that's a fact. The rest of your post, thanks for that bout of confidence. I'd insult you now too, but I think I'm above that on a public forum.

A. I never attacked your post, your facts I *mostly* agree with, while there are a few facts you take to the extreme that I'd argue with you about, we do it enough in person.

I was simply explaining the reason for your fierce fanboi-ism, that its not your fault, that its simply a personality quirk, more than anything. If you thought that was an insult, well boy do I have news for you, I have plenty stupid personality quirks, that make me look stupid, myself.

B. Truth post /= Jackass post. Its not an insult when its the truth, I have plenty of personality quirks which on a daily basis you(among others) bother me about, whither on genmay, rl, or in public.

C. I have great confidence in you, you have many valid points. Despite my negativity when it comes to most things, I do have confidence in you in many of the things you do.

<3

 

[djBon2112]

Making sure your driver works on 20 different variants of an OS isn't exactly quick and easy. Unless that is you expect your users to compile from source which is just laughable. It all comes down to what he was saying in the video about package management.

Most drivers are a .so file which can be installed via a shell script (.sh) that can be easily run from the desktop. It really isn't as hard as you think. That, and packages are often community maintained. i.e. the nVidia driver. nVidia only provides the .run binary driver. The Ubuntu community makes the repo package.

 

[eeyrjmr]

lol, what's really funny is that most of the people here who are pro-Linux can never come to humble themselves and admit that Linux does have flaws and problems, and instead, through their own arrogance and ignorance, shift the blame to other things.

everything has problem
for instance: Windows: plugging in a USB stick while connected to network shares *can* result in windows assigning to the USB stick a letter used by a network share resulting in the inability to browse the USB stick - if you do not have admin rights to force change the letter good luck

Windows: on connecting a "new" piece of hardware BUT it uses a common driver windows insists on "re-installing" the drivers, eg USB sticks - it is a common driver YET it goes through the motions to re-install for each new memory stick
Or FTDI USB UART chips, same driver for their entire line YET windows will continue to ask for the driver disk

Windows: If you have put partitions onto a USB stick you are unable to even view any partition except the 1st

Windows: If you put a partition onto a floppy disk windows will not even acknowledge there is a partition and blindly write as if there wasn't any



The point is both side throw some extreme FUD about the other operating system

 

[Cerulean]

everything has problem

This is true.

or instance: Windows: plugging in a USB stick while connected to network shares *can* result in windows assigning to the USB stick a letter used by a network share resulting in the inability to browse the USB stick - if you do not have admin rights to force change the letter good luck

Or FTDI USB UART chips, same driver for their entire line YET windows will continue to ask for the driver disk

Windows: If you have put partitions onto a USB stick you are unable to even view any partition except the 1st

Windows: If you put a partition onto a floppy disk windows will not even acknowledge there is a partition and blindly write as if there wasn't any

This is uncommon for the most part. I could only imagine that only geeks and people who are deep into the career field of computers would have to do these though -- and that population is extremely "minuet" compared to the rest of the world.

Windows: on connecting a "new" piece of hardware BUT it uses a common driver windows insists on "re-installing" the drivers, eg USB sticks - it is a common driver YET it goes through the motions to re-install for each new memory stick

This is common.

The point is both side throw some extreme FUD about the other operating system

This is also true, but even though it is true doesn't mean people have to be arrogant and ignorant about things. I would say that it's a matter of simply accepting both operating systems for what they are, and logically/rationally analyzing them rather than doing the "throw some extreme FUD about the other" style. Windows does have its flaws as does Linux.

But I think, if we look at the majority of the world rather than the population of geeks/people in the computer field (which again is far greatly outnumbered by "newbies" and people who aren't wired for computers), we could quite possibly agree that Windows would currently better serve as an operating system for desktops.

Just watching a few minutes into the video -- you simply don't have those problems on Windows. Those problems shouldn't even exist on Linux. Those were just basic tasks a common person (who isn't oriented for computers, isn't a geek, isn't wired for computers, etc), and Windows can do those basic tasks just fine. This is what people (NOT GEEKS OR COMPUTER NERDS) want. People don't want Linux because of this.

I look at myself a newbie though, because in many regards I am. When I look at myself this way, I forget about everything I know and I think about what my classmates and teachers at highschool (none of which are computer-literate, computer-smart, computer-wired, computer-oriented, etc) want to do. PowerPoints, Word, e-mail, browsing, chatting, playing and installing simple games (some of them more of the 3D shooter games), Skyping, wifi websurfing, sharing files and folders, uploading pictures from their digital cameras to share with friends on the net...Windows does a better job at quickly fulfilling these needs with the right material.

Most people won't be installing video drivers (referring to "some of them more of the 3D shooter games") -- but these kids would be gamers. From what I have found, these kind of kids are usually willing to go as far as downloading the driver from NVIDIA/ATI and installing it (although sometimes I have found that a few of them have no idea where to get the driver, or just install the driver that "came on the computer's CD"), but usually avoid doing anything like this if possible; all they want to do is play, not learn how to do the more advanced stuff of operating a computer.

Linux though, if you are developer, willing to learn advanced things, go this far, etc -- Linux can be a great operating system to use for some tasks if you are willing to put that much time an effort into it (Mac OSX does a good job at this and saves you from having to do as much work to get a job done). Windows is more so click, install, play. It is because of Linux' nature that you have to go through all that work just to get one simple task done. Not necessarily a flaw of Linux (because in order to have that freedomness, flexibility, etc, psychologically this is how it has to be). It is only a flaw if you look at Linux, as it is right now, as a desktop system. Linux is NOT a desktop system. You would have to mold Linux to make it a desktop system.



Meh, but anyway. The way I look at in general when a user is trying to decide what operating system to use is that they should use the operating system they feel most comfortable with and personally like the best/have the tastes for. I don't care if it's Ubuntu, Mac, Windows XP, Vista, Redhat, FreeBSD, or plain Linux. It's like the concept of how people should select a career that best fits their aptitudes and stuff rather than a career that doesn't match them.

 

[eeyrjmr]

...

See thats the problem with these jerkcircles

"Linux is NOT a desktop system"

What is a "desktop system"

For me linux was ready for the desktop system back in the last 90's and Windows was far from it. And why? I can from an Amiga background and had a passing interaction with windows. I only actually got my hands on windows when I got to windows and it was THE WORST user-interaction and user-experience I have ever had the discomfort to work with!

For the 1st couple of years at uni I didn't have that much interaction with computers
But it was a mix of UNIX (C-programming and CAD) and windows (final year report)

when I got myself a laptop in my 3rd year out of a 4year Master's I put RedHat onto it since a flatmate had it on his desktop and well, that worked perfectly for me, the whole mounting thing made sense, drivers all worked


When people use the "Not ready for the desktop" phase they are looking at linux from a windows perspective and have an idea of what it should do.
Look at it from the other side there are things that windows should do that it just doesn't and I can't stand ever waking minute I use windows simply because something that have been done are the most arse about face things EVER (and this isn't from the point of view of someone who can bring a linux system back from the preverbial death - I can do the same with windows as well )

Linux is ready for the desktop and has been for quite some time, the problem is the users are not ready for linux. Someone who is fresh to computers would pick up interacting with linux just as easy as a windows machine

The adoption of open-source applications (FF,OpenOffice, GIMP...) on windows are exposing people to one of the harder parts of a new operating system acceptance (What apps to use)

 

[eeyrjmr]

Correction

For me linux was ready for the desktop system back in the last 90's and Windows was far from it. And why? I can from an Amiga background and had a passing interaction with windows. I only actually got my hands on windows when I got to Uni and it was THE WORST user-interaction and user-experience I have ever had the discomfort to work with!

 

[eeyrjmr]

let me just add, I know linux has its flaws, just like OSX and Windows
Some can be classed as "show stoppers" for some, others are just UI differences that well... if you want windows, use windows

Ubuntu from a "desktop distribution" point of view has been making leaps and bounds every six months and about a year ago I was happy with it for my wife such that I wouldn't have to mess around with it to get things to work and I havn't had to - she is just using it for desktop: net, email, piccies, some little games, writing, presentations...

 

[rflcptr]

I like how the guy implied closed-source software is immoral.

 

[rflcptr]

And the embedded player is pissing me off.

 

[eeyrjmr]

I like how the guy implied closed-source software is immoral.

yer that is a bit too far. He is entitled to his opinions but that is a bit strong, esp when its not true

 

[rflcptr]

But otherwise, so far, very good points.

 

[MrGuvernment]

"Linux is NOT a desktop system"

And wasnt that the point, or close, as to why linux sucks as a desktop OS, the point of the video, on how to make it better suited as an everyday, joe blow OS....there are too many complex steps, or problems that joe blow cant figure out, so it wont ever make mainstream desktop status until things are changed and a more even, standarized rules are in place for the OS...

 

[Zellio2009]

It could easily be a desktop OS for anybody. It could easily be if the people making the distros got off their high horse and made simple things that have been broken for years fixed.

 

[Romale23]

As long as there is no standards in linux it will never be a real desktop, its one thing to have software that changes things (like a diffrent shell other then explorer for example on windows) it doesn't matter if there isnt' one standard everyone starts with, one standard that you can write a driver for and it works on every linux distro out there

 

[jstnomega]

even *nix' practitioners & evangelists conclude: anarchy is teh suxorz

 

[stiltner]

yer that is a bit too far. He is entitled to his opinions but that is a bit strong, esp when its not true

I musta been zoned out for that statement.

I suppose he views things that generally follow closed source as immoral also...like...a paycheck...or...job security?

God, what WERE we thinking.

(The wine's talking so forgive me )

Open Source is a great concept, its transparent, it allows for many individuals to colo on a project and improve it. But, it does not allow for anything that he himself admits they need, TO EAT.

WHY? Because the same people that championed open source from the start, and made it the buzzword it is now, are also the same people who believed it should be FREE software. You can't expect a company in all scenarios to eat and keep the roof over their head with free and hoping to provide support only.

Redhat's doing fine, but who is second...Novell, its just too complicated to just flip the card over and say " Today, we are free, but you pay if you have problems, and need our help or assistance ".
Gotta be something up front as insurance for the development, and use the management options for the code as a way to continue revenue streams. (I'm not talking buttloads of cash here either, I think most people would pay $10 a year for their favorite software if it meant that doing so would help ensure its survival and the authors not having to spend 1/2 his life in a soup kitchen. god only knows how much some people pay for cell phones).

I like Linux, I've used it in the past, and I will use it in the future, I've played with it currently in working on certification stuff. I have absolutely nothing against it, I think its a fabulously stable OS, that has a true home for life in the server realm. I think it should focus on that, and give up worrying about the desktop though. The desktop is going to become nothing more than a CPU with a internet connection soon, and the apps and software will all be "in the cloud" that it wouldn't surprise me if Windows 2014-2015 range is nothing more than a way to facilitate cloud work in Microsoft's propriatary (sp?) way.

 

[eeyrjmr]

And wasnt that the point, or close, as to why linux sucks as a desktop OS, the point of the video, on how to make it better suited as an everyday, joe blow OS....there are too many complex steps, or problems that joe blow cant figure out, so it wont ever make mainstream desktop status until things are changed and a more even, standarized rules are in place for the OS...

again you are missing the point
"Linux is NOT a desktop system"
is a moving target

Who's desktop?
mine? Linux has been ready for my desktop for 10year's
my nan's? (who just emails, web, writes letters, prints...) I have been happy to just leave ubuntu on there for over a year.

...
provide me with a standardized rules for a desktop and i will push for linux to meet it


I mean take this presentation (while on the extreme case of "linux sucks" he is right) He is now talking about photoshop needed for linux on the desktop
BULLSHIT!! for a professional gfx designer desktop sure but home use? casual use in other industries NO!

Photoshop costs what? £5000 do you really think everyone that uses it at home has bought it? sorry to burst yr bubble but no. Now look at what they do with it... mickeymouse stuff, stuff that GIMP is more then capable of

Photoshop has just become associated with image manipulation so much so that where I work some of the Dr were moaning that IT wouldn't install photoshop for them (due to the extra licencing costs). I questioned what they wanted todo (some cropping, some txt boxes...) and I just installed GIMP, gave them a 5min tutorial (where would they have gotten the tutorial for photoshop from? they have never used it)
Now everyone in the Office uses GIMP

What abt video editing? do all PC owners edit video? I don't, my wife doesn't? (and she uses ubuntu and vista). The only person I know that does is my father in law and he went and bought a Mac todo video editing because it is shit on the PC (so does that mean Windows isn't ready for the desktop)

And then he brings up CAD... a professional thing. I know what he is saying mind and it is true. I have to use Cadence for my schematic capture cause that is what we all use (and it don't run in linux). BUT QUCS and KiCAD are very capable applications - just not compatible

AGAIN professional use and not home-use

Installing packages? LOKI produce an installer years ago to allow 3rd party apps to have a nice GUI installer (so the distro doesn't have to deb/rpm...) that installer was used on the UT2004 DVD for linux


Linux might not be ready for your desktop, but for a subset of "desktop's" it is
I am not saying linux is perfect or without problems - it has BUT things are improving (Xorg is making such great improvements, my 30line xorg.conf is now downto 10lines, even then it works without it)

its just the same FUD being thrown from both sides

 

[InorganicMatter]

No one bit, so I will.

1. Sound and graphics (driverless) worked flawlessly out of the box. One click into "System -> Administration -> Hardware Drivers" to enable the package nVidia driver (which must not be installed by default due to legal reasons, but frankly, it isn't installed in Windows either)

Native NVIDIA drivers come right out of the box in Windows Vista and 7. I don't know what you are talking about.

As for sound, 9.04 uses PulseAudio by default, and I've yet to have a problem with it, either using my USB sound card, or the built-in sound on the laptop.

That's funny, you just used PulseAudio and "never had a problem" in the same sentence. Anyone who claims to have never had PulseAudio problems is lying like a rug. Ever since PulseAudio was introduced, the volume buttons on my laptop haven't work, and the Ubuntu devs have zero interest in fixing it (kind of like every other bug report that gets submitted to them).

2. Wireless: hasn't been a problem for at least a year. Again, the driver pops up (for legal reasons) in the Hardware Drivers tab*. Enable it and wireless works.

Except that Ubuntu still cannot connect to WPA-protected access points with most mainstream wireless cards. Gutsy was the closest they ever came to good wireless, and they broke everything again in 9.04.

3. Suspend/Hibernate: I don't use suspend so I can't comment, but I also have not had a problem with hibernate.

Except suspend/hibernate still doesn't work on lots of mainstream hardware, and the Ubuntu devs know this. Yet they still released a distro (9.04) that would be alpha/beta quality by any other company's standards.

I really don't see what the fuss is. The fact is, base installations on 99% of desktops and 95% of laptops with the latest Ubuntu comes with NO problems.

The fact is, this is a lie. 99% of desktops and 95% of laptops have at least one, probably more, pieces of hardware that don't work, or only work in basic mode. Consider:

Wireless - Windows 7: Driver already installed, no tweaking, 100% functionality.
Wireless - Ubuntu 9.04: Driver not installed, unencrypted and WEP only. No WPA or WPA2.
Sound - Windows 7: Driver already installed. Volume buttons work. 8 channels and digital out.
Sound - Ubuntu 9.04: Driver sort of installed. Volume buttons do not work, basic 2-channel only, no digital out.
Video - Windows 7: Driver already installed, Aero enabled by default, speedy operation.
Video - Ubuntu 9.04: Driver not installed, Compiz must be manually enabled after installing driver, window resize is still broken after 2 years of bug report submissions.

I could keep going, but those are the three biggest issues that most users see and consider.

 

[kllrnohj]

Native NVIDIA drivers come right out of the box in Windows Vista and 7. I don't know what you are talking about.

No they don't, what are you talking about? There is now an NVIDIA driver on Windows Update, but there isn't one on the install disk. Ubuntu 9.04 had 3d acceleration on my Lenovo with an ATI chip out of the box.

That's funny, you just used PulseAudio and "never had a problem" in the same sentence. Anyone who claims to have never had PulseAudio problems is lying like a rug. Ever since PulseAudio was introduced, the volume buttons on my laptop haven't work, and the Ubuntu devs have zero interest in fixing it (kind of like every other bug report that gets submitted to them).

No problems with it here. I honestly haven't had an audio problem for years.

Except that Ubuntu still cannot connect to WPA-protected access points with most mainstream wireless cards. Gutsy was the closest they ever came to good wireless, and they broke everything again in 9.04.

With most mainstream cards it definitely can. Atheros? Check. Intel? Check. That right there is easily the majority of wireless cards. My Atheros chipset card had no problems connecting to my 5ghz N-only WPA-2 only wireless network out of the box in Ubuntu 8.04, 8.10, and 9.04.

Except suspend/hibernate still doesn't work on lots of mainstream hardware, and the Ubuntu devs know this. Yet they still released a distro (9.04) that would be alpha/beta quality by any other company's standards.

Suspend/hibernate work flawlessly on my Lenovo. Here is an idea, maybe you could buy some hardware and ship it to the Ubuntu devs for them to test on. Or donate some money. Or help ( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/SuspendResumeTesting ). If you don't submit bug reports and provide technical feedback (as in not just saying "it sucks, it doens't work" and leaving), they can't try to fix it.

Consider this:
Lenovo Z61p:

Wireless:
Vista needs drivers (haven't tried 7 on it yet)
Ubuntu has come with working drivers for over a year.

Video (ATI FireGL V5200m):
Vista needs *specific* drivers from Lenovo's site that are way out of date and broken (missing enough OpenGL extensions that Quake Wars refused to run until Lenovo *finally* updated the drivers for the first and only time)
Ubuntu 9.04: Basic 3d acceleration out of the box, all of ATI's binary drivers support the card.

Sound:
Vista: Works
Ubuntu: Works

Keyboard controls (volume, screen brightness, etc..):
Vista: Controls work, but no OSD. Also, volume isn't linked to windows volume. Need driver for OSD and for vol up/down to be linked to windows volume.
Ubuntu: 8.04, 8.10, 9.04 all work with OSD, no driver install needed.

Yup, Vista is just the pinnacle of out-of-the-box excellence, isn't it?

 

[bigstusexy]

I get what this guy was saying and many of these things I experienced when I used linux and I was learning on it too, like the sound thing.

There are a few other things I, just a guy not an expert on linux, would like to add.

Level of obscurity, which he touched on, I don't want to know how your program was made or all of its inner workings just to know how to use and configure it. I'm not afraid of the command line but just take a look at linux and unix projects and their configuration files and if you aren't use to that project or use to it in general you'll probably just "save it for later" until you have time to sit and understand just what the heck you are looking at. Most projects give you a list of commands and what it does, not syntax not really how to use it and not written from A to Z. Just here it is; here are the blocks with names on them eventually you'll build soemething out of it.

Quick example Apache and AVI Suite.
AVI Suite is a video editing program for windows, Apache needs no introduction. In just a few days at work in my spear time I got AVS working reading its wiki and examples, I'm no expert with it but I've done some wonderful things like converting the size, ratio, FPS of a video to fit into DVD spec. Apache took me more than a week of free time at work and home and I still am very lost at it. The difference in the two? AVS has a wiki that goes from A to Z and examples. They explain optional statements, syntax along with what it does. I still have problems and issues but I can work around them. Apache I was not expecting ANY issues because it so widely used. The first problem is that windows seems to be a step child of thought, their documentation isn't A to Z after reading a few short pages there was a list of options and thats it. There are no examples that I found for simple things like: Your first web site, adding virtual directories, adding security- IE no base this is how to get it done now lets build upon it.


I know linux is about freedome and development but if they want more uses to come perahps the linux community should think about a two level approach; A linux development areana and a product arena. Projects would battle it out to see who is the winner then one would be selected and then the entire community would support that one project until its replaced in the product community. That way you can have unified systems and an easier way to develop and package for these systems.

 

[djBon2112]

Well kllrnohj and eeyrjmr have basically summed up the rest of my points

And, I hope I'm not the one who you says "closed source is immoral". If I gave that impression, I didn't intend it, I just personally think it's a better model than closed-source, but there's nothing "immoral" about it!

 

[InorganicMatter]

No they don't, what are you talking about? There is now an NVIDIA driver on Windows Update, but there isn't one on the install disk. Ubuntu 9.04 had 3d acceleration on my Lenovo with an ATI chip out of the box.

YOU don't know what YOU are talking about. I installed Vista SP1 on a Dell Latitude yesterday, and the NVIDIA driver was installed with the OS. It installed after the first installer reboot, detected the proper resolution, and finished out the installation with Aero glass. Same for the 7 RC.

Furthermore, don't lie about the ATI chip being installed "out of the box" - I own both brands of GPUs and I know both major chips require you to run the Restricted Drivers wizard after first boot in order to install the maker's closed-source driver. Stop spreading false information, you've taken your OS holy war way too far when you have to resort to lying.

With most mainstream cards it definitely can. Atheros? Check. Intel? Check. That right there is easily the majority of wireless cards. My Atheros chipset card had no problems connecting to my 5ghz N-only WPA-2 only wireless network out of the box in Ubuntu 8.04, 8.10, and 9.04.

No, it does not. Ralink chipset:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/339891
Intel chipset:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/263963
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager-openvpn/+bug/272185
There's 273 more open WPA-related bug reports on the Launchpad. When 2/3 of the major chipsets don't work, that's a big problem.

Consider this:
Lenovo Z61p:

Wireless:
Vista needs drivers (haven't tried 7 on it yet)
Ubuntu has come with working drivers for over a year.

Video (ATI FireGL V5200m):
Vista needs *specific* drivers from Lenovo's site that are way out of date and broken (missing enough OpenGL extensions that Quake Wars refused to run until Lenovo *finally* updated the drivers for the first and only time)
Ubuntu 9.04: Basic 3d acceleration out of the box, all of ATI's binary drivers support the card.

Sound:
Vista: Works
Ubuntu: Works

Keyboard controls (volume, screen brightness, etc..):
Vista: Controls work, but no OSD. Also, volume isn't linked to windows volume. Need driver for OSD and for vol up/down to be linked to windows volume.
Ubuntu: 8.04, 8.10, 9.04 all work with OSD, no driver install needed.

Yup, Vista is just the pinnacle of out-of-the-box excellence, isn't it?

You are using an obscure piece of hardware, and one that is actually getting relatively old. Who's fault is that? (By the way, you're still talking Vista, the rest of the [H]ardcores have already moved on to 7, but you might not want to do that, as there isn't much there for you to bash any more. )

 

[Zellio2009]

I love how most Linux fanboys give arguments like 'Well you have to install drivers on Windows' without mentioning the difference in installing drivers on Windows versus Linux..,.

 

[kllrnohj]

YOU don't know what YOU are talking about. I installed Vista SP1 on a Dell Latitude yesterday, and the NVIDIA driver was installed with the OS. It installed after the first installer reboot, detected the proper resolution, and finished out the installation with Aero glass. Same for the 7 RC.

Retail SP1 disk? The retail disk I installed Vista from most assuredly did not contain NVIDIA drivers, and neither did the public Windows 7 beta.

Furthermore, don't lie about the ATI chip being installed "out of the box"

I assure you I am not. I definitely did not have to open up my laptop and install a new chip to get Ubuntu to work

I own both brands of GPUs and I know both major chips require you to run the Restricted Drivers wizard after first boot in order to install the maker's closed-source driver.

Correct, which is why I never said closed-source drivers. The open source drivers now contain basic 3D acceleration for some GPUs. Hence why I said *BASIC* 3D acceleration. It was enough for ~2000 FPS in glxgears and for Compiz to run, which is all I wanted. Furthermore, my 4850 had DRI out of the box, but no 3D (driver said it was an unknown chip), so video playback was smooth without installing anything extra.

Stop spreading false information, you've taken your OS holy war way too far when you have to resort to lying.

This applies far more to you than it does to me, as I use both Windows and Linux and like both Windows and Linux (and have defended both from trolls). I'm not waging an OS holy war at all.

No, it does not. Ralink chipset:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/339891

Wow, you mean the beta release had bugs? Holy crap!

My updated Jaunty has been running fine.

As I have had no problems with the wireless whatsoever, I would like to add the following (as I was thinking about reporting it as a bug)

Intel chipset:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/263963
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager-openvpn/+bug/272185

Both of those are WPA Enterprise, *NOT* normal home WPA.

There's 273 more open WPA-related bug reports on the Launchpad. When 2/3 of the major chipsets don't work, that's a big problem.

Where did your claim of 2/3 come from? Just pull that out of your ass?

You are using an obscure piece of hardware, and one that is actually getting relatively old.

Er, obscure and old? What the hell? Intel chipsets are obscure now? I didn't realize wireless N cards were "relatively old". Apparently I should upgrade from my measly 2.33ghz C2D to something more modern, like, uh, hmm... Well, what is more modern than a C2D in a laptop?

The only thing that is "relatively old" is the X1600 based FireGL card, which still keeps up with modern mid range mobile GPUs which tend to be rebadges anyway (*cough, nvidia, cough*)

Who's fault is that?

My schools, as its a school laptop. Not sure why you are saying 'whose fault' though, when everything *WORKS*. Damn, I *HATE* it when everything works and I can't blame somebody for my lack of trouble :roll:

(By the way, you're still talking Vista, the rest of the [H]ardcores have already moved on to 7, but you might not want to do that, as there isn't much there for you to bash any more. )

I haven't bashed Windows at all. Good job on the whole reading thing. And FYI, I'm running Windows 7 on my other laptop, where wireless would die after sustained use until recently.

Quick example Apache and AVI Suite.
AVI Suite is a video editing program for windows, Apache needs no introduction. In just a few days at work in my spear time I got AVS working reading its wiki and examples, I'm no expert with it but I've done some wonderful things like converting the size, ratio, FPS of a video to fit into DVD spec. Apache took me more than a week of free time at work and home and I still am very lost at it. The difference in the two? AVS has a wiki that goes from A to Z and examples. They explain optional statements, syntax along with what it does. I still have problems and issues but I can work around them. Apache I was not expecting ANY issues because it so widely used. The first problem is that windows seems to be a step child of thought, their documentation isn't A to Z after reading a few short pages there was a list of options and thats it. There are no examples that I found for simple things like: Your first web site, adding virtual directories, adding security- IE no base this is how to get it done now lets build upon it.

That is a problem with web servers in general. Apache really isn't made to be run by the average user, as the average user tends to not be setting up a 'proper' web server. That said, if you install apache, PHP, and mysql through apt-get, they all work just fine. You don't need to configure anything unless you want the extra features.

 

[kllrnohj]

I love how most Linux fanboys give arguments like 'Well you have to install drivers on Windows' without mentioning the difference in installing drivers on Windows versus Linux..,.

System->Administration->Restricted Driver Manager. Click "Apply", wait, reboot. Done!

Yup, so much easier on Windows