Shuttleworth: Ubuntu Desktop "On Its Own Will Die"

[HardOCP News]

Ars Technica has an interesting article about why Ubuntu’s creator still invests his money in an unprofitable company.

And although Shuttleworth wanted Canonical to be self-sustaining, he didn't threaten to abandon Ubuntu if it lost money. "When we started, I told the team two years," he recently told Ars. "I didn't say, 'till it's profitable.' I said, 'You can count on me for two years. What I want to really see is evidence of a clear path to success and really interesting disruption.'" Now nearly 10 years later, Canonical remains unprofitable.

 

[Scythe5]

Although I have my issues with Ubuntu....God Bless him. Not everything is about money. It's nice to see a guy supporting something because he believes in it.

 

[jojo69]

Although I have my issues with Ubuntu....God Bless him. Not everything is about money. It's nice to see a guy supporting something because he believes in it.

bah, the international love rat of mystery is just trying to get laid

 

[visionviper]

Oh man, if only I had the money for a rebuild. That thing is pure sexy. Especially in silver!

 

[Shorehn]

The only reason Ubuntu Desktop will die on its own is because Canonical squandered the desktop community's goodwill by forcing updates that large groups of people were unhappy with.

I don't want to go down the same path all over again with Ubuntu Touch.

 

[visionviper]

Oh man, if only I had the money for a rebuild. That thing is pure sexy. Especially in silver!

And this is generally why I don't open a bunch of tabs...

 

[Skripka]

The only reason Ubuntu Desktop will die on its own is because Canonical squandered the desktop community's goodwill by forcing updates that large groups of people were unhappy with.

I don't want to go down the same path all over again with Ubuntu Touch.

Bingo

 

[entropy13]

And this is generally why I don't open a bunch of tabs...

Yeah, I was like "is there a mention of building anything in the article that I somehow missed?"


Well, I'm currently at work actually. And all desktops are using Ubuntu.

 

[wonderfield]

Yeah, I was like "is there a mention of building anything in the article that I somehow missed?"

I suspect he's talking about the NCASE M1

 

[Uvaman]

I don't think I rank too low in computer usage knowledge, I find Linux (right now I am still trying Kubuntu) simply too dam hard to use. Get rid of the console, open that thing more,so I can work with (some video card settings require the settings app to be re-launched with admin powers. Linux, is clearly a bad graft, of a pretty face to an ugly, out-dated OS.
They try to hide it, but this is worse than the times of 3.1 and DOS, where some drivers will be DOS and some other things windows.
Linux is still ruled by the console, and from the pretty gui you jump the the hard to use console, and even installing something can become a nightmare.
Yes it will die, unless I can click my way to installation, and all my computer settings, screw it, it ridiculous.

 

[Private_Ops]

I don't think I rank too low in computer usage knowledge, I find Linux (right now I am still trying Kubuntu) simply too dam hard to use. Get rid of the console, open that thing more,so I can work with (some video card settings require the settings app to be re-launched with admin powers. Linux, is clearly a bad graft, of a pretty face to an ugly, out-dated OS.
They try to hide it, but this is worse than the times of 3.1 and DOS, where some drivers will be DOS and some other things windows.
Linux is still ruled by the console, and from the pretty gui you jump the the hard to use console, and even installing something can become a nightmare.
Yes it will die, unless I can click my way to installation, and all my computer settings, screw it, it ridiculous.

I still use Ubuntu 10.04.04 on my laptop (because it gets primarily used when I go out of town for work, no since in upgrading it if it works) and the only thing I've had to use the terminal for is to run updates (and thats by choice).

 

[dyzophoria]

I don't think I rank too low in computer usage knowledge, I find Linux (right now I am still trying Kubuntu) simply too dam hard to use. Get rid of the console, open that thing more,so I can work with (some video card settings require the settings app to be re-launched with admin powers. Linux, is clearly a bad graft, of a pretty face to an ugly, out-dated OS.
They try to hide it, but this is worse than the times of 3.1 and DOS, where some drivers will be DOS and some other things windows.
Linux is still ruled by the console, and from the pretty gui you jump the the hard to use console, and even installing something can become a nightmare.
Yes it will die, unless I can click my way to installation, and all my computer settings, screw it, it ridiculous.

I have to agree linux is ruled by the console and that is what actually makes it quite good to manage though, on a side note linux is really stable when it works and is deployed properly, really really reliable and stable system. but when it breaks, I have to say it breaks.. hard

 

[B00nie]

Ubuntu started to suck with Unity first, then came the spyware.

I moved to Xubuntu first, now I've migrated to Sabayon and varieties of Puppy linux. I use them to revitalize the computers of anyone who comes asking for help with malware or viruses. (To clarify I replace windows with linux, experience shows that despite installing an AV the same people will come back complaining in 2 weeks if I leave them on Windows).

 

[B00nie]

I have to agree linux is ruled by the console and that is what actually makes it quite good to manage though, on a side note linux is really stable when it works and is deployed properly, really really reliable and stable system. but when it breaks, I have to say it breaks.. hard

This is why I disable automatic updates usually. Too risky to run in updates without testing them first for stability.

 

[B00nie]

I don't think I rank too low in computer usage knowledge, I find Linux (right now I am still trying Kubuntu) simply too dam hard to use. Get rid of the console, open that thing more,so I can work with (some video card settings require the settings app to be re-launched with admin powers. Linux, is clearly a bad graft, of a pretty face to an ugly, out-dated OS.
They try to hide it, but this is worse than the times of 3.1 and DOS, where some drivers will be DOS and some other things windows.
Linux is still ruled by the console, and from the pretty gui you jump the the hard to use console, and even installing something can become a nightmare.
Yes it will die, unless I can click my way to installation, and all my computer settings, screw it, it ridiculous.

It all depends on the distro you use. Extremely lightweight Puppy for example configures most everything without requiring any drivers from me. Usually the only thing required is display card drivers and even those are 1 click install (try that on windows).

Even Microsoft Precision Pro joystick 'just worked'.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

It is nice to see that this guy is having some dreams beyond what we see in the industry today (which is all about market share and market dominance). Never wanted to use Ubuntu tho

I don't think I rank too low in computer usage knowledge, I find Linux (right now I am still trying Kubuntu) simply too dam hard to use. Get rid of the console, open that thing more,so I can work with (some video card settings require the settings app to be re-launched with admin powers. Linux, is clearly a bad graft, of a pretty face to an ugly, out-dated OS.
They try to hide it, but this is worse than the times of 3.1 and DOS, where some drivers will be DOS and some other things windows.
Linux is still ruled by the console, and from the pretty gui you jump the the hard to use console, and even installing something can become a nightmare.
Yes it will die, unless I can click my way to installation, and all my computer settings, screw it, it ridiculous.

If you do not know what you are doing you tend to blame something else. Linux major strength is the console it is not a backwards OS which focus on burning cd/dvd or has as main feature a 20 year old filesystem which still is a major embarrassment to anything you would call technology.

What you want from Linux is a desktop system which is better integrated GUI, OpenSuse is something you should look at and no it is not fool proof but things like formatting devices can be done from an UI and the preferences are much more oriented towards control panel a like usage.

And no there still prolly days that you need the console for specific things.

 

[SmokeRngs]

If you do not know what you are doing you tend to blame something else. Linux major strength is the console it is not a backwards OS which focus on burning cd/dvd or has as main feature a 20 year old filesystem which still is a major embarrassment to anything you would call technology.

What you want from Linux is a desktop system which is better integrated GUI, OpenSuse is something you should look at and no it is not fool proof but things like formatting devices can be done from an UI and the preferences are much more oriented towards control panel a like usage.

And no there still prolly days that you need the console for specific things.

I'm a partial proponent for Linux in that I think it depends on the person who is using it and what the machine is being used for.

That said, the poster does have some valid points of contention although the points of contention are relative. The command line in general doesn't bother me at all. I originally started on a Commodore 64 way back when and there was no GUI. Even later on in the DOS and Windows 3.x era I still spent the vast majority of my time in DOS. I am no stranger to the command line because that's what I first used. As the years move on there are fewer and fewer people like that. Therefore, the learning curve for something like Linux is much higher for people who have had their start with computers much later than me.

Even for those who are familiar with DOS, Linux can be a totally different animal but this is not the fault of Linux. The fault rests with MS and the horrible limitations of DOS and even Windows for the longest time with regards to options and especially security. Yes, there is a lot more to remember and do with Linux because it is much more configurable and customizable. For me that is worth quite a bit more than the "ease" of Windows depending on what I'm doing with the machine.

My main system runs Windows 7 and will for the foreseeable future but that has more to do with gaming than anything else. When I was doing very little gaming over a period of a few years I had a lot of fun running Linux, specifically openSUSE, on my main machine as my primary OS. Other than gaming there was very little I missed from Windows and the little gaming I was doing happened to be a couple of games with Linux ports and which performed better with fewer problems on Linux than the Windows counterparts.

I understand where the poster is coming from. There can be a world of difference between setting up a Linux distro compared to Windows. However, once setup I generally have little which I must do from then on with the command line in Linux. That's not to say I don't use the command line as in some cases I find it to be easier and faster. Simply put, I can type a hell of a lot faster through a command line than I can possibly click through a GUI.

As for Ubuntu and the derivatives, I don't use them. Don't ask me exactly what it is but I simply don't care for them or the overall setup/management. There are other distros I prefer to use but I'm glad Ubuntu is out there. Quite a few people like it which is obvious due to its popularity and I hope it hangs around for quite a few more years.

 

[nusse]

I don't think I rank too low in computer usage knowledge, I find Linux (right now I am still trying Kubuntu) simply too dam hard to use.

No offense, but if you think Linux is hard to use, then you rank prettly low. There is a gui for everything and the option of the command line.

If you're having that much of a problem with it, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Tuxon86]

If you want the ease of installation and applications installation of Ubuntu but hate Unity and other annoyance then try Linux Mint with Cinnamon GUI instead. It's Ubuntu made perfect and it earned the first place on distrowatch for quite a while now. No codecs or drivers problem (video is one click like the others distro). It even support my cheap Monoprice graphic tablet out of the box with pressure points, something I had to hunt the drivers for in Windows. There are also a KDE and LXDE version.

Starting with the next version, Mint is dropping Gnome and rolling their own graphic backend. Ubuntu is also dropping gnome for Qt I believe in the near future. That may improve Unity a bit.

 

[dr.stevil]

I love linux (including Ubuntu) and the amount of control it gives users, but the lack of software forces me to run Windows. Sometimes, there just isn't a viable replacement for certain programs.

I would love to see them develop a first party emulation layer that can run, install, etc. Windows programs OOTB. I'd jump on Ubuntu as my daily driver if that were the case. I've tried to use Wine in the past and just couldn't get it to work. I've heard that it's better these days though (it's been many years), but I don't want to have to jump though hoops to do it. I want it to just "work"

Linux has come a long way. I remember about 10 years ago, somthing as simple as a video driver install, completely destroying my OS install, forcing me to correct it via the command line (which I wasn't too familiar with at the time) or just reinstalling. It still has a ways to go though

 

[Shorehn]

I don't think I rank too low in computer usage knowledge, I find Linux (right now I am still trying Kubuntu) simply too dam hard to use. Get rid of the console, open that thing more,so I can work with (some video card settings require the settings app to be re-launched with admin powers. Linux, is clearly a bad graft, of a pretty face to an ugly, out-dated OS.
They try to hide it, but this is worse than the times of 3.1 and DOS, where some drivers will be DOS and some other things windows.
Linux is still ruled by the console, and from the pretty gui you jump the the hard to use console, and even installing something can become a nightmare.
Yes it will die, unless I can click my way to installation, and all my computer settings, screw it, it ridiculous.

It seems to me that you have computer knowledge to the extent that companies like Microsoft and Apple want you to have it - you know enough to look for a GUI, but you don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes. That missing knowledge is what's keeping you from being a truly knowledgeable user. MS and Apple teach users to be dependent on them and their GUIs for help; Linux, by and large, teaches you what you need to know so that you can help yourself without the flashy wrappers. Not everybody is interested in that kind of learning experience, so if it doesn't fit the bill for you, you're probably better off returning to a more "managed" experience.

In all fairness, Kubuntu is a terrible distribution, and if I was still struggling to find my way through it, I'd probably be in the same boat as you are. If you want something that's GUI-oriented but fairly similar to what you're using, try openSUSE, like someone else said. But even then, you're still likely to bump into the command line somewhere along the way, even if it's just someone on a forum telling you to paste something into a terminal. People like that usually don't bother to explain the ins and outs of what those commands consist of, unfortunately.

The reason so many people still issue help in the command line is because - surprise! - it's easier and more powerful than wading through GUIs. That may not be your vision of "easier" because Microsoft and Apple focus on minimal thought rather than minimal effort. The command line does things you could only dream of doing in the typical GUI. With one short command, I can create a series of folders for every month from 2008-2013. With another one-liner, I can instantly find all files on my computer that contain the word "secret" and execute an arbitrary command on all of them, whether it's changing their file permissions, moving them all to a new location, or whatever.

If you're willing to be a bit open-minded and are genuinely interested in learning how your computer operates, using Linux to the fullest can be a rewarding experience. If you want a fully curated experience, then by all means, keep using Windows. Linux isn't for everyone.

If you do decide to stick with Linux, see if there's a Linux user group in your area. They may be willing to help you out.

 

[Skripka]

I don't think I rank too low in computer usage knowledge, I find Linux (right now I am still trying Kubuntu) simply too dam hard to use. Get rid of the console, open that thing more,so I can work with (some video card settings require the settings app to be re-launched with admin powers. Linux, is clearly a bad graft, of a pretty face to an ugly, out-dated OS.
They try to hide it, but this is worse than the times of 3.1 and DOS, where some drivers will be DOS and some other things windows.
Linux is still ruled by the console, and from the pretty gui you jump the the hard to use console, and even installing something can become a nightmare.
Yes it will die, unless I can click my way to installation, and all my computer settings, screw it, it ridiculous.

You need to go do some learning.

The console is one of the few things that unify Linux. It is one of the strengths of the system, and an amazing tool. Why? Because GUIs come and go....but the console commands almost never change. Meaning I can go on any Linux system anywhere without knowing shit about the GUI and the terminal syntax stays the same. It doesn't matter if I'm working on an Ubuntu desktop or an Apache server.

Like any good tool, you have to learn how to use it.

Calling Linux an "outdated OS" is funny...since guess what OS first widely supported 64bit instructions that the newer hardware that came out could do. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Windows. Hell, Windows STILL doesn't fully support 64bit, whereas all the software for Linux has had 64bit support for years.

Ubuntu started to suck with Unity first, then came the spyware.

You haven't been following Ubuntu very long if you think that. People were groaning and leaving Ubuntu after 8.04 Hardy Heron due to Ubuntu choosing features/bling over code that works.

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

You'd think that Canonical would consider the mistakes they've made & correct them. What ever happened to rejuvenation of technological progress instead of leaving something to natural decay?

 

[Uvaman]

It seems to me that you have computer knowledge to the extent that companies like Microsoft and Apple want you to have it - you know enough to look for a GUI, but you don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes. That missing knowledge is what's keeping you from being a truly knowledgeable user. MS and Apple teach users to be dependent on them and their GUIs for help; Linux, by and large, teaches you what you need to know so that you can help yourself without the flashy wrappers. Not everybody is interested in that kind of learning experience, so if it doesn't fit the bill for you, you're probably better off returning to a more "managed" experience.

In all fairness, Kubuntu is a terrible distribution, and if I was still struggling to find my way through it, I'd probably be in the same boat as you are. If you want something that's GUI-oriented but fairly similar to what you're using, try openSUSE, like someone else said. But even then, you're still likely to bump into the command line somewhere along the way, even if it's just someone on a forum telling you to paste something into a terminal. People like that usually don't bother to explain the ins and outs of what those commands consist of, unfortunately.

The reason so many people still issue help in the command line is because - surprise! - it's easier and more powerful than wading through GUIs. That may not be your vision of "easier" because Microsoft and Apple focus on minimal thought rather than minimal effort. The command line does things you could only dream of doing in the typical GUI. With one short command, I can create a series of folders for every month from 2008-2013. With another one-liner, I can instantly find all files on my computer that contain the word "secret" and execute an arbitrary command on all of them, whether it's changing their file permissions, moving them all to a new location, or whatever.

If you're willing to be a bit open-minded and are genuinely interested in learning how your computer operates, using Linux to the fullest can be a rewarding experience. If you want a fully curated experience, then by all means, keep using Windows. Linux isn't for everyone.

If you do decide to stick with Linux, see if there's a Linux user group in your area. They may be willing to help you out.

What you said is the truth.. I mean I don't rack low as a user, nothing else, I am sure I am next to clueless vs people that make a living with computers. That is exactly what I would want from linux a more 'managed' experience, that being said any useful book recommendation to get me going 'for real' into, any Linux distribution, I don't much care which distribution, its funny, I stuck with Kuduntu longer than I did, even with Mint.
I will check out what a 'puppy' linux is too.
Yeah, I will do my homework, I am not going past windows 7, my computers becase internet and photo/video management centers, nothing more, don't game or anything anymore.

 

[Mini-Me]

No offense, but if you think Linux is hard to use, then you rank prettly low. There is a gui for everything and the option of the command line.

If you're having that much of a problem with it, you're doing it wrong.

I'm ambivalent on this issue. I love Linux, use it almost exclusively, and find a package-managed Gnome 2 (Mate) environment easier than Windows for most things...but when it's hard to use, it's REALLY hard to use.

Uvaman's example was a bad one: Configuring the graphics card SHOULD require administrative privileges, because it alters system settings; even Windows requires this now IIRC. Still, there are a number of things that are legitimately a usability nightmare: The worst is when you have a wireless-only connection and install a distro that cannot, for legal reasons, include the firmware for your wireless card. If you don't have a second computer around connected to the Internet to DL the firmware and find the magic command line sequence, you're kind of up a creek. This kind of stuff should be written in huge neon letters next to the distro download links.

Other than wireless firmware, there are a number of usability issues I can think of off the top of my head:

• Samba still blows, and there's no end to the frustration of trying to get it to work on each new setup.
• Graphics drivers: Open source ones are too slow for demanding software (especially for nvidia), and proprietary ones are slow to update and fit the architecture poorly, so they only work with *some* distros and kernels. Ubuntu is one of them, and that's what newcomers will probably use, but still...
• The audio stack is still a mess. If I try to use Ardour, which requires JACK...all of a sudden, all of the sound shuts down for every other application on my computer. I need to manually kill JACK to fix that.
• When things break on Linux, they can break royally...as in, "no X server" royally.
• Administrative GUI's are included for the most basic settings and preferences, but they're still afterthoughts in many cases: Sure, it's easier for an experienced admin to run things with a command line, cron scripts, and manual config file editing, but most people are not experienced in this and shouldn't be. It's a pretty big time investment to learn all of it, so if you're a struggling end user who just wants to change a particular setting that isn't exposed by a GUI...good luck. Have fun searching/asking in forums or reading 40 page manuals for the right flag, after learning the man command and the precise name of the utility you need to use. (That's the inherent problem with command line management: It requires a priori knowledge and rote memorization, whereas GUI's allow you to get by with basic navigational skills.) Windows on the other hand exposes almost every conceivable setting using a GUI. Most of these GUI's are installed out-of-the-box, and the third party utilities still use GUI's as a primary interface. The environment is much different on Linux, where people write utilities as command line apps and leave the GUI for some other mook to write (not interesting enough to the primary author, who already knows how to use the command line app by virtue of writing it ). There's no one entity to blame for this; it's just a different culture, which makes it all the harder to change.
• Gaps in software selection: Open source software does about 90% of what I need (not counting gaming , but dealing with the other 10% can be a pain. Linux requires Wine to run most games and some popular software like Photoshop (and it's hit or miss), and the same goes for basically any bespoke piece of business software or proprietary niche software written only for Windows...which probably comprises the majority of software in circulation. Try doing analog video capture on Linux, and you'll find you're missing both the necessary drivers AND software.
• There's a lot of great open source software out there, but not every open source project is available from popular package managers, even in debian sid. It would be nice if some package manager interfaced with popular open source sites like github and sourceforge to provide access to all public repositories. I suppose this might require more sophisticated dependency detection though.
• It's a little harder to deal with the security risk from proprietary untrusted third party software on Linux: Linux is inherently more secure than Windows for more reasons than one (better permissions, culture of signed repositories, etc.), but untrustworthy third party software still puts your home directory (etc.) at risk of sabotage, and fine-grained permissions packages like AppArmor aren't easily configurable by noobs (no popular official GUI with requisite tutorials, etc. that I'm aware of, and it doesn't come sensibly configured for known packages out of the box). It's funny: It's easier to keep an attacker from getting full control on Linux, but one of the biggest reasons you want to avoid that is to protect your data...which can be attacked directly without special privileges, if you don't have something like AppArmor set up to stand in the way. Locking down Wine helps a bit, but it makes it less useful. This is no different from Windows, except untrusted third party software is so seldom used on Linux that we don't have top-of-the-line antivirus tools to screen it for malware. For that matter, malware scripts could contain obfuscated rm -rf commands, and it would be useful to have Linux security software that could screen for this kind of stuff.
• The highly unstable shared library infrastructure presents a minor obstacle to proprietary ISV's, since they need to statically link. There's no standard solution for getting around this, and while it's a minor nuisance, it's apparently enough of a barrier that some ISV's just don't bother to make Linux builds. I'm wondering if Valve/Steam plan to resolve this by encouraging game developers to build against a common, stable base of libraries (and making sure they're installed on every Steam system)? That would be nice.

As you can tell, the earlier examples were major problems, and the later ones were nuisances, so there aren't really THAT many showstoppers. There are still probably a few I'm not thinking of though, and I'd like for it to change as time goes on.

 

[Uvaman]

It seems to me that you have computer knowledge to the extent that companies like Microsoft and Apple want you to have it - you know enough to look for a GUI, but you don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes. That missing knowledge is what's keeping you from being a truly knowledgeable user. MS and Apple teach users to be dependent on them and their GUIs for help; Linux, by and large, teaches you what you need to know so that you can help yourself without the flashy wrappers. Not everybody is interested in that kind of learning experience, so if it doesn't fit the bill for you, you're probably better off returning to a more "managed" experience.

In all fairness, Kubuntu is a terrible distribution, and if I was still struggling to find my way through it, I'd probably be in the same boat as you are. If you want something that's GUI-oriented but fairly similar to what you're using, try openSUSE, like someone else said. But even then, you're still likely to bump into the command line somewhere along the way, even if it's just someone on a forum telling you to paste something into a terminal. People like that usually don't bother to explain the ins and outs of what those commands consist of, unfortunately.

The reason so many people still issue help in the command line is because - surprise! - it's easier and more powerful than wading through GUIs. That may not be your vision of "easier" because Microsoft and Apple focus on minimal thought rather than minimal effort. The command line does things you could only dream of doing in the typical GUI. With one short command, I can create a series of folders for every month from 2008-2013. With another one-liner, I can instantly find all files on my computer that contain the word "secret" and execute an arbitrary command on all of them, whether it's changing their file permissions, moving them all to a new location, or whatever.

If you're willing to be a bit open-minded and are genuinely interested in learning how your computer operates, using Linux to the fullest can be a rewarding experience. If you want a fully curated experience, then by all means, keep using Windows. Linux isn't for everyone.

If you do decide to stick with Linux, see if there's a Linux user group in your area. They may be willing to help you out.

I do feel windows 8 is too managed, but I only have 'show room' tinkering. I had little exposure to apple, but I too feel the same way, too managed, even from XP to 7 I felt they wanted to close things up, a little bit but it was there, in my view anyway.

 

[Tudz]

You need to go do some learning.

The console is one of the few things that unify Linux. It is one of the strengths of the system, and an amazing tool. Why? Because GUIs come and go....but the console commands almost never change. Meaning I can go on any Linux system anywhere without knowing shit about the GUI and the terminal syntax stays the same. It doesn't matter if I'm working on an Ubuntu desktop or an Apache server.

Like any good tool, you have to learn how to use it.

The problem is, for most people, operating the OS isn't what their computing experience is about. For your average user, fucking around with the OS should be an infrequent and self explanatory thing. So that the user can get back to using the computer for what the computer is there for in the first place: the programs.

If you spend half your day every day fucking around in the OS's interface trying to fix things and modify things and whatever, yes, CLI is great. If you just want to actually use the computer for every day tasks and you aren't often going to be fucking around with the underlying OS, CLI is terrible. There's a reason GUI's became popular, it's not because they're more efficient, it's because to someone who doesn't know the interface, a (good) GUI is self explanatory, even the best CLI is not.

It makes no difference to me that the syntax hasn't changed in 10 years, if I only use the CLI every 6 to 12 months, I can't fucking remember the syntax. It's not that I find it hard, it's that I use it too infrequently to actually remember it. Every time I have to do something CLI in Linux, you can almost guarantee I have a terminal on one side of the screen and a web browser on the other to search what commands I need and what syntax should be.

 

[ZenDragon]

I'm a partial proponent for Linux in that I think it depends on the person who is using it and what the machine is being used for.

That said, the poster does have some valid points of contention although the points of contention are relative. The command line in general doesn't bother me at all. I originally started on a Commodore 64 way back when and there was no GUI. Even later on in the DOS and Windows 3.x era I still spent the vast majority of my time in DOS. I am no stranger to the command line because that's what I first used. As the years move on there are fewer and fewer people like that. Therefore, the learning curve for something like Linux is much higher for people who have had their start with computers much later than me.

Even for those who are familiar with DOS, Linux can be a totally different animal but this is not the fault of Linux. The fault rests with MS and the horrible limitations of DOS and even Windows for the longest time with regards to options and especially security. Yes, there is a lot more to remember and do with Linux because it is much more configurable and customizable. For me that is worth quite a bit more than the "ease" of Windows depending on what I'm doing with the machine.

My main system runs Windows 7 and will for the foreseeable future but that has more to do with gaming than anything else. When I was doing very little gaming over a period of a few years I had a lot of fun running Linux, specifically openSUSE, on my main machine as my primary OS. Other than gaming there was very little I missed from Windows and the little gaming I was doing happened to be a couple of games with Linux ports and which performed better with fewer problems on Linux than the Windows counterparts.

I understand where the poster is coming from. There can be a world of difference between setting up a Linux distro compared to Windows. However, once setup I generally have little which I must do from then on with the command line in Linux. That's not to say I don't use the command line as in some cases I find it to be easier and faster. Simply put, I can type a hell of a lot faster through a command line than I can possibly click through a GUI.

As for Ubuntu and the derivatives, I don't use them. Don't ask me exactly what it is but I simply don't care for them or the overall setup/management. There are other distros I prefer to use but I'm glad Ubuntu is out there. Quite a few people like it which is obvious due to its popularity and I hope it hangs around for quite a few more years.

To your point regarding the console usage, I agree. I grew up using windows (because it is what my parents had) until I built my own machine. At that point I started to use a variety of systems, eventually settling on a combination of both. Windows for desktop usage and Slackware/Gentoo for firewall/server usage. I was comfortable in both environments.

Fast forward 15 years. I still use Windows 7 for my desktop, and Linux where its best suited on my firewall/server. However, when Windows 8 came out I decided it was time to give Linux another shot on my desktop so I tried Kubuntu and was horribly disappointed. It's awesome that I have so much power at the command line, but trying to do things that are ridiculously simple, like configuring dual monitors, an nividia gpu, etc. where way more difficult than they should have been. Yes I was able to do it, but it was a pain in the ass, required some time and research, and was generally not a common sense procedure even for a seasoned power user and programmer like myself. From a usability perspective, settings and configuration were not where they logically should have been. It took me an hour just to figure out how to get buttons on that stupid default taskbar thing in Kubuntu. Yea sure I could drop out to the command line and do what I want, but thats not the point.

I haven't used Linux as a desktop for a long time, and the commands I was familiar with were somewhat limited to what I needed to know to keep the server/firewall running. It is impossible to know what I simply don't know in regards to what commands and binaries do what. Its not that I am not willing to learn but damn it I don't have time to spend hours learning how to basic shit just to get to the point where I have usable system. So at the very least it is imperative that the UI is as usable and straightforward as possible, if they ever want to see their desktop usage rates rise. Granted this is just with Kubuntu so my experience may have been different with something else, but that experience really soiled me on the idea for now. I just can't afford to be not working for the time it takes to figure it out.

Im all about open source, and flexibility and all that, Linux is a great operating system. But the dev need to stop being so arrogantly different on nothing but principle, and learn a little bit from all the usability research that Microsoft has done, to help improve the desktop experience.

On a side note; I put Ubuntu with Unity on a netbook that I gave to my 13 year old nephew and he loves it lol.

 

[Shorehn]

What you said is the truth.. I mean I don't rack low as a user, nothing else, I am sure I am next to clueless vs people that make a living with computers. That is exactly what I would want from linux a more 'managed' experience, that being said any useful book recommendation to get me going 'for real' into, any Linux distribution, I don't much care which distribution, its funny, I stuck with Kuduntu longer than I did, even with Mint.
I will check out what a 'puppy' linux is too.
Yeah, I will do my homework, I am not going past windows 7, my computers becase internet and photo/video management centers, nothing more, don't game or anything anymore.

The best thing you can do right now is develop skills that work across distributions so that you're free to pick and choose among them. One of Linux's greatest strengths is choice, so why not take advantage of that?

The Linux Professional Institute is an organization that focuses on distribution-agnostic training. It mainly caters to professional users, but it added a new lower-level certification just recently called "Linux Essentials" that aims to give users enough command line experience to pick up where the graphical tools leave off. It also covers software licensing, free software culture, types of distributions, and other non-technical information that you're likely to need.

You don't have to take the actual LPI Essentials test if you don't want to, but I do recommend using its study materials. The Linup Front's guide, which is free, is an excellent introductory book because its descriptions and short and easy to understand. Pair that with a more comprehensive book like The Linux Command Line - also free - and you've got a winning combination.

There are some things you'll just have to pick up with experience, though. Here are some things I've picked up:

-Stay far, far away from Ubuntu or anything based on it. Ubuntu is going downhill fast.
-If you want something that involves less manual configuration, try openSUSE.
-Don't listen to people who tell you to read the man pages to learn console commands. Man pages are like a dictionary: they're meant to be comprehensive teaching resources.
-Find a Linux group. This is not optional. Having a few friends you can ask will make learning Linux a whole lot less frustrating.

It may surprise you to hear this, but I'm not one of those whiz-bang kids who picks this stuff up left and right, knows 5 programming languages, and dreams in binary. I know this stuff can be difficult to learn, and it's because there just aren't a lot of great communicators in the Linux community. But stick with it, find that sliver of the community that can actually articulate what you need to understand, and you'll do well. I mean, if you were a complete moron, you wouldn't be on [H], right?

 

[Skripka]

The problem is, for most people, operating the OS isn't what their computing experience is about. For your average user, fucking around with the OS should be an infrequent and self explanatory thing. So that the user can get back to using the computer for what the computer is there for in the first place: the programs.

If you spend half your day every day fucking around in the OS's interface trying to fix things and modify things and whatever, yes, CLI is great. If you just want to actually use the computer for every day tasks and you aren't often going to be fucking around with the underlying OS, CLI is terrible. There's a reason GUI's became popular, it's not because they're more efficient, it's because to someone who doesn't know the interface, a (good) GUI is self explanatory, even the best CLI is not.

It makes no difference to me that the syntax hasn't changed in 10 years, if I only use the CLI every 6 to 12 months, I can't fucking remember the syntax. It's not that I find it hard, it's that I use it too infrequently to actually remember it. Every time I have to do something CLI in Linux, you can almost guarantee I have a terminal on one side of the screen and a web browser on the other to search what commands I need and what syntax should be.

Le Sigh.

Incorrect on the red part. It makes a massive amount of difference. You can search for a terminal command-and whether the result is from last month or 5-10 years ago is often irrelevant. Why? Because CLI doesn't change that much apart from a few specific libraries like (groan) XOrg.

As far as "the problem is, for most people...", "Most People" cannot find their own ass even with a map, a compass, and a Ouija board. "Most people" if they have a problem with OS or apps on Windows or OSX are up shit creek trying to solve it....and even Googling seldom will tell you anything about the more arcane Windows stop codes for apps and drivers....unlike *nix CLI, which is *very* well documented. Which as you yourself point out, you might have to Google a problem-but there are results and you can usually figure things out....unlike Win stop codes for app crashes. You're proving my point-when you think you're arguing with me here.

Remember the frustration of how Windows changes the fucking Control Panel every single iteration of Windows for no real clear reason? That is what the CLI avoids. As far as "good" GUIs...there are VERY few of them IRL in the wild, even Windows and OSX barely qualify-they're just what people are used to dealing with (not saying *nix is perfect in this department by any means). Most GUIs do their damndest to hide/shield the user from features, and more often than not get in the way of troubleshooting a problem.

 

[GaryJohnson]

My biggest problem with Linux - and OSS as a whole, which may have contributed to some of the problems other people have with Linux's CLI, is the stupid names they give to commands and programs. Things in an OS/Application need to be named, in plain simple English (or whatever language you're targeting your OS at), for what they do. No acronyms - especially recursive ones. No shortened names. No code names. No weird philosophical terms from foreign languages. No clever puns. No technical terms.

There are a few things in Linux that do get this right like Libre/Open Office. But a lot of the other apps/commands don't, like GIMP or grep or VIM.

 

[Mini-Me]

My biggest problem with Linux - and OSS as a whole, which may have contributed to some of the problems other people have with Linux's CLI, is the stupid names they give to commands and programs. Things in an OS/Application need to be named, in plain simple English (or whatever language you're targeting your OS at), for what they do. No acronyms - especially recursive ones. No shortened names. No code names. No weird philosophical terms from foreign languages. No clever puns. No technical terms.

There are a few things in Linux that do get this right like Libre/Open Office. But a lot of the other apps/commands don't, like GIMP or grep or VIM.

You, ZenDragon, and Tudz are men (women?) after my own heart, haha.

To some extent I understand why some older utilities are named so badly: They've been in use since the Unix days, and the old Unix wizards probably never realized how widely their abbreviated acronymitis would spread. I also understand that the "find" command already exists to search for files, the old Unix wizards had to think for something else for searching text...but "grep?" Seriously? Not "search?" Not "match?" GREP?!? Would it really be that hard for a consortium to get together to semi-formally standardize sensible aliases to migrate to, moving forward? alias match="grep", for instance?

Why don't I just load up palimpsest to manage my disks? (...because it sounds suspiciously like incest?) Thankfully THAT one has been renamed into something sensible, at least. How about ifup? ifdown? ifupdownandaroundbutnotinsideout? Oh, wait..."if" means INTERFACE, not "conditional evaluation." It makes SO MUCH SENSE now...or not. Then again, if not for abbreviations and acronyms, we might be writing out the full word "interface," which might be even worse. There's a reason the Unix guys went for abbreviations in the first place, but...come on, I have a program in /usr/bin named "scrot." It's gone too far.

 

[Mini-Me]

Errata:
...already exists to search for files, so* the old Unix wizards had to think of* something else for searching text...

 

[SmokeRngs]

To your point regarding the console usage, I agree. I grew up using windows (because it is what my parents had) until I built my own machine. At that point I started to use a variety of systems, eventually settling on a combination of both. Windows for desktop usage and Slackware/Gentoo for firewall/server usage. I was comfortable in both environments.

Fast forward 15 years. I still use Windows 7 for my desktop, and Linux where its best suited on my firewall/server. However, when Windows 8 came out I decided it was time to give Linux another shot on my desktop so I tried Kubuntu and was horribly disappointed. It's awesome that I have so much power at the command line, but trying to do things that are ridiculously simple, like configuring dual monitors, an nividia gpu, etc. where way more difficult than they should have been. Yes I was able to do it, but it was a pain in the ass, required some time and research, and was generally not a common sense procedure even for a seasoned power user and programmer like myself. From a usability perspective, settings and configuration were not where they logically should have been. It took me an hour just to figure out how to get buttons on that stupid default taskbar thing in Kubuntu. Yea sure I could drop out to the command line and do what I want, but thats not the point.

I haven't used Linux as a desktop for a long time, and the commands I was familiar with were somewhat limited to what I needed to know to keep the server/firewall running. It is impossible to know what I simply don't know in regards to what commands and binaries do what. Its not that I am not willing to learn but damn it I don't have time to spend hours learning how to basic shit just to get to the point where I have usable system. So at the very least it is imperative that the UI is as usable and straightforward as possible, if they ever want to see their desktop usage rates rise. Granted this is just with Kubuntu so my experience may have been different with something else, but that experience really soiled me on the idea for now. I just can't afford to be not working for the time it takes to figure it out.

Im all about open source, and flexibility and all that, Linux is a great operating system. But the dev need to stop being so arrogantly different on nothing but principle, and learn a little bit from all the usability research that Microsoft has done, to help improve the desktop experience.

On a side note; I put Ubuntu with Unity on a netbook that I gave to my 13 year old nephew and he loves it lol.

As for trouble configuring, that is likely a problem with regards to the distro you are/were using. I've had little or no trouble with configuring nvidia cards with several versions of openSUSE including dual monitors as I've been running dual monitors for years on my main system.

I also have to take notice of how you mentioned items which aren't in common sense places or logical places. You're primarily referencing this with regard to Windows. This issue has less to do with common sense or logic than it does with just being different. Linux is not Windows and Windows is not Linux. Many things will not be the same or in the same places and this isn't even a problem with being different OSes. For example, take someone who started using computers with Vista and put them in front of a Win95 machine and see how long it takes them to do many of the same configurations or if they can even do so. I've seen the "progression" from Windows 3.x through 7 (I haven't touched 8 and doubt I will outside of necessity) and every single iteration of Windows changes and shuffles things around for no apparent reason. Each iteration tries to bury many settings further and further inside additional menus, clicks and just about anything else. Someone else has already pointed this out but it's the perfect example, Windows Control Panel. As far as I'm concerned the Control Panel has become less logical and user friendly with almost each iteration of Windows, especially in the transition from XP to Vista.

The basic point is that people make their comparisons based on what they know and are familiar with. For most people this is going to mean that Windows is the default reference and anything not Windows isn't logical just because it's different from what they're accustomed to. Trust me, there's a lot of logic and common sense lacking in Windows.

I feel I should reiterate another point I made earlier. People are used to Windows after using it for quite a few years. In that time people slowly gained their knowledge a bit at a time from a brand new user to the current level of knowledge and likely didn't do it from the ground up including the installation and setup of the OS. Jumping into Linux from the ground up is obviously going to be much more difficult in comparison because you're basically skipping all of the novice and intermediate steps to start at the advanced level. You simply cannot expect to skip what amounts to months or years of learning and experience to be immediately proficient. It is simply going to take time to gain knowledge and experience for Linux equal to what you have for Windows although you can obviously do it in much less time comparatively using the knowledge you already do possess.

 

[Spire3660]

I don't think I rank too low in computer usage knowledge, I find Linux (right now I am still trying Kubuntu) simply too dam hard to use. Get rid of the console, open that thing more,so I can work with (some video card settings require the settings app to be re-launched with admin powers. Linux, is clearly a bad graft, of a pretty face to an ugly, out-dated OS.
They try to hide it, but this is worse than the times of 3.1 and DOS, where some drivers will be DOS and some other things windows.
Linux is still ruled by the console, and from the pretty gui you jump the the hard to use console, and even installing something can become a nightmare.
Yes it will die, unless I can click my way to installation, and all my computer settings, screw it, it ridiculous.

With complexity comes flexibility. Saying 'remove the console' just shows you dont do any computing, you use a computer as an entertainment console/appliance.

 

[lchan]

what wrong with ubuntu really? i use it on my notebook. it works and its free. Can someone tell me why do people hate it so much.

 

[Red Squirrel]

what wrong with ubuntu really? i use it on my notebook. it works and its free. Can someone tell me why do people hate it so much.

Unity / Gnome 3. TERRIBLE UI. It's basically the Metro of Linux.

That said, that's the nice thing about Linux, you are not forced to use stuff if you don't like it, you can change it or use another distro altogether, either a spin off like Xubuntu or a whole other distro.

I currently run Xubuntu though I will be reinstalling at some point and might give Mint a try just for a change.


I just wish hardware manufacturers would stop turning a blind eye to Linux and either release all the source for their drivers so Linux devs can make Linux versions, or actually provide GOOD Linux drivers. To me just releasing the source would be the best as it saves them the effort of trying to support every distro, and it allows Linux devs to code good ones, which could then also be built into distros.

 

[Red Machine D]

Of course Ubuntu will die on its own. It's shit.

If you do decide to stick with Linux, see if there's a Linux user group in your area. They may be willing to help you out.

Oh, God help you if you ever ask a "Linux pro" for help.