Captain
Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal Brigade delivered a pounding frontal attack to the good folks in the
Ubuntu bunker today, sounding off about the Linux OS distribution that's been taking a lot of people (but not old Mossy) by storm. According to his review yesterday of the burgeoning (and free)
Canonical operating system, Walt Mossberg says that although Ubuntu is, "Relatively slick," he feels that there are too many, "little complications and hassles that will quickly frustrate most people who just want to use their computers, not maintain or tweak them." Apparently, after testing on a stock Dell system with the software pre-installed, Walt argued that the lack of codecs for playing some audio and video formats, trouble connecting iPods, and a trackpad which can't be adjusted, are just a few of the problems that most people will find intolerable in the open-source OS. Mossberg talks about users who, "...simply want their digital products to operate as promised, with as little maintenance and hassle as possible," and feels the answer for them is Windows or OS X, not the new, untested, and unpolished Ubuntu. While we don't agree on every point, perhaps this will push Canonical to tighten up its OS and really target the mainstream. [Warning: read link requires subscription]
[Via
Crave]
posted Sep 14th 2007 5:30PM
FYI: Mossberg is the biggest Apple FanBot on the face on the planet.
Did you actually read the review before you typed this?
I agree with AlexP..... surely you haven't forgotten poor Mr. Pogue?
[http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/06/david-pogues-iphone-musical-sing-a-long/]
Perhaps it wasn't 'elegant' enough.
I can't believe there are so many Linux apologists around. Hey, stuff doesn't work out of the box. No apologies, it should work out of the box.
Ubuntu 7 already does some things, like make it easy to use proprietary drivers. So my ATI graphics card worked right out of the box. That's the way to go and frankly the only way that is acceptable for the general public. Does my aunt even know what kind of graphics card is in her machine? Let alone that there are proprietary drivers for it? What drivers are? No, no, and no.
Ubuntu is on the right path, but not quite there yet. Mossy isn't even so much an Apple fanboy as a "things-working" fanboy.
Wow, he recommended WINDOWS and OSX?
He must really hate Uber-buntu if he recommended both!
Mossberg should show alot more respect for the community that saved his beloved Apple from the path of extinction. OS 9 was a dead end. OS X is nothing more then BSD with Quartz slapped on top of it. I expect they would have stolen the Linux kernel, but since only 1% of the world knows what BSD is, it was probably alot easier to pretend they invented BSD.
Mossberg is showing us the length of his penis in that pic.
HE'S A TOOL
Walt Mossberg is overrated.
And so is Ubuntu.
And so is Apple.
At least in Ubuntu you don't have to reboot for every installed driver, application, update, moving the mouse, printing somethings, looking at the screen... etc. etc.
True, Ubuntu is missing alot of thirdparty fatware that breaks everything else...
@Steve
Rebooting my computer is less of a hassle than installing programs on Ubuntu.
seriously hedgehog, installing new apps on ubuntu without rebooting is piss easy ....
Click, wait, run. It's really hard!
There is a big difference between "It's easy" and "It's easy if you know how".
People are used to popping a CD in or visiting a website and clicking "Download Now" without being dependent upon someone building a specific package for their distribution of Linux to gloss over a glaring flawed Linux software model of everyone developing each component independently.
@Steve
You do realize that the ability to use Ubuntu is dependent on how able you are to use something called a 'search engine'? It's a marvelous invention really, especially since it finds things that are well documented.
it's interesting that all I ever hear from linux fanboys is that "it just works" in comparison to say windows which apparently doesn't.
then we have mosberg saying, it doesn't "just work", I could even play an mp3 without downloading the codecs for it.
seems like a very honest opinion and review from him. good OS, but not for mainstream users.
I meant to say "couldn't even play an mp3".. not could..
I thought "it just works" was the Apple fanboy slogan.. which would make sense because OS X is a pretty shell over Unix. But really, Linux is a pain in the ass to manage if you aren't dedicated to managing it. If you're looking to just turn on your computer and do stuff, looking up trac repositories and installing packages probably isn't your thing.
I hate the way he phrased that in the video...
He made it sound like a 'codec' is something extremely complicated and only Linux needs. Anything playing MP3 will have an MP3 decoder, its just that when you pay $200 for Windows some of that money goes to paying the license fee.
HOWEVER, installing the MP3 codec ain't that complicated. I did it just by getting it through apt, but I think if you open Add/Remove programs and type in MP3 its just there and you can click install.
Mouse sensitivity: you go System -> Preferences -> Mouse -> Motion and all settings for sensitivity and acceleration are there. No different to going into the Windows control panel.
I admit that it isn't completely polished, but he picked out the strangest things to have a niggle at. If I wanted to run down Linux I would say about (despite there being a huge range of apps) there are still some programs without Linux equivalents, graphics cards can be a bum to set up, and flash is difficult to install on 64-bit distros. Those are the kind of more important picky bits, not that you have to click one extra time to access the mouse settings.
Basically, Linux ain't perfect but he chose the weirdest things to complain about (including issues which don't exist) when there are plenty more problems with switching.
I could be wrong.. but isn't Gutsy going to prompt when the user tries to play a format that isn't supported and download the codecs automatically from apt?
Hes kind of clueless though.. codecs are needed on all platforms.
Feisty already downloads the codecs you need to play MP3's. Just double-click on one, and it'll intercept you, tell you about what's happening, do it, then play your file. What's wrong about that?
Too bad he could not stop being a complete tool and just download VLC Media Player - I use it for every OS and have not looked for a codec in a couple of years.
I love these replies. Everyones so quick to disregard mossburg or say that he just doesn't get it. all you have to do is open terminal or do yadda yadda. "it's easy".
it's clear things are unclear, otherwise he would not have noted them. there are people that type email address's into web address bars, and don't understand the difference between internet explorer and firefox. I know, I support these people. my paretns and my friends parents.
the beauty of open source is that bugs can be fixed, and additions made.
Instead of attacking mossburg, perhaps the correct approach upon recieving criticism is to take that criticism and fix what's been criticized, or at least make it more clear via a short cut or pretty lil icon.
in the end it's actually easier to simply fix something then it is to argue with people and tell them it's not broken in the first place.
Thats b.s, my ipod works straight out of the box, so does my girlfriends, just plug it in.
and the "lack of codecs" name one distro that comes with proprietory codecs installed? you will get sued if you ship them pre-installed, thats why you can EASILY apt-get them, hell, totem even says "sorry, found no codec for it mate, want me to download it for you?" If people are too lazy to click "yes" and let it download gstreamer then they should just return the pc.
imagine if you unpackaged your ipod, that you just stated you have, and before you could play any mp3's it asked you to connect to the net to download codecs.
a) there would be some confused folks.
b) those folks would be annoyed
c) those folks would just get a different mp3 player.
I get what you're saying, but you need to be able to look at both sides. simply saying someones lazy is not a valid response, its an excuse for the product
This isn't comparing it to other distros of linux, it's comparing it to the mainstream OS and its irascible little hanger-on. And Windows comes with WMP, which plays MP3, and OS X has iTunes, which plays MP3s. That's his point.
Ha, you forget! You need to connect to the internet to get iTunes as Apple can't even be bothered to include a CD. At least in Ubuntu I can transfer songs to my iPod 'out-of-the-box'.
imagine if you unpackaged your computer, you can visit your favorite web sites you have to apply security updates, reboot, go to your sites discover you have to upgrade your browser, download a massive OS altering files, reboot, then reboot again... lose all the active sites you were looking at...
a) that just plain sucks
In Firefox that comes with Ubuntu, you just go to your sites, if you need to upgrade click upgrade, thats it.
The OS doesn't have to reboot, the browser (may) shutdown and restart, BUT all your active web pages and tabs are restored instantly. Now thats why Ubuntu is slick! Because the OS upgrades just as seemlessly.
Doesn't it seem like everytime you reboot on Windows after a 'spontanous security patch is installed' that it takes longer, and longer, and longer for Windows to restart? Wake up people!
If someone non-tech savy person wanted to switch to linux, and they asked me which was the best version, I would say Ubuntu hands down. ^_^
nonsense - you cannot categorically say what the best linux is, when different distros work better for different users for different applications. What are you doing? routing, hacking, forensics, watching movies, functioning as a server, what type of server, etc. The best version of linux is most likely the one that you compile for your purpose.
"non-tech savy person"
That pretty much says they want to get on MySpace and open email. I think Ubuntu is good enough for that.
If users "simply want their digital products to operate as promised" then they would bequickly frustrated with Windows anything. Ubuntu is a dream of operational ease by comparison, no matter the driver install requirements.
actually XBMC is. not ubuntu OR windows.
Sure, I can't wait to see them try to install the Deer Hunter game that they stoled from the walmart.
Ok, Walt but... Ubuntu (and all of its software) is F R E E and runs on every PC on the planet, not only on expensive design-ish stuff...
I hate to say this, but I actually agree with him on this one.
I installed Ubuntu about a month ago on my old Dell 700m, and I think I finally have it all set up. Installation was definitely easy for me, but it couldn't play MP3's out of the box, playing any movie files resulted in "black screen" playback, and when it finally worked it wouldn't work in fullscreen mode.
One month later, I think Ubuntu is the best computing experience available today - as long as you don't intend to play games. Once you get it all set up, it can't be beat. The community is extremely helpful and patient with new users, and it's really cool being able to do things like flipping four desktops around in a 3D cube. Windows users shit their pants when they see me do that in my lectures.
He didn't really say he didn't like Ubuntu, he just didn't recommend it for the "average user", which I think is a fair statement.
Gaming might be around sooner than you think.
a) Open Source ATI Drivers
b) Unreal 3
c) Valve recently opened a position for someone to port windows games to Linux. Linux steam would be the grail. Not a certainty, but interesting and hope inspiring.
Actually, I'm typing this from my Inspiron 700m with Ubuntu (since the beginning of the year) right now. Since I didn't have the install disk for the latest and greatest version (7.04), I just used the older one (6.10), which after install prompted me if I wanted to upgrade to the newer one. A couple of clicks later, I'm using the pc like always while the upgrade is downloaded AND installed in the background. Once done, it just told me to reboot to finish, which WASN'T mandatory. I just kept on browsing until it was time to shut it down.
Now, the codecs issue, it WAS more difficult in 6.10 (it told me which package to download from the Applications-Add/Remove menu),
but in 7.04, it was just a matter of opening a file using a patented codec and it would ask me if I wanted to install it. Just a couple clicks ant it was business as usual. Video worked perfectly, as did all the games I tried (which aren't many (Neverwinter Nights was one of them), since this laptop is just awful for any kind of 3d apps, but it still manages to provide a pleasant experience with the 3d desktop and eyecandy turned on).
Please excuse any weirdness in my post, but I'm not a native speaker, AND am mainly self-taught, playing computer games and by reading (and most of that from the internet)
"Linux steam would be the grail"
The question is, can Valve get DRM to work within Linux? If not, I can't see Valve selling new games that way.
The other thing Valve could do with Linux compatibility is to improve the tools Valve licenses to other developers. Valve makes tools to help with multithreaded game development. Maybe one of Valve's customers wants to make a game that supports Linux.
Anyone with at least 1 finger and half a brain can have their Ubuntu Linux system set up however they like it in a matter of minutes. It's not any more involved than setting up Windows or OSX the way you want... oh, and Ubuntu is also free.
As for iPod connectivity, I understand iTunes is compatible with Windows and Mac, not Linux. As soon as Apple wants to make iTunes compatible with Linux, iTunes will be compatible with Linux. The ball is not in Canonical's (Ubuntu's) court on that matter.
All in all, Ubuntu is far less "bloated" than Windows (esp. Vista), and you can change that however you like. I personally prefer to not have extraneous, arguably useful processes running in the background, consuming ~1Gb of RAM (Vista requires 1Gb of RAM to run, or so I heard).
My 0.02 cents worth anyway...
Unfortunately, that's not true. Most of the people on Engadget, Digg, etc. could, yes. Your average non-computer literate person would probably have a problem with it because they lack the fundamental understanding of computers and how they function, knowledge that most of us take for granted.
well he is nuts..
I love ubuntu, but he's right.
For video codecs it's simple
open terminal and type
sudo apt-get install vlc
after that you can play almost any video in VLC. Installing many programs is this simple. Yes the basic user it is still to complicated to do some things but it's mostly because they are use to the ways of windows, some unbuntu things are not that much harder and once you get it working it runs nicely.
How is that simple?
It's simple when you don't have to read a manual.
ya, my mom would totally know to do that without being told.
Automatix is even easier than that. simply choose Automatix in Synaptic and install. Choose to install codecs and presto. most other software cna be had by using a package manager. Simple and efficient.
How is that simple?
To know this, I'd have to do a research on the web or get my hands on a manual.
Simple = not having to do something like that.
Er, sorry about that.
@Blair Thiessen
That's what I was thinking. Doesn't he even know about VLC? It plays just about everything.
With windows finding the right driver can be a pain in the ass, but with Ubuntu most everything is recognized
With windows, you have WMP, then you download CCCP and you're good to go. Even without CCCP, you'll be able to play most commercial videos... you can do it on linux easily, but you have to know how to do it first. Using the command is simple, knowing what it is is not.
So, your mom would have no problem with that, right?
To those asking why installing VLC is "easy", I wonder if you have used a Mac before?
VLC is a must-have on there, too.
Have you ever tried to play a DivX video in pre-XP Windows? It doesn't work. You have to go download DivX codecs (and if you search for DivX you get the terrible DivX Player). My mom wouldn't know how to do that and she'd end up calling me. Codecs are a universal problem, not just a Linux problem.
@dj-kenpo your mom would not know how to download VLC or any codec pack in the first place.
Walt Mossberg apparently does not understand the concept of a learning curve. While Ubuntu tries to be the best variant of the numerous Linux distributions available, there are certain things that need to be learned. I've always received the impression from Mr. Mossberg that because he writes for the Wall Street Journal that his opinion is better than others. Ubuntu isn't meant for people that don't want to learn (atleast a little bit) something different.
While I have no idea if Mr. Mossberg is a Apple "fan boy" or not. He should probably just stick with them, because as much as I love the OSX operating system - it really is built for people that no NOTHING about computers for the most part. I really don't know why he wanted to even mess with Ubuntu if he couldn't even handle the trouble of downloading a simple codec.
Also, I find it very humorous that Mr. Mossberg has a problem working with Ubuntu while there are many of other users that seem to be able to understand basic Ubuntu "skills" (Browse the internet, e-mail people, write up a document or something) with little to no hassle.
Linux isn't for everyone, it's to those people with an open mind and want to learn something.
Jerk.
>Walt argued that the lack of codecs for playing some audio and video formats
Stopped caring Right there. The codecs are unavailable by default for a damn good reason, but you can actually get them really, really easily. In fact, it is much easier to get DivX codecs and that crap in Ubuntu than in Windows; no web browser required. How? Open a DivX movie, click Install Codec in the dialog. Yay, DivX! (You don't get an ugly media player with it, either).
Repeat for every other codec available (within reason). I am able to view every video file that comes my way on both of my Ubuntu systems, and on neither of them have I needed to hunt for any more than five seconds within official repositories.
...And yes, the Universe repository is very much Ubuntu; they have to do it this way, because it would be very difficult to create localizations that appeal to each country's laws.
Explain to us, Walt: How is this a lack of codecs, and how is this difficult? And, even more importantly: Tried any mpeg 1 or mpeg 2s, lately?
I agree with him. Its not ready for mainstream. Put yourself in the shoes of Joe Consumer.
Your right its not ready for mainstream, but I've got my wife (computerphobe) and my parents (retired computerphobes) all using ubuntu, and yes its not seamless from the start, they all have little gotchas that they can't fix themselves, but hell at least I can fix stuff for them.
I finally got tired of my Mum ringing me up about a BSOD reading out a hex message every couple of days in the hope I could fix it, put ubuntu on her system got her used to firefox, thunderbird, picasa and openoffice and she calls once every couple of months.
Job done, and before anyone says what about Mac, they had a macbook off my brother for 3 months and hated every minute of it despite almost daily calls.
Ubuntu it might not be perfect, but with a linux geek in the family everyones happy!
Oh yeah by the way, setting up the computer to play whatever codecs you need (Mp3, movie files, etc.) takes approximately 10 mouse clicks, so I don't see the issue there. The only reason codecs aren't included is because of the debatable legality of said codecs.
Well, if one is too stupid to find the mouse configuration and change the sensitivity then one shouldn't play with computers at all.
I'm going to have to go with him on it... I installed ubuntu on an aging dell of mine, it was a complete pain in the ass. After about a week of tweaking I finally got it to work. On a side note since then its worked flawless! I do have to say the pre-installed software on a dell would come highly recommended!
Whoa, for the first time ever, I agree with Mossberg completely. His complaints were exactly the same as mine after using Ubuntu for about half a year. I finally got tired of looking for new codecs so I could play videos, or dealing with Firefox locking up constantly and gave that computer away, since it wasn't really good enough to have any other OS installed. That said, Linux does run very well without much in the way of resources, but it just isn't that good.
Great video players are available for Ubuntu:
http://www.getmiro.com/
http://smplayer.sourceforge.net/en/index.php
@thekillerdynamo
doesn't that say something about the computer not the OS? I mean if ubuntu could make it run while all the others couldn't?
While I agree that the switch is a bit of a jump for most people, that is just because people are used to windows or osx. Mossberg is correct in his conclusion that ubuntu might not be right for the average consumer, but his reasons are way off base. Codec support is not a good reason to give ubuntu the cold shoulder. If you don't know what a codec is anyways you are probably gonna click "ok" to anything that pops up anyway so ubuntu has the joe consumer taken care of in that regard. the real hurdle is making people remember passwords, and dealing with anything once they leave user space
I love how you equate Ubuntu with Linux as if it's the only distribution out there. You're as bad as those people that equate PC with Windows.
What do Walt Mossberg, Dvorak, and Michael Jackson all have in common? They all think they still matter, unable to accept they lost their relevancy long ago.
Freedom lovers use Open Source. Corporate mouth pieces hate on Open Source.
I agree. A lot of big-name people like him are not real hip on giving stuff away for free. Businesses will not likely profit from a growth in the popularity of Ubuntu, or other distributions of Linux for that matter. If he is an Apple fanboy as some have claimed (I don't know a whole lot about Mossberg), or especially if he stands to gain if Apple gets more widely used, then of course he would not recommend an unprofitable alternative (Linux). Maybe he bought a lot of stock in Apple?
frankly i love Ubuntu. i've been using linux for about 6 years now and the vast amounts of improvements just within the last year is amazing. i must admit that his mention of "bad" and "ugly" for the gstreamer packages is just really terrible identifiers used in the dialog asking him to install the required codecs (i don't what the hell the gstreamer team was thinking when they decided on those package names).
I don't know Linux AT ALL so I have NO real say on the matter, but heres my uneducated 2 cents.
My mom doesn't even know what a codec is... tell her to sudo anything and she would slap me. The only reason she would want a computer would be to use office and listen to her podcasts. I am sure it is AWESOME once you get it set up, but for the average person, its not practical.
I don't know why Linux users would WANT there non-computer geek friends to use it. I for one, NEVER try to get my non-geeky friends to switch to OS X, because I don't want to be the one they call and say, where's the Internets Explores?
I say, to each his own. I have learned not to be offended when people rag on OS X, Linux People should learn the same...
Rofl @ Todd, good one mate. And yes, he really is athe biggest fanbot ever. I've had Ubuntu running for 6 or 7 months now, and apart from a couple of hiccups that a couple of dumb typos created, this thing has run flawlessly. I agree that some things you may have to look up, for example I had trouble installing AWN (avant windows navigator) for a while, so I googled "avant windows navigator install ubuntu" and followed a set of instructions that worked flawlessly. It consisted of maybe four or five things to copy and paste into terminal, it took zero effort whatsoever, and most everything on my laptop (a8js) worked out of the box. So if you're an average consumer, sure, avoid it, but honestly, he makes it out to be much more complicated that it actually is. Honestly, if the software availability for some things (CAD and video editing which I run in windows via virtualbox, and of course gaming) was a bit better, I'd have no need for anything else. Ubuntu pwns all in my opinion. And let's be honest here, Compiz Fusion owns everything on the face of the planet :P
Apparently he doesn't know of Automatix or easyubuntu.
It's not perfect, but if you put a little but of effort into actually learning how your computer works (I know it's a crazy idea to some people) it's a very flexible and rewarding os to use. That all said, my non-techy girlfriend has Ubuntu dual booting with xp and the only problems she runs into is needing the proper drivers for windows.
Automatix is seriously bad. It has major faults, and in theory, could cause system problems, especially if your setup is unusual (do a search for more info on this). My suggestion is to stay away and just use the package manager. Automatix offers little these days anyway, most of what it offered is just as easy now.
I love the commenter who says, "It's easy! Just open Terminal and type...."
I use Ubuntu every single day of my life, but Mossberg is right: it's not ready for mainstream users, i.e., people who look at you blankly when you say, "Just open Terminal..."
Now, in its defense, downloading and installing programs is easier than it is in Windows, as is installation of drivers during the initial setup for *some* devices. But multimedia -- even with VLC -- is still a pain. It took me several hours to get, for example, MLB.tv to work, whereas it really does work right out of the box on Windows and Mac. CNN's live video STILL doesn't work for me, and I have no idea why, since I get no errors.
But after spending 6 hours trying to set up an external DVR without success, numerous weeks spent wondering why I can't play DVDs anymore (despite all kinds of troubleshooting), and having to switch my external USB drives on and off because they only automount *sometimes*, I definitely have to agree that as much as I love it and hate Windows, Ubuntu is not ready for the mainstream.
As I have said, they say, 'Just open a terminal' because what is more scary to the average user.
a) Copy and paste these lines. Do it and it works. You need know no more.
b) 10 pages of 'click here, now click here, and then here, now type this here, and click that' - followed by a slightly different prompt, so they stop and leave it.
It's easier. It makes more sense. If users want to use the GUI, they can, the tutorials use the CLI because it makes sense!
Open the terminal is the same as Start/Run.
Using start->run is normally used to run batch files or exes... when you tell someone to go into terminal you're normally looking at a multistep process where they have to enter each line, sometimes make decisions based on the output... the terminal makes things so, so much easier if you know what you're doing, but windows makes it easier to do things without knowing what the hell you're doing... which is why people keep managing to infect their computers with malware.
FYI, you don't need a paid WSJ.com subscription for Walt Mossberg articles, which are also posted at http://ptech.allthingsd.com/.
Lets see, I installed 64-bit Ubuntu, codecs and ipod software were available via synaptic package manager (I seached "codec" and "ipod" respectively). Why can't you hold MS up these standards? (you can't compare OSX since Apple generally uses only predefined HD).
At least Ubuntu recognised my sound card... Vista wouldn't... Tell me how that is easy?
Actually that was another sort of problem I've had with Linux. Fedora wouldn't recognize my wireless card, so you couldn't download all this great software that makes Linux useful that everyone has been suggesting. Ubuntu had no problem with the wireless card, but it could not recognize my headset, no matter how much I tried. It actually didn't like to work with anything attached to my soundcard, but at least it did recognize it.
ubuntu, and linux in general, is NOT ready for primetime. everything is a hassle, and apparently no one has told anyone how to make a simple binary install package for any addon.
My opinion of Ubuntu is that, like many polished Linux distro's, it's still primarily something that a coder or geek would use, as opposed to the everyday user. People want to be able to instantly use things out of the box without any major fuss - you get that with Windows and you get that with OSX. Unfortunately, this same streamlined user-experience isn't available to Linux, unless you know how to set it up yourself.
I see a lot of fanboys throwing around lines like "but it only takes X mouse-clicks to do this" and "if you type in this command it can do that". Rubbish. You wouldn't have to do it with any other OS, so why should the average user be expected to do it with Linux?.
As for the comment about "Freedom lovers" liking open source and big corporations hating it, of course they do!. In their eyes (from my perspective), open-source is the equivalent to a group of people taking away the product that earns you money and giving it away for free, thus rendering you, your product and your staff redundant. Sure, there are a bunch of commerical projects that do profit from the concept of open-source, but not nearly enough. I for one would love to see the day that Windows or OSX were made completely open-source, but I have come to loathe the sentiment amongst some of the open-source community that if you want something that works with computers in the 21st century - it *has* to be free.
My 2 cents.
What a bloody idiot.
Apple -> Video / Photo Editing, it works out of the box but can't be upgraded easily if at all. Its all proprietary software and parts. It looks nice, and does what it should, nothing more.
Windows, at least XP, has had years to develop and mature, it seems so complete because almost every major competitor and designer is making software for it because its one of the mainstream operating systems. Its the best, but not only choice for games for all the same reasons.
Only now is Linux coming to the front. There are some good FPS games on Linux now, but they're just fledgling shadows of what can be. Same with every other genre of game. Wine and its forks are still showing how desperately tied to Windows most gaming systems are. Until developers make games cross-platform (Unix/Win32) or solely for Linux, there's going to be this embilacle cord to Windows. There's also the issue of it being free. I love free software, open source software, and GNU public licenses, but the fact is people will only work so long and to a certain standard without being paid. Sure most Linux gurus program for their love of the system, or to fill a niche they need that others then find useful as well. However, money talks, and the support of hardware companies or such would certainly expedite the process of getting Linux mainstream.
He should really learn to look into things before opening his bloody mouth. Every OS has its ups and downs. Given time, or dedication to hunting around the net, you can find that Linux can or could easily compete with Windows and Mac *AND* wind.
Your calling someone an idiot yet you say the Mac is limited to Audio and Photo editing?
So who's the bigger idiot? You or Mossberg?
Many of the people here are missing the point, I think. Getting it up and running for most of the people here is not a problem. Yes it's easy, and it doesn't take much time, but we understand this stuff. Your average person doesn't have a clue what a codec, driver, etc. is. You average user can rarely figure out when to double and single click.
I think his point is about the experience of a user getting the box and getting up and running themselves, not, being handed a fully functional system.
I am a big fan of Ubuntu, but, I do agree with Mossberg. I have been using Linux on and off since the early 90s, and currently Ubuntu is my favorite desktop/workstation flavor of Unix. I think what Mossberg is doing is giving constructive critism; lets hope it helps advance Linux in general to the "next level"
I have to agree that Ubuntu isn't ready for mainstream, but I tend to think this is true for computers in general.
The vast majority of folks expect to be able to drop their new audio CD into the drive, plug in their iPod and voila, no tag editing or checking-off playlists to be synched, etc. I think a lot of this can be attributed to the fact that most new users don't realize just how far the PC has come in terms of user-friendliness (man, I sound like an old coot!).
From my own experience, I would equate Linux to an old car, it may hiccup a little more often, but the solution is usually cheaper and easier.
The big issue is trying to show someone how to find a solution to their problem when they don't even want to invest the time to look.
This time with something to say. I have played with most major distros and still am a Windows user because it covers a greater percentage of what I want to do. I haven't had it(Windows XP) crash in over a year, nor Vista on my laptop since it was installed at release. It simply is a better packaged out of the box experience for the "average" user. Something that seems to escape many of you. Average users wouldn't even know this site existed. Besides UNIX has been around for more than 30 years...and even with it being OPEN and having a huge community it STILL has yet to match the commercial appeal and ease of use/install of Windows.
I agree completely with Walt– he gives the same exact reasons why nobody wanted a Mac 5 years ago. Linux will be going far, it's a great thing, but for now it's not quite mature enough to compete with OS X or Windows in the mass market.
For the record, I use OS X but previously was a Gentoo boy in addition :P
"Ubuntu just works." I think this is VERY true BECAUSE once you install a driver, a program, or make a configuration in Ubuntu it works. Where as, in Windows, or worse even Vista, you have to pray that something didn't break AND you have to reboot about a dozen times.
This is partly in blame to the OS (or Microsoft) and third party developers that make such poor FATWARE. For instance, I didn't think twice about installing a new Kodak 1275 hires camera driver on my WinXP but didn't after the fact that the uninstaller doesn't work and the software has sucessfully jacked up my Scanner, TWAIN drivers and rendered it useless. System restore failed, and the thought of rebuilding from scratch makes me shudder -not from installers but rebooting. Most everything requires rebooting, rebooting, rebooting = waste of time.
In Ubuntu, I installed the apps, desktop applications, even drivers and had to reboot not even once!
Windows has just as many bugs, people just ignore them because there is nothing else in their eyes.
Installing Vista (for gaming only) was painful in comparison to ubuntu (having to remove all USB devices and hard drives (except for the one I was installing on), reinstalling grub because it wiped the MBR, BSOD on the second boot from windows update, nVidia drivers not preinstalled (and people whine about this in Linux a lot), having to install the CCCP to play most of my video, etc...)
Ubuntu is, in my experiences, perfect for both the average and power user, and gets better every day. The latest versions make it even easier, and the new ATI documentation giving us Open source ATI drivers will be a godsend. (ATI will probably get my next buy, unless nVidia follow suit).
As to MP3 and iPod support, frankly, MP3 playback is not free, how do you expect them to provide it freely? I know the average user doesn't care, but it's not something that's that easy to fix. Saying that, in the latest versions of ubuntu, trying to play an MP3 will popup with an easy GUI to install codecs without any thought other than hitting next 3 times or so. iPod support, well, that's just apple and their DRM. I know that's not valid for the average user, but what can be done?
I understand there are annoyances with Ubuntu, but you can not expect it to be perfect, and it is by far better than Windows. Windows is not perfect, Ubuntu is not perfect. But Ubuntu still wins in my books.
Look at him. he's saying "i've got a small wheener to match my small brain"
lol @ "mainstream users." i would say linux would be for the people who actually have some idea of what a computer is.
just dont give linux to the r-tards who dont know how many internets fit on their CPU.
The argument over Command Line vs GUI is simply one of tutorials and common sense. You do not expect the user to install stuff via the command line, but in a tutorial, it is a hell of a lot easier to tell someone to copy and paste a few lines than it is to tell them to click on loads of stuff.
It's not harder for the user, it's just different. In fact, it's a lot better and easier.
Now-a-days you can do everything in Linux via a GUI. It's just simpler to do it via the CLI a lot of the time, in a tutorial.