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 September 14th 2007 5:30PM
So many anti-Linux comments by Apple folks. Why do you guys even read a tech site when you can't even handle Linux?
Its funny that apple fanbois are anti-linux, considering their underlying OS is BSD, yet another system V variant. Personally I use them all, Windows primarily for gaming, Apple for my personal laptop, BSD for my firewall and website, Suse for my servers, etc.
give a freshly installed Xp to a non-tech savvy person and see how the get trying to play .flac .ogg .m4a xvid mp4 from the off. I wonder how far they get.
Click open file --> "Open With" ???
Do they know what a driver is?
Do they know how to play DVD without having to find/buy an application?
It's taken me many, many years to do what i can do with windows when compared to the few months with Linux (slack, debian, ubuntu)
Non-tech savvy trying to play flac and ogg?
No duh he would say that ubuntu sucks...any newb would. I bet he didn't have beryl or kiba :P
Hey engadget, here's a story for you...
"Blog site surpasses 500th iphone blog"
might have the same effect
or XGL and it's secksiness =D
linux = more efficient than windows too! less hardware specs for cooler graphical things.
old men and their stupidity... bah
He has not even tried more than 5 minutes ubuntu and he is saying that. In Ubuntu is easier to get the codecs than in Window and many things more and free.
That's utter BS. In Windows, no one prompts you do "download codecs".
I agree with Mossberg. I tried Ubuntu after being extremely disappointed with Vista. Version 7 is a lot better than 6, but yes, there are loads of little hassles. Even though I know perfectly well what a codec is, I don't want to have to download it. DVDs need to just play, hello? The final blow - for me - was that VPN didn't work. I am sure I could make it work if I spent a week on online forums and recompiled the kernel a few times, but I really don't have any interest in doing that.
Mossbergs article is 100% on the money. Even Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth agrees.
DVDs need to just play, hello?
You do realize that DVDs don't play under windows natively. You need other software with codecs to play them. How Ironic.
dont have time for 3 foot command lines and apt get etc bullcrap,
im still waiting and testing now and then a new install but its not yet complete without alot of hassle and headache.
The average person finds connecting wireless difficult, Moss is correct. I too wish we could kill MS window sand all of its flavors but Ubuntu is not mainstream yet and is not the going to do it.
I've been complaining about the MP3 thing for a long time. Many hardcore Linux users underestimate the need for simplicity for the vast majority of PC users. When they double click an MP3, they expect it to play. They don't expect to have to install codecs (even if the OS intercepts them and prompts them), they expect it to just work. Endusers don't care (or understand) about MP3 licensing fees. Grandma's just going to wonder why the music-noise isn't coming out of her thinking-box.
Canonical is not a non-profit organization, and the Ubuntu Foundation still hasn't touched their $10 million in seed money. They need to secure an OS-wide MP3 licensing deal.
The MP3 patents expire/become invalid in the US in 2012. The per-year flat rate licensing fee for MP3 is $50,000 per year. Therefore, to secure a five-year MP3 license, covering Ubuntu from now until when the patents are no longer valid (in the US anyhow) would only cost $250,000, a small portion of the Ubuntu Foundation's unspent seed money. Not to mention that Canonical could pay it and save the foundation from dipping into their fund.
Besides, what're they doing with that $10 million? Sitting on it? Are they not keeping it somewhere where they can collect interest? Interest on $10 million should alone be far more than the MP3 licensing fees.
I agree with Mossberg. I used ubuntu 7.04 exclusively for about 4 months. Wasnt worth it. Windows is better. I hope they improve it.
Money quote from TFA: Mark Shuttleworth, the South African-born founder of the Ubuntu project, told me this week that "it would be reasonable to say that this is not ready for the mass market."
Apologists, please shut up now.
Wait, I thought that the reason MP3 codecs weren't included in ANY free linux distribution was because those codecs cost money. With Windows and OSX, some of the price you pay for those OS's goes towards paying for those licenses. With ANY free OS, providing those licenses without paying for them would result in a sticky legal situation. So, MP3 codecs are not included with free linux distros for business reasons, not because the software needs "polish". That being said, all Linux distros need "polish", that's the nature of open source (especially when Apple actively prevents iTunes from working with Linux).
In the end, I get Windows for my Mom, OSX for my wife, and Linux for me. There's a place for each OS.
What has your mom done to you?
...kidding... ;)
As I said, the MP3 patents expire or become invalid in 2012 (in the US anyhow). With $50,000 per year in flat rate licensing fees, that's only a quarter million; the Ubuntu Foundation is sitting on a $10 million seed fund that Canonical gave them that they haven't touched yet, and Canonical can certainly afford to pay it. It's well within their budgets. In fact, it's significantly less than the interest the foundation would be earning on their $10 million.
Nikster - that's funny. No, I actually love my Mom very much. She's just used to Windows and not interested in learning a new OS.
Adam Zey - What's your point? Seriously, what's the point of your rant. Are you honestly telling me that you've got a better idea what the Ubuntu people should spend THEIR money on. I don't pretend to have a clue what their budget is like, and where they should be spending their money. But I do know for a FACT that they have lots of areas in need of their very valuable resources. I have confidence that their spending their money in the best possible way, trying to get the most "bang for their buck". They have after all demonstrated good judgment already by creating an awesome, FREE OS. One that as far as I and WALT MOSSBERG can tell, only needs a few codec's and some "polish" to be put onto a level playing field with OS X. Seriously, I find it funny that OS X disciples are turning their noses up at Ubuntu because it's not as good as OS X. I would think that they would be embarrassed that this FREE OS is even close to competing with what Apple is charging money for. I think that it makes more sense to expect a much better product form those who charge money, then it does to expect a comparable product from those who give it away for free. After all, ya get what ya pay for. ...But with Ubuntu, you get even more?
To all people telling that opening terminal is scary.
That is load of B.S.
I can send response e-mail to friend telling him to copy-paste line from the message into terminal - and that would fix problem he had complained about. I can tell him to read man pages, if he wants to too.
Now, try to do that on Windows. Describing how to launch regedit and fix couple of fields? Did you ever tried to explain how to do that?? Or the XP's "Computer Management"? Which really should be called "User Frustration".
If you complain about "launching terminal" guys, you really never needed to support Windows users then. Supporting Windows (especially remotely) is *NIGHTMARE*.
Heck. I can support Linux users. For Windows (and that what IT deps do all the frigging time) I very often say "you can't do it."
The fact that you are not forced to scour the web for software is hardly a flaw. The fact that you can go to any website, click on an executable without knowing if it really does what it purports to do, and have it potentially lay waste to your system is a flaw.
The centralized repository model is proven, you need look no further than the Firefox extension system. Unless you whitelist websites, the only trusted provider for extensions is addons.mozilla.org. Ubuntu (and Debian), however, take it a step further though and actually verify ALL of the software in their repositories.
And before someone spouts off about proprietary software and how the small-time developer cannot get his software packaged, take a look at PPA (https://help.launchpad.net/PPAQuickStart) and the Canonical commercial repository.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am an Ubuntu developer, but my comments do not necessarily reflect that of the greater Ubuntu community.
Like Mark Cuban.. why is Walt Mossberg relevant in today's culture?
Computers are tools. Tools are used to make work faster and easier. Linux makes computer use harder, thus it will never be a major OS. If Linux users continue to act like there still in their 1980's computer clubs and dating girls, Linux will alway be just a hobby OS.
$10 million = Golden Parachute
The problem I had with Ubuntu was playing a DVD.
Even after reading and applying the stuff needed it just didn't happen on the machine I was trying to set it up on.
I have everything I do down to a science on Windows XP. It works better for me.
Shafted
Ubuntu, less so that other Linux flavors, is a bit hard to set up if you are not familiar with Linux, but it is kind to the end user. I think if dell is going to distribute with their systems they should include a manual. Personally i wouldn't want any preinstaled crap on my pc but if someone wanted to save some cash this would be a good option.
Walt Mossberg is a used Douche Nozzle.
When is Walt going to crawl out of SJ's ass? He doesn't know the first thing about computers or Linux.
Walt really needs to tidy up his bookshelves.
I tired to put Ubuntu twice on my gateway laptop, I couldnt get the resolution to change from 800x600.Went to forums for someone who knows nothing they were useless. I think instead of 200 different distros ,if they banded together and made one that kicked butt.They could topple Windows.
"...gateway laptop"
Comprised of hardware so cheapened and crippled and it can be considered proprietary. I'm surprised -any- OS runs on Gateway hardware.
First of all, Ubuntu is a completely different operating system than Windows or OSX. At some point upon using either of those systems you had to LEARN how to do things. Ubuntu offers everything they offer and HEAPS and LOADS more all FREE, you just have to chose to re-learn a new system. So if you are not willing to learn, then go away we don't need you; and if you are then welcome on board.
Also, in the 21st century is there any excuse for not knowing how LOOK SOMETHING UP? If you can't figure it out, then look it up, or ask someone; but do go blaming other people because you are not smart enough to understand thats foolish, and you will be left behind because you have not the ability to learn.
In closing, if you are looking for a new operating system that is free, open, and better on your system resources then I challenge you to LEARN Ubuntu. It is without a doubt going to be the largest Linux distro, and is getting better ever six months with new releases. Conversely if you can't learn then you are doomed to fail, and we won't have to put up with your whining too much longer anyway.
That attitude is why they will never beat windows.
It's tough talk, but I can't disagree with the guy. I've dipped my toe in Linux before, and found that although there's a lot to like, there are also far too many little complications. If I had the time and energy, I could probably work them all out, but isn't that missing the point slightly? An operating system should allow you to use all your hardware and software without complications, to put it simply, it should just work! Linux is so close to that, but unfortunately not quite there yet in my eyes. I'll be trying some ditros soon to see if I can switch over to it, because I really do like Linux in theory and in practice, but if it's not going to work for me, then I really don't have the time for it in my life right now!
I have to agree-I am still not using Linux, though I have tried several editions in the past few years and I am kinda computer technician not just end user. Somehow there is always something missing, malfunctioning or just simply far too complicated. Most of the people do not want to read 15 pages of instrunctions to run a wlan card. Plus there are problems with the graphic cards, with the GUI which is most of the time unstable, etc. When there will be a well working Linux edition, I will be the first to switch from Windoz.
Like I give a damn what that old Apple-pansy thinks.
Sigh. Yet another religious comments war.
Ubuntu needs criticism. The more people point out the little niggling problems the more of those little niggling problems will get fixed. It's a process of chipping away at the remaining issues that stop Ubuntu being a dumb end user operating system. They've made huge strides in the last year and it's getting closer and closer. Keep fixing, keep shipping early and often and we'll get there.
I don't know if you are referring to (or even read) my comments, but I think that some of the points he made were defunct. The whole codec thing is the primary one, considering how easy it is in the latest versions (just requires a user to hit next 3 times and bingo, sorted.)
Right... the first thing I would like to point out when it comes to the "codec" malarkey is that it doesn't work on any of the three mentioned platforms (Ubuntu/MacOS X/Windows).
In windows you can, by default, play MP3s, if you want to rip MP3s you're going to have to resort to downloading/installing. Windows Media Player (WMP) wants you to PAY for the privilege of downloading a codec that can encode to MP3. I haven't even TRIED to do OGG or FLAC...
In MacOS X you can actually both play and rip MP3s which is nice. However, if you want to play an MPEG2 movie file you're going to have to download and PAY for a piece of software that enables this. On top of that Apple has now disabled the ability to use MPEG2 within iMovie. So, this one doesn't work either.
In Kubuntu/Ubuntu/Linux you KNOW you have to download the codecs and they will give you every freedom you want to do whatever the hardware can do. There's no restrictions on what you can/can't do.
On top of this, Ubuntu/Kubuntu (and Debian based systems) provide one benefit that actually surpasses ANYTHING that MacOS X and Windows offers; and that's automatic security updates of _EVERYTHING_ that's installed via the package management system. This means that every application, every library, etc will be kept up to date. Windows can't do this, Mac OS X can't do this and therefore they're more of a security risk than the other ones.
And don't come tell me that MacOS X is some god-sent (jobs-sent?!) OS, It took me 5 minutes to figure out the user-unfriendly way of installing stuff. You have to drag the application onto your applications icon. How is that logical? In Kubuntu you go to the application intaller and install the software. In windows you have to learn to double click the setup.exe file.
Neither of the three operating systems are perfect, they all have their quirks and mood-swings. Ubuntu/Kubuntu are making immense headway at the moment. Mossy might be right, but he might be wrong in a year or so.
Microsoft should be quaking in their boots, Apple will keep their fanboys...
PS, I'm typing this on my Mac (which I like, not love), I've got 2 Kubuntu machines and 2 Windows machines. They're all tools.
http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu:Feisty#How_to_install_DVD_playback_capability
http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu:Feisty#How_to_install_Multimedia_Codecs
I don't thing it's THAT techy, you don't even need to use a terminal because you can install and uninstall packets with synaptic or other 32bits graphic software. How will you play quicktime movies on windows? you will have to look for a web where you can download quicktime, download it, install it and hope it hasn't change your default video player. In ubuntu you will only have to install the w32codecs package and that's it, and you always use the same software to install, uninstall or update software.
In the other hand, let's say you want to modify a .doc or .odt file, can you do it out-of-the-box with windows? No. And with linux? Yes, and the same to almost every office document format. Now lets say you wan't to edit a image with a professional software, in windows out-of-the-box you've got... ¿paint? in linux there's gimp, much more powerfull. Moreover, with synaptic you only need to select the software you want and hit install, you don't have to go to the internet and try to find a valid updated software installation program. And, of course, generally you won't need thoose anti-virus-spyware-etc so you can use your computer with far less risks. And there's also the freedom, and also ubuntu is for free. Aps, and there'are a lot of ubuntu derivated that will help you like edubuntu, gooubuntu, etc depending on what your needs are.
I think Walt Mossberg's article is completly partial, I'm the only software developer in my familly and all my relatives use ubuntu. It's not difficult, it's only different. And finally, windows is not THAT easy, every person who has windows has a friend that will repair the operating system when it crashes or that will help him when there's something he don't know how to do, I've been one of thoose helping friends for a long time so don't tell me windows (or even apple) are easier because I've been helping a lot of people a lot of time when they found something difficult.
Is that guy still alive? I thought he died at the last Apple event when he tried to put his entire head up Jobs' arse...
I use a couple Linux distros in addition to Windows. Ubuntu is one of them, and I like it a lot. But I think what people tend to forget is what it is like to be very uninformed when it comes to computers. If most of you are like me, the last time I was uninformed about computers was in 6th grade when I started figuring out machine language on my old Apple II+.
I've tried installing Ubuntu for a couple of people who literally know nothing about computers other than how to use a GUI like Windows or Mac. They both hated it. Getting everything to work was, for them, a nightmare.
It's hard to mentally put yourself back to that level of computer non-experience, but for the average person who just knows how to turn on a computer and click a mouse, neither Ubuntu nor any other Linux distro I've seen are anywhere close to being as easy as Windows or MacOS, and none are as close to 'just working' as Windows or MacOS.
I'll continue to use Linux, and I'm sure many others here will as well. But you have to be realistic about getting the average person on board. It's not going to happen until substantial improvements are made, and until someone with almost no computer knowledge can use Linux as well as anything else.
at last, walt is 100% correct on this one, hopefully it spurs ubuntu onto making an os that actualy can rival at least windows 2000
Most of these arguments do not stand up to the light of the reality of how these OSes end up on computers. Windows comes PREINSTALLED. Not only could my aunt not install ubuntu, she can't install windows vista. (the partitioning stage confused her - and as for installing drivers post-install, she couldn't do it either.) And she's no stranger to tech, she spent twenty years operating mainframes with no problems. Another example, again using my aunt, is her TV/DVD recorder/Cable box. I spent an hour configuring this yesterday, and now she can record programs and watch tv at the same time with no problems, just by pressing the buttons. In fact, she can do everything her entertainment system can allow. Purely because I set it up for her.
Mossberg is right in some ways, you know. Non-technical friends of mine spent a while installing ubuntu and complained a while about not being able to play mp3s right away; and it's unreasonable to expect them to open a terminal and type "sudo apt-get install vlc"; nothing could be simpler for engadget readers, but it's not easy for everyone to understand what that does. Where installing linux requires downloading an ISO, partititioning your hard disk and getting codecs (even where easyubuntu and automatix can do that for you), it's _just too much_ for the average user.
Then again, so is installing Windows XP via "boot camp" on a mac.
But the future of linux on the desktop, assuming it has one, is preinstalled. It will probably start in education, and in the developing world. Where linux is preinstalled, pre-configured and ready for action, there won't be any need to sudo apt-get anything for the average user. In the future, the synaptic package manager will be even easier to use (I know it's dead easy already, but it deserves a "newbie mode". And in spite of Mossberg's problems, I'm certain it will be something like ubuntu that will be there.
Again, remember that the same woman who couldn't figure out where the SCART cable goes, and won't know what to do when her video card doesn't work after installing windows Vista, could use a mainframe over an IBM 2270 terminal, so long as the terminal worked when she turned it on. I think "out of the box" will work best when it's out of the box the computer came in.
Everyone seems to have a opinion, so i might as well give you mine.
I have used windows, 98se then XP when se broke, for a long time, i know how everything works in windows, if it breaks, i can fix it, even if it means a fresh install, i know i can download something, click on it, and install it.
I know, if i want something, someones proberly made it for windows, and that with a bit of serching i can find it.
I have tryed linux, i tryed Ubuntu which the help of a friend of mine, who programs for a liveing and such, we spend 3 nights, trying, to install it on my computer, it just wouldnt, it kept coming up with loads of errors.. god knows why.. it ran perfectly on my laptop, but no.. not on the desktop.. 3 night..
We just gave up in the end and used Fedora, which was nice, but.. i wanted some thing i couldnt use under it, like.. maby my cheap £6 webcam working, no one has made a driver for it, and who would?
Like, accessing my second HDD to get all my music off it, i tryed, i followed like, 3 difrent sets of instructions on how to mount it, i still find random folders in random places i made trying to get a mout point to work.
And then there was grub, i have 2 HDD's, and wam.. i cant remove one.. i have to have both on boot or it wont load, yay?
Well.. in the end, my windows install died, so i reformated the linux disk, and installed XP on it, and started again.
And, i know, that if it breaks again, i can just wipe off a HDD, stick my XP pro disk in and in a hour or two i will be up and running.. and maby in a day or two back to working as normal..
linux, fast, stable, looks nice, works well.. when its going.
I, just, didnt want to spend ages, re learning how to use a computer, when i can use one well enought.
Sure, my os is laggy, bloated in places, and need resting a lot, but it works, and, depending how much of a good mood its in, works well at times.
If you give me a os with windows funcinality, but with much better stability, sure, i would jump on it.
Untill then, im sticking, and im not even going to move upto vista, it costs to much, and my computers a year or so old, and tisnt even a duel core, shock, so i realy dont want to slow it down even more.
Mossberg = iWhore = 0 credibility.
Linux reqires a certain degree of computer knowledge. People need to take this into account when changing os's. As an unwaevering ubuntu user if you cant hack it don't bother using it.