Author Topic: Ubuntu Linux vs. Windows Vista (Read 34115 times)

zridling · « **on:** April 27, 2007, 05:28 AM »

Nice overview of several direct advantages and shortcomings of each OS compared at InformationWeek:
Ubuntu Linux Vs. Windows Vista

Ubuntu is only one Linux distro, but it's clear it's not 2002 anymore. If you don't want Windows anymore, there are other choices.

Dirhael · « **Reply #1 on:** April 27, 2007, 05:56 AM »

I don't quite agree with the author of that article on some points. Don't have the time to go into much detail right now, but the ones that stuck out the most for me was:

* Installation
- "Ubuntu has a slight edge" -- Really, just a slight edge? He doesn't even mention the fact that you will be installing the OS directly from the live CD, which means that you can be browsing the web etc. inside a working environment while the OS happily installs in the background. Compare this to the static nature of a Windows installation, I'd say that Ubuntu has more than just a slight edge there.

* Software installation
- A tie? Surely he must not have really tried Ubuntu for any extended period of time? The package management in any Debian-based distro is far superior to both Windows and other operating systems, simply for the fact that the applications are available with just a simple click no matter who the vendor is (well, non-commercial software anyway). Most importantly though, having software handled by a package manager in that way also means that keeping your OS and 3rd party apps up to date is a breeze as both are handled by the same thing ensuring that you never have to hunt around various websites to get the latest versions (imagine Windows Update, only here it handles everything you've ever installed on your system).

There are a few other problems with the article as well, most notably the fact that his conclusions doesn't really match up with what he actually writes in the various categories. Anyway, I like both systems (well, actually Kubuntu + Vista) and will continue dual-booting as both have things the other one doesn't.

jgpaiva · « **Reply #2 on:** April 27, 2007, 05:59 AM »

Ok, here comes yet another flame war...

People definitelly should stop making these comparisons.

As a university computer engeneering student, i have to use linux for my studies. But that's about as much as i use it.
My opinion is that the comparison they made isn't very fair. From what i've used of ubuntu, it is quite imcomplete, and probably a comparison of WinVista vs OpenSuse would probably get much more similar results.

I was using Ubuntu untill a few days ago. I have now switched to OpenSuse and i'm surprised how much more complete it is.
Currently, the only thing really anoying me in linux, is the fact that there's no way for me to connect my 21' monitor to my laptop and use it as i do in windows. (apparently, that's a failed battle at the moment. but i'm sure they'll figure it out soon..)

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2007, 06:02 AM »

The package management in any Debian-based distro is far superior to both Windows and other operating systems

How can it be superior if it doesn't even exist in windows?

I'm not sure if apt is that much better than Gentoo's portage or fedora's yum or freeBSD's pkg_add, etc,.. but it sure is better than nothing at all!

jgpaiva · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2007, 06:09 AM »

I'm not sure if apt is that much better than Gentoo's portage or fedora's yum or freeBSD's pkg_add, etc,.. but it sure is better than nothing at all!
-Gothi[c] (April 27, 2007, 06:02 AM)

Apt might not be superior, but synaptic is way superior to suse's equivalent (can't remember the name), in the sense that it's so damn easy to add the universe repositories. In suse, it takes some effort set that.

(notice that i say this because one friend of mine that iliterate in this kind of thing added the repositories in ubuntu in 20seconds and after 2 hours of fidling with suse, gave up)

Dirhael · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2007, 06:14 AM »

The package management in any Debian-based distro is far superior to both Windows and other operating systems

How can it be superior if it doesn't even exist in windows?
I'm not sure if apt is that much better than Gentoo's portage or fedora's yum or freeBSD's pkg_add, etc,.. but it sure is better than nothing at all!

-Gothi[c] (April 27, 2007, 06:02 AM)

Hehe, fair enough

Portage is very good as well as you said, but I just don't think it's reasonable to expect your average user to have the patience to compile all his/her programs. I was just about ready to throw out the PC last time I tried compiling the Mozilla package as it just went on and on...and on. Other than that, it's excellent. In fact, everyone should probably install Gentoo at least once from scratch if they want to get to know more about how GNU Linux really works.

I wouldn't say that Yum is on the same level as apt though, as in my experience is just doesn't handle dependencies as well as apt. Unfortunately, that have been my experience with all other RPM based distros as well, which is why I now mainly stick with Debian-based ones.

zridling · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2007, 07:12 AM »

Good point on Gentoo, Dirhael. My favorite alternative has been Fedora Core over SuSe, although I ran SuSe on a separate machine through several versions up to a couple of years ago. For those wanting the same (er, similar) look and feel of Windows, install Kubuntu instead. The UI learning curve is almost zero coming from Windows.

Three things I like about Vista over XP*:

Almost unattended install
Disk management
Finally, a 64-bit version

* And yet, Linux has long had these advantages.

f0dder · « **Reply #7 on:** April 27, 2007, 07:19 AM »

Finally, a 64-bit version - umm, there's been 64-bit XP and Win2003 for quite a while? (and previous windows as well, although not x86 64bit

)

Dirhael · « **Reply #8 on:** April 27, 2007, 07:26 AM »

Finally, a 64-bit version - umm, there's been 64-bit XP and Win2003 for quite a while? (and previous windows as well, although not x86 64bit )
-f0dder (April 27, 2007, 07:19 AM)

True, but the problem is that you have not been able to actually purchase it in stores. At least with XP, you had to contact Microsoft to get hold of a copy if it wasn't bundled as a OEM copy with your PC.

zridling · « **Reply #9 on:** April 27, 2007, 07:47 AM »

f0dder, you're right, and like a dolt I can't believe I'd forgotten about XP x64, which only worked on Itanium processors? (Don't know for sure.) But even if you buy a 32-bit copy of Vista, you can have the 64-bit version sent to you (for cost) or download it. Only Vista Ultimate has both versions on the DVD, if I remember.

The other thing I like about Ubuntu (or any Linux d.) is that I don't have to toss out my old machine. I can game the crap out of that sucker. For example, I use my Linux machine to download porn all night (so sue me) off Usenet while doing other junk on the Vista machine — important stuff, like catching up on my Three Stooges knowledge (so sue me).

On second thought, don't sue me. I've lost all but one time I've ever been to court and that scene is a real downer.

f0dder · « **Reply #10 on:** April 27, 2007, 08:49 AM »

Humm, it does look like there's only OEM versions of 64-bit XP available, but you can get an OEM copy by buying it with a harddrive, mouse, whatever... at least in .dk. And the 64-bit version of XP is for x64, x86-64, amd64, EM64t, or whatever you want to call it - that is, 64-bit x86 processors.

For Vista, don't you have to buy a separate license if you want the 64-bit version? I don't think one license would cover both 32- and 64-bit versions, considering it's two separate products in the stores I've seen (same cost though).

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #11 on:** April 27, 2007, 09:14 AM »

Vista licensing (non-OEM) covers both 32 and 64 bit in the same license (AIUI you have to request the 64 bit disc though by contacting MS). You can only install one copy though (so you can't install both versions).

gjehle · « **Reply #12 on:** April 27, 2007, 11:48 AM »

people should stop evangelizing and start using different kinds of operating systems for what they are good for and needed.
please, stop comparing

app103 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 27, 2007, 04:44 PM »

Most importantly though, having software handled by a package manager in that way also means that keeping your OS and 3rd party apps up to date is a breeze as both are handled by the same thing ensuring that you never have to hunt around various websites to get the latest versions (imagine Windows Update, only here it handles everything you've ever installed on your system).
-Dirhael (April 27, 2007, 05:56 AM)

Does anybody remember Big Fix back in the days when you could subscribe to the Tucows Fixlets?

I loved it!

Kept it in your tray and it beeped whenever Tucows posted a newer version of anything you had installed...or MS released an update...or your antivirus dats were outdated...or you needed to defrag...or a bunch of other stuff.

I really miss the Tucows fixlets...was the main reason for installing Big Fix. When they got rid of that, they destroyed their program, in my opinion. And nothing has come along to take its place that is just as good or better, since.

db90h · « **Reply #14 on:** April 27, 2007, 05:12 PM »

Not really relevant to a semi-objective comparison between OSes, but...

In the future, there will be OS religions. Their mandates will include evangelism in order to save the souls of the non-believers. This evangelism will yield a world war. After all, God forbid we have true freedom to make our own personal choices. For as you know, choosing something is a threat to all those who didn't make the same choice.

After the war, the ruling OS religion will divide into rigid factions who battle amongst themselves until yet another world war finally kills everyone.

gjehle · « **Reply #15 on:** April 27, 2007, 05:47 PM »

In the future, there will be OS religions. Their mandates will include evangelism in order to save the souls of the non-believers.
-db90h (April 27, 2007, 05:12 PM)

dunno where you've been living but that religion thingy's been going on for quite some years already.
stupid.

This evangelism will yield a world war.
-db90h (April 27, 2007, 05:12 PM)

not quite there yet.

Renegade · « **Reply #16 on:** April 27, 2007, 07:54 PM »

As far as I'm concerned, the show stopper is software for the platform.

Almost nobody writes desktop software for Linux because the Linux crowd all too often expects things for free.

Yes - there is desktop software for *nix, but there are far too many critical applications that I need that simply won't run on anything but Windows. *nix just isn't a viable alternative at the moment.

The article isn't very realistic in some areas. e.g. "The Winner: Ubuntu, because it comes with OpenOffice -- although that can be added to Windows easily enough." This is a reason? The author also complains about WordPad not being updated in years (also about GIMP vs. Paint elsewhere in the article). He's missing the point. Microsoft doesn't create highly functional software for distribution with Windows because it's making room for other software authors to develop for their platform. This is why Microsoft is so successful. They've made Windows friendly to software authors who write software for their platform and make it more attractive.

Ubuntu (or other *nix platforms) need widespread adoption and better licensing before they can become a really viable alternative to Windows. It's got nothing to do with the technology - it's purely a business consideration. And these are always the most difficult problems to solve. The technology problems are much easier.

For example, the GPL is a show stopper for Linux. Legally, you can't use proprietary hardware drivers on Linux because of the GPL. This is an area where the Linux crowd want to have its cake and eat it too. The GPL is viral, and including those drivers violates the license agreement. The GPL is very good at keeping things free, but it's too aggressive for commercial developers.

Again, the problem here comes down to the motivation for commercial developers willingness to develop for *nix and the consequently poor amount of software available for *nix as well as the lack of high end applications available for *nix. There are very few highly functional software packages on *nix compared to OSX or Windows. (OSX doesn't have the problem of license violations because it's BSD, which is friendly to commercial developers.)

This point is not negotiable and there is no viable counter argument. There are a few good software packages for *nix, e.g. Open Office, Audacity, Jahshaka, The GIMP, etc., but none of them approaches the number or quality of their commercial competitors on OSX or Windows. Just take Audacity for example, and then list a tiny fraction of the applications available on OSX/Windows: ProTools, Samplitude, SAW Studio, Sound Forge, ACID, Gold Wave, the 50 trillion "me too" programs...

Ubuntu would be much more attractive with a BSD license. But that won't happen. Again, the problem isn't the technology, is the business decisions, which are purely human, and as humans, we have a solid proven track record of killing ourselves and other insanities that seem to indicate a deeper problem.

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #17 on:** April 27, 2007, 08:25 PM »

Yes - there is desktop software for *nix, but there are far too many critical applications that I need that simply won't run on anything but Windows. *nix just isn't a viable alternative at the moment.

Usually because that's because people don't know what the equivalents are under linux. Or they expect the same behavior out of software that is designed from a different philosophy.

Legally, you can't use proprietary hardware drivers on Linux because of the GPL.

Wrong. There are plenty of proprietary hardware drivers for linux, and they are all legal. They are not allowed to be statically compiled into the kernel and distributed that way, but they are allowed as kernel modules (think dll's in windows, same thing.). The very reason commercial developers hold back on developing linux drivers or software is because of misinformation like this.

The fact of the matter is, there is only about 3 or 4 Linux distro's out there, among the hundreds, that refuse to include any proprietary software into their repositories and cd's (eg: blag). And even then you CAN still install proprietary stuff on them if you really want to.

Renegade · « **Reply #18 on:** April 27, 2007, 08:47 PM »

Yes - there is desktop software for *nix, but there are far too many critical applications that I need that simply won't run on anything but Windows. *nix just isn't a viable alternative at the moment.

Usually because that's because people don't know what the equivalents are under linux. Or they expect the same behavior out of software that is designed from a different philosophy.
-Gothi[c] (April 27, 2007, 08:25 PM)

There was some high-end multimedia stuff for IRIX (?) a while back, but SGI went under.

Here I just don't see how Open Office is a real replacement for Microsoft Office. OO is an office suite. MS Office is an office suite and development platform. There's no comparison.

Jahshaka is still very far from being a real replacement for a commercial video editor like Liquid.

There is nothing for any Linux platform that compares to ProTools.

As for philosophy, not sure what you mean there. There are a lot of powerful command line tools for *nix, but let's face it. We're lazy. We all want nice GUIs that make our life easier. It's never about the software - it's always about getting a task done with the software. There are more friendly apps now for *nix, but there's still a "software" mentality that seems to go with a lot of it instead of the "let's get stuff done" mentality that is exemplified by the Mac.

Legally, you can't use proprietary hardware drivers on Linux because of the GPL.

Wrong. There are plenty of proprietary hardware drivers for linux, and they are all legal. They are not allowed to be statically compiled into the kernel and distributed that way, but they are allowed as kernel modules (think dll's in windows, same thing.). The very reason commercial developers hold back on developing linux drivers or software is because of misinformation like this.

There are a couple interpretations of the GPL. You're using the very liberal one. I don't think that's a safe bet when you're developing commercial software. I don't know of a single developer that's willing to gamble there. Pretty much everyone I know that develops commercial software sides with the more conservative interpretation of the GPL.

I'm not spreading misinformation; I'm simply being conservative in my interpretation of the GPL, which is the norm for commercial developers.

Again, the best source for GPL information is the FSF. But even then, there are 'factions' with different interpretations. The recent food-fight over the GPL v3 shows that. (The GPL v3 was at times/places viral to hardware even.)

The GPL presents real problems that you just don't have with other licenses. The ambiguity in it only exacerbates those problems.

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #19 on:** April 27, 2007, 09:17 PM »

Here I just don't see how Open Office is a real replacement for Microsoft Office. OO is an office suite. MS Office is an office suite and development platform. There's no comparison.

If you look deeper into OO, you'll see that it's also a development platform, it has a broad api and you can write java scripts/plugins for it, documentation lacks a bit though.

Jahshaka is still very far from being a real replacement for a commercial video editor like Liquid.

Cinerella, Kino, LiVes, Blender,... ?

There is nothing for any Linux platform that compares to ProTools.

I haven't tried ProTools yet, but for professional audio ardour is pretty good.

We're lazy. We all want nice GUIs that make our life easier. It's never about the software - it's always about getting a task done with the software.

I'm lazy, which is why I use commandline software. It lets me do multiple tasks with one command or keybinding that would take several mouseclicks, windows and dialogs in a GUI. It's all about what you're used to, one is not inferior to the other, there's no need to start bashing one or the other.

There are more friendly apps now for *nix, but there's still a "software" mentality that seems to go with a lot of it instead of the "let's get stuff done" mentality that is exemplified by the Mac.

Seems you just answered your own question about what I ment by different philosophy. To us commandline folks, GUI apps are unfriendly and frustrating. To you GUI folks, it's the other way around. This 'mentality' is what if causing friction with something you're used to, since many people in the GNU/linux community are comming from a commandline based way of working. It is now that we are seeing some migration of users with different mindsets (eg: windows users) trying to make the jump to GNU/Linux, now that there's some more windowsish applications on Linux, and they get dissapointed when they see that many things still follow that different way of doing things.

Renegade · « **Reply #20 on:** April 27, 2007, 10:14 PM »

We're lazy. We all want nice GUIs that make our life easier. It's never about the software - it's always about getting a task done with the software.

I'm lazy, which is why I use commandline software. It lets me do multiple tasks with one command or keybinding that would take several mouseclicks, windows and dialogs in a GUI. It's all about what you're used to, one is not inferior to the other, there's no need to start bashing one or the other.

-Gothi[c] (April 27, 2007, 09:17 PM)

Fair enough. But I don't mean to bash one or the other. What I should have said is that for the "normal user" the command line thing is very difficult. I use the command line for some things, but trying to explain how to do those to my technically challeged sister? Yikes. She can manage it... Given enough time...

The thing about the GUI is that while it still may take longer to perform some tasks, it leaves less questions in the user's mind. "C:\" or "$:" is very intimidating. The learning curve, and the fear of the learning curve is the problem. Sure - anyone can learn to use gcc, and it's a very powerful tool, but ask your mother to do that kind of thing.

Getting things done for most people shouldn't really involve the learning curve that a lot of software requires - to be fair that applies to both command line and GUI - but there is less pressure with a GUI.

For OO and being a development platform, documentation is just soooo important. I don't know if I would call javascript something that's really feasible for real development though. At some point it's going to break because it's just far too slow. (Likewise, VBScript isn't very good either.) MS Office is very mature and very well proven (despite my general lothing of it).

Again, for software, the requirements for LiVes:

* mplayer 0.90rc1+ compiled with jpeg/png support (version 1.0pre8+ recommended)
* ImageMagick 5+
* perl 5+
* gtk+ 2.8+
* libjpeg62
* gdk-pixbuf-loaders
* sox
* python 2.3.4+ (recommended)
* SDL (recommended)
* mencoder 1.0-pre5+ (recommended)
* libmjpeg-tools (recommended)
* libtheora (recommended)
* libjack/jackit (recommended)
* xmms (optional)
* cdda2wav (optional)

Wow. Tell me that's not going to scare the Hell out of people! "libtheora"? "sox"? Ummm... English please? For 99% of people this kind of stuff is simply terrifying and essentially renders the software unusable. The next part:

For compilation from source, you will need:

Is even scarier for people that aren't developers or extremely tech-savvy.

Whether or not LiVes (and the others) live up to the kind of quality required to replace something like Liquid, well, I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it did. There are very good reasons why commercial NLEs cost upwards of $10,000 or $25,000.

I don't mean to trivialize the value in LiVes or other software like it. In fact, LiVes actually looks pretty similar to Liquid.

Even if it does live up to quality requiremetns, the problem here is that for professionals, it's too technical to get running and there's very little incentive to switch from another platform that they already know. For regular users, again, the requirements to get up and running are still massive.

Taking another look at requirements, there are the potential problems of "DLL Hell" and other applications breaking. This problem is solved with .NET, but we still have yet to see much in the Mono community for projects like this (relatively speaking).

It's pretty hard to claim that Ubuntu and *nix are ready for the mass market. While it may work well for those that are already over the learning curve, the masses simply won't tolerate that. Can anyone say "Mac" or "iPod"? They're easy and get things done for people.

Hopefully we'll see improvements to user-friendliness and the like so that it truly has mass market appeal, but until then, all the Ubuntu hype will remain just that. Hype.

I don't mean to be adversarial here. I'm just trying to point out that the (mass) market hasn't and won't accept the current offerings. The people here in this forum are very far from being representative of the mass market. There are far too many developers and extremely tech-savvy people here. We are not representative of the norm here by any means.

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #21 on:** April 27, 2007, 10:47 PM »

but trying to explain how to do those to my technically challeged sister? Yikes. She can manage it... Given enough time...

The thing about the GUI is that while it still may take longer to perform some tasks, it leaves less questions in the user's mind. "C:\" or "$:" is very intimidating. The learning curve, and the fear of the learning curve is the problem. Sure - anyone can learn to use gcc, and it's a very powerful tool, but ask your mother to do that kind of thing.

Getting things done for most people shouldn't really involve the learning curve that a lot of software requires - to be fair that applies to both command line and GUI - but there is less pressure with a GUI.
-Renegade (April 27, 2007, 10:14 PM)

I'm not sure if one is more intimidating than the other when you're used to it. And that's the key I guess,... back in the DOS days, 10 year old kids knew how to install and run a game ( I know most of my friends and me did

), and so did most other people, which usually involved several commandline commands. Nobody thought it was all that intimidating back then?

A good GUI may have a less steep learning curve, but some complicated GUI's i'm sure can be just as intimidating to a new user than a series of commandline commands, I'm sure.

Not everyone agreed with the switch, I remember I was very upset when they dropped normal access to real dos in windows, which is about when I started getting more into GNU/Linux.

Again, for software, the requirements for LiVes:

* mplayer 0.90rc1+ compiled with jpeg/png support (version 1.0pre8+ recommended)
* ImageMagick 5+
* perl 5+
* gtk+ 2.8+
* libjpeg62
* gdk-pixbuf-loaders
* sox
* python 2.3.4+ (recommended)
* SDL (recommended)
* mencoder 1.0-pre5+ (recommended)
* libmjpeg-tools (recommended)
* libtheora (recommended)
* libjack/jackit (recommended)
* xmms (optional)
* cdda2wav (optional)

Wow. Tell me that's not going to scare the Hell out of people! "libtheora"? "sox"? Ummm... English please? For 99% of people this kind of stuff is simply terrifying and essentially renders the software unusable. The next part:

Well, normally you wouldn't have to worry about all these dependencies. An "apt-get lives" (or the equivalent for your distro) should automatically fetch everything you need. (and it does.)

It's pretty hard to claim that Ubuntu and *nix are ready for the mass market. While it may work well for those that are already over the learning curve, the masses simply won't tolerate that. Can anyone say "Mac" or "iPod"? They're easy and get things done for people.

As stated above, back in the DOS days noone had a problem, I don't know if it's a matter of ubuntu being 'ready', it's more a matter of the market changing, so in a way the market isn't ready and not the other way around. For the current market, I'd say it's pretty close, but for it to be adopted, OEM's will have to start pre-installing it as default OS instead of windows, which will never happen.
The sad truth is, that in these things, what matters isn't the product or even what the user wants, it all comes down to marketing and eliminating competition.

Hopefully we'll see improvements to user-friendliness and the like so that it truly has mass market appeal, but until then, all the Ubuntu hype will remain just that. Hype.

I agree with you there, I'm getting a bit sick about hearing from ubuntu, while there's so many other just as good distro's out there, but oh well. I'm also sick of people trying to convert people. Everyone should just use what they like best. I understand that people need to be educated about the choices out there, but as pointed out before, that doesn't really matter, the masses don't even want choice, they just want whatever they are used to, which is what they initially get when they get their PC, which is what the OEM's preinstall,... They want what their neightbours, schools, friends have.

I don't mean to be adversarial here. I'm just trying to point out that the (mass) market hasn't and won't accept the current offerings. The people here in this forum are very far from being representative of the mass market.

Don't want to be adversarial either, I just felt compelled to offer the view from the other camp since I don't want *nix visitors to donationcoder to be scared away, thinking we'll chop of their heads with a big MS axe :p

Like pointed out before, markets change, software changes, there will always be a mainstream and underdogs where users with specialty needs find a home.

gjehle · « **Reply #22 on:** April 28, 2007, 07:43 AM »

@ renegade
don't want it? don't use it.
nobody's forcing anybody.
but if you really prefer to be a hater, get some better arguments going.
so far i haven't seen any argument of yours that wasn't based on some kind of assumption like
"if you want to do this special tasks..."
"if you deal with 'normal' users..."
if if if if whatever

nobody really cares what OS you use or prefer, or maybe someone does, then just tell em, don't try to be a hater and brag about how much better your preference is over someone else's.
it sounds an awful lot like: "meh... look how much cooler my toy is! you suck!"

and this goes for everyone who's doing this crappy comparison/evangelizing BS out there.
get a life. honestly.
if you wanna make it your life, enroll for some debate club or get into politics, you can do stuff like that there all day long....

zridling · « **Reply #23 on:** April 28, 2007, 10:19 AM »

Renegade, you make the classic — and most persuasive — argument in favor of Windows. I've said (and I keep a log) of the very few Windows programs left that's keeping me from going Linux 24/7. I'm down to three now, which for all I do on my computer, isn't an overwhelming advantage anymore. Also, the regular version of Freespire comes loaded with proprietary drivers. Fortunately, companies like NVidia have made their drivers open source, which is another advantage for those wanting to opt out of the Microsoft tax.

So I don't see comparisons like these in terms of war or all black-and-white; rather one of choice — users can choose Linux, Windows, or that other thing and not regret it. (Okay, maybe they'll regret that third thing, whose name I will not speak.)

Renegade · « **Reply #24 on:** April 28, 2007, 10:37 AM »

Gothi[c],

The thing with the "years ago" thing is that years ago, there was no choice. Today there is. And it is all much easier now. For the thing with the "10 year olds", they aren't the purchasers. It's the dad (or mome) that makes the purchase there. Yeah - when I was 10 years old I guided my parents decisions in the computer sector because they knew nothing about computers then. It's a different world now. People my age are the parents now. Back when I was 10 years old, DOS wasn't a problem for me because I was 10 and I had lots of time to learn new things. My parents didn't have that time available. It's those people that we as software and IT professionals need to target - the people with the buying power that are very busy and don't have time to play around with this, that and the other thing. They just need to get a task done. They want to print their family photos, burn a DVD with a family video, blah blah blah. Things need to be easy to do for those people - the ones with the purchasing power.

Yes - I know - I'm skewing the direction towards commercial interests. But these are the interests that propel IT forward. Everything that has ever been done in OSS or FOSS has been done in commercial software first. (OK - maybe there's an exception somewhere, but not many.)

I remember the switch to Windows 95, and I thought that I was being raped of real power with DOS being a second class citizen there. I already had my PC set up to behave as much like UNIX as possible. I was just used to the UNIX way and liked it. (@gjehle - I'm far from a UNIX hater - I rely on UNIX daily.)

The thing is that clicking a button with a label is far easier for most people than typing some obscure command. We live in a world where people are lazy and expect instantaneous gratification. The command line just doesn't fit there. McDonalds is fast food that people love and buy. We need to make our software somewhat like that. (Please don't anyone go off on McDonalds sucks - yes - the food isn't the best, but it is fast.)

With many software packages for UNIX based systems (BTW - Windows NT systems [2000/2003/XP] are UNIX because they are POSIX compliant - I use UNIX in the common manner of "not Windows" though) we still encounter the core problem of the "DLL Hell" that used to plauge Windows (for non-.NET developers).

For the list of requirements, this is real problem whether or not the system takes care of it or not. That's a HUGE list for LiVes. For most people this is just scary.

When it comes to marketing power, OSS or FOSS rarely wins. They just don't have the people with the expertise to promote their products (usually). Those things cost money. People need to eat, have a place to live, have something to work for. Free just doesn't cut it. Most software is written on a 1-off basis for companies and nobody will ever see it outside the company. Firefox and the like are NOT the norm. They are the exception.

As technology progresses, the commercial applications become OSS/FOSS at some point, but they don't start there.

e.g. What do we have in the search sector? Lucene? Maybe a couple others. Search is still the domain of the commercial interests.

I'm not trying to come off as a Microsoft fan-boy here. I really don't care too much one way or the other. I make my living off of software and I also supplement my living with software. The platform isn't really all that important to me. What is important is that at the end of the day I pay the bills, have some money to spend, and some money to save. Pretty boring, isn't it?

The thing here is that Unbuntu isn't "Prime Time" for anyone (developers) in the commercial sector. We are the ones that write the software that people really use first.

For all it's worth, I'm a believer in BSD. That stuff is just plain solid. But it has a place and a purpose. That place isn't on the desktop, unless its OSX.

@gjehle

don't want it? don't use it.
nobody's forcing anybody.
but if you really prefer to be a hater, get some better arguments going.

You need to go back and read again. I'm very far from hating UNIX. I wish that I had some of the UNIX stuff on Windows.

It's not about "forcing", but more about making things easy for people. The UNIX world is still very much in the "just learn it" phase. That doesn't work for most people. Ubuntu may be God's gift to the planet, but if it's not easy people won't use it. I'm not being prescriptive. I'm being descriptive. If you really want to push this point... The number of people that use the software that I'm pushing is in the hundreds of millions (that's 100,000,000's). How many users do you have? I probably know a little bit about this or I'd be fired.

don't try to be a hater and brag about how much better your preference is over someone else's.

I'm not bragging about anything. Where did you read that? I'm pointing out that the software choices for Ubuntu are very sparse. They just aren't "Prime Time" yet. Windows and OSX are "Prime Time" right now.

If we really want to be complete jackasses about things and get down to brass tacks, then...

You want a server:

Use BSD for DNS (and a few other things)
Use Soliaris for anything else
Use Linux for stuff that doesn't matter much
Use Windows for development speed

You want a desktop:

Use Windows
Use OSX
Use BSD
Use some Linux distro

That's it. There really isn't much more. Nobody runs DNS off of Linux. Nobody runs DNS off of Windows. (When it matters.) BSD is far superior to any Linux distro there. But for the desktop, which is the topic of discussion, Ubuntu just doesn't have the developer support that Windows does. That's just a fact. Not an opinion.

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. BSD rules in some areas. Windows rules in developer support. Different OSes have different strengths.

Windows just happens to offer users more choices right now, and when the FSF gets a clue, maybe we'll be able to have a "GPL" that will allow developers to create software for Linux. Until then, Linux will remain a niche. Linux needs developer support on more than just a basic level. It needs real software that people can use commercially. Most offerings on Linux don't approach their commercial alternatives. That's where the GPL completely screws itself. The LGPL is much better and tolerable. (Ummm... Why is OSX based off of BSD???)

get a life. honestly.

Ummm... No comment. Read the above.

I'm going back to my beer now.

(Not that I ever left... God... typing at this point is a real chore!~)