Linux for the "average user" is here
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Nov 11, 2009 3:30 PM EDT |
Steven has fallen into the trap of comparing installing (or worse, upgrading) Ubuntu with preinstalled Windows systems. It's an apples and oranges comparison and I know he knows better than to add to the usual WIndows FUD this way. In an apples-to-apples comparison (i.e.: Windows preloaded to Ubuntu preloaded) he wouldn't have come to the "not ready" conclusion. I've had two systems with Ubuntu preloaded (with Fluendo codecs included, of course) and the did "just work" out of the box. All hardware was just fine and upgrades (within version, not version to version) also just worked. If an Ubuntu system is purchased and used the way a Windows system is purchased and used I find that Ubuntu comes out looking very good indeed. I believe the same could be said of preloaded Mandriva or SUSE. I also am of the opinion, even with a very good 9.10 release, that Ubuntu is hardly the best desktop Linux out there. I really hate when a journalist does the Ubuntu==Linux thing and equates Ubuntu's problems to Linux problems. It just isn't true and does the Linux community a disservice. Am I the only one who has never had a problem with PulseAudio across a wide range of hardware? When I did have a problem with audio on my first netbook (Sylvania g, original model), it was an ALSA problem, not a PulseAudio problem. That netbook had a similar Intel SDA chipset to what Steven is using. The fix was to patch and recompile ALSA. It had nothing to do with PulseAudio. I know Steven is a bright and knowledgeable guy but I have to wonder if he is misclassifying some of the issues. |
| softwarejanitor Nov 11, 2009 3:42 PM EDT |
I often wonder how much different these "reviews" would be if they were done "backwards". Take a pre-installed Linux system and then see how much trouble an "average user" would have getting a properly working Windows installation including getting 3D accelerated video drivers, sound and a similar selection of software to what distros like Ubuntu include in the base install. Comparing a pre-install to the install process just isn't apples to apples. Windows users only think Windows installations are easy because they've never done one, or they've done it so many times they are used to it. In my experience the situation is even worse if you hand a bare PC and a shrink wrap box of Windows to someone who isn't an experienced Windows user (say someone used to Linux or MacOS). They will usually get frustrated with a Windows install in short order. Frankly, from what I've seen Windows isn't ready for the "average user" either, unless they get a pre-installed system either. Even then... how long is it before a lot of them bork it up... |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 11, 2009 4:55 PM EDT |
I agree on the apples/oranges situation of preloaded Windows vs. user- (or expert-) installed Linux. However, my point here is that whether it's Windows preloaded or Ubuntu either preloaded or installed by your friendly neighborhood Linux geek, when it comes to a six-month upgrade, do you call the geek, or do you just do what the Update Manager says, that being "update to the latest release/distribution" or whatever it says in the dialog box? If my mythical user, with a Ubuntu system installed by me, did this upgrade and suddenly had bunches of stuff stop working — as I had going both from 8.04 to 9.04 and then from 9.04 to 9.10, that has nothing to do with how the system was initially installed. And the facts on the ground are that Linux preloads just aren't going to gallop in on a white steed and save us from the indignities of installing the OS and debugging said OS ourselves. I agree that Windows has a distinct advantage regarding the preload because the hardware maker has somewhat of a vested interest in everything working once the user gets the system hooked up and powered on. So even though it's a Windows preload vs. a Ubuntu installation after the fact, that's what we're going to have to deal with. For me, right now, the fact that the upgrades seem to be breaking more than they fix is a problem. Perhaps Ubuntu isn't the distribution that is going to bring Linux to "the masses," to "the next level," or "add your own goal/cliche," but I sure don't see anybody else with that much scale, community involvement, focus on the desktop and desire (although I sometimes doubt the sincerity/commitment) to bring new people into the FOSS revival tent and not just focus on the current Linux-using community. I'm holding desktop Linux in general, Ubuntu in particular to a high standard. As I say in the original piece, we've seen tremendous progress in the past five years, and there should be much more progress in the next five. |
| caitlyn Nov 11, 2009 5:59 PM EDT |
First, the six month release cycle with cutting-edge Ubuntu is NOT for the average user. LTS with a two year release cycle makes much more sense and that is what most OEMs are preloading. If you stick with LTS and updates then we're talking once every two to three years. That's far more sensible and reasonable. I happen to believe that OpenSUSE is as committed to the desktop as Canonical. Considering the size of the desktop developer team in MA I would also say that Red Hat is more committed than most people believe. Mandriva can certainly compete with Ubuntu and is actually more user friendly, IMHO. Ditto Pardus. I think they all want to bring in more customers every bit as much as Canonical does. I think the perceived dominance of Ubuntu on the desktop is actually harmful to the Linux community. Size of community doesn't equate to quality of community. I get much faster and better answers from the Pardus community than I do from Ubuntu. Ditto Vector Linux. The "average user" neither installs nor upgrades an OS, period. With a distro that is supported long term (and Red Hat/CentOS/Oracle/Scientific Linux are better than Canonical in this area, with seven years of support) then the upgrade issue becomes a non-issue. |
| softwarejanitor Nov 11, 2009 6:51 PM EDT |
@Steven_Rosenber I think that Microsoft is too often given a "free pass" on things breaking due to updates too. I've heard plenty of horror stories from Windows users about how they installed some updates and suddenly things quit working too. There are a few factors... Microsoft updates so much less frequently than for example Ubuntu (as caitlyn mentions)... so few Windows users actually do the updates (especially the n00b types, and the experienced Windows users are familiar with how to un f*** Windows when it breaks due to upgrades so they don't perceive it as painfully as they should)... FOSS is evolving and innovating a lot more rapidly than MS is right now. And Microsoft just plain ships a lot less code than distros like Ubuntu do -- a lot of what comes with most Linux distros requires a lot of add-ons and 3rd party software to approximate under Windows. And then there is that Microsoft has a lot more resources to regression test things, and they get a lot more help from hardware makers with regards to things like drivers. And generally MS gets a free pass and or points fingers if 3rd party software updates or code causes problems. Anyway, what I'm saying is that while Linux (and particularly Ubuntu) aren't perfect, MS isn't as good as people think they are. If you give a n00b a Linux system and a Windows system, I really don't think its more likely the Windows system will run longer and have fewer problems than the Linux box. Or basically what I'm saying is I think it is less likely a n00b will hose up a Linux install. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 12, 2009 1:33 PM EDT |
Whether or not the 6-month Ubuntu releases are, in reality, for the "average" user, all the hype surrounding them means that anybody who pays any attention to Ubuntu on the Web is very well going to be drawn up in that hype. Most Linux distributions with non-rolling releases won't up the version of popular end-user packages such as Firefox, OpenOffice, etc., and the user's perceived or real need for a newer version of a given application or applications is often impetus to upgrade. Occasionally Mac OS mandates an upgrade to use certain apps. Firefox 3.5 requires OS X 10.4, as does Flash 10, I believe. That was what pushed me from 10.3 to 10.4 on the Macs I take care of. That and the very quiet EOL on 10.3 that Apple doesn't exactly publicize. But in Linux distros, there's the backports way of keeping apps more current on older distros, and then there's upgrading the entire installation. I do agree that Windows and Mac systems need just as much if not more attention from those who maintain them, especially because users seem to feel like they can grab any piece of #$% from the Internet, install it and have everything work fine every time. |
| techiem2 Nov 12, 2009 1:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:I think that Microsoft is too often given a "free pass" on things breaking due to updates too. Yup. I don't remember any media or internet uproar over all the machines that SP3 broke (and is still breaking here and there as machines update to it). And I'm not talking just consumer machines (though there have been plenty of stories of it breaking them), I'm talking Dell Servers that will suddenly no longer load Windows after you install SP3 (I found this out the hard way at a clien'ts place). An update that makes the OS unloadable that requires you to either use your system disk to use the recovery console to remove the update (I believe this is the case with one sitting on my floor right now, but they can't find the Dell install CD), or use your system disk to load a driver (once you find it on Dell's site on the page talking about SP3 breaking that server model) to fix the problem isn't exactly what I would call a minor problem. As for installing? Yeah...I'd rather install Gentoo (well, I do anyway rather often..lol) than install XP and try to find all the drivers for it any day. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 12, 2009 4:15 PM EDT |
Guess I should be glad that my XP box simply won't install SP3 ... it's some kind of Redmondian dependency issue. |
| caitlyn Nov 12, 2009 5:15 PM EDT |
Actually the desktops and laptops where I'm doing some work now all run XP with Service Pack 3. That includes Dells. Since techiem said servers I wonder if he is referring to Windows Server 2003 or ???? |
| techiem2 Nov 12, 2009 5:31 PM EDT |
Trying to remember the exact details of the server.
It could be Server 2003.
I'll have to double check next time I'm there (I was just there today too...). My personal laptop has no issues with SP3, but I slipstreamed it into the custom install CD I made for it. Apparently it varies by machine/install (as does all software). Some handle it just fine, some break some things, some break Windows totally (i.e. STOP errors on boot). |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 12, 2009 7:41 PM EDT |
I think the key to SP3 is logging in as the administrator. I don't have that access ... and I aim to keep those that do away from the box as much as possible. |
| caitlyn Nov 12, 2009 8:28 PM EDT |
Yes, you do need admin access. Of course, with a Linux live CD you can reset the admin password pretty darned easily. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 12, 2009 10:22 PM EDT |
Given the ease of entry to a Linux box with a working, unprotected CD drive, BIOS and even GRUB, I'd like a really good reference on how to really protect a Linux installation from intruders (as much as it can be protected, at any rate). |
| tuxchick Nov 12, 2009 10:42 PM EDT |
Steven, "she who has physical access to the box owns it." I think your best bet is strong encryption and physical locks. You can disable removable media, you can password-protect the bootloader, you can spackle over the serial port, but then it's like when you raccoon-proof your garbage can, and you lock yourself out. (And often the raccoons can still get in.) |
| gus3 Nov 12, 2009 11:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:You can disable removable mediaOr just remove the CD/DVD and floppy drives altogether. And epoxy or Glyptal(tm) "J" works better than spackle. On the USB ports and mounting screws, too. (Can you tell I've done this?) |
| techiem2 Nov 12, 2009 11:55 PM EDT |
Don't forget to weld the case shut so they can't open it up and hook up new drives. hehehe. As ridiculous as these suggestions may seem (gus3's and my even more extreme one), when it comes down to it, if they can get inside your box (physically), there's nothing keeping them from the data other than encryption. |
| jdixon Nov 13, 2009 3:46 PM EDT |
> ...there's nothing keeping them from the data other than encryption. And any encryption can be broken given enough time. And since if they have physical access, then can probably do a bit by bit copy of the drive and take the data with them... |
| tuxchick Nov 13, 2009 4:40 PM EDT |
Or capture and torture you until you fess up the password. I would hold out about a nanosecond. |
| jdixon Nov 13, 2009 7:13 PM EDT |
> Or capture and torture you until you fess up the password. I would hold out about a nanosecond. You can't fool us, TC. We know you've set up a fake password that destroys the hard drive (or better yet, gives fake data, but that's much harder) when entered, for just such occasions. |
| techiem2 Nov 13, 2009 7:28 PM EDT |
I thought the fake password was supposed to destroy the hard disk data then set off the emp bomb under the server room just to be sure ..... |
| gus3 Nov 13, 2009 8:06 PM EDT |
One word: Thermite. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!