Has Ubuntu clinched the desktop Linux market?

[Beerman]

On the surface a two-month delay in Red Hat’s release of Global Desktop Linux is no big deal.

The aim of the project is not just to deliver an operating system, but a complete environment, including applications, aimed at the mass market.

 

Some feel there are too many Linux distributions, and in the server area I disagree, since the distros are basically compatible. But in the desktop space things may be different. To beat Windows we may need unity.

 

And increasingly I’m seeing desktop Linux coalesce around Ubuntu. Dell now sells Ubuntu. Acer is selling it in Singapore. No other distro has these kinds of big company endorsements. Whether they’re worthwhile is another question.

 

That’s mainly because Ubuntu specializes in desktops. Its key advantage is localization. You can get Ubuntu in more languages than you can Windows, with local language support. Canonical has worked hard to make this happen.

 

For companies like Red Hat, on the other hand, desktop Linux is a project, a loss-leader, a sideline. The success or failure of its desktop Linux initiative will not make-or-break Red Hat.

 

That’s the problem. Dedication is the key to success in everything. It’s rare that you find great success in a sideline.

 

Were this a breakfast plate, Red Hat would represent the eggs and Ubuntu the bacon. The chicken’s involved but the pig is committed.

 

So are the desktop Linux wars over?

 

Zdnet article

[gi7omy]

Not necessarily Ubuntu Paul - you have to remember that there are three basic versions of linux - build it from source (hard way but most efficient), rpm based distros (using the Red Hat Program Management) such as Suse, Mandriva and so on or the Debian system (Ubuntu uses .deb files if I recall correctly)

 

In case 1 where it's built from source, you do have a lot more control over how each program is built and compiled (and you can do a lot of fine-tuning, tweaking - and also horrible disasters if you get it wrong). RPM packages are more or less on a 'take it or leave it' base - it's virtually impossible to upgrade an existing distro because of the way rpms work - they aren't terribly good at dependencies and Mandriva has the kernel tweaked beyond recognition and to update that almost means a download and re-install of the whole OS. Deb isn't as bad - it does check when you run apt-get and apt-install (it has enough sense to check on what dependencies there are and when they're needed - not as fine a control as using source code, but hey - not everybody is into doing things the hard way )

 

I would agree that for the average user who just wants to get an OS up and running with the needed apps, Ubuntu is probably the best way to do it - now all we need is for Roxio to produce a port of Toast for Linux (hint, HINT!!!!

 

I should have mentioned btw that you ain't supposed to 'buy' Linux - the Linux variant of the EULA (the Gnu Public License) states that all you are supposed to charge is the distribution and production cost of the media, so if anyone wants it, point your browser here

[tbrewst]

My thoughts on this are Linux needs to go a ways before it become very commonplace for a desktop OS.Keep in mind I'm a Linux novice so I'm looking at it that way.

My feelings are that it isn't user friendly enough to become widespread at this time.You need to jump through hoops just to get devices to work, and getting other things to work is not that simple either.Just to be able to play an mp3 took way too much time and effort to figure out and I think I'm fairly competent in that area.

True it's just like any other OS and it takes time to grow accustomed to it.However,with the vast majority of users being "Windows ready" I wonder how many will take the time to learn a new OS.If I can just click a couple buttons and get something done why would I even think about trying to take the time to figure something else out?If that was the case wouldn't more people use Mac's?

I know the arguments about Microsoft and all it's faults.If a Linux distro came out with a "killer app" that people just had to have then maybe it would be different.Even if it was easier to use then that might also tip the scales.

Until then I'll keep experimenting and fighting my way through trying to learn all this new stuff.

[gi7omy]

The point is Terry that distros like Ubuntu are easy to use - it's point and click all the way.

 

Linux can be as hard or as easy as you want - you don't have to delve into command line if you don't want to.

 

It's all down to getting used to the apps that come with it is all and, in most cases. they're every bit as good as the doze ones (you just need to work with them to get used to how)

 

The really BIG difference between Ubuntu and Windows is that you don't just get an OS and then have to go get apps - the apps get installed along with the OS

[tbrewst]

Yep,I realize that.I've downloaded both the straight Ubuntu install and the one that lets it run from a folder in Windows.

The first thing I got frustrated with was trying to play an mp3 file.There was a player but it wouldn't play them.No big deal,find a codec and install it.After a few choice words I found out you could go to a place in the OS and choose to install it.Only problem was there were about 10 or 15 choices and knowing the right one to choose was a chore.So I just installed them all and Voila!

Another thing that got me was just getting sound at all.It didn't like my Audigy.Creative has no Linux driver so I was out of luck.Never did get it working.The only way I could get sound was to use my onboard chip.Now I have 2 sound devices enabled,one I use in Windows,the other in Linux.Of course I still had to install the onboard in Windows because by turning it on in the bios Windows saw it.

I guess what I'm getting at is until these kind of things are not commonplace then I don't see it becoming very wide spread.Most ordinary users are not going to go through all this just for an alternate OS,free or not.

Personally,I like the challenge so I'm going to keep trying to learn this stuff.

[ggrussell]

The point is Terry that distros like Ubuntu are easy to use - it's point and click all the way.

 

Linux can be as hard or as easy as you want - you don't have to delve into command line if you don't want to.

 

It's all down to getting used to the apps that come with it is all and, in most cases. they're every bit as good as the doze ones (you just need to work with them to get used to how)

 

The really BIG difference between Ubuntu and Windows is that you don't just get an OS and then have to go get apps - the apps get installed along with the OS

Unless linux has changed radically in the past few years, I can argue on all of those points.

 

Even Ubuntu is NOT 'point and click away'. Oh wow, my pritner doesn't work. No point and click away. My scanner isn't supported. No point and click away from that either. Oh my, I need to install this application... sorry that ain't point and click away either.

 

Don't have to delve into command line - what a crock. Every time I turned around and wanted to do something simple, I had to go to command line to get 'admin' rights or log out user and log in admin. After doing that about hundred times a day, that gets old. You can't install drivers without getting into command line either.

 

Ever bit as good as Windows apps? Not even close IMHO. I couldn't even find a way to address an envelope in Open Office AND it print correctly (assuming I could get the printer to work at all). Ok/Cancel buttons reversed. Really ugly themes and hard to understand menu structures.

 

All ths apps get installed? yeah tons of crap that I would never use. I wouldn't use Open Office or FireFox or GIMP. Every time I downloaded a 'shareware' app, it would take me DAYS to get it work IF AT ALL.

 

Forget RPM and DEB. Linux needs a standard install application like WISE or InstallShield for all applications and DRIVERS. It should also run on ALL distros.

 

I spent almost 7 years seriously trying to move to linux. I'm not a programmer and guess I'm not that much of a 'geek'. Linux isn't anywhere CLOSE to being 'easy to use'.

[Beerman]

I guess I got lucky with Ubuntu. I installed and everything worked. Months later when 7.04 came out, it installed the new version with no problems at all and again, everything works. I've not tried wireless which I'm told can be problematic but 7.10 is due out soon and is supposed to be even better.

I agree, for me, XP will remain my most used OS since I do so much work from home and need what it gives me and I don't have time to figure out new things. However, for netting and cd creation, minor art, photo work and some other uses, it will do the job and nicely. I just like the choices we have.

[gi7omy]

Gary - printers and scanners are easy - you just have to make sure that you actually installed SANE (Scanner Access Now Easy) with the correct front end for your model (and believe me, it covers a LOT of models). Printers need to be configured in CUPS (Common Unix Print System) - and that's simply done via the browser. I've had no problems with either my printer or scanner

 

Paul - Creative cards are supported - but you need to make sure that it's turned on in the kernel or that it's there as a module (modprobe <model of card> will find it and insmod will start it - you can do it at startup actually)

[golinux]

Gary - printers and scanners are easy - you just have to make sure that you actually installed SANE (Scanner Access Now Easy) with the correct front end for your model (and believe me, it covers a LOT of models).

Yeah, XSane had my old HP scanner up and running with one click. HP printer took a little more effort but in the end works fine. I didn't have to download any drivers. They were all just point and click operations. And FWIW, both these devices are about 7 years!!

 

Slightly OT . . . I haven't had to boot XP all week. Ubuntu is doing everything that I need. Only thing missing is ported version of Toast!! (Double and triple hint, hint, hint . . . )

[tbrewst]

Gary - printers and scanners are easy - you just have to make sure that you actually installed SANE (Scanner Access Now Easy) with the correct front end for your model (and believe me, it covers a LOT of models). Printers need to be configured in CUPS (Common Unix Print System) - and that's simply done via the browser. I've had no problems with either my printer or scanner

 

Paul - Creative cards are supported - but you need to make sure that it's turned on in the kernel or that it's there as a module (modprobe <model of card> will find it and insmod will start it - you can do it at startup actually)

 

I'm not trying to start an argument here.All I'm saying is having to do things like this is exactly what I'm talking about.I'm new to using Linux and am having trouble following you.So now think about a couple million (or however many) people just like me trying to figure it out.They're used to plugging in a device,up pops a box asking for a driver,they put in the disc they got with it and Voila! their webcam works.Until it gets closer to that then I think it remains a "niche" market and not a mainstream desktop choice.

That said,I'm still gonna keep messing around with it to see if I can get a grasp of it.I'll see if I can figure out the sound thing.

I apologize if I dragged this thread off topic in the first place.

[gi7omy]

Actually Terry, with just about all the modern distros, so long as your hardware is connected and turned on diring installation, the OS detects it and sets it up for you - the only thing you may need to do is to install the video drivers (both nVidia and ATI have closed source binaries - they won't hand over the code so that it can be open source, so you may get a worrying message about a 'tainted kernel')

 

Anything else - you don't need to install a thing (an example would be my nForce NIC which Linux detects in the kernel with its own driver - nVidia did have one but gave up and told everyone to use the 'forcedeth' in the kernel)

[golinux]

That said,I'm still gonna keep messing around with it to see if I can get a grasp of it.I'll see if I can figure out the sound thing.

I've been playing with Linux since 2003. My local LUG had an installfest and they got RedHat dual booted on an old Win 98 Dell Dimension. Over the years I got braver and braver even installing about every distro out there and was walked through all sorts of CLI gymnastics at one time or another. So you see, it's taken me four years of dabbling with 'nix to finally feel comfortable enough to take the plunge. Hang in there . . . once you get over the hump it is wonderful!

[Beerman]

In the same vein, here's someone's thoughts after 5 months of playing with Linux. I definitely agree with #30.

 

30 Things I've learned from Linux

I began My Linux Experience back at the end of February and over the past five months I’ve managed to spend a fair bit of time dabbling and experimenting with a variety of Linux distros. Over these months I’ve learned a lot - a lot about Linux, a lot about the Linux community and a lot about myself and how I look at and interact with PCs.

 

The five month mark seems like as good a time as any to put some of these thoughts, feelings and finding out into the wild for comment and discussion.

 

So here, in no particular order, are some of the things that I’ve learned from using Linux …

 

1. That I don’t have to pay money to get my hands on a credible operating system.

2. There are far more Linux distros available that I have time to try them out.

3. Switching to Linux does not mean trouble-free computing.

4. Whenever you ask a Linux user which is the best distro, invariably the answer you’ll get is the name of the distro that they’re using.

5. In my opinion, the best Linux distro is Ubuntu.

6. No matter how much I like a GUI, and no matter how lazy years of using Windows made me, there’s a lot to be said for using a command line.

7. Linux does crash.

8. The lack of a decent line-up of games for Linux sucks.

9. Without a doubt, you need lower system requirements to run a Linux distro such as Ubuntu compared to Vista.

10. No matter what Linux fans tell me, I still believe that Wine is far from perfect.

11. Installing Linux is far easier than installing Windows.

12. I still haven’t found the killer app for Linux.

13. Arguing, or even trying to enter into any kind of sensible discussion with a Linux fanboy is pointless. Any opinions you have will be trampled on, dismissed out of hand and their own opinion substituted in its place as fact.

14. Try as I might, I can’t drum up enthusiasm for RedHat or SuSE.

15. The LiveCD really does mean that anyone who can burn and boot up off a CD can take Linux for a spin.

16. Linux’s main weak point when it comes to hardware support is WiFi. If there’s one area that the development community need to address urgently, it’s this.

17. There are legal alternatives to illegal codecs … but you have to know where to look.

18. Steer clear of proprietary file formats such as WMA and WMV and you avoid 99% of codec hassles.

19. A Linux distro with Beryl installed makes Vista’s Aero look lame.

20. Open Office can do 90% of what I use Microsoft Office for …

21. … however, Open Office has some serious speed issues.

22. The key to success with Linux has nothing to do with being good with computers, it’s about being good with Google and having one heck of a sense of adventure.

23. I still don’t understand the deal with Gobuntu.

24. Setting up a Windows/Linux dual boot machine is simple.

25. The Linux bootloader is very versatile.

26. While Michael Dell might like Automatix, I’m not all that thrilled with it.

27. The more I use Linux, the less I want to buy into the Mac ecosystem.

28. I really don’t care whether the software I use on Linux is open-source or closed-source.

29. The more I use Linux distros, the more OS agnostic I find myself becoming.

30. No matter how jazzed I feel about Linux, I’m 100% certain that desktop Linux distros represent no threat to the dominance of Windows - at least in the short to medium term.

 

Oh, and how could I leave off the final thing I’ve learned:

 

- Using Linux gives me a satisfying sense of “sticking it to the man,” although at times I get the feeling that the person I’m sticking it to ends up being me.

[golinux]

26. While Michael Dell might like Automatix, I’m not all that thrilled with it.

Nice list.

 

There was an interesting discussion of Automatix on the local LUG list. Here's what got it started. There was not much enthusiasm for it there either.

 

I'd still rather stick it to the man even if it means I occasionally suffer for it. I happen to be in XP right now and let me tell you, it looks pretty clunky after 10 days in Linux. Linux allows the user to change font size in different areas (Desktop, applications etc.) as well as folder icon style etc., icon sizes, and bar sizes. Fonts looks much better in Linux for some reason. After playing with it for a while, my Linux desktop looks great! (And that's even without Beryl.)

[Beerman]

I agree with alot of what you like in Linux but basically, you're just peeing against the wind!

[cdanteek]

you're just peeing against the wind!

 

Sister about had me talked into trying it. Beerman has about talked me out of trying it. Maybe when the cold season arrives and liquid freezes.

 

cd

[Beerman]

Sister about had me talked into trying it. Beerman has about talked me out of trying it. Maybe when the cold season arrives and liquid freezes.

 

cd

I say try it. It's not awesome but not bad--in my most humble opinion.

[golinux]

The most painless way to try is with a live CD or WUBI.

[gi7omy]

I think just about every single distro has a Live CD variant - shove that in the drive, boot from it and you're in a Linux OS right away

 

Drawbacks - well, obviously you can't save anything (even settings), it is slower than a proper hard drive install and if you use it for IRC, a well setup server will kick you out with a 'tut-tut - you should NOT be coming online as root'

 

Advantages - well, you aren't actually installing anything, but you can play round, dip a toe or three and get the feel before taking the final plunge

[golinux]

WUBI installs in a folder on Windows so I guess settings etc. can be saved. Might be slower though. Also it sets up as a dual boot but from the folder not a separate partition.

[Beerman]

WUBI installs in a folder on Windows so I guess settings etc. can be saved. Might be slower though. Also it sets up as a dual boot but from the folder not a separate partition.

It's a great way to see how Ubuntu works and can be removed just like a regular installed Windows program without effecting your drive. I think the idea is that if you like it, you'll try Ubuntu or another distro by going the desktop install route and partition your drive. And, it's especially made for those that don't want to or don't know how to partition their drives.

[gi7omy]

You miss the point on some of the Live CDs - Gentoo for instance doesn't install at all - the whole thing runs from the CD or DVD and all you do is play with it to get the feel - when done, reboot and it ain't there

 

You can also install from that if you wish