Canonical trying to lure XP users with the release of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS for Desktop

After the recent release of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS for servers, Canonical has announced the brand new desktop version. With Windows XP's life support having ended on April 8, the latest iteration of Ubuntu is a more-than-suitable replacement for the dead OS.

There are a range of improvements to the latest version of the popular distro, such as "a slicker experience, with improvements to the Unity [user interface]", Canonical stated. The OS has a variety of software included for everyday users, as well as businesses, such as the open-source equivalent of Microsoft Office, LibreOffice.

Ubuntu 14.04 LTS shows that the company is moving toward a more unified experience across phones, tablets, and PC's with the introduction of the Unity 8 interface for Desktop, which is used on the mobile version of Ubuntu.

Along with other XP users switching to Ubuntu, the French police force is moving over 70,000 computers from XP to Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, which is guaranteed to be supported for 5 years after the initial release. The Chief Information and Security Officer in Gendarmerie, Stéphane Dumon​ has stated that their "project to replace Windows XP with Ubuntu on over 70,000 desktops is returning significant benefits; already we've lowered the total cost of ownership for a ratio of 40 percent, eliminated license costs and radically reduced technical problems."

Many companies recently have paid Microsoft billions of dollars to continue support for their computers while they search for alternatives. Cheaper, and more secure alternatives, such as Ubuntu 14.04 LTS for desktops may prove to be a viable choice for the users that are fleeing from Windows XP.

Source: Ubuntu via The Inquirer | Image via Ubuntu

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft releases new Windows 8.1 themes that travel around the world

Next Story

Office Mix discovered, sign up for the preview now

118 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Last time I tried to make a Linux desktop my wife almost shot me.

For her it was the font rendering.

Although XP->Ubuntu might provide better font rendering ?

"1 Adam 12. 1 Adam 12. Report of shots fired. Seems to be a dispute over fonts. Respond Code 3."

"1 Adam 12. Roger."

simplezz said,
...

Awesome!

I may have to try Linux again, oh wait I get all of this out of the box on Windows.

In all seriousness I am going to try linux again thanks to this package.

I really like Ubuntu but every time I tried to use it as my primary machine I hit some deadend road. I think even expired XP practically is way better OS than Ubuntu.

I don't see where they are targeting XP users explicitly, but of course they'll try to get Windows users to switch.

I mean, the weird thing would be that they didn't try.

that's exactly the problem with Linux, its not one. you mentioned 4 already. and also forgot to say they are based on different iteration of Linux builds so they are technically different OS. don't get me wrong, I like Ubuntu and I think its the friendliest and most fun OS but looking at the UI, its very different year to year and thats not what users want. they want consistency and usability. Free stuff you mentioned is good but none of which is viable. for instance there is not a single application that you can rely on for professional work. Libre Office is good but as not good as MS Office. lacks many features and this is a trend for all apps. free is good but not when you want to get some work done.

trojan_market said,
that's exactly the problem with Linux, its not one. you mentioned 4 already. and also forgot to say they are based on different iteration of Linux builds so they are technically different OS.

How are they different operating systems? Besides the DE they are pretty much identical.

trojan_market said,
for instance there is not a single application that you can rely on for professional work

That depends on your profession. I work on Linux exclusively, so for me it's professionaly realiable.

ichi said,

How are they different operating systems? Besides the DE they are pretty much identical.

That depends on your profession. I work on Linux exclusively, so for me it's professionaly realiable.


Open Source MS Word wannabes can't print out my resume correctly...

trojan_market said,
that's exactly the problem with Linux, its not one. you mentioned 4 already.

They are variations of the same base, namely Ubuntu/Debian. Each one has the same init system, the same package management tool (apt-get). Only the GUI flavour differs. One can even have multiple desktop environments installed and selectable at the display manager. That's a positive, not a negative as you're trying to portray it as. Everybody can choose the UI they prefer, safe in the knowledge that the underlying structure is consistent.

trojan_market said,

and also forgot to say they are based on different iteration of Linux builds so they are technically different OS.

Linux is constantly changing. I'm on a rolling release (Arch), and some times I update once a week, other times not for three months or more. It's not like Windows, where you might get a new version in 3-5 years if you're lucky.

trojan_market said,

don't get me wrong, I like Ubuntu and I think its the friendliest and most fun OS but looking at the UI, its very different year to year and thats not what users want. they want consistency and usability.

You mean like the consistency of going from Windows 7 to Windows 8's metroland? Hehe.

Actually I disagree. The base Ubuntu, which I might add can be customised to each user's preference, is very consistent has been for some time. The biggest change of recent times was the introduction of unity. Since then, I haven't seen anything that big. Certainly nothing on the scale of Microsoft's Metro, which replaces the well known and liked desktop paradigm with a fisher price toy meant for tablets.

trojan_market said,

Free stuff you mentioned is good but none of which is viable. for instance there is not a single application that you can rely on for professional work.

Gimp, Inkscape, GCC, Libre Office, Blender, Android Studio, Eclipse, QT, GTK. The list goes on and on.

trojan_market said,

Libre Office is good but as not good as MS Office. lacks many features

Name me one essential feature that's missing. I've used OpenOffice/LibreOffice for years and never found it lacking.

trojan_market said,

and this is a trend for all apps. free is good but not when you want to get some work done.

I do all my serious work on GNU/Linux. As a professional, I couldn't do without the terminal and the FOSS ecosystem. Try using Window's console or powershell for a day - it's like grinding nails on a chalkboard.

_Alexander said,

Open Source MS Word wannabes can't print out my resume correctly...

Well, I don't make a living out of printing resumes :D then again you can face similar problems if you try to print anything with a different version of MS Office than the one you wrote it with.

For anything I'd not be printing myself with the same program I used to write it I'd use pdf. I could even have used LaTeX to write the document and it would print frigging fine everywhere.

as many linux versions, I was referring to KDE, GNOME .... the only thing they have in common is the core OS. which you don't want to get near. Professional programs, I forgot to mention unless you're a developer (exclusive open source developer) or a webmaster(exclusive open source hosting) Linux is not a professional machine for you. Professional Audio, Video Editing tools is really non-existence. Libre Office is a good free tool but name one single real office that uses it as a daily tool for letters, emails stuff. its just not reliable enough.

trojan_market said,
as many linux versions, I was referring to KDE, GNOME .... the only thing they have in common is the core OS. which you don't want to get near. Professional programs, I forgot to mention unless you're a developer (exclusive open source developer) or a webmaster(exclusive open source hosting) Linux is not a professional machine for you. Professional Audio, Video Editing tools is really non-existence. Libre Office is a good free tool but name one single real office that uses it as a daily tool for letters, emails stuff. its just not reliable enough.

Again it depends on your profession:

http://vimeo.com/m/44420219

That's a reel from a Brazilian company that uses Blender on Ubuntu to do their work.

And I'm neither open source developer nor webmaster by the way.

Edited by ichi, Apr 22 2014, 5:08am :

ichi said,

That's a reel from a Brazilian company that uses Blender on Ubuntu to do their work.

again maybe few companies are like this, but most companies prefer to get the job done and stay on top of it. open source is not a good idea for a professional software and specially for modeling and CPU intensive applications. Its common sense when you can make so much more money spending some dollors on a good and feature rich software package with proper support is no brainer. not to mention it helps developers wrote that software.

Seems to me that Ovni VFX are getting their work done.

You aren't limited to open source apps on Linux though, you also have professional proprietary apps like Maya, Houdini, Lightwave, Inferno, Flame, Smoke, DraftSight, Softimage, Realflow...

Linux isn't suited for absolutely every professional area, but that doesn't mean it's not excellent for some of them.

I don't know what they are using now, but back in the day both Pixar and ILM switched from SGI to Linux workstations. Dreamworks runs almost entirely on Linux.

It's a simple choice really: if their software runs on Linux why the hell would they want to buy Windows?
You usually hear "yeah well but that's only for renderfarms", but I'm talking about workstations there.

Bottom line is that you choose the right tool for the job, and Linux is the right tool for many of them (albeit obviously not all).

I seriously have problem with this statement that linux is suitable for many professional jobs as in real work only very few companies use Linux (except for academics due to licence issues and learning nature, servers and hosting companies and open source development) as I stated before Opensource software suite also can never be as good as closed one. maybe some paid applications managed to get to linux but its open nature of linux is its worst enemy and developer want to make money, why would anyone code for free and yet do it better than who gets paid for it?

trojan_market said,
I seriously have problem with this statement that linux is suitable for many professional jobs as in real work only very few companies use Linux (except for academics due to licence issues and learning nature, servers and hosting companies and open source development)

I already named some companies that work with Linux, and no small companies at that.

trojan_market said,
why would anyone code for free and yet do it better than who gets paid for it?

Even if we were to assume that being paid somehow improves the quality of your work, as far as I know all of RedHat and Canonical employees get their paychecks, and so do the hundreds of developers contributing from HP, Intel, IBM, Oracle, Texas Instruments, Google and the likes.

The story about Linux being developed as a hobby by basement nerds is a myth.

Now maybe you could think "why in hell would any of those companies pay developers to work on a free OS".

See:
- HP got a nice contract with Dreamworks so supply all their Linux based workstations, working together to optimize it all as per Dreamworks needs. That means not only a hardware contract but also ongoing support. Widen the scope and you'll see a business right there.
- IBM is obvious, they are selling Linux servers.
- Google uses Linux both in-house and as base for their Android and ChromeOS products.

For all those contributing companies the OS is a tool, not the final product.

Edited by ichi, Apr 22 2014, 8:08pm :

ichi said,


- HP got a nice contract with Dreamworks so supply all their Linux based workstations, working together to optimize it all as per Dreamworks needs. That means not only a hardware contract but also ongoing support. Widen the scope and you'll see a business right there.
- IBM is obvious, they are selling Linux servers.
- Google uses Linux both in-house and as base for their Android and ChromeOS products.

all of these three are falling to categories which I mentioned.
HP -Linux servers, although to the best of my knowledge they are Microsoft Partner.
IBM - Linux Servers, although IBM's primary focus is UNIX based systems not Linux
Google - Open source developmentt, although many google division using windows based machines for development

trojan_market said,

HP -Linux servers, although to the best of my knowledge they are Microsoft Partner.

That doesn't preclude them selling Linux based systems - which they do. As well as Android, ChromeOS, etc.

trojan_market said,

IBM - Linux Servers, although IBM's primary focus is UNIX based systems not Linux

IBM has transitioned to mostly Linux now.

trojan_market said,

Google - Open source developmentt, although many google division using windows based machines for development

From what I've read, Google prefers employees to use Linux or OS X. That's probably due to the IE security breach a few years back.

Windows apps can be developed and tested on Linux machines using cross compliation (MinGW) and WINE anyway. A VM inside a Linux host is another option too.

trojan_market said,

all of these three are falling to categories which I mentioned.
HP -Linux servers, although to the best of my knowledge they are Microsoft Partner.
IBM - Linux Servers, although IBM's primary focus is UNIX based systems not Linux
Google - Open source developmentt, although many google division using windows based machines for development

I didn't mention those three as examples of companies using Linux (no matter if they do or not) but as contributors to the OS. The companies signing the paychecks of those that write the code.

The customers of some of those companies (as in the Dreamworks example I mentioned) are the ones doing the actual work using Linux.

HP sells servers, but they also sell software and related service contracts. Lately (as in the last three years) they've been transitioning a lot of their corporate business software to Linux, just because that's where customers want the software running.

Maybe it's the tight economy (or maybe it started as a byproduct of the economy and then they realized that there was money to be saved there no matter how well they were doing) but customers don't find all that enticing to pay the licenses of a Microsoft metrocluster for software that runs on RedHat perfectly fine.

And if HP software didn't run there you could safely bet that IBM or BMC would come knocking to fill the gap.

Same goes for workstations: Dreamworks is modeling with Maya and they want it on Linux, so that's what HP serves. Same would go for Pixar and whatever provider they have.

Regarding IBM, there were strong on z/OS but they have been shifting to Linux, even going to the lengths of porting the OS to their System Z mainframes.
IBM (same as HP) doesn't just sell the iron, they make a lot of money from the ongoing (maybe even more than from the iron itself) so even with Linux licenses coming cheaper than those of z/OS they still have pretty much the same tasty business there.

And besides their mainframe stuff, they are also strong on Linux software and middleware.

Not worth the headache unless you do absolutely nothing but surf the web and use a word processor. Everything else is over complicated for the average user.

lolneowin said,
Not worth the headache unless you do absolutely nothing but surf the web and use a word processor. Everything else is over complicated for the average user.

You're obviously never used a modern GNU/Linux distro.

simplezz said,

You're obviously never used a modern GNU/Linux distro.

I have used Ubuntu 12 and it was a f'in nightmare. Trying to learn how to install things from command prompt because it wasn't offered in the official packages, adding all these packages from god knows who was creating them, troubleshooting that ###### sound system with that god awful alsamixer or whatever the hell it was.

And before that I tried Ubuntu 8? The wireless issues were amazing on that one.

Then all the troubleshooting guides on Google were always outdated pointing to previous versions! All had me running a bunch of commands I had no idea what were doing, it was a f'in nightmare. Good ####ing luck with Linux to an average computer literate person if you run into problems.

On Windows it's straight forward and super easy to troubleshoot. Some people love tinkering around and fixing ####, I don't. I want my OS to work and when it doesn't, I want to fix it with the least amount of effort. I don't have time to look through 80 guides and runs 200 commands.


The Chief Information and Security Officer in Gendarmerie, Stéphane Dumon​ has stated that their "project to replace Windows XP with Ubuntu on over 70,000 desktops is returning significant benefits; already we've lowered the total cost of ownership for a ratio of 40 percent, eliminated license costs and radically reduced technical problems."

Sigh.. If only the UK government had the foresight to do this they wouldn't be wasting a fortune of tax payer money on XP end of life support costs.

What the French and Germans (Munich) have shown is that if done right, migrating to FOSS solutions can significantly reduce short and long term costs such as licences, maintenance, and problems arising from malware and virus infections (NHS). Not to mention the fact that existing hardware can often be repurposed because GNU/Linux doesn't have the steep requirements of Windows 7+.

I wish them luck. I loved Ubuntu back in the day. Then they added that horrible unity bar. I hate that thing. Thank goodness for lubuntu. And Mint.

margrave said,
I wish them luck. I loved Ubuntu back in the day. Then they added that horrible unity bar. I hate that thing. Thank goodness for lubuntu. And Mint.

Don't forget XFCE ;)

ive tried many linux distros over the years, and my main problem with it was hardware support

if i had that sorted out, i would use it

i had a friend who has some nvidia gfx card that, as i remember him mentioned "had two cores or whatever" and the linux drivers couldnt utilize the gfx card fully, which is a major turn off, no matter if he plays games or not, its like installing XP x86 on a machine with 8GB RAM

agreed. When I installed ubuntu on my netbook it would not recharge the battery, but as soon as I put win7 on it started working. So many things just don't work with Linux. Unless you buy a computer that comes with it preinstalled.

Yeah Linux guys always talk up the fact that Linux 'just works' with no need for drivers like windows. What they don't tell you is those built in Linux drivers are #### and you'll get maybe 75% of your hardware's actual performance.

Even if you do get good performance it will all be broken the next time the kernel updates. This drove me mad back when I ran Linux to the point of simply not updating anything in the kernel ever.

garou_heki said,
ive tried many linux distros over the years, and my main problem with it was hardware support

Admittedly, in the past, Linux hardware support was patchy, but that's just not true any more. In fact, it's much easier than Windows these days, unless you have some obscure proprietary peripheral or happen to use printer brands that only make Windows drivers (there are a few).

garou_heki said,

if i had that sorted out, i would use it

You might be pleasantly surprised then if you used it today. Even modern AAA games are aplenty now that Valve is supporting GNU/Linux.

garou_heki said,

i had a friend who has some nvidia gfx card that, as i remember him mentioned "had two cores or whatever" and the linux drivers couldnt utilize the gfx card fully, which is a major turn off, no matter if he plays games or not, its like installing XP x86 on a machine with 8GB RAM

To be fair, that's not Linux's fault, that's the driver produced by Nvidia. Just as a buggy graphics driver on Windows isn't usually the fault of Microsoft. Although these days, Nvidia proprietary drivers are top notch. The FOSS drivers are another story though. Nvidia doesn't provide specifications for their hardware like the way AMD does, hence why the radeon FOSS drivers are comparable to Catalyst on some cards.

The reality is that I doubt you'll have a problem these days with drivers on Linux. It's certainly nice not having to find and download drivers like you would on Windows. I have more problems with drivers on Windows than I do on Linux. My Audigy 2 ZS front panel just refuses to work on Windows, even after manually downloading the creative drivers, yet it works out of the box on Linux.

bucko said,
agreed. When I installed ubuntu on my netbook it would not recharge the battery

That's because your manufacturer is not following ACPI power management standards. It's like blaming websites that follow the W3C standards for not rendering correctly on IE6.

bucko said,

but as soon as I put win7 on it started working. So many things just don't work with Linux. Unless you buy a computer that comes with it preinstalled.

What a load of rubbish. I've built countless PC's, and the hardware works flawlessly on GNU/Linux. Just because you bought a junk netbook from a manufacturer that doesn't follow power management standards, doesn't mean "So many things just don't work on Linux". In fact, I have a netbook that won't even run Windows, that's right, it doesn't even have drivers for it.

So when you buy a netbook or laptop please tell me when they state it has "ACPI power management standards." haha. This was back in 2009, probably no standards then. I run Linux on plenty of other computers I built and it works as well if you know that all the hardware supports it. That is the thing though, average jo blogs doesn't know much about ACPI power management standards.

Crimson Rain said,
No thanks. I'd rather throw that PC to a trashcan.

You could donate it to someone who may be able to make use of it.

Crimson Rain said,
No thanks. I'd rather throw that PC to a trashcan.

I'll put Linux on it and donate it to charity if you don't want it ;)

I am sorry, but why would XP users switch to something that doesn't look like XP and doesn't run Windows applications?

Also, nice PR, "Ubuntu is an XP alternative" is hardly a compliment.

Also, "eliminated license costs and radically reduced technical problems" makes me grin at French idiocy.

_Alexander said,
I am sorry, but why would XP users switch to something that doesn't look like XP and doesn't run Windows applications?

Also, nice PR, "Ubuntu is an XP alternative" is hardly a compliment.

Also, "eliminated license costs and radically reduced technical problems" makes me grin at French idiocy.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T NEED IT.

Everything is and will be CLOUD based. Which means, all you need is the internet to run anything. LOL...what important Windows Apps are needed? Office? You can do that online now. Games? Unimportant.

I don't Windows is going completely away. However, if Windows marketshare is reduced to 60-70%, that's an EPIC FAIL for Microsoft.

Seriously, people. Desktop Personal Computing is history. Satya Nadella knows it. It's all about the cloud. The cloud isn't just for storing pictures, it's about running Apps.

_Alexander said,
I am sorry, but why would XP users switch to something that doesn't look like XP and doesn't run Windows applications?

From what I can tell that is just something the author of this post pulled out of nowhere. The Ubuntu authors have said absolutely nothing about Windows XP users; its just a new release like any other.

_Alexander said,
I am sorry, but why would XP users switch to something that doesn't look like XP and doesn't run Windows applications?

Also, nice PR, "Ubuntu is an XP alternative" is hardly a compliment.

Also, "eliminated license costs and radically reduced technical problems" makes me grin at French idiocy.


You can make Linux look like XP and it can run many Windows apps through wine or front ends like PlayOnLinux or winetricks, though there isn't a 100% guarantee.

soldier1st said,

You can make Linux look like XP and it can run many Windows apps through wine or front ends like PlayOnLinux or winetricks, though there isn't a 100% guarantee.

You can, can the average Joe?

WINE supports Warcraft 3, doesnt mean Warcraft 3 runs smooth. Quite the opposite. And thats an ancient game. Let alone anything released in the last decade.

And unless you are new to Linux, you are aware Linux supports FAR less hardware setups then Windows does. So many people with their cheap ass computers with cheap ass chinese hardware parts will have a ton of issues getting their computer to work properly with Ubuntu.
On top of that, Ubuntu is far worse then Windows when it comes to updates. So often I've had Ubuntu break on a ton of machines thanks to distro-ugrades, not even funny.
Out of the blue GFX drivers not working, or network cards unrecognized.....

Yeah, Linux is great, if you're a Linux user GOD and your time is worthless.

Other then that, people that want get users to switch from XP to Ubuntu are absolutely retarded and deserve all the support help they need to give.

VictorWho said,

Everything is and will be CLOUD based. Which means, all you need is the internet to run anything. LOL...what important Windows Apps are needed? Office? You can do that online now. Games? Unimportant.

Seriously, people. Desktop Personal Computing is history. Satya Nadella knows it. It's all about the cloud. The cloud isn't just for storing pictures, it's about running Apps.

Thanks to Office Online, it's gotten to a point where I don't need to buy Office (or even Windows)!

_Alexander said,
I am sorry, but why would XP users switch to something that doesn't look like XP and doesn't run Windows applications?

Who cares whether it looks like XP or runs Windows applications? No one cares about either these days.

_Alexander said,

Also, nice PR, "Ubuntu is an XP alternative" is hardly a compliment.

Considering that most XP PC's simply can't run Windows 7+ due to its high requirements, it's quite accurate.

_Alexander said,

Also, "eliminated license costs and radically reduced technical problems" makes me grin at French idiocy.

That's fine, you continue to pay for your expensive licences, retraining costs for metroland, and reinstalls due to WinROT and malware infestations, and the rest of us will enjoy our malware-free, low cost / maintenance GNU/Linux distros. Good luck :D

[quote=simplezz said,]
Yeah cause retraining people to use Linux is free.

You obviously haven't used Windows since the 90s seeing your comments.

And to add, if that 30-40% of the browser market that is now using XP, moves to your precious Linux..... Enjoy the malware then.

Shadowzz said,

WINE supports Warcraft 3, doesnt mean Warcraft 3 runs smooth. Quite the opposite. And thats an ancient game. Let alone anything released in the last decade.

Ignoring the fact that lots of games run natively on Linux these days, WINE has a rating system which let's users know which games run well and which might require more technical knowledge:
http://appdb.winehq.org/ - Specifically the Platinum and Gold lists.

I view WINE more as a transitional tool rather than a permanent replacement for Windows. It's good for maybe a game or two that someone likes playing, or an app for which an alternative hasn't been found yet. It's always better to go native if possible.

Shadowzz said,

And unless you are new to Linux, you are aware Linux supports FAR less hardware setups then Windows does.

That's incorrect actually. A lot of XP PC's out there simply don't have drivers for later versions of Windows. In actual fact, manufacturers often only target a single Windows version, meaning, you'll have trouble finding drivers for different versions. For instance, hardware produced since Vista came out don't have drivers for XP, and many of the early netbooks that came with Linux, don't have Windows drivers.

My Audigy 2 ZS front panel doesn't work on Windows 7+, whereas it works out of the box in GNU/Linux. And there are many other instances of unsupported hardware on Windows.

Shadowzz said,

So many people with their cheap ass computers with cheap ass chinese hardware parts will have a ton of issues getting their computer to work properly with Ubuntu.

Well if manufacturers don't use standard chips or parts, there's nothing you can do. I'm willing to bet that most do though.

Shadowzz said,

On top of that, Ubuntu is far worse then Windows when it comes to updates.

You're joking right? Windows has no package manager /end-of-discussion.

Shadowzz said,

So often I've had Ubuntu break on a ton of machines thanks to distro-ugrades, not even funny.

I've had Windows go awry after upgrading too. There's a distinction between Updating and Upgrading. The latter is prone to errors on all OS'. Personally, I use a rolling-release distro, so it's never an issue.

Shadowzz said,

Out of the blue GFX drivers not working, or network cards unrecognized.....

Never had that issue in the last 10 years. I've had Windows BSOD many times though if that counts.

Shadowzz said,

Yeah, Linux is great, if you're a Linux user GOD and your time is worthless.

Scouring the internet for drivers, applications, solutions to malware fixes, BSDOD's, WinROT, and excessive disk access, is a waste of my valuable time, hence why I don't use Windows.

Shadowzz said,

Other then that, people that want get users to switch from XP to Ubuntu are absolutely retarded and deserve all the support help they need to give.

Quite the opposite, they're sensible because they're not wasting a ton of money on buying new hardware and paying the Microsoft tax. That makes them savvy in my book.

Shadowzz said,
Yeah cause retraining people to use Linux is free.

A lot cheaper than retraining to use Metro and the Ribbon. The Linux desktop and Libre Office are much more familiar to users of XP/Vista/Windows 7 and Office 2003 than Microsoft's latest works.

Shadowzz said,

And to add, if that 30-40% of the browser market that is now using XP, moves to your precious Linux..... Enjoy the malware then.

40% haha that's a laugh. Only in the imaginary world of NetApplications' geoweighting does IE still have that marketshare.

Malware, Viruses, and Rootkits ? They're exclusive Windows concepts I'm afraid.

Haha, not even gonna bother with most.
Cause it worked for you, thats great. I've helped migrate a ton of people from Windows to Linux (usually Ubuntu even though I prefer Debian). And except for 2 people so far, they are all back to Windows. Mainly because of stupid issues like I mentioned, GFX update and stops working completely (even fallback barely works,and if it does its horrible, go scroll a webpage), network card issues are very common too.
While pretty much every PC build in the last 10 years (not custom ones) will have little issues running Windows upto 7 if there's enough RAM.
8 did drop some support on old hardware though.

Running into Windows 7 having no network drivers is such a rarity that its not even worth mentioning.

And the fact that users can much more easily screw up Linux then they can Windows. Having to come over to help people out of full screen command line or a different desktop environment..... And thats just basic simple issues. It's more fun when they screw up libraries because website X or person Y said to do so.

And thinking Malware, viruses and rootkits are Windows only kinda says enough. Enjoy your trolling or very narrow field of view.

Shadowzz said,
Haha, not even gonna bother with most.

I am jack's complete lack of surprise.

Shadowzz said,

While pretty much every PC build in the last 10 years (not custom ones) will have little issues running Windows upto 7 if there's enough RAM.

In the Windows ecosystem you're dependent on the whims of OEM's, and whether or not they provide and support drivers. On Linux and FOSS that's not the case because the drivers themselves are open source.

Shadowzz said,

8 did drop some support on old hardware though.

Good look finding Windows Vista/7/8 drivers for an XP PC, XP drivers for a Vista/7/8 PC, and any Windows drivers for Linux netbooks. Drivers are a complete nightmare on Windows - if you can even find them.

Shadowzz said,

Running into Windows 7 having no network drivers is such a rarity that its not even worth mentioning.

You mean, every machine that OEM's ship with Windows come with working network drivers? I'm shocked. If every machine shipped with Linux, do you think they'd include working drivers too?

How about a machine which doesn't ship with Windows? Are you confident that you can find the drivers then?

Shadowzz said,

And the fact that users can much more easily screw up Linux then they can Windows.

Haha - Windows malware, viruses, rootkits, keyloggers /end-of-discussion.

Shadowzz said,

Having to come over to help people out of full screen command line or a different desktop environment..... And thats just basic simple issues. It's more fun when they screw up libraries because website X or person Y said to do so.

Hey, I've just sent you an email. Just double click the attachment, it's really funny, honest!

Shadowzz said,

And thinking Malware, viruses and rootkits are Windows only kinda says enough. Enjoy your trolling or very narrow field of view.

They are Windows only. Only Windows has hundreds of millions of infected machines worldwide. There's a reason all the botnets in the world consist of Windows PC's.

soldier1st said,

You can make Linux look like XP and it can run many Windows apps through wine or front ends like PlayOnLinux or winetricks, though there isn't a 100% guarantee.

if you want to use small programs and rely on vine you better use Linux alternative apps instead. at least your apps won't crash in the middle of something. overall, experience with Linux is fun but counter-productive. its good for nerds and geeks and some coding, good for cheap server configurations. not good alternative for XP since XP dead or alive is a much better OS.

xankazo said,
Ubuntu has become more and more bloatware. It's looking more like Nero.

I was more thinking it looks like a buggy pre-release version of Android that threw up puke brown

xankazo said,
Ubuntu has become more and more bloatware. It's looking more like Nero.

Has become? It's been bloated to the max for years!

The few times I've tried it, it hasn't lasted much past 3 months before one of the updates screwed something up totally, so I wouldn't call it very dependable either.

Personally,
One of the last distros I'd recommend to anyone.

xankazo said,
Ubuntu has become more and more bloatware. It's looking more like Nero.
Blame Gnome 3, not Ubuntu. Actually, blame both. LXDE is on par with Gnome 2 RE speed/resource usage.

That was my main beef with Linux and Unix OS's. Now this being back in the day, not sure how things are today, but we had to add our own support to be able to run Windows programs. Crossover and Wine were the choices. One was an emulator, the other added built in support to run on the actual OS. They never really worked for me.

Now I know there's new distros, but I wonder, do any of them actually have 100% out of the box functionality of that of Windows?(xp/7/8) Just run your exe files as usual?

I remember a few years back learning Solaris, beautiful OS, but Oracle killed SUN and butchered the OS and slaughtered the community that supported it, especially in home desktop use. I called it quits and went back to windows.

WINE Is Not an Emulator.

Anyways I don't think any mainstream distros include Wine out-of-the-box though so you'd have to install it yourself.

Raa said,
I'll run it when I can insert my game discs and run the "Setup.exe" file without an error.

Keep dreaming, Linux will never fully go that route.

Izlude said,
That was my main beef with Linux and Unix OS's. Now this being back in the day, not sure how things are today, but we had to add our own support to be able to run Windows programs. Crossover and Wine were the choices. One was an emulator, the other added built in support to run on the actual OS. They never really worked for me.

Now I know there's new distros, but I wonder, do any of them actually have 100% out of the box functionality of that of Windows?(xp/7/8) Just run your exe files as usual?

I remember a few years back learning Solaris, beautiful OS, but Oracle killed SUN and butchered the OS and slaughtered the community that supported it, especially in home desktop use. I called it quits and went back to windows.


Zorin Includes wine ootb.

soldier1st said,

Keep dreaming, Linux will never fully go that route.

I know, hence I'll never use it fully.

Raa said,
I'll run it when I can insert my game discs and run the "Setup.exe" file without an error.

Thank god it doesn't need to run exe's to work. I don't want Windows malware on my Linux PC :D

simplezz said,

Thank god it doesn't need to run exe's to work. I don't want Windows malware on my Linux PC :D

Yes, because Windows malware will totally work the same way... :p

simplezz said,

Thank god it doesn't need to run exe's to work. I don't want Windows malware on my Linux PC :D

You'd be surprised how easy it is to not get Windows malware on your WINDOWS PC.

Deihmos said,
Ubuntu is so ugly.

It can look as beautiful or ugly as you like :D Take a look at the GNU/Linux desktop thread for some nice looking and highly original desktops.

Auditor said,
Bring back Gnome and get rid of all those useless tablet interface then we will think about it.

Bring back Gnome 2. They can keep that mess that is 3, even worse with useless tablet interfaces, makes Win8 look good.

Max Norris said,

Bring back Gnome 2. They can keep that mess that is 3, even worse with useless tablet interfaces, makes Win8 look good.

You are right.. Gnome 2 is what it should be. Gnome 3 is just hopeless.

Auditor said,
Bring back Gnome and get rid of all those useless tablet interface then we will think about it.

I stopped using Gnome after Version 3. Version 2 was the best!

I think it's a bit misleading to say that "Canonical is trying to lure XP users with new release". This has been true since forever, as the non-Windows OS market share depends almost entirely on taking market share away from Windows. It just so happened that Ubuntu's bi-annual update occurred the same month that Windows XP support ended. Canonical push a major release every April (the .04 release, e.g. 12.04, 13.04, 14.04) and every October (the .10 release, e.g. 11.10, 12.10, 13.10).

sinetheo said,
Right because Ubuntu is as bugfree, stable, consistent, and has long term support like as XP

Right because Windows 7 is as bugfree, stable, consistent, and has long term support like XP

Right because Windows 8 is as bugfree, stable, consistent, and has long term support like XP

sinetheo said,
Right because Ubuntu is as bugfree, stable, consistent as XP

It couldn't be any buggier, less stable, or more inconsistent than Vista was at launch lol.

Dot Matrix said,
Lol. Trade in your 13 year OS for one that will only get support for half that time!

Your sentence make no sense. Yeah, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS has less support time, but it's 13 years ahead, technology wise and will be current for another five years. In five years, what will happen to XP?

Dot Matrix said,
Lol. Trade in your 13 year OS for one that will only get support for half that time!

FreebSD and OpenBSD run quite well in 128 megs of ram even with a gui XFCE installed. Of course if the user is sophisticated enough to setup and edit /etc files let alone even know what those 2 operating systems they would have left XP many years ago.

Dot Matrix said,
Lol. Trade in your 13 year OS for one that will only get support for half that time!

And during the next 5 years, 16.04 LTS and 18.04 LTS will be released, both of which will come with their own 60 months of support.

I'll stick with Debian, but one should really learn about a topic before posting. Canonical releases LTS editions every 2 years.

Edited by COKid, Apr 21 2014, 1:37am :

Dot Matrix said,
Lol. Trade in your 13 year OS for one that will only get support for half that time!

I know we don't much like them thar Linux types round these here parts, but if Ubuntu is a viable upgrade option for an entity, be it a personal user, commercial enterprise, or government office, why not?

It's not like every version of Windows has 13 years of support. XP was the exception, not the rule. Extended support periods for Windows versions run at about 10 years, presuming that you're running the latest service pack. Granted, this is still much longer than a 5 year LTS, but this doesn't account for the fact that Ubuntu upgrades are free, so the shorter LTS period is less of an issue. If Extended support cycles were a concern here, the obvious choice going forward would be Red Hat Linux (or CentOS), which supports each major OS release for 10 years, with an optional extended lifecycle support period up to an extra 3 years.

Also not considered is the fact that the PCs are perhaps not top-of-the-line models. The Ubuntu minimum support requirements are quite a lot lower than the minimum requirements for Windows Vista and later. So it may be a factor that the software upgrade takes precedence over the potentially enormous cost of upgrading thousands of older machines.

Descartes said,
This is an isolated case. No other Windows OS was/is going to be supported for so long.

Don't be so sure.

Descartes said,
This is an isolated case. No other Windows OS was/is going to be supported for so long.

Windows 7 is supported til at least 2020, that's 11 years, still double what Ubuntu gets.

Dot Matrix said,
Lol. Trade in your 13 year OS for one that will only get support for half that time!

At least it won't require complete new PC's like Window 7+ does. Munich and France are the leading the way in eschewing the Microsoft ecosystem, and they're saving a ton of money and man-hours in the process.

Hurmoth said,

And? Your point of posting exactly what I posted from a different MS site? Care to shed light on your post?

If your going to make a point, you may want to actually post that point.

. What you should have seen from that is that extended support means security updates for businesses and consumers alike (note that extended support is what just ended for XP on the 8th)
Windows is not considered a "consumer" product.

sanctified said,

Your sentence make no sense. Yeah, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS has less support time, but it's 13 years ahead, technology wise and will be current for another five years. In five years, what will happen to XP?


I prefer 13 years old Windows over Linux.

trojan_market said,

I prefer 13 years old Windows over Linux.

I cannot debate preferences. However, logical fallacies can be debatable. Saying that he wont install Ubuntu because it HAS half the support xp HAD it's not logical.

However, saying that you simply prefer XP over Linux is more honest and we should respect that.

Ubuntu is getting quite demanding in its system requirements these days compared to how light-weight Linux is in general.

I wouldn't recommend it to people with antique PC's that could just about run XP. If you have a moderate PC though and only use the Web Browser etc I'd recommend swapping XP for Ubuntu if they couldn't spare any money to upgrade to 7 or 8.

And there is always this theme for Ubuntu - http://www.noobslab.com/2014/0...theme-is-available-for.html

McKay said,
Ubuntu is getting quite demanding in its system requirements these days compared to how light-weight Linux is in general.

Was going to throw 14.04 on an older laptop with a Pentium M which originally shipped with XP for giggles... unsupported CPU, ugh, so much for that. Runs 7 though so *shrug*, that works.

To be fair, most of the more popular desktops aren't much better as far as resources go, say Gnome 3 or KDE, both of which are fairly heavy for older units. XFCE isn't too bad (as long as I stay with a different distro because of the old processor), but for this particular setup, meh, not a fan of lightweight desktops lacking on usability. My "stronger" laptop though runs KDE quite nicely though, only desktop I kinda sorta find usable.

The reason it doesn't support that Pentium M is most likely because it doesn't advertise PAE correctly and Canonical dropped the non-PAE kernel after 12.04.

"However, there are CPUs, especially Pentium M CPUs that have perfect PAE support, but they do not advertise it properly - and Ubuntu refuse to try to run the PAE-kernel at all (but it works perfectly)."

There is a workaround however: http://zo0ok.com/techfindings/archives/1098

Try that and it will install/work just fine.

Hurmoth said,
The reason it doesn't support that Pentium M is most likely because it doesn't advertise PAE correctly and Canonical dropped the non-PAE kernel after 12.04.

Yep I read up on that before.. with the previous builds it was just a lot more effort than I was willing to put into something that doesn't get used much anyway... too many steps to just get to boot, ugh, at least they made it easier for 14.04 to work around it. Dual boots 7 and another distro depending on my mood.. was just commenting about Ubuntu getting bad with older hardware.

Hurmoth said,
The reason it doesn't support that Pentium M is most likely because it doesn't advertise PAE correctly and Canonical dropped the non-PAE kernel after 12.04.
Same for Lubuntu?

That's why you can choose from its various "flavours" - Xubuntu and Lubuntu are quite fine for older or not so powerful builds. These two doesn't contain any fancy gui that req. 3D graphics to work. Just like Windows XP.

Core of the system is same, gui/shell/desktop environment is different as you may probably know.

McKay said,
Ubuntu is getting quite demanding in its system requirements these days compared to how light-weight Linux is in general.

I wouldn't recommend it to people with antique PC's that could just about run XP. If you have a moderate PC though and only use the Web Browser etc I'd recommend swapping XP for Ubuntu if they couldn't spare any money to upgrade to 7 or 8.

And there is always this theme for Ubuntu - http://www.noobslab.com/2014/0...theme-is-available-for.html

"The system requirements vary among Ubuntu products. For the main Ubuntu desktop product, the official Ubuntu Documentation recommends a 1 GHz Pentium 4 processor with 1 GB of RAM and 5.9 gigabytes of hard drive space, or better.

For less powerful computers, there are other Ubuntu distributions such as Lubuntu and Xubuntu."

68k said,
"The system requirements vary among Ubuntu products. For the main Ubuntu desktop product, the official Ubuntu Documentation recommends a 1 GHz Pentium 4 processor with 1 GB of RAM and 5.9 gigabytes of hard drive space, or better.

For less powerful computers, there are other Ubuntu distributions such as Lubuntu and Xubuntu."

That's pretty much what I said... Also no way I'd run an OS on a machine with the minimum requirements, No way I'd want to run XP on a 233Mhz processor with 64MB of RAM.

I once tried Ubuntu on my old 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM and it was not pretty.

Max Norris said,

Was going to throw 14.04 on an older laptop with a Pentium M which originally shipped with XP for giggles... unsupported CPU, ugh, so much for that. Runs 7 though so *shrug*, that works.

You used this argument before Max ;) I provided you with a Link that had a PAE-free Ubuntu version. And don't forget, there are many other distros besides Ubuntu - Fedora, SuSE, Arch, Gentoo, and many many others.

Max Norris said,

To be fair, most of the more popular desktops aren't much better as far as resources go, say Gnome 3 or KDE, both of which are fairly heavy for older units.

XFCE, LXDE, Fluxbox, Openbox, and lot of others for low resource environments. Can Windows 7+ run well on a less than 1GB ram machine, let alone less than 512. My Raspberry PI 512mb runs very nicely on LXDE and XBian.

simplezz said,
And don't forget, there are many other distros besides Ubuntu - Fedora, SuSE, Arch, Gentoo, and many many others.

Yes, I did say above that the unit was running something in the "many others" category ;) I also said I wasn't going to screw around with workarounds for something that wasn't getting much use anyway. If you have to jump through hoops, it's not worth my time.

simplezz said,
XFCE, LXDE, Fluxbox, Openbox, and lot of others for low resource environments. Can Windows 7+ run well on a less than 1GB ram machine, let alone less than 512.

I did also say above I'm not a fan of lightweight desktops that have the bare essentials for usability and nothing more, never mind I do have a tablet running 7 that only has 512 ;) Not that it's fast by any stretch mind you, but frankly XP and XFCE was pretty bad on it too. Also a huge difference in just getting to a desktop and actually using the thing. Yay it boots, but good luck actually making a 512MB system serviceable.. one instance of a modern web browser will clobber that all by itself. Even on Linux.

Max Norris said,

never mind I do have a tablet running 7 that only has 512 ;)

Must be a stripped down 7 because when I tried to run it on 1GB it was slow as hell.

Max Norris said,

Also a huge difference in just getting to a desktop and actually using the thing. Yay it boots, but good luck actually making a 512MB system serviceable.. one instance of a modern web browser will clobber that all by itself. Even on Linux.

Dillo, Midori, Netsurf, Arora, Uzbl, links -g.

simplezz said,
Must be a stripped down 7 because when I tried to run it on 1GB it was slow as hell.

Well you do need to tweak a few things when it's in a low memory environment. Hardly ideal, but trying to shoehorn something reasonably current in a machine from 10+ years ago isn't that great an idea anyway. It's going to suck no matter what you put on there, unless you fancy living in a console. Regular day-to-day users don't.

simplezz said,
Dillo, Midori, Netsurf, Arora, Uzbl, links -g.

I did say "modern browser", not something absurdly light/crippled where I'd get more usability out of my phone. And again, between the OS and this browser, your memory is still about gone. Now open up LibreOffice at the same time, watch your swap partition beg for mercy.

Max Norris said,

I did say "modern browser", not something absurdly light/crippled where I'd get more usability out of my phone.

I use Dillo on my Raspberry PI, and often links -g and Midori on my desktop. The terms Light and Crippled and not mutually inclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_%28web_browser%29

As you can see it's very modern, and fully standards compliant.

Max Norris said,

And again, between the OS and this browser, your memory is still about gone. Now open up LibreOffice at the same time, watch your swap partition beg for mercy.

I have lots of memory to spare on my PI. You can run LO, but it's a waste of resources. Either use Docs, or something lightweight like GnomeOffice (Gnumeric / abiWord).

Wow, they managed to magically fix technical problems with another OS. this guy sure sounds like he has a clue and knows what he's talking about and should be in charge of such decisions. I mean he let the police force run an old and relatively unsecured OS for years and years after several suitable replacements where released, why wouldn't you trust his expertise... ;)

HawkMan said,
Wow, they managed to magically fix technical problems with another OS.

Considering how problematic malware, WinROT, and vulnerable outdated third party software is on Windows, I'm not surprised, the simple act of installing another OS like GNU/Linux solved many of the problems.

As Munich and France have proved, adopting FOSS can save a lot of money and time which would have otherwise been spent on licences and fixing OS shortcomings.

simplezz said,

Considering how problematic malware, WinROT, and vulnerable outdated third party software is on Windows, I'm not surprised, the simple act of installing another OS like GNU/Linux solved many of the problems.

As Munich and France have proved, adopting FOSS can save a lot of money and time which would have otherwise been spent on licences and fixing OS shortcomings.

oh yeah, the magical winrot.. to bad it doesn't really exist on XP. I did an experiment with this myself on a several years old heavily used XP during a reinstall.

and on a company computer that don't install third party software on and off all the time it certainly should not exist.

you missed the point of my post anyway, but I'm not surprised.