ubuntu Ubuntu chief isn't interested in 'leet' users, wants to bring L

[remixedcat]

Yey! More barfugly UIs coming that have ugly round corners and more glass... yuck.

[Haggis Veteran]

The better he can make it and the more people he can make it for the better

[.Neo]

Yey! More barfugly UIs coming that have ugly round corners and more glass... yuck.

I'd rather have that over an interface that looks like it has been designed in Microsoft Paint.

[Growled Member]

I think with touch becoming the big thing that Ubuntu has a better chance that ever. Unity was made for touch.

[remixedcat]

They can't make linux for everyone because the people that make it spend more time arguing instead of innovating and they would rather do stuff different to spite someone rather then actually make it better for the users. Not gonna happen unless they get over thier little problems.

[HawkMan]

Believe me, Neowin is full of them.

While there is a couple I wouldn't say it's full of them, I'd say we have more fanatical Linux and OSX fans. The thing is a lot of people think anyone that doesn't hate something or even just likes something is a fanatical fan.

And I'm sorry, but liking windows 8 doesn't make you fanatical. Neither does liking Ubuntu. Tough it's undeniable that a higher percentage of Linux and OSX users are fanatical. However neowin is a windows focused tech site and will thus have an above average windows fan ratio.

[Joshie]

I really respect him for having this perspective. That anyone would have a problem with him just goes to show that they themselves don't believe their own garbage about open source: certainly, if there's a "distribution for everyone", getting all sandy-###### about one distribution's approach makes no sense.

To believe this direction for Ubuntu should not be allowed to happen is to disagree with what Linux claims to be about.

All that aside, though, there's already a UNIX-based OS that's both developer friendly and geared toward the masses--Mac OS. It's just expensive as frak.

As always, the primary factor has always been, and continues to be, the $0 price tag on Linux.

[Arceles]

Go Ubuntu/Debian, you can... really you can :D

[Growled Member]

I really respect him for having this perspective. That anyone would have a problem with him just goes to show that they themselves don't believe their own garbage about open source: certainly, if there's a "distribution for everyone", getting all sandy-###### about one distribution's approach makes no sense.

It sure makes me wonder. I thought open meant everyone could do their own thing.

[Joshie]

It sure makes me wonder. I thought open meant everyone could do their own thing.

Open means you can do whatever you want until you have shareholders.

Then everyone hates you.

[sanctified Veteran]

They can't make linux for everyone because the people that make it spend more time arguing instead of innovating and they would rather do stuff different to spite someone rather then actually make it better for the users. Not gonna happen unless they get over thier little problems.

That's what Shuttleworth doing with Ubuntu. Likewise the eOS team with Elementary Luna.

[HawkMan]

I really respect him for having this perspective. That anyone would have a problem with him just goes to show that they themselves don't believe their own garbage about open source: certainly, if there's a "distribution for everyone", getting all sandy-###### about one distribution's approach makes no sense.

To believe this direction for Ubuntu should not be allowed to happen is to disagree with what Linux claims to be about.

All that aside, though, there's already a UNIX-based OS that's both developer friendly and geared toward the masses--Mac OS. It's just expensive as frak.

As always, the primary factor has always been, and continues to be, the $0 price tag on Linux.

Firstly it's not unix based, it's BSD, as I recall

Secondly, even if the kernel was based on Linux, the OS is not inux based.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

While there are people who would like Linux to remain complicated to use, a lot of the problems people have with Ubuntu aren't due to them being "innovators", it's due to how they behave towards the open source community (Mir being a recent example, supporting Wayland in public to other projects while internally having no idea what it is and deciding to make their own custom version without telling half their own developers, etc.)

Firstly it's not unix based, it's BSD, as I recall

Secondly, even if the kernel was based on Linux, the OS is not inux based.

UNIX is just a name, Apple paid for it so it's "UNIX". The BSDs (being direct derivatives of the original UNIX) aren't called it for that reason, they haven't paid.

Edit: Well it's a name and a set of standards, but you can implement the standards and still not be "UNIX", etc.

[Brian M. Veteran]

I actually disagree with him. Linux isn't "hard" at all, depending on the distribution:

- It's no harder to install than Windows (especially with GUI installers)

- It's no harder to use day-to-day

- It's no harder to install things from pre-compiled packages (in fact, it's often much easier with apt).

Personally - I think that if they want to go for average users - they don't need to spiff up the UI, or anything like that. They need to get it onto OEM machines. I can walk into PC World, and see hundreds of Windows machines, a few Macs, and nothing running Linux. The average user will stick with whatever is on their machine - if they want to target non-nerds, they need to make it so you can walk into a store, and buy a computer running it.

[Arceles]

I actually disagree with him. Linux isn't "hard" at all, depending on the distribution:

- It's no harder to install than Windows (especially with GUI installers)

- It's no harder to use day-to-day

- It's no harder to install things from pre-compiled packages (in fact, it's often much easier with apt).

Personally - I think that if they want to go for average users - they don't need to spiff up the UI, or anything like that. They need to get it onto OEM machines. I can walk into PC World, and see hundreds of Windows machines, a few Macs, and nothing running Linux. The average user will stick with whatever is on their machine - if they want to target non-nerds, they need to make it so you can walk into a store, and buy a computer running it.

I like apt... I don't like make (I already have enough of it on windows with cygwin).

[seta-san]

I actually disagree with him. Linux isn't "hard" at all, depending on the distribution:

- It's no harder to install than Windows (especially with GUI installers)

- It's no harder to use day-to-day

- It's no harder to install things from pre-compiled packages (in fact, it's often much easier with apt).

Personally - I think that if they want to go for average users - they don't need to spiff up the UI, or anything like that. They need to get it onto OEM machines. I can walk into PC World, and see hundreds of Windows machines, a few Macs, and nothing running Linux. The average user will stick with whatever is on their machine - if they want to target non-nerds, they need to make it so you can walk into a store, and buy a computer running it.

now take a basic user who doesn't know computers like you. have them install Linux just fine. now imagine when it finishes and reboots it tries to start and boot to X but fails and either kernel panics or drops them at the console. Would you EVER be able to expect this person to figure out how to maybe install updated video drivers, update X, or alter configuration files with VIM? Thought not.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

now take a basic user who doesn't know computers like you. have them install Linux just fine. now imagine when it finishes and reboots it tries to start and boot to X but fails and either kernel panics or drops them at the console. Would you EVER be able to expect this person to figure out how to maybe install updated video drivers, update X, or alter configuration files with VIM? Thought not.

And what about when that happens on Windows?

[seta-san]

And what about when that happens on Windows?

windows doesn't suffer from incompatibilities between it's kernel and graphics layers because windows is one package made by one manufacturer. so problems with windows equivalent of X just wouldn't happen. When the OS fails to boot and the computer restarts it's probably going to try to get the user to restart to safe mode with a basic VGA driver. 256 colors and 1024x768 isn't sexy but it's functional.. functional enough to find the problem and fix it. any deeper problem and the OS doesn't expect the end user to be able to fix and doesn't even try to coax them into doing it by dumping them at a command prompt.

All this above and windows still has system restore functionality and the install discs have graphical, easy to use, programs that fixes most all basic issues that prevent the computer from booting.

edit..

not to mention one day I want to install Ubuntu on my tablet

http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/tablet

[n_K]

I agree with him about getting more people to use linux and whatnot, but one big way to be a complete tosser about it is to screw projects in development that have the support of many industrial players and come up with your own product that's pretty much a dumber idea that no-one wants (I'm talking about MIR here)...

I just can't take anything anyone from conical says seriously because really, they haven't got a clue.

[HawkMan]

Windows always has VGA fallback, those users are to stupid to know the difference. And the or usually have an update all hardware program that runs one every boot nowadays

[Joshie]

Firstly it's not unix based, it's BSD, as I recall

Sentence number one of the BSD wiki page disagrees with your distinction.

It's also a little impish of you to imply that being *nix 'based' somehow isn't 'Linux enough' for developers, as if people choose Linux simply by virtue of "being" Linux.

[Original Poster]

ubuntu is a nice starter linux... and if you want it can be a permmy as well... I am sticking to ubuntu just because I am used to it (though I do use other distros on occasions ) ubuntu is easy to use ...kind of.... the basic computer user will have little trouble doing their thing after a few hours of playing around...

an more advanced computer user will go through hell in order to do a simple task

(by simple I mean it should be easy if you know what you are looking for ) i find it easier on ubuntu to do advanced tasks in terminal then using the GUI ubuntu could be up there with user friendly ... but it still has to work out a few kinks to get up to scratch and be 100% user friendly VIA GUI

[tiagosilva29]

Firstly it's not unix based, it's BSD, as I recall

It's XNU.

[Nothing Here]

sudo apt-get update

sudo apt-get install multi-user-platform

sudo useradd -d everyone

sudo userdel -r leetall[/CODE]

[Growled Member]

ubuntu is a nice starter linux...

I've always said that. That's probably why you see so many variants based on it. It's a real nice base.