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


Recommended Posts

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.

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.

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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?

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

  • Like 1

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.

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.

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

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!