Why don't you use Ubuntu?


Recommended Posts

darkz
You could say that supporting the underdog is a way of supporting competition. Personally I am happy to use Ubuntu (easy for me as I am new) right now, though I remain open-minded (and am looking forward to Neowin's Shift Linux). To me the experience of using Ubuntu is miles better in almost every way I can imagine than my experiences using Windows (especially Vista). But I use Ubuntu because I think it is a better product, not to support the underdog.

But I can understand someone saying it's good to support the underdog. To me, Windows is an inferior product so it's widespread use is based on the monopoly Microsoft has achieved through bullying OEMs down the years and stifling competition. In this case I think it is good to support the underdog (if of course it is better, as Linux and Macs certainly are in my book) as it can only help make for a better world for us all the more people know that there are alternatives and that they have a choice. Once they know these things then there can be real competition with more OEMs selling machines with Linux installed by default just the way they do now with Windows.

The biggest threat to Microsoft's dominance is that the majority out there start seeing that they have a choice, IMO. Frankly I think Macs are superior to Windows PCs as well. I just wish they'd shed their 'boutique' image, just as I hope Linux can broaden out from its 'geek' image, as Ubuntu and some other distros are trying hard to do (doesn't mean it has to abandon or compromise anything along the way).

I don't want this to seem like a troll or anything because I just mean that the issue is real competition. This can only benefit everyone through stimulating real innovation. It'll make Windows, Linux, Macs and other systems better for everyone to use. :D

dude the easy way is not always the best. let's imagine three identical pc's -- one has ubuntu, one has gentoo or other somewhat optimized distro, one has windows xp -- which one will be the fastest? i don't know actually, i havn't done any tests or whatsoever, but i bet ubuntu's gonna be the slowest. i also hate ubuntu's dephells -- sometimes it's doesn't give you much of a choice, eh

Link to post
Share on other sites
rand0m.bullet

i used to use ubuntu, tried out archlinux one day and i must say i'm impressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
raider360

Because Windows is all I need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
James7
dude the easy way is not always the best. let's imagine three identical pc's -- one has ubuntu, one has gentoo or other somewhat optimized distro, one has windows xp -- which one will be the fastest? i don't know actually, i havn't done any tests or whatsoever, but i bet ubuntu's gonna be the slowest. i also hate ubuntu's dephells -- sometimes it's doesn't give you much of a choice, eh

These things often come down to personal preference, but informed choice is always better at getting us what will work best for us rather than accepting the status quo without considering that other possibilities exist.

I agree with you that we do need speed tests. I personally find Ubuntu faster on my machine (and the family desktop as well) than XP was, remarkably faster actually. But I'd like some proper tests. I'm sure Gentoo is faster, if you set it up right, than Ubuntu. The benefit of Ubuntu for me and many people is that it lets you come over to Linux without having to know too much about it. Many scoff at Ubuntu for being easy but it does help bring people in.

There is another problem that too often gets in the way of objective comparisons of operating systems : 'fear uncertainty and doubt', deliberate attempts to confuse the public about what the situation really is. Most FUD seems to come from Microsoft and it does nothing but help them maintain their monopoly. And most FUD consists of lies or at least untruths, just enough to scare many Windows users and company executives from considering other alternatives.

This is sort of sad in my view. It would be great if we could treat these things objectively and admit the strengths and weaknesses of all operating systems. This would help encourage all operating systems to be made better and would help get rid of the apathy that many computer users feel about what are actually quite important issues, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
exUBERance

yeah Gentoo is probably faster that Ubuntu seeing as Ubuntu comes with a few packages that you may or may not use and Gentoo is built by you with the packages you want so its ONLY what you want... thats what slows windows down like hell. they install all this crap[ on your computer that you dont need, like Office Demo's when they expire in 60 days and the Average user doesn't notice this and when they end up not being able to finish the report they were working on they turn to a free solution, OpenOffice.Org... Ubuntu is becoming like a morph of Mac and Windows. It's got a tad bit of crap and also tons of great user experience apps like the Mac ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
BilliShere

lack of proper drivers: you expect me to sit there editing my xorg.conf file using a terminal so that my widescreen monitor can work with its proper modesetting and all that? on top of that there's some really crappy ati drivers.

i must say ubuntu does have amazing visual effects.. but thats not everything.

lack of familiar software for ubuntu. thank god there is such a thing as virtualbox for ubuntu so i can windows for my fav familiar applications.

its SUCH a hassle to port my outlook appointments, music library, picture library and so much more to another operating system. easier to just stick with windows and use third party software to make it look as good as ubuntu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
James7
its SUCH a hassle to port my outlook appointments, music library, picture library and so much more to another operating system. easier to just stick with windows and use third party software to make it look as good as ubuntu.

This is called 'lock-in'. I know what it is like. To be honest, I gave up trying and printed out my Outlook addressbook, then typed it into Evolution. I did the same with my calendar. As for music, I just copied it over and now use Rhythmbox. I didn't find it necessary to delete photos either as they open fine in Linux. The big pain for me was the Outlook stuff, otherwise everything opens fine and can be edited fine (OpenOffice works fine). There are many people who probably do feel 'locked-in' though. :cry:

Along with exuberance, I recommend wine for things you can't live without from Windows. I was happy to give up Outlook as I'd long given up using it for email for security fears. So it was just a bit of typing on my part to enter my addressbook and calendar into Evolution. I know someone here will probably now tell me that I could have done it all by an easier method. ;) Fact is, I just wanted to clear the decks a bit and remove those entries in my addressbook that were no longer valid or wanted. I do use wine for a couple of Windows programs that I couldn't find good Linux alternatives for. (Y)

Link to post
Share on other sites
h3xis
This involves him first finding out what is causing his problem, then trying to figure out how to recompile the kernel, and if all doesn't help, he's supposed to code a fix for himself? No surprise that everyone is laughing at the Linux community. Things have to work out of the box for the generic consumer. Updates breaking basic stuff like this is a big no-no.

It's a problem with SATA at the kernel level. As far as I know, he knows that. It's also not rocket science trying to compile a kernel. You learn a lot about Linux when building your own kernel and you seem to have completely ignored the fact that I provided an alternative solution. Why is trying to find a solution on your own so taboo? If I have a problem with my car, I'm going to try to figure out what the problem is. I'm not going to sit on the side and whine about it not working. If you buy a car or a house you are expected to know how they work. I'm not delving into this any further because it's been beaten to death. You also mention that the cause for this was due to an update and I know this is going off topic but there have been multiple times in OSX or Windows where problems cropped up due to an update.

edit: What is the deal with some of the posters complaining about Linux in general in this thread? The OP asked why you would use another distro over Ubuntu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janitor

Dont know why you guys just stay with XP, everything works without spending an hour trying to fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xp1ode

I use it just because is what i want, is a simple to use linux distro that has everything you need to learn just in case you get sick and tired of the ease of use. I also use it because is Linux, is a nice refresh to get away from MS Windows. I also use it because is free. There are millions of reasons to use it, but i mainly choose to use it because is just another choice in the bag full of distros available...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Boktai1000
Dont know why you guys just stay with XP, everything works without spending an hour trying to fix it.

I'm not to sure where u got this information from, as ive been using Ubuntu 7.10 since final and everything just worked out of the box and just needed to install some programs and get it set up so there hasn't been any problems. Im sick of people spreading FUD about Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hak Foo
Ummm... LILO gets written to the MBR, as well. Or both LILO and GRUB can be told to be written to the Linux partition instead of the MBR.

I'm not really sure what you are complaining about, other than you don't really know what LILO and GRUB do, but complain about some innacurate belief you hold about them.

Well, I think it's most likely a shift in how installers handle things. The older installers used to default to dropping LILO in the partition (slackware always explicitly asked "MBR, partition, or none at all and use a boot disc?), and the newer ones seem to default to dropping GRUB in the MBR.

I don't see the benefit of putting it in the MBR. To me it seems like an agressive move, rather than trying to coexist with whatever you had before.

(I also have no clue what the partitions are called anymore-- I last was seriously using desktop Linux in 2003, back just as DevFS was first rolling out for a few very ambitious distributors-- so I didn't want to try and guess when it said "where to install GRUB" in the installer and just said "hd0" as the default (in my day, it would be 'hda')

My only thought is maybe putting it in the MBR avoids some problems with BIOSes that can't cope with large hard discs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
James7
edit: What is the deal with some of the posters complaining about Linux in general in this thread? The OP asked why you would use another distro over Ubuntu.

Good point. That's what I thought. It's been side-tracked, I guess.

I've been reading this thread from the start and actually find it interesting when people do compare distros and give their views. I know I have been guilty also of comparing OSes here and not distros, but I plead provocation :D Probably that is better for another thread though.

It's lovely how you get some Windows fans dropping into this thread for a cup of tea, a biscuit and a kind word ;) but I vote for sticking with the main topic here and I'll try to stick with it myself from now on! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janitor

I've used Linux (Mandriva, SuSE, Ubuntu) however it's not desktop ready for the normal user. Stupid things like incorrect resolutions when it boots etc. I don't care what anybody else uses, it's an opinion which i'm entitled too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Glowstick
It's a problem with SATA at the kernel level. As far as I know, he knows that. It's also not rocket science trying to compile a kernel. You learn a lot about Linux when building your own kernel and you seem to have completely ignored the fact that I provided an alternative solution. Why is trying to find a solution on your own so taboo?

...

If I have a problem with my car, I'm going to try to figure out what the problem is. I'm not going to sit on the side and whine about it not working. If you buy a car or a house you are expected to know how they work.

You've gotta be ****ting me. Step off your high horse, Einstein!

Link to post
Share on other sites
h3xis
You've gotta be ****ting me. Step off your high horse, Einstein!

Care to explain yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Glowstick
Care to explain yourself?

Not everyone is a genius like you (this is meant rhetorically, my opinion is currently quite the opposite).

Most people can drive cars, but not fix them. Ubuntu is targetting the generic public, which is not really computer savvy. You can't expect them to compile kernels or anything. But considering your age and the idea that people have to be know-it-alls, I suppose you're a college kid with high ideals that still needs to grow up and get experience with the real world (e.g. get a damn job that will get you in contact with people that are not your friends).

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
...

I don't see the benefit of putting it in the MBR. To me it seems like an agressive move, rather than trying to coexist with whatever you had before.

...

:blink: Apparently you don't notice what Microsoft does when you install it on a Linux PC. "co-exist" is not an option.

And Ubuntu and others do a great job of detecting Windows and setting up dual boot. After all, if they don't put anything in the MBR, how will Windows know to dual-boot? And telling people to do these extra manual steps after installing is out of the question. People balk if you tell them to open up menu.lst in a text editor to change the "default" selection.

But all of this is off-topic for a thread asking Non-Ubuntu users why they prefer their distro over Ubuntu. And people seem to want to drag the same, tired old "MS vs Linux" stuff around again. It gets real old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
h3xis
Not everyone is a genius like you (this is meant rhetorically, my opinion is currently quite the opposite).

Most people can drive cars, but not fix them. Ubuntu is targetting the generic public, which is not really computer savvy. You can't expect them to compile kernels or anything. But considering your age and the idea that people have to be know-it-alls, I suppose you're a college kid with high ideals that still needs to grow up and get experience with the real world (e.g. get a damn job that will get you in contact with people that are not your friends).

Which is another reason why I don't use it. Anyway, I don't expect people to be know-it-alls, but when you're delving into something new you shouldn't expect everything to be laid out in front of you and spoon fed to you. This is the last post I'm going to make regarding this because it has nothing to do with the thread but as for growing up, I think you should speak for yourself considering that you can't hold a discussion without getting emotional and making asinine assumptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Glowstick

More like I'm calling you out. Your expectations to the average person are far beyond the reality, which tells me you don't have any wide experience yet. And it seems I got you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer
I'm not to sure where u got this information from, as ive been using Ubuntu 7.10 since final and everything just worked out of the box and just needed to install some programs and get it set up so there hasn't been any problems. Im sick of people spreading FUD about Linux.

The FUD (if any) being spread in the thread isn't about Linux, but about Ubuntu itself, and it is largely for the reason I would have suspected: it's too much like Windows.

1. It's too easy to install! (As easy as Fedore Core is to install, Ubuntu is even easier; with Wubi, you even have an install-from-Windows option.)

2. It supports non-open-source-codecs (such as GStreamer-ugly). This is a straight philisophical difference.

3. It's *popular*. (Again, some people like the less-popular distributions *because* they are less popular; Fedorta Core and openSuSE come in for their share of bashing for the same reasons.)

On the other hand, I like (and use) Ubuntu *because* of those reasons. (By the way I installed, and use, Gutsy Gibbon via Wubi.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
darkz
These things often come down to personal preference, but informed choice is always better at getting us what will work best for us rather than accepting the status quo without considering that other possibilities exist.

I agree with you that we do need speed tests. I personally find Ubuntu faster on my machine (and the family desktop as well) than XP was, remarkably faster actually. But I'd like some proper tests. I'm sure Gentoo is faster, if you set it up right, than Ubuntu. The benefit of Ubuntu for me and many people is that it lets you come over to Linux without having to know too much about it. Many scoff at Ubuntu for being easy but it does help bring people in.

There is another problem that too often gets in the way of objective comparisons of operating systems : 'fear uncertainty and doubt', deliberate attempts to confuse the public about what the situation really is. Most FUD seems to come from Microsoft and it does nothing but help them maintain their monopoly. And most FUD consists of lies or at least untruths, just enough to scare many Windows users and company executives from considering other alternatives.

This is sort of sad in my view. It would be great if we could treat these things objectively and admit the strengths and weaknesses of all operating systems. This would help encourage all operating systems to be made better and would help get rid of the apathy that many computer users feel about what are actually quite important issues, IMO.

well, fine, i'm not going to write another essay back :D

yeah, ubuntu's great if you don't wanna know alot about it. but that's not what linux is about -- linux is about choice, and linux is knowing pretty much everything going on on your maching. thats why people run linux, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Julius Caro

I use it, but I still use windows too. Ubuntu has everything, really. Media player, easy installing of codecs..

I kinda understand when people criticize the directory structure, but the truth is, going back to a "deleting applications by deleting the directory" is not really a step to the future. Today OS try to hide all those things to the user. For all that matters, the "users" are kinda expected to store their files in their own directories... even vista has an even weirder structure now that apps not running as admin can't write anything into the "program files".

Link to post
Share on other sites
frogger

i came to try ubuntu because i just wanted ot see what it was like.

i had trouble changing the directory with cd when i first tried it out and you're expecting people to compile their own kernal??

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.