Ubuntu experiment over
A couple months ago, I wrote about my decision to try Ubuntu. I thought I could squeeze some more usage out of my old computer, and I was always curious as to how well Linux would work. Well, today I reached a conclusion: Linux is a waste of my time and energy.
There are lots of reasons to avoid it. Here is a quick, top-of-my-head list of reasons why I’m done with it:
1.) It’s hard to install programs. Even though Ubuntu provides a relatively-easy way to install programs from their list of supported software, installing one program often requires looking through their repository for multiple libraries. And if you want to install a program outside of their list… good luck. It’s never as simple as double-clicking an installation file and letting it take over.
2.) It’s very hard to find drivers. You can’t just pick up any hardware from your local Best Buy and expect it to work on your system. You’ll have to search (and hope) for some possible way, or perhaps some driver that will work… kinda. Example: My laptop had some ATI graphic card that would render the desktop, but drawing basic images on the screen took a lot of work for the machine. I know integrated graphics aren’t great, but it didn’t take two seconds to load an image on a web page when I was running XP.
3.) The selection of software for Linux is bad. If you’re on Windows, you can use practically any program you can find. On Linux, you’ll have to hope. This one in particular drove me nuts. Two or three times, I’ve found some program that I want to use, but I’d have to make a note to install it on my work machine or my wife’s computer because I couldn’t use it on my own machine.
4.) The “alternative” software for Linux is not as good as the Windows counterparts. You’ll probably be able to find some alternative program for every program you can’t run on Linux. If you can’t have Photoshop, you can use GIMP. If you can’t have Office, you can use Open Office. If you can’t have Outlook, you can use Thunderbird. These alternative programs can be used, but it’s like they’re not as fleshed-out as the more popular programs. For example, Open Office opens Word documents… most of the time. GIMP can edit image files, but good luck with the GUI. Thunderbird will check your email account, but it’s missing a lot of options and compatibility that Outlook has.
5.) You have to edit config files with a text editor. The last time I had to manually edit a configuration file was in junior high when I’d have a separate set of autoexec.bat and config.sys files to make each of my games work in DOS. I thought that was over with Windows 98. I don’t think I’m being spoiled when I say that I shouldn’t have to touch files like that anymore. Computer software should be moving forward, not backward.
6.) You’re still one tweak away from destroying your GUI. Yes, you can make backup config files and just copy over them, but why? Why should anybody have to deal with it?
7.) It doesn’t look as nice. Yes, I know Ubuntu has Aero or Beryl or whatever library that makes the windows wobble when you move them, but it’s just not as polished as OSX or Vista.
Can Linux work for some people? Yes, if you’re willing to work at it. Personally, there are things I’d rather do than spend hours trying to make my computer compatible with the rest of the world. Things like spend time with my wife. Write on my blog, or read other people’s posts. Read a book. Watch a movie. Sleep! Just do something more productive than Google for a possible way to do something that’s a simple double-click on other operating systems.
Today, I bought a laptop running Vista. I love it. I can use the Objectivist Research CD. I can finally burn a DVD of my wedding video by just dragging the video from my camera. I can see all websites, including my bank’s site. I can run Visual Studio. I can finally check out my local library’s program that will let me borrow audio books. I can do… anything!
My advice to anybody who might take a look at Ubuntu or Linux for their next computer. Don’t waste you time.
Tags: [linux, ubuntu, vista]Comments
11 Responses to “Ubuntu experiment over”
Leave a Reply
Well, you missed a few things.
First, it’s a huge help if a geek who knows it gets you started by tuning everything correctly off the bat, including video drivers, multimedia stuff, etc. That’s often the difference between a successful Linux install and a failure.
Second, yeah, the ATI drivers are a problem for now, at least in some cases. The good news is that ATI just released a ton of details about how their stuff works so better drivers are coming. By sometime early next year I think you’ll find ATI having the BEST possible support.
As to software loading: right, worst case compiling something from source is a pain. BUT most of the time, if you check ubuntuforums you’ll find somebody has already packaged it all up as a .DEB which is as easy to deal with as any Windows SETUP.EXE file. Also check get http://www.getdeb.net/
But here’s the big thing you missed:
http://www.virtualbox.org/
Download the appropriate .DEB file from there, install it, and you’ve got the ability to run a complete copy of Windows XP or similar as a task underneath Linux - a “virtual machine”.
Let’s take my example: I have a low-end laptop I paid $400 for brand new about five months ago, a BestBuy special Acer. Celeron 1.6 *single* core CPU, Intel 945 series graphics, 80gig HD, 512megs RAM. I added a 1gig memory module cheap for 1.5gig total.
I start Virtualbox, and I can fire up a copy of Windows XP. I can first assign it resources: how much RAM should it eat (I usually run 512meg but I can go a gig easy), whether it has Internet access at all, how much disk space it can eat, etc. I tend to run it cut off completely from Internet access, that way the damnthing can’t possibly get infested, but when I need to I can give it access in which case Ubuntu itself still acts as a “super firewall from hell” surrounding and protecting the Windows install.
Inside the Virtual Machine XP I can run ALL Windows programs. I have direct access to the DVD drive for loading apps, and I also have an “internal networking link” so that from within XP, my “Z:” drive points back up to the Linux disk. So I can be in Linux, download a Windows program via Firefox, save it to the Linux disk ad then fetch it into the Windows environment from within Windows. XP also has direct access to any USB device I want to connect it to, including printers. Not USB disks, but I can get to them via the networking link to the Linux disk tree.
Using Compiz I can have Windows running on one face of “the cube” and Linux on the others, rapid-switching between ‘em. Way, WAY cool.
Again: all this works GREAT on a low-end turd of a machine.
So far I’ve gotten this combo working (without 3d effects!) on a P4-1.5gHz machine with 768megs RAM, with XP assigned to 384megs.
And it’s 100% usable, 100% Windows compatible, 100% virus/trojan immune. Worst case if the XP machine gets infested, I keep a backup of it along with everything else - it’s just a *file* within the Linux disk structure, so it can be nuked and restored from it’s own boot sector on up with a single file copy and the Linux disk system is never at risk the way it is with dual-boot.
OK, i’m going to tackle your issues 1 by 1:
1. Complete and total [Admin edit, I don’t like foul language.]…If i want to install say…Kopete (A KDE-based IM client), I either go into synaptic, search for Kopete and select the package and install it and it automatically handles dependencies, or i open up a Terminal and type: “sudo apt-get install kopete” which also installs Kopete and handles all dependencies. As for stuff that’s not in the repos…It’s either as easy as downloading a .deb file and double clicking it, or downloading some source of an app, extracting it, then just run: ./configure && make && sudo make install and it compiles and installs the app just like any old app in apt.
2. I’ve got 11 systems in my house, all with different motherboards, all with different video cards, etc and every single one of them works out-of-the-box with linux. Yes, you should be a little careful and go with say…Intel wifi over Dell/HP standard wifi (Broadcom) or nVidia or Intel over ATI graphics, but it’s not that big of a deal.
3. I don’t completely understand your problem here, but if all your systems are running the same version of Ubuntu and you haven’t modified the sources.list much, all the available apps will be the same between any computer…and as for selection…Ubuntu has over 22,000 packages in the repos so i’d say that’s a pretty good selection.
4. The alternatives are damn good…GIMP is getting closer to Photoshop every day and the GIMP 2.4 release has a VERY usable UI, OpenOffice is also getting better every day…OpenOffice 2.3 is VERY powerful, it can do anything you need it to and now, it takes less time to open than Word 2007 or even Word 2003. As for Thunderbird…It was never meant to be a competitor to Outlook…If you want an Outlook competitor, pick Evolution.
5. Not for most things…Sure, that’s the quick and easy way to do things, but you can still use the GUI in Synaptic to edit your sources list or that new GUI tool to edit your display settings or stuff like that.
6. It’s the same way in Windows…but at least in Linux you don’t have to screw with random text files much and the system is inherently more stable.
7. By default, i’d say Ubuntu+GNOME looks better than XP or Vista with Aero turned off. Now, it’s easy as hell to turn on Compiz (the fun 3D effects) and unlike the uselessness in Vista, Compiz can actually be useful and it can be configured pretty quickly to look very similar to OS X’s Aqua or Aero or even better.
As for getting linux to work…Well…let me put it this way…When i ran Windows at home, it took me AT LEAST 6-7 hours after a clean reinstall to get it back up to a usable capacity. I recently reinstalled Ubuntu on my main machine at home…After the setup, it literally took me about 20-30 minutes of setup MAYBE to get my system to a usable state…From that alone, Ubuntu seems better/easier.
As for you getting a new Vista laptop…Oh god…Now first, let me mention that back in December/January of this year, i ran Vista as my main OS for like 2 months…It was horrible..Compatibility issues, crashing, resource hogging, slow as crap and that’s all the issues a normal user might have…not counting all the things that are more specific to me and what i do.
There ya go…Sorry to sound like a [Admin edit. Again, no need for the language.], but I believe i have just rebutted every point you made…
“installing one program often requires looking through their repository for multiple libraries”
what on earth? I have been using Ubuntu for years and all dependencies are always taken care of automatically.
“It’s very hard to find drivers.”
Sometimes. ATI has been especially troublesome until recently when the company decided to open source their driver. However, I can’t even count the number of times I have been able to plug devices in my Linux machines and have them just work. Many times I couldn’t get those same devices to work in Windows at all, or couldn’t find the darn Windows driver online.
“The selection of software for Linux is bad.”
Boy, that’s a generalization if I have ever heard one and completely unfounded. Would you consider Firefox and Thunderbird bad?
“The “alternative” software for Linux is not as good as the Windows counterparts.”
I really beg to differ on this one. I will personally take OpenOffice over MS Office any day of the week. I will never buy MS Office again and in fact you couldn’t even pay me to run it. I will give you other programs though. For instance, I still prefer Adobe Photoshop to Gimp, and a couple others but for the most part I am happy with all the software choices in Ubuntu.
“You’re still one tweak away from destroying your GUI.”
Too bad in Windows you are one malicious website away from rendering your OS worthless. Security is a band-aid in Windows and has so many more viruses because it is insecure at its core not because of its popularity.
“You have to edit config files with a text editor.”
Yes and no. There are more and more GUI options becoming available, Screens and Graphics in Ubuntu comes to mind. However, many times I find that config files are easier to work with and just make sense. For instance, if I want to save a program on my machine and move it to another I just install it and move over the directory with config info in it. Most of these directories reside in the home directory (i.e. .mozilla, .thunderbird) In Windows you have to deal with the registry, a wretched piece of the Windows core IMO.
“It doesn’t look as nice.”
Compiz Fusion. All Aero in Vista gives you is that Shift+Tab option, which I never ever use. There are so many pretty options in Compiz that increase my productivity dramatically. Scale and Workspaces on a cube are two that come to mind immediately.
“Today, I bought a laptop running Vista. I love it.”
Good, I am glad you found an OS you are happy and comfortable with. Choice is what it is all about anyway. I personally choose Linux and really never see myself going back to Windows. But hey if you like it, then more power to you. I just feel that the choice and benefits in Linux far outweigh any other OS available.
If you wanted to make a fair comparison, you should have bought a computer with any linux distribution pre-installed, like you did with Vista. Don’t compare apples with pears. Secondly: installing programs that are in the repository a a simple matter of click and install, you can even install 100 programs at the same time, without having to look for the files in internet. How much easier can it get?!?!
At my work I have openoffice installed on my windows-computer….works great! Gimp works fine. Please, before judging it TRY it. don’t say that it’s different than the popular programs. That is not making a fair comparison. select 10 modifications you want to make to a photo and see if one can do it with gimp. For sure it will take you more time, since you’re used to Photoshop. But try to rememeber if you were able to do that the first time you opened Photoshop…..
I don’t blame you running back to Vista, but comparing Vista to Ubuntu after “trying” Ubuntu for one week is a bit pathetic.
One needs to be careful to not fall into “it happened to me so this is what happens to everyone”
My experience has been far different. I have been using linux as my primary desktop since March 2001.
1) No operating system that I have ever use has as easy a software installation than Ubuntu (or other major linux distribution). The list of software available in the software repository is very very long. And it all installs in one click. I have not once had to look through the list for multiple libraries. The system automatically installs the required libraries for you. This is an interesting contrast to when I attempted to install Microsoft’s Synctoy on my Windows XP laptop last week. It would not install and told me that I must download a bunch of other files from Microsoft to make it work. ‘It’s never as simple as double-clicking an installation file and letting it take over.” Interesting.
2) never had this problem. Every monitor, video card, sound card, printer, scanner, digital camera has worked right out of the box for me in Linux. I have had more trouble making them work in Windows. My HP printer for example worked within 2 minutes of plugging it into my Linux desktop for the first time. On my Windows desktop, it took over one hour to install all the driver software before the printer would work, and then, I had to shutdown windows everytime I wanted a page to print.
Not once has a graphic on a website taken me “two seconds” to load.
3) See my comment on item 1. This list of software available is very very long. It is a different list than the list of Windows software. For those that are used to Linux software, they will find find some bit of software that they are accustomed to that is not available on Windows.
4) Personally, I find Thunderbird far superior to Outlook. Similarly I find OpenOffice superior to MSOffice 9i have never had an openoffice file not open on another computer with openoffice. I have regularly had MSWord
files that will not open on another computer with msword) To each their own.
5) i have never, not once, edited a config file in Linux. Not once (since March 2001). The statement that one MUST edit them is false. It is a myth. That is not to say that no one has ever needed to edit one. But the claim is that everyone will need to edit them. It is simply not true and is quintessential FUD.
In contrast, I have found that I needed to edit the Windows Registry many times. Given the choice, i think config files are superior. Even Microsoft has admitted that the registry is a very bad system.
6) I have tweaked the “GUI” on my Linux installations many times and not once destroyed it. In fact, I have had the Windows desktop behave far poorly than my Linux desktops.
7) For me, a Linux desktop can be made to look far better than the Windows desktop. Especially since Gnome and KDE are designed to be configurable by the user, In contrast, Windows desktops (Vista and XP) are designed to be not very configurable by the user. it is a subjective matter, but for me Linux looks far better than Windows, with or without 3D desktop effects.
Given my experience, I could easily conclude that “My advice to anybody who might take a look at Windows for their next computer. Don’t waste you time.” But I will not do that, because i know that just because I have had a particular experience with Windows does not mean that everyone will have the similar experience.
Cheers!
@Jim March:
I like the idea of a virtual machine, and I’ve considered the idea of always working under one. Because, like you say, it’s just a file that you can backup and revert if/when Windows XP starts to mess up. And, unfortunately, every Windows box I’ve had eventually turns into dog after a couple years, despite my best efforts.
There were three reasons I didn’t set up a virtual machine:
1.) My laptop had similar specs to your laptop, with 512 megs of RAM. I knew that I’d have to install more RAM on the box, like you did. I didn’t want to invest any into the laptop, though. The laptop also had a burned-out cdrom drive, so I was only trying to find some real use for it.
2.) I didn’t want to go through all of the work you did. I’m lazy.
I was also worried that I’d spend a lot of time setting something up, and then on the last step something would break and I’d be back to square one. Kinda like when I installed Ubuntu through netboot. I tried Gutsy, but the install stopped working on the last step. I tried Feisty, and it didn’t work, too. I eventually got my laptop up to Gutsy, but I had to netboot Dapper and then build up through three versions of Ubuntu. What a waste of time!
3.) I don’t want to be in a situation where half of my programs run on the local OS, but the other half run through this virtual machine. And as I noticed after using Ubuntu’s software, I’d be spending most of my time on the Windows XP virtual box. In that case, why even mess with Ubuntu at all?
And remember, I was running on a box that couldn’t render graphics well. Sure, if ATI makes a driver in the future that may work better, then great! I’m using the computer today, though.
I appreciate the comment!
@JD:
Thanks for the comment. I hope you don’t mind, but I had to edit out a couple words you used before posting it. I’ll try to reply to a few things you said:
1.) Yes, installing applications often is as simple as you mention. But be honest: Does it always work that way? I came across some situations, especially when trying to install Compiz and a couple other things, and I had to search for dependencies myself to get it to work. And those commands that you mention, you can’t expect people to go through that.
2.) My laptop worked with Linux, but the question is: How well?
It’s great that you have Linux running on so many boxes, but let me give you a case where it might not. My mother-in-law has an old computer that runs Windows ME. It’s horrible, but since she just surfs the web and writes documents it works for her. Would I ever dare to put Ubuntu on her box? Before my experience I might have, just because I assumed that hardware support was as good as I’ve heard. But now, I’d be so afraid that there would be a video card issue, or a audio card issue, or some other little issue that would take a machine that *functions* to one that reminds you that there’s a problem every time you sit down with it.
3.) 22,000 is a lot of programs, but seriously… how many of those are worth using? How many text editors does one need?
4.) I disagree. OpenOffice may open most documents, but is it guarantees to have 100% compatibility with all Word, Powerpoint, or Excel documents? I don’t think so.
That said, I use Open Office on all of my computers. I think the compatibility is close enough to make it usable. I don’t dispute that it’s ok, but I still think MS Office is much, much better.
There here is one phrase of yours that I’d like to point out: “getting better every day.” That should be the motto of Linux. It’s an excuse for why Linux can’t do what PC and Mac boxes do today.
As to my Vista box: Yes, it does seem to be a memory hog. When I booted the machine for the first time, it was taking up over 900 megs of RAM! I hope that will go down as I clean out the garbage that came with it, but that’s a lot. However, the machine feels fast and stable. Now, I’m saying this on Day 2 of Vista, so we’ll see.
@Mike
I’d say the selection of available software is bad when many programs that people may want to use is not available. Again, I’ll use my local library as an example. They allow library users to check out audio books that can be downloaded to mp3 books. This is great…. if you run a Windows box. Otherwise, you can’t use the software.
SpiralFrog is another example. I heard about a service that let users download DRM’d music for free. I thought that was a neat idea, so I checked it out. Unfortunately, it wasn’t available on Ubuntu, so I was out of luck.
I think that you’ll find that case in many situations. Most software is available for Windows, and Linux users get scraps. That’s why I say that Linux has a bad selection of software, and I’m don’t think I’m generalizing or inaccurate. It’s just a fact: It’s a Windows world.
@Maarten Kooiker
I’m sure that I’d get better performance out of a box with Linux pre-installed than the one I installed it on. I don’t dispute that. I just think my situation is an example as to how you really can’t expect Linux to work on all machines.
Think about it this way: What would people be saying about Windows if it offered the same type of hardware support that Linux had? Most people would use it as a reason not to use Windows. But since the problem is with Linux, not Windows, it’s ignored or excused.
I tried Linux longer than one week. I probably got only one good week of use out of the box, though. Most of my time was spent trying to make the computer work!
The problem with graphics appearing on my Ubuntu box were due to bad video driver. Most people aren’t going to have the same problem, of course, and I did not mean to suggest that. However, what I think the chances of having hardware issues is more likely with Windows, due to the smaller amount of drivers available. That’s all.
There were more problems than just my video card, by the way. I didn’t want to get into too many details in my original post, but I also had problem getting my wireless card to work. I eventually got it to function, but I had to go through a long list of steps off of some random page I googled. And I *hate* doing that. I just want it to work! If I put Windows 98 on that same box, everything would have worked.
You are also right that you don’t *have* to edit configuration files. Then again, I don’t *have* to have a working computer. To get everything working on my computer, though, I *had* to edit configuration files. And when I changed a video setting that stopped XSession from loading, I definitely had to edit that file to make it work. Can you honestly say that most Linux users won’t have to edit a configuration file themselves? How am I spreading FUD?
The problem is you think the software is “bad” because you sometimes cannot run a Windows program. You need to stop in thinking in terms of “Oh I want to install Microsoft Word, but Linux can’t so it must be bad.” Instead you need to think in terms of accomplishing tasks. The programs you mentioned aren’t the only ones that do what you want. For instance if you want to organize mp3s on an ipod you don’t have to have iTunes. The comparable Linux counterpart is amarok, and trust me if you have ever used it you would not consider it “scraps.” Accomplish tasks the way you want without vendor login is the Linux mantra. You are thinking the way MS Windows has trained you to.