Why Linux won't ever catch on IMHO

This is all IMHO:

I'll probably get a little bit of flame for this, but I think that Windows is better than Linux _for the average user_. There is probably not a single person on these forums who is considered to be an average computer user. I think that anybody who uses linux and didn't grow up with it is automatically a non-average computer user. Why? Because they are willing to put time into learning it. They like tinkering with computers and learning about them. An average computer user wants their computer to work out of the box, do exactly what they want it to do, with someone on the other end of a phone if they don't get something. They don't want to put work into their computer. I agree that Linux is better for me, because I was willing to put work into learning it, and because I have had a programming/scripting past. If someone just doesn't get computers, then there is nothing in Linux that windows doesn't have. An average computer user doesn't want to have anything to do with the command line. *It's a mythical thing that only experts will ever use*. They don't care about filesystems. They don't care about permission systems. They don't care about package management. They just want their computer to work. And this is why I think that Linux won't catch on. All of this stuff is too visible and too much of it is necessary for maintenance of the computer.

Also, again IMHO- I think that this is why Mac is gaining on Windows when Windows is better. Because Mac has the "just work" thing down. It's easier. Windows is more powerful and versatile, as long as you have antivirus software, but Macs are easy.

I disagree. My grandma only plays games on her computer and uses the internet. I think she would love ubuntu, and next I see her (Christmas or summer) Ill let her test it out on my computer. She is constantly trying to buy games like mahjong and breakout etc for her computer that are free for linux.

Also, at least in my opinion, Macs are far more visually appealing than PCs (also OSX vs Windows). That seems to be one of the main reasons designers & such use them.

You're approximately the 1 millionth person to say this here, just saying.

dannytatom said: Also, at least in my opinion, Macs are far more visually appealing. That seems to be one of the main reasons designers & such use them.

Well, yes lol. Vista is ugly xD

dannytatom said: Also, at least in my opinion, Macs are far more visually appealing. That seems to be one of the main reasons designers & such use them.

I guess that's true. Some of the companies do make pretty ugly PC's. And they come with a lot of graphics software, though there is open source stuff for that for PC's.

Moved to Recurring Discussions.

Macs are *not* worse than windows.

What do you not like about mac osx? Let's look at the basic elements:

• compiler: gcc

• low-level video system: opengl

• printing system: cups

• (remotely) freebsd based kernel

A lot of GNU userland, such as the terminal, wget, gcc, etc.

The most important security program in macosx is ... *drums* _sudo_!

Why do so many people say "Ubuntu is great but mac osx sucks" !?

I think you're basing your opinion on the assumption that the average user is installing Linux on their own. Of course that's going to be difficult. Installing any OS on your own isn't going to be a piece of cake. Why does Windows seem easier? Because the OEMs set everything up for you. I really doubt the average user would have an easy time installing Windows on their own, and then setting everything else up on their own (drivers, software, etc.). Buy a computer pre-installed with a Linux distro, and it will be a completely different story.

FuturePilot said: I think you're basing your opinion on the assumption that the average user is installing Linux on their own. Of course that's going to be difficult. Installing any OS on your own isn't going to be a piece of cake. Why does Windows seem easier? Because the OEMs set everything up for you. I really doubt the average user would have an easy time installing Windows on their own, and then setting everything else up on their own (drivers, software, etc.). Buy a computer pre-installed with a Linux distro, and it will be a completely different story.

Yes, but what will come with it- OOO? Now the user (if they're coming from windows) has to figure out how to use wine to install MSO. They want to enable compiz for the cool effects? They'll have to use package management. One way or another, they're going to have to touch the terminal. It took me hours to figure out that my script to install crossover wouldn't unpack because I needed to sudo it from the terminal. There are so many things that just can't be done in any other way. I think that some of the stuff that linux users take for granted is just, well ... mysterious. I mean, even gufw is complicated, and that's the easiest firewall that I was able to find when I was first starting with this.

i was using windows xp for about 2 years,...but now have been using ubuntu for roughly the same time,i work on a building site with no education in computers ,so you can def say im a newb! so my point here is that linux is far superior, fair enough win is point and click,and yes windows taught me about computers in general.....but linux taught me about a bit of programming ..e.g learning the terminal to install a prog from a .gz package..

idigchess said: Yes, but what will come with it- OOO? Now the user (if they're coming from windows) has to figure out how to use wine to install MSO. They want to enable compiz for the cool effects? They'll have to use package management. One way or another, they're going to have to touch the terminal. It took me hours to figure out that my script to install crossover wouldn't unpack because I needed to sudo it from the terminal. There are so many things that just can't be done in any other way. I think that some of the stuff that linux users take for granted is just, well ... mysterious. I mean, even gufw is complicated, and that's the easiest firewall that I was able to find when I was first starting with this.

The UFW part of GUFW actually stands for Uncomplicated Firewall :lolflag:

idigchess said: Now the user (if they're coming from windows) has to figure out how to use wine to install MSO.

That argument would cut both ways. Someone "coming from Windows" expecting everything to be quite the same in Linux will indeed have a hard time and will be better of with Windows. Someone "coming from Linux" will feel quite the same when trying to use Windows.

Your "typical" or "average" Linux user would have no need to use Wine. If there was the need to use Wine, there's the GUI installer which installs Wine without seeing any packages or using any command line.

I rather suspect that your difficulties with Linux stem from the fact that you tried to use Linux in exactly the same way as you used Windows. That will not work, quite.

another example..... i have a windows prog called (rebirthb338v20) installed on my acer aspire one (no cd drive) and can run it anytime... windows just wants money linux just wants users!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have to say that Linux is at a disadvantage to windows. The market is flooded with windows programs. Programs that in windows you just pop in the cd and sit back. That is what the average computer user wants...

FuturePilot said: I think you're basing your opinion on the assumption that the average user is installing Linux on their own. Of course that's going to be difficult. Installing any OS on your own isn't going to be a piece of cake. Why does Windows seem easier? Because the OEMs set everything up for you. I really doubt the average user would have an easy time installing Windows on their own, and then setting everything else up on their own (drivers, software, etc.). Buy a computer pre-installed with a Linux distro, and it will be a completely different story.

I agree with you on this one. I setup various Linux distros for a few of my pals and family. They don't have any problems using Linux. I suspect that if I had asked them to install it, then they would have a difficult time because they are not techies.

magmon said: She is constantly trying to buy games like mahjong and breakout etc for her computer that are free for linux.

Sorry off topic: I love Mahjong and only the one in Ubuntu menu. Where else are there FREE Mahjong downloads?

RiceMonster said: You're approximately the 1 millionth person to say this here, just saying.

+1. This has been debated to a pulp, it's really getting old, and in fact, it also becomes increasingly annoying whenever a new thread like this is made.

pp. said: I rather suspect that your difficulties with Linux stem from the fact that you tried to use Linux in exactly the same way as you used Windows. That will not work, quite.

On the contrary, I have no problems with linux. I only had problems in the first couple of days when I was learning the commands that I needed to survive. I only use wine for an email client that has no linux binary and MSO, because I hate-hate-hate OOO.

ibutho said: I agree with you on this one. I setup various Linux distros for a few of my pals and family. They don't have any problems using Linux. I suspect that if I had asked them to install it, then they would have a difficult time because they are not techies.

Image restore disk... Same as Windows.

I don't understand why so many people think you HAVE to use the command line in Linux, especially regarding installing packages. It makes me wonder when the last time they actually used Linux was.

I'd like to visit this imaginary world where average Windows users either never have problems or troubleshoot their own problems. That seems to be the world you live in. I have never seen such a thing.

I don't see average Windows users happy using Windows. I see them scared of any kind of computer and thinking that any little thing they do (or nothing at all) will break it and ruin their lives.

Some further reading: Please stop pretending Windows “just works” A Linux live CD can save your data

By the way, your arguments are old, super-old, and have been refuted thousands of times over.

Read this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

d

Please, there are a lot of things in windows that makes it harder then Linux in my opinion. Defragging, constant virus checks, addware checks, for me its windows that is more complicated.

What command line? I never used it in Intrepid since i installed it.

Desktop computers is not the world, linux may not catch up on it but the rest other devices, linux is spreading like a virus. Look! your new HDTV might be powered by linux. ):P

the OP could not be more wrong. i have 6 customers that now run linux and absolutely love it. they no longer have to worry about viruses, defragging, blue screens, and searching the net for apps. actually, it is windows that not ready for the average person. way too much overhead and bull crap to put up with.

what does the average person do on their computer? surf, email, mp3's. yeah, you *really* need windows to do that. get real and wake up.

idigchess said: Yes, but what will come with it- OOO? Now the user (if they're coming from windows) has to figure out how to use wine to install MSO. They want to enable compiz for the cool effects? They'll have to use package management. One way or another, they're going to have to touch the terminal. It took me hours to figure out that my script to install crossover wouldn't unpack because I needed to sudo it from the terminal. There are so many things that just can't be done in any other way. I think that some of the stuff that linux users take for granted is just, well ... mysterious. I mean, even gufw is complicated, and that's the easiest firewall that I was able to find when I was first starting with this.

Okay I thought I was just going to read the main rant and a few flame repleys then leave,then I seen this and had to answer back :/.

You make a good point,however three or four things wrong.

1. Everyone has their own thoughts on what an average user is(I will go into further detail into point 2)

1. From my point a view an average user will not even need Microsoft Office or any Office program. At most the only program for text they would need is notepad or anything like it.

1. Now you say one way or another an average user will have to use the terminal... Okay in some ways I could agree with you. Only if they were to install Linux by themselves and have graphic driver issues,but then they would not be an average user would they :p? Oh and for crossover office I only had to right click and say run from terminal >.>.

1. For firewall's you have one by default all you got was a gui tool to allow you to mess with the firewall settings. I myself find fire starter best for this :).

Frankly .... who cares?

Why does linux need to "catch on"?

If anything, we should want it to remain in that state where it has no burden of having to appeal to the vast unwashed masses, and instead sticks to a specific vision (or, set of visions, given the different flavors within the larger linux community).

What Linux needs is not to "catch on". It needs to succeed at it's own goals. Whatever those are. They don't need to include "catching on".

It doesn't *need* to catch on, but it'd be nice if it did.

More hardware support for people already using Linux..

More alternatives to Windows for people who may not be happy with Windows.

the OP is talking about the average computer user,assuming that the average is a dumb person who doesn't know anything about computers

but for stating a fact,the linux user is always more aware of what happens on his computer than a windows user,which makes him a little smarter in the matters of maintenance

PS:i'm glad i'm not an "average computer user" :D

An old subject, but if it comes out again then it means that there is still an issue...

The big problem when comparing the use of Ubuntu versus Windows is that people are comparing on a fully pre-installed Windows with all drivers already installed with an iso image that you have to download for Ubuntu (Linux).

So let's start with the download of the ISO image for Windows Vista that you can get from your MSDN account...

1 - Download the image... We need to figure out which flavor: Home, Business, Ultimate, anyother flavor? 2 - After a little search over the net, we have settle for Ultimate, to make sure that we have everything... (Cost is not a factor, let's simply assume that we don't care for the price) 3 - Download the image and burn it. 4 - Reboot, install and follow the instructions... Sorry, we can't check if it will work with all of our hardwares... 5 - So, Vista is now installed... Reboot ... 6 - Login with your user 7 - 99% of time, graphic card should be supported at least for basic configuration (including 3d) 8 - Now, we have to validate what works and what does not works 9 - 99% of time, sound card should work and wired network card. Let's assume that they work as expected. 10- Printer: Does not work, we need to find the driver cause the CD provided only contains the XP driver. 11- Scanner: Same as the printer... 12 - Your advance setup for your mouse and keyboard: Need to look for a driver also 13 - Your webcam: Maybe basic functions, but we'll have to look for a Vista driver 14 - Your Still Camera: Need to look for a driver if we want to use the cable provided with advance features. 15 - Wireless card: Need to look for a driver... 16 - And that "Unknown" device is probably our internal card reader... We'll have to try to find a driver for that we don't know the brand/model of the internal card reader...

So, that's a typical Windows setup installation. Basic stuff is working, but we need to fetch for drivers on the internet... Some will be easy to find and others will be hard to find because we don't know exactly where to look for that driver.

Me, I know my way around and eventually will be able to setup everything. Worst that could happen would be that the device has no driver compatible with Vista. Then I would try the XP driver and crossing my fingers...

Printer drivers are generally easy to find. but Scanners, Camera, keyboard and mouse, wireless card could give some problems. And for "unkown devices", we can get stuck since it can be really hard to identify the manufacturer (without opening the case...).

But if that scenario would happen to my brother-in-law, for example, he would not know what to do once Vista is installed... Maybe he would be able to figure out that printer driver and get lucky with the scanner. But that's about it. I'm pretty sure that my phone will eventually ring to help him.

So, in this setup, we need to find, download and install the driver for a printer, a scanner, keyboard/mouse, digital camera, the webcam, the wireless card and the internal card reader. That's 7 drivers that we need to look for. And above that, some functionnalities are available by installer the proper software, so we need to install particular softwares to use our devices (Scanners, Camera for example).

So, let's consider that wireless card, there can be several drivers available that all look like the same thing. Have a look for a Dlink wireless driver... It's scary...

My brother-in-law will never be able to find the right drivers, and configure everthing so it will work as expected. Probably he will forget about advance features for the keyboard/mouse. No more fun with the webcam because the software is not available to download for Vista. He may even have to buy a new webcam/scanner so it will work in Vista...

What is wrong in this scenario? Nothing, it's the reality. A normal user will not be able to install Windows, Ubuntu or whatever OS without requirering help and support.

And let's assume that I was able to install everything for him and everything works as expected... What can he do now with is PC? Now looking of office software, games, utilities that he needs. His MS Office should work correctly, but his game that he bought last year does not work well... Darn! 60$ down the drain...

So, it is easier than installing Ubuntu?

And now pushing the limit a little further... He wants to install Evolution because that's what they use at work (I know, I'm pushing but I needed an example for comparison...). But that's a Linux only software. So he installs Cygwing environment, tries the port to Windows, but does not succeed that have a good setup... Darn Windows, it's not able to run my Linux software! ( :) )... That's what people want to do when trying to install any Windows softwares using Wine...

Then, we have to install VMWare to install a mini Ubuntu to run Evolution inside Vista... (Feels like Déjà Vu?)

Am I saying that Windows Vista is worst than Ubuntu (Linux)? No. A normal user will face the same difficulties in Vista than in Ubuntu.

The way I see it: If I get stuck in Vista, there is nothing to do but if I get stuck in Ubuntu (Linux) there is always a workaround (99.999% of time). Even for those keyboad/mouse advance feature...

So let's compare an OEM Windows with an OEM Ubuntu (Dell)... Any Joe Somebody will be able to do his work and play games. You just have to use what is available for your OS, not try to run a Windows software in Ubuntu. Would you do this in OSX?

My 2.. 2000 cents...

Your words "won't ever catch on" are very strong words. Open source is making inroads into windows. Internet explorer usage is around 70% and Firefox is around 20% approximately, that is pretty significant, compared to what it used to be.

For a lot of countries that are not wealthy, it is very inexpensive way, and it is less resource intensive than windows so you can use less expensive and older equipment.

The newer generations are getting more and more savvy and Linux is getting more and more user-friendly and even supporting wireless without too much difficulty.

Yeah.. it will take quite a bit of time and years, but to say it won't "ever" catch on, I think you are wrong.

thank you for the most annoying thread of my life i mean boohooo can someone make a section for depressed windows users

EnGorDiaz said: thank you for the most annoying thread of my life i mean boohooo can someone make a section for depressed windows users

LMFAO that was the funniest reply to a thread I have read since going into a mac fan forum...(and trust me they get funny there)

I can put this simply: an average user is not going to switch operating systems. They're more likely to stick with the operating system that was pre-installed on their computer, which at this time is most likely going to be Windows or OS X. The only time I could see an average user using Linux is if it was pre-installed on the computer.

Giant Speck said: I can put this simply: an average user is not going to switch operating systems. They're more likely to stick with the operating system that was pre-installed on their computer, which at this time is most likely going to be Windows or OS X. The only time I could see an average user using Linux is if it was pre-installed on the computer.

Or if Their hard drive borked so they've lost the restore image.

My cousin ( 55 y.o computer N00b) asked me to build him a system so when I finished it I dual booted it with a naughty image of XP and Ubuntu. I told him to use Ubuntu for everything and only resort to Windows if he finds he just can't do something in Ubuntu.

He uses Ubuntu !!

It's what his machine default boots. His two (grown) daughters come round to use Dads system because it kicks ****. One of them uses Ubuntu with no qualms or issues (the younger one). The elder one threw her toys out of the pram because she loves Limewire and refused to learn torrent software. So she booted into windows and installed Limewire on that. (Pop ups galore now).

Yeah.. I've since discovered Frostwire... But I still use Ktorrent myself anyway.

The point of this is that the average computer buyer will learn whatever os their machine comes pre-installed with.

Thats the precise reason a certain company goes to great coercive lengths with OEM's.

Once Joe Ordinary learns that there is a FREE alternative that IS actually easier than Windows then......

The cats out of the bag.

Thats why Laptots/Laptops OLPC are getting XP on them. They get Joe ordinary to learn "their way" from early on they they wont want to change from what they know.

But the recession is biting deep. A huge company has huge overheads.. The well is running Low. Companies are not renewing their licenses promptly... = money lst chasing (legally) after "delayed/Lost" revenue. Joe public are making do with their present machines instead of buying the latest ones.

It's all revenue lost.

Times are getting interesting.

idigchess said: This is all IMHO:

I'll probably get a little bit of flame for this, but I think that Windows is better than Linux _for the average user_. There is probably not a single person on these forums who is considered to be an average computer user. I think that anybody who uses linux and didn't grow up with it is automatically a non-average computer user. Why? Because they are willing to put time into learning it. They like tinkering with computers and learning about them. An average computer user wants their computer to work out of the box, do exactly what they want it to do, with someone on the other end of a phone if they don't get something. They don't want to put work into their computer. I agree that Linux is better for me, because I was willing to put work into learning it, and because I have had a programming/scripting past. If someone just doesn't get computers, then there is nothing in Linux that windows doesn't have. An average computer user doesn't want to have anything to do with the command line. *It's a mythical thing that only experts will ever use*. They don't care about filesystems. They don't care about permission systems. They don't care about package management. They just want their computer to work. And this is why I think that Linux won't catch on. All of this stuff is too visible and too much of it is necessary for maintenance of the computer.

Also, again IMHO- I think that this is why Mac is gaining on Windows when Windows is better. Because Mac has the "just work" thing down. It's easier. Windows is more powerful and versatile, as long as you have antivirus software, but Macs are easy.

I have to disagree.

OSX comes preinstalled and preconfigured with the pc when you buy it.

Ubuntu doesn't.

That is why OSX has more market share than Ubuntu.

We do see that Linux is getting more popular these days. This is partly because most big distros are so easy to install now (this is still for the advanced users) or because a lot of computers are selled with a linux distro on them (mostly netbooks, but also normal laptops and computers).

How many Windows or OSX users reinstall their OS when there computer is stuck? Not a single "non-advanced" user. They just take it to the shop or a friend.

When Ubuntu is preinstalled and configured on a pc, it's is very easy to use for joe sixpack.

I know because I have installed it for a total noob friend of mine, and he has no problems whatsoever. He prefers Ubuntu because it runs faster, starts faster, doesn't require any maintenance and is virus free compared to his XP install he used to use.

So, that's a typical Windows setup installation. Basic stuff is working, but we need to fetch for drivers on the internet... Some will be easy to find and others will be hard to find because we don't know exactly where to look for that driver.

No, it's not typical - at least for the last 22 installs I have done. If you have you NIC connected to a broadband source, Vista will go find the majority of those drivers you refer to AUTOMATICALLY.

All of those installs rebooted FULLY OPERATIONAL without a hiccup - peripherals and all.

While the install takes ALOT longer than an Ubuntu install and does require the broadband connection to fetch drivers, the end result - a fully operational system - is the same.

Takes more patience...but no more work.

Also, Patrick...were you aware that Vista CAN use a large number of WinXP drivers? Did you try downloading and installing them to check?

I have simply not seen the issues you have described, but that doesn't mean you haven't.

When Ubuntu is preinstalled and configured on a pc, it's is very easy to use for joe sixpack.

I sold both OEM Ubuntu and Windows machines for a period. Both systems were comparably equipped. *I* thought the Ubuntu systems were wonderful. I had vetted the packaged hardware and everything was working perfectly.

Several of my customers who were willing to take the chance did not agree...I ended up installing WinXP on several of those machines at some expense to the owner.

Reasons? Most cases, an owner bought a new [(http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=49714)"]printer]("http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=49714), [monitor or other hardware that wasn't supported by Ubuntu or was difficult to set up. In a few cases, we could never get dial-up or pppoe working properly. The service provider refused to even check line integrity. We verified the issues using a WinXP laptop that worked great.

I had to drop Ubuntu as an option because the bundled 90-day support calls were costing me too much. I had far fewer support calls with the Windows machines.

I'm out of the business now anyway...can't compete with Dell and other online retailers.

Ubuntu's issues had more to do with reliability than they did with being difficult to use. Once set up on compatible hardware, Ubuntu is very easy to use.

So, you'd have to qualify your statement...Ubuntu works great for someone who has supported hardware and services and doesn't plan to change those.

idigchess said: This is all IMHO:

I'll probably get a little bit of flame for this, but I think that Windows is better than Linux _for the average user_. There is probably not a single person on these forums who is considered to be an average computer user. I think that anybody who uses linux and didn't grow up with it is automatically a non-average computer user. Why? Because they are willing to put time into learning it. They like tinkering with computers and learning about them. An average computer user wants their computer to work out of the box, do exactly what they want it to do, with someone on the other end of a phone if they don't get something.

I disagree with this statement. My wife is not a programmer. She has never used a command line. She doesn't visibly deal with package management (any more than you would with Windows Update). She would typically be what I call an average computer users. Computers are not what she uses in her career - she just enjoys playing games on Yahoo, reading her email, surfing the web, instant messaging and writing in office (MS or Openoffice - doesn't matter to her.)

When I built that computer - I didn't have a Windows license so I put Ubuntu on it. Actually - initially it was Fedora - but we switched at some point. She is now running Feisty I believe and it does everything she wants. She learned how to use it not by reading Ubuntuforums - but by working with it and asking questions when she has a specific need. Just like anyone would have to learn Windows for the first time.

In my opinion - it's not a matter of one not being ready for 'average users' as she is proof to me that any 'average user' can use Linux if they have clearly defined needs. An non-average computer user cares about the OS they run - and chooses it for those needs. An average computer user probably doesn't even care that there is an OS - they just want the computer to meet their needs. For the average computer user - if their needs are similar to what I mentioned above - Linux is no easier or more difficult to learn than Windows.

idigchess said: Yes, but what will come with it- OOO? Now the user (if they're coming from windows) has to figure out how to use wine to install MSO.

If they are coming from a windows install and moving to Linux I have found that Openoffice.org is easier to use than the new Office 2007. It is very similar to the interface people have been using for years - office is now the odd man out. I don't consider myself an 'average user' - having switched to Linux in the 90's after IBM dropped support for OS/2 - and still when at work get frustrated trying to find features in a product that has very little meaning for me in my job. (I have to use it - but it is a SMALL part of my day and is not worth searching for features.) If Openoffice.org can handle many users needs (and I have no reason to think it can't unless you use some feature it doesn't support) why would you want to run MS Office under Wine?

I mean, even gufw is complicated, and that's the easiest firewall that I was able to find when I was first starting with this.

I do find gufw a bit complicated - however that's because it's newer to me and I was always familiar with firestarter which I didn't find any more complicated than any windows firewall I'd ever used. Is firestarter no longer maintained?

It doesn't mean that if someone haven't got chance in using windows, it's destined to be a smelly little thing just good to be "junked" into trash. It can be his/her way of using it; like going into porno sites, searching for hacked softwares, illegal things, etc... that crushed it in pieces. I've been using Windows 2000 for about 8 years without antivirus and I've got no problem; it's speedy, even more than almost all the linux distros, i've ever used. So, almost all OS are good but you must know/learn how to use it.... fully.

tsali said: I sold both OEM Ubuntu and Windows machines for a period. Both systems were comparably equipped. *I* thought the Ubuntu systems were wonderful. I had vetted the packaged hardware and everything was working perfectly.

Several of my customers who were willing to take the chance did not agree...I ended up installing WinXP on several of those machines at some expense to the owner.

Reasons? Most cases, an owner bought a new [(http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=49714)"]printer]("http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=49714), [monitor or other hardware that wasn't supported by Ubuntu or was difficult to set up. In a few cases, we could never get dial-up or pppoe working properly. The service provider refused to even check line integrity. We verified the issues using a WinXP laptop that worked great.

I had to drop Ubuntu as an option because the bundled 90-day support calls were costing me too much. I had far fewer support calls with the Windows machines.

I'm out of the business now anyway...can't compete with Dell and other online retailers.

Ubuntu's issues had more to do with reliability than they did with being difficult to use. Once set up on compatible hardware, Ubuntu is very easy to use.

So, you'd have to qualify your statement...Ubuntu works great for someone who has supported hardware and services and doesn't plan to change those.

Hence I used the word "configured".

I know setting up printers or other devices can be hard for new users, unless everything works OOTB.

I disagree... while I was in the UK visiting family I converted a family member to Ubuntu and he loves it. He uses it for playing cards, writing his book and openoffice (he couldn't believe it was free). His son works for a company that secures wireless networks in Glasgow and he told him that Linux is unusable and he won't have a clue how to use it. It turns out he loves the layout on the default gnome desktop and talks about it at every opportunity he gets.

Anyway this is just one of my conversions my last one was a week ago on my neighbor who believed Windows was the computer but that has all changed.

I think we all need to remember lack of driver support isn't the fault of the OS in fact they are doing us a service... take it up with your hardware manufacturer.

I was going to write a big, long response, but I have better things to do with my life. Use what works for you and be happy :D

tsali said: No, it's not typical - at least for the last 22 installs I have done. If you have you NIC connected to a broadband source, Vista will go find the majority of those drivers you refer to AUTOMATICALLY.

All of those installs rebooted FULLY OPERATIONAL without a hiccup - peripherals and all.

While the install takes ALOT longer than an Ubuntu install and does require the broadband connection to fetch drivers, the end result - a fully operational system - is the same.

Takes more patience...but no more work.

Also, Patrick...were you aware that Vista CAN use a large number of WinXP drivers? Did you try downloading and installing them to check?

I have simply not seen the issues you have described, but that doesn't mean you haven't.

I tried with Vista to "Fecth the driver" but it never came back with results... Actually, I always wondered if this feature was working at all (XP included...). Last year, I had to install a printer on a computer's family member. There was no Vista driver, and using the CD with the XP driver just made Vista crash (actually anything related to Internet Explorer). I finally was able to make the printer work but I had to do the hardware installation manually, without installing the tools that came with the printer. As I said, I know my way in computers, but that would have been impossible for my mother-in-law to achieve installing that printer (Printer/Scanner/Fax). I don't remember the model but it's a good one and was almost brand new (6 month old...)

And from all my experiences with Vista and XP, that's the typical setup. Good for you is your last 22 setups were working out of the box (or almost), but it happened to me so often that some piece of hardware would not work because it is no more supported by Vista (or even XP with some older hardware).

For graphic cards, sound cards and network cards, Vista (XP) is always able to make them work out of the box (99.99999%). At least for basic usage. But as I said, this is not the same for digital camera, webcams, card readers, scanners, printers, special mother board, advance features for keyboards/mices...

I am not saying that it is impossible for hardware to work in Vista. I'm just saying that for Joe Somebody, it can be really hard to solve some issues/installation. Would Vista detect and auto-install the Eyetoy webcam for the PS2? What about my blackberry phone? And what about my wireless keyboard that has some special keys that you can configure? And what about my Concord EyeQ digital camera that can be used as a webcam? (And this is only my personal stuff...)

None of those devices were auto-detected by Vista. So what do I do? Start looking for drivers over the internet...

Would Vista detect and auto-install the Eyetoy webcam for the PS2? What about my blackberry phone? And what about my wireless keyboard that has some special keys that you can configure? And what about my Concord EyeQ digital camera that can be used as a webcam? (And this is only my personal stuff...)

Not to really play tit-for-tat, but the "Eyetoy" IS for PS2. And Vista did in fact detect my Blackberry...

Again, I'm not sure why our experiences on similar software seem so different.

I'm just saying that for Joe Somebody, it can be really hard to solve some issues/installation.

Which puts it on par with most linux distros. It doesn't matter what OS Joe Somebody is using, if things don't work smoothly, he's still going to be lost.

it doesn't catch on because nobody sees the reason to install a different os that didn't come with their pc. if it came preinstalled it would be differnet. unlike me i loved xp but then vista came along and i bought my laptop which had vista on it but it was sluggish and didn't do anything for me so i installed ubuntu

sportscrazed2 said: it doesn't catch on because nobody sees the reason to install a different os that didn't come with their pc. if it came preinstalled it would be differnet. unlike me i loved xp but then vista came along and i bought my laptop which had vista on it but it was sluggish and didn't do anything for me so i installed ubuntu

Wait. How can you make a generalization about computer users and then declare yourself the exception? That makes no sense.

well im the exception most people ask why did i install ubuntu and i respond why not? most people don't care about what os they use as long as it just works but i love letting my own style show up in my os

patrickballeux said: I tried with Vista to "Fecth the driver" but it never came back with results...

The problem, though, was with how you were playing fetch with Vista. You weren't supposed to use a boomerang! :p

I haven't read through all of the replies here, but here are my quick points.....

• I don't need Linux to catch on, I just want more hardware support from Manufacturers. I'd also like more natively run games from major developers.

• If the OP thinks that the "average computer user" can "just" install Windows and be up and running, he/she is crazy. Ever see the "average computer user" try and find drivers for all of their hardware when they can't find the install CD's after having reinstalled Windows. :lolflag:

• I installed Edubuntu on my 5 y/o son's computer. He doesn't use the command line, but doesn't have to. He can start the computer, login to his own user account and find all of the programs that he normally uses (GCompris, Tux Math, Tux Paint, Secret Maryo, etc...). I guess my son can be considered an "Average Computer User".

The point is anyone can use Linux. The arguement that it is "The Geek's OS" is just plain stupid. Linux can be what you want it to be. If you want to go all GUI, you can. If you want to go all CLI, you can. The choice is yours. That is the beauty of Linux. It's all about choice and freedom!

NewJack said:

• I don't need Linux to catch on, I just want more hardware support from Manufacturers. I'd also like more natively run games from major developers. If Linux catches on, you'll get more hardware support and ported games. The two are actually related.

@NewJack:

Your points about the "average 'Windows user'" are very well received. Having worked in tech support (in several different capacities over the years), I can vouch for how stupid and lazy many people can be. Frankly, I see no point in Ubuntu (or any other distro) bending over backwards for those folks. Darn it, there needs to be a bar of expectations placed at some level in our society!

@aysiu:

What you say is true. However, the "best practices" approach to that would be patient determination. It's best for Linux to build itself naturally and organically, not through some sort of artifice of "commercialized rapid build-up". Also remember that when you let others make you, those others can break you. While it's true that some degree of courting by F/OSS of hardware developers is necessary, we need to focus on building a situation and an environment where hardware (and even software) developers flock to us, and not vica versa.

@aysiu

I guess what I meant to say was that Linux shouldn't have to become the "OS D'jour" in order to get drivers and games. Aren't commercial game devs/companies and hardware manufacturers out to make as much money as they can for their products? So why not go the extra step and make their products available for Linux? If you put together users of all of the major Distros alone, how many users would you have? I know there is no definetive answer for that question, but I am sure a helluva lot (anywhere between 1-3% of the market share). It would mean more money towards their bottom lines, right? That is my point.

@MikeTheC

Yes, slow and steady wins the race! :)