Ubuntu review

[kurt]

Originally Posted by Game_boy

OEMs need to offer it as an option on mainstream PCs (not some hidden Linux section as Dell does) to preinstall it. They can also legally put common codecs, programs, drivers, and Wine on it so it works as it should out of the box. That would solve almost all of the major objections to it - once it's set up with the right software and hardware then it is as easy to use as Windows even for the average user. But Linux vendors can't put a lot of that stuff on the disk and they can't drive round and install it for you. Only OEMs are in a position to do that.

I agree with that. I think you have described to some extend the Asus Eee PC that comes with Linux. It comes with the Linux preinstalled, all hardware working, also with codecs for seeing any DivX or listening MP3 out of the box. It even comes with a simplified user interface that let you access to the most common tasks (mail, browsing, OpenOffice, etc) in just one click, if you don't want the 'complexity' of the desktop. It is the most user-friendly and well polished Linux that I've seen up to date.

As Linux costs nothing in opposition to the Windows license, Asus compensates that with 10GB of extra SSD hard disk on the Linux model. That is a real alternative for Windows, at least for a netbook as the Eee. If other OEMs would take that route, that would be another scenario.

I don't remember what distribution it is based, but anyway the distro is not the important part: the polishing that they have done to it, and that all is working out of the box is what matters for what we are discussing here.

[Game_boy]

Originally Posted by kurt

I don't remember what distribution it is based, but anyway the distro is not the important part: the polishing that they have done to it, and that all is working out of the box is what matters for what we are discussing here.

Absolutely. Some OEMs have made half an attempt, released a broken product because of it, and when sales are poor and return rates high they blame Linux itself and stop selling it.

They need to promote the Linux models they do have better - since they are cheaper and suitable for the majority of buyers when set up right, people should be buying them...

[not_so_humble_german]

Originally Posted by Dudler

Agree with the facepalm, but the problem was that the install didn't recognize the disks. 3 disks, and one detected. Sure it is fixable, but..

No matter how the stupid article, he has a valid point. Don't expect my mother at the age of 72 to fix a mbr or the detection of disks. She needs the os to work out of the box.

And as long it doesn't work like macos fex, it will never be a free replacement for windows or osx.

out of the box like WindowsXP and Sata drives?

[Frank]

I always loved AT, even when he was back at the inq and would write snarky stuff in your comment at the end of the article when he reviewed and accepted it for posting.

It's good to see that he is a irreverent as ever.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by not_so_humble_german

out of the box like WindowsXP and Sata drives?

Ubuntu 9.10 isn't anywhere near as old as XP

[PY-Intel]

As a long time linux user I can safely say that windows is pretty unusable to me.

[Dudler]

Originally Posted by not_so_humble_german

out of the box like WindowsXP and Sata drives?

Well, even if my Xp pre SP1 Enterprise version wouldn't recognize more than 128(?) GB of my SATA disks, it would find them and install to them.

Problem with this was that Ubuntu wouldn't even do that. It found 1 of 3 disks and didn't find the boot drive. (MBR or whatever.)

With Xp at least I got to the desktop so I could run WinUpdate and fix it. (By extending the partition.)

I'm sure Ubuntu is fine once you get it running, but as a replacement to win or macos, they first has some work to do.

Don't forget the masses want it simple. If they want it complicated they marry.

[PY-Intel]

I find it hard to believe that they would forget to put SATA drivers into installer in the latest version of Ubuntu.

[charlie]

They didn't. Period. Unless they ripped them out, SATA has been there since 7.something.

Also @Dudler, try installing XP or vista on any modern hardware, then try Ubuntu. Ubuntu is MUCH easier and faster.

-Charlie

[Catapostrophé]

Windows 7 installs surprisingly smoothly. I even suspect they've been inspired by Ubuntu. XP's continued lack of support for installation on SATAs through the years was...flabbergasting. Insane. Inane.