
I’m calling it: Ubuntu is finally ready for the world. - mcdillon
http://tjwebb.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/im-calling-it-linux-is-finally-ready-for-the-world-meet-ubuntu-11-10/#comment-25
======
freehunter
I strongly disagree, and take exception to the fact that this "article" is 3
paragraphs long with zero information yet throws out the idea that Linux, even
Ubuntu, is 1:1 competitive with Windows or OSX on the desktop.

Contrary to the author, hardware is still a mess. Have a Lexmark wireless
printer? Tough luck, there is no way to print to it from Linux. Have
switchable graphics? Good luck there, too. Want your new laptop to work?
Better check what touchpad you have. Just because the author found hardware
that works doesn't mean the public will.

Linux won't be ready until you _never_ have to drop to the terminal for
something. Linux won't be ready until you can download a file from the
Internet, run it, and install it just with a couple clicks (and not "you need
to set the 'exectuable' flag!" error). Linux won't be ready until you never
have to reconfigure the graphics driver from the command line upon boot. Linux
won't be ready until you can run a system update and install a new program at
the same time.

Flashiness is nice. People like flash. Consumers _crave_ flash. But flash
needs to come with the same amount of wow-factor built into usability. I can
make this same list of complaints about Windows and OSX, but the point remains
that Windows and OSX are used and known by the public. Linux isn't. To take
any marketshare from the giants, you need to not just be as good as them, not
just better than them... you need to make it so _not_ using Linux is a
ridiculous proposal. Ubuntu won't be there for a good long time yet.

~~~
DanBC
I'm not getting into a religious war but:

I've had printer driver problems on OSX and on some Windows versions. The
problem with printers is the evil practice of selling the machines at (or
near) loss, and making money on ink / toner. Caveat Emptor applies.

Windows users (used to? Still do?) have problems with installing software.
They wouldn't use the add software wizard; the software would install things
in weird places; there were legacy problems. A common technique used by
Windows users was to just reformat and reinstall. That's user ignorance, not a
fault of the OS, but it still shows that simple app installs can cause
problems.

And dropping to the command line to do stuff - well, you do that on any os,
especially if you're a power user. Are there really simple tasks that can only
be done on cli in Linux, that a typical user would come across?

I agree that Linux isn't ready for the masses; but then I think OS X and
Windows are not really ready for the masses.

~~~
tjwebb
My definition of competitiveness does not imply equivalence. For example,
Windows and OSX are expensive, while Ubuntu is free. A free market would
suggest that it _should_ be slightly inferior since it is free. Each OS has
strengths and weaknesses. The point of this article is to illuminate the fact
that Ubuntu can be seriously considered as an alternative to Windows/OSX for
the average person.

~~~
solnyshok
having spent countless nights to get all my laptop's devices work and
sleep/hibernate - I have come to the conclusion that "free" is a bit wrong
word to describe ubuntu, and that I'm in it only for "geek" cred. However, it
certainly getting cheaper with each release. Now, I only need to edit grub
once to enable hibernation.

------
JeanPierre
The main problem with the distros available today is their lack of non-free
software. No matter how much you or I like free software, Minecraft can't run
as good on OpenJDK as on Sun JDK, and I automatically install the proprietary
Flash version because the other one's just way too laggy to use. I also always
run smxi to get the best graphics drivers and compability with the least
amount of work.

And even then I struggle with drivers: I went from a Radeon HD 6870 to a GTX
550 TI just to be able to run Linux on my machine. There is probably some way
to install the HD 6870 on a linux machine, but after using 26 hours on that
card _trying_ to get it to work (I timed it), I gave up. Imagine if I used
those 26 hours on work instead.

People don't care whether stuff is _free_ or not: They just want stuff that
works. If you can't get that without setting up non-free repositories and
download proprietary graphic drivers for your graphics card, then you won't
get normal people to use your operating system.

~~~
user2459
I see your frustration, but let's try to work it into optimism. Ubuntu itself
can't control those things and without out support from vendors it can never
have them. What Ubuntu can do is provide a rock solid OS with a simple user
experience that will hopefully attract enough users to garner the attention of
more vendors. This is mostly the critical mass problem and is a function of
economics for vendors. If we give them a large enough economic incentive to
support ubuntu, they will come rushing to do it. So for early adopters not
everything you're expecting will be there, but if you can pain through or dual
boot you'd be helping to ensure it is there for future users.

------
trotsky
_Making Linux usable by the “general public” was eschewed by the Linux
community for years._

I've been part of the linux community since 1994, and I have never once heard
anyone express a desire to prevent mainstream adoption. Quite the contrary -
many, many people have been strident evangelists over the years (to the point
that it could be quite annoying; whatever the question the answer was linux)
and many, many people have spent large amounts of time coding tools and
programs to make it more accessible. The problem hasn't been a lack of desire,
it's been that it's been quite hard - the open source model of scratch your
own itch doesn't lend itself particularly well to the level of polish that's
needed.

~~~
cs702
I agree -- the Linux community, on the whole, has always wanted mainstream
adoption. Annual "year of desktop Linux" proclamations going back to the
mid-90's attest to it!

The challenge, IMO, is that adding polish to a _general-use_ desktop is really
really hard -- it requires design talent, cannot easily be done by committee,
and takes a long time. Think years of design and constant redesign, lots of
tweaking (down to individual pixels!), never-ending usability testing, and
iterative writing, discarding, and re-writing of UI code.

While some in the Linux community have long had the design know-how and
experience necessary to make Linux usable by Aunt Tillie, until very recently
no one had the _long-term commitment_ , _financial resources_ , _managerial
skill_ , and _staying power_ necessary to pull it off.

Canonical brings not just design talent, but also long-term commitment,
financial resources, managerial skill, and staying power to the table; they
have the best shot at making Linux a mainstream desktop OS.

[ ADDENDUM: Google also has an equally good shot with ChromeOS. ]

------
Derbasti
Some people (on this thread, too) seem to think that in order for Linux to be
successful, it needs to become Windows. I think the exact opposite is true.
Linux will never beat Windows at being Windows. But it may well be the
superior operating system for many people.

If you ask me, this is what Linux should strive for, and incidentally, what it
probably _is_ striving for. Hardware compatibility is pretty good already.
Usability is very good if you subscribe to the Linux way of doing things.

I don't think that Linux is particularly lacking in any way compared to
Windows. It is simply different, serving different purposes and different
people, optimizing for different use cases.

It is as _ready_ as it ever was or will be. The question rather is, are
_people_ ready for Linux?

~~~
spurgu
I agree. I don't see why a normal "surf-the-web, read emails, import/upload
pictures" -person couldn't have Linux as their main desktop, especially if
it's a user friendly distro like Linux Mint or Ubuntu. The main problem is
that people haven't used a Linux desktop before and most are reluctant to try
anything new (just notice how everyone curses every time FB changes something
about the interface). It helps to have a family member well versed in Linux.

~~~
tikhonj
Actually, I think it isn't even reluctance to learn something new--people
aren't even _aware_ of Linux as an option, and if they are they think it's
only for geeks. I bet if you could go out and get a $500-800 laptop at places
like Staples, more normal people would be using Linux.

~~~
Derbasti
I think it's good that Linux is for geeks. I mean, what other options are
there for geeks? I would much rather have Linux optimize for geeks and leave
the fluff for OSX and Windows.

~~~
tikhonj
Well, remember that Linux is just the kernel. In my post--and I assume others'
posts as well--I used Linux as a synecdoche for Free Software. In reality, it
could as well be BSD or Hurd--it's just that (as far as I know) neither is
quite as suitable for mass consumption as Linux.

However, just because Ubuntu--which happens to use the Linux kernel--becomes
popular with the general public does not mean other distros have to change at
all. Even now Ubuntu is not _that_ much better for "geeks" than OS X or
Windows--other distros and environments offer much more customization and
power. You can still use Arch, or Gentoo, or Slackware or with whatever
environment you like however you like. And since "Linux" is really a loose
confederation of Free Software, nothing can change that.

That said, there are some immediate benefits for _everyone_ if Linux gets
wider adoption. From a purely selfish standpoint, interacting with and
supporting my less-technical friends' and relatives' computers would be much
easier if they were on Linux. Also, large companies would be much less likely
to disregard Linux when releasing drivers and software. And on a less selfish
note, I really do think--and it matches my admittedly anecdotal experience--
that non-technical people are themselves better off on Ubuntu than on OS X or
Windows. If all you do is browse the internet and some casual
document/multimedia stuff, Linux is great (as soon as you sort the hardware
out, of course). There is also the philosophical justification of Free
Software I won't get into here.

So really, you present a false dichotomy: Linux for casual users and Linux for
power users are not mutually exclusive; if anything, you can't force Linux to
only fit one mould. And since we could benefit both power users _and_ casual
users by making Linux more accessible and wide-spread, we really should.

------
rb2k_
Also known as: This year will be the year of the linux desktop (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Linux#Year_of_Desktop_L...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Linux#Year_of_Desktop_Linux)
)

------
vibrunazo
That's all subjective, of course. There are problems with bringing linux to
mainstream users. But other OS don't go always smoothly either.

Since linux isn't widespread, all we've got is our anecdotes. And my anecdote
is that I installed ubuntu on my non-techie relatives' computers. And that has
been great both for me and for them. They still do the same thing they've been
doing before. (mostly facebooking, casual gaming, skyping etc) And I don't
need to run for rescue because of crapware bloat, viruses and all kinds of
weird crashes as before.

So if you have parents who often calls for help because of computer problems.
I'd recommend you try installing ubuntu for them and see it for yourself.
Judging from my experience, I'd say it's ready for prime time. (and btw, that
was much before 11.10)

~~~
mcdillon
I have a similar experience where my roommate's computer (windows)just became
a bloated mess and he asked me how he could try something new. Aside from
getting iTunes to run on his new Ubuntu install it was a smooth and easy
transition. He ended up using it for about a year and managed to solve a
majority of his own problems from the Ubuntu forums.

------
hetman
Funny. On my netbook, Ubuntu _used_ to feel like it was finally ready about
one major version ago.

Today, 11.10 is so unusably slow it might actually make Windows Vista feel
competitive. I thought it might be the outdated video card but then Unity 2D
made no actual difference; any simple UI interaction still sucks CPU hard.
Just for some icing on the cake, the Wi-Fi driver is now also causing random
kernel panics on my hardware.

I heard someone exclaim somewhere OS X Lion was Apple's Vista moment. Well it
looks to me like Ubuntu 11.x is Canonical's Vista moment. I'm holding out hope
version 12 will be their Windows 7 moment, otherwise the long painful process
of adapting to another distro will have to begin.

~~~
amcintyre
_Today, 11.10 is so unusably slow it might actually make Windows Vista feel
competitive._

Unfortunately, I'm having the same experience on my desktop. Unity didn't fit
the way I prefer to work (and yeah, I tried it for a while, I didn't just
dismiss it without some effort), and I switched to KDE. Holy slowness,
Batman...my Windows 7 desktop becomes usable much faster (on the same machine)
than the Kubuntu desktop. Applications sometimes take forever to start, with
no rhyme or reason. I haven't chosen to explicitly install anything new--I
just have the same basic boring dev and scientific computing packages I've
always had.

And yes, Ubuntu _used_ to feel like it was usable "out of the box" one major
version ago. Then they started adding bells and whistles, and since then it's
just been a steady degradation in performance.

Sure, I can probably go fiddle with a bunch of settings somewhere, but as soon
as I have some downtime I'm going to try out some other distros that--
hopefully--don't feel the need to add a bunch of performance-sucking features
by default.

------
viandante
I stopped using Ubuntu-like distros 1 year ago. As I was there, I also dropped
the DE, now using a tiling windows. Doing things in a terminal most of the
time. It feels right, fast and robust enough. If something is not packaged for
linux (free or not, I don't care), then I don't use it. Simple as that. I so
reduced the ammount of junky software of half probably and I only install
things to play/learn with (haskel ghc, python libraries, postgres, and all I
feel to play with).

Then I work on a company windows laptop. It is slow, takes ages to start up,
it is full o crappy software some of it updated last time around the year
2001. GUIs that kill productivity as they are not scriptable, so say bye to
automation. And the fun part is that this "paradigm" keeps going, so you find
the same problems on SAP, data warehouse, etc. Instead of APIs, you have to
log into every system you use, choose your option, download in a folder,
change data format, copy in a power point slide... and half day is gone.

So, this "Ubuntu is ready because it just works and it is easy", meaning
basically that you do all from GUIs, it just does not give the world anything
new. If we keep chasing the same old paradigm, I wonder why we bother
developing new software then.

------
orp
I am unfortunately forced to disagree.

I recently moved my home machine from Windows to Linux. After a little
research, I picked Ubuntu 11.10 (with Unity).

The installation went by pretty smoothly, everything seemed to work out of the
box. The only manual configuration I had to do was to teach my Linux box to
ping my Windows laptop. So far so good.

Then, 2 weeks later, my disk went out of space.

Turns out Ubuntu has a hidden log file that logs errors, with no sanity checks
on size, and it hit 300+ GB.

In addition, flash still isn't smooth in full screen.

Easy to install and use? Reasonably so. Ready for prime time? I think not.

~~~
drivebyacct2
>Turns out Ubuntu has a hidden log file that logs errors, with no sanity
checks on size, and it hit 300+ GB.

Uh, what is this hidden log?

~~~
tdrgabi
I'm guessing here but it might be .xsession-errors

I've had it filled up once, because vinagre disagreed with some other library
and it kept printing the same error message over and over. After several days
it filled up the hdd.

Not saying it's vinagre's fault, just that it might happen and it's a "hidden
." log file

~~~
orp
Yup, that one.

I'm not saying it was a hard problem to diagnose - I mean, the file was right
there in the home directory.

Figuring out how to turn it off, by the way, was a little more involved.

------
whalesalad
Hmm can someone please edit this to remove the #comments hash from the URL? :D

------
davidw
It's not a binary either/or, though. Something like 6 years ago, the company I
was working for went Ubuntu for pretty much everything, including the
computers of the call center staff. Since we took care of the installations,
all they had to do was know how to open a browser and openoffice, and they
were just fine. In other words, Ubuntu was ready for 'prime time'. My wife has
been using it for year as well. For her it's ready for 'prime time': I rarely
have to fiddle with it. For other users, it's probably not ready. That group
continues to shrink, though.

~~~
freehunter
Two years ago I was contracted by a local phone survey company to replace
their dumb terminals with Linux desktops. After a few hiccups with supporting
old (Dell) hardware, we successfully rolled out 25 Ubuntu 9.04 desktops and
got them working with their custom hardware and software. I made a LiveCD and
a reinstall disc so if something broke during the day, everything could be run
from the LiveCD, and replaced with the reinstall disc at night.

Only problem was, they didn't tell me it was a contract position, they told me
I was an employee in charge of installation and support. Very surprised when I
got to work and my keycard access was revoked.

------
rodolphoarruda
I'm a Linux newbie. Or should I say, an Ubuntu newbie. I don't know. I use
this system for the same purpose as some people build things with Lego pieces.
It's a therapy for me. I like the possibilities that the command line offers.
Differently from clicking links (e.g on Windows' Control Panel) you just type
what you want. I found it to be a more "precise" way to work. My only complain
goes to the file structure and installation process. Whether in Windows you
know things will end up in 'Program Files', there's no logic for me where apps
are stored in Linux file system. Those three letter acronyms mean nothing to
me. They remind me the old days when all data were abbreviated to fit small
diskspaces and slow processors. That would be my only complain. I like
Linux/Ubuntu so much that I replaced my mom's Win Vista with it. She uses
Gmail, Picasa and Skype, aside from browsing websites. She doesn't know the
concept of "file" or "folder". For her, the program talks to the Internet and
makes all the magic happen. Maybe there are other people just like my mother
out there, either too old or too young, with a different view (thus
expectation) of the computer screen. Maybe that's what define the "user"
anyway. Using Tron's allegory, maybe we are the tech-minded "programs" looking
at users with prejudice and thinking about all the points they are missing by
being just "users". And I think Canonical is welcoming these people now, like
Apple did a few years back.

~~~
rmk2
I know that the comment is not liked by everyone, but I still think it is
somewhat true: "It doesn't matter whether the program is installed into
/usr/bin/, /usr/share/bin/, /bin/ or anything else", at least not for the
"average user".

Linux puts all of those into a PATH-variable (if you'd like to see what it
holds, type "echo $PATH" without the quotes into a terminal). Because of that,
you really never have to give an absolute path to an executable (unless you
installed it by hand after compiling, something that the fabled "average user"
hardly does). Furthermore, since you usually install Programs via the Package
Manager (Software Center in Ubuntu?), it gets deleted properly if you
uninstall it. Instead, if you type for example "firefox" into a terminal, it
looks through all the paths listed in the PATH-variable until it finds the
executable called "firefox", then executes it.

Configuration files for individual programs usually reside in your /home
folder, much like Windows' "Documents & Settings", only ideally on a different
partition separate from the OS.

The only thing you really need as an everyday user is your own /home folder,
and as far as I know, that is basically chosen by default for pretty much
everything.

This is not so much Ubuntu specific, rather just trying to explain a bit to
the parent about the "Program Files" analogue.

[edited for clarity regarding the function of $PATH]

------
peeters
Am I missing something in this article? It seems to be broken down as follows:

1) Before Ubuntu, you were expected to be a kernel expert to use Linux.

2) Ubuntu is released to make Linux accessible to average users. Authors
herald each version as the version to bring Linux into the hands of the
general public. But every version of Ubuntu fails to live up to that promise.

3) An author now heralds version 11.10 as the version to bring Linux into the
hands of the general public.

What distinguishes this proclamation from all those that go before it?

------
davesmylie
Perhaps ubuntu is getting closer to being ready for the desktop for some
users, but I find that for the last few releases, each new version takes me
further from my ideal environment. For me, Ubuntu peaked at about 10.10 (or
maybe 11.04)

Each time a new release comes out, I give Unity another try, but it just
doesn't work for me. For a while I was just reverting back to Gnome, but now
the default Gnome is Gnome 3 which is (purely my opinion) very much a
regression in terms of UX from Gnome 2.

I know this is Linux, and I can install whatever I want, but I don't want to
have to. When I was younger I was happy to spend hours (and days!) tweaking
stuff to make it work just the way I wanted it to. With all the other time
sinks that growing up entails, when I get the chance to sit down at my
computer these days, I just want it to work. I don't want to have to invest
time I don't have learning a new way to do the old thing when the old way was
perfectly fine. (Probably me just getting old and curmudgeonly I know!)

Due to computers getting older and being replaced etc, I can't even reasonably
keep using Ubuntu 11.04 - my latest laptop will not work correctly under
anything less than 11.10 without hours of manking around compiling and
installing wireless and graphics card drivers. (I blame the laptop for this,
not linux). Research before buying indicated this laptop was reasonably well
supported under linux. After purchase I found this model of laptop used a
number of different chipsets for wireless and the one I ended up with (ath9k)
was poorly supported at that time.

So, after having linux as my sole computing environment since 1996 (and using
Ubuntu as my main distro since Breezy Badger) I have just this month packed it
in and bought a 13" Macbook Air to use as my main computer. I'm still using
Ubuntu 10.10 server edition at work, (virtual machine running under xen) for
development and as a production server - but I can't see Canonical breaking
the command line as bad as they did the desktop any time soon!

Ubuntu may be finally ready for the desktop for some people but definitely not
for me.

~~~
Derbasti
So, tell me, how do you use your Macbook? Are you a console junkie and live in
the terminal anyways? Do you see value in the strictly commercial Mac App
Store? What do you miss from Linux?

------
moreorless
Are we still on this? Linux/BSD has been ready for the world for many years.
Heck, my old man who never used a computer before got started using Red Flag
Linux. Granted, I did the install and configuration for him, but that is
really no different from most users who buy preconfigured computers/laptops
from Lenovo, Apple, Dell, and the like.

------
cageface
The war for the desktop was lost long ago. Apple realized this when they
switched their emphasis to mobile. There's some room in the laptop market but
hardware quirks make this an even tougher nut to crack than the desktop.

Android is Linux's future.

------
cheez
My dad has been using it for 3 years.

------
monological
Have you ever tried to resize a window in Ubuntu? You know what I'm talking
about...

------
eli_gottlieb
No, the killer app will be Ubuntu for Android.

------
facorreia
But is the world ready for it?

------
molecularbutter
hasn't linux been proclaimed 'ready for the world' every year since 1997?

------
user2459
This is kind of a cheezy, non analytical and barely informational article, but
I agree with the standpoint.

Ubuntu is easy. It's actually strikingly easy. From install through normal
everyday usage the experience is painless(actually enjoyable) and fluid. For
the vast majority of machines it will be self configuring and for the rest
installing drivers ranges from just as easy as other systems to of course much
harder but thats a vendor problem not an Ubuntu problem that really can only
be addressed with Ubuntu gaining users.

Don't get distracted by comparing the other OS's feature by feature to Ubuntu.
You're just going to waste your time and get unnecessarily hot headed.
Ubuntu's greatest strength is still, and arguable always will be, that its
FOSS. But it is also a dead simple, batteries included, no noise operating
system that normal everyday users would find lovely to use.

What Ubuntu really needs now is community optimism and a bit of lighthearted
activism. It needs installs. The more users and attention, the more interest
and support. Ubuntu is definitely ready for prime time, we just have to put it
in that timeslot.

------
sirbyt
Nice, now all it needs is a usable GUI.

------
sneak
It probably should have been called Onanistic Ocelot.

Ever tried installing it on a Mac (the best, if not the cheapest desktop
hardware available today)?

~~~
ktizo
I've used an ubuntu cd to rescue the data from a g4 laptop when all else
failed.

------
douglasisshiny
I used to spend (i.e., waste) time reading linux blogs, each touting
innovations in Ubuntu, et al. on the desktop. These "innovations" were
anything but sorely needed or outdated features / programs (look at basically
any media player).

The most absurd aspect of these blogs is the focus on the desktop/laptop
(well, also on the whole free software aspect, as if the average person cares
or is aware of such a concept). Canonical is pushing for a smart phone (and
TV), but they don't seem to be in a great rush.

~~~
douglasisshiny
I should be clear, I have used Ubuntu since 5.04 (Debian before that and I
used Mint for a bit, too).

I'm not saying Ubuntu or other distros are bad. Some releases have been fairly
well executed. But they generally don't introduce anything groundbreaking. And
they have very little OEM support. A very large majority of "the world" keeps
the OS installed on their computer at the time they purchase it.

