
Hey Ubuntu, Stop Making Linux Look Bad - r11t
http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7600/1.html
======
riobard
The article is a little bit too harsh, but I get the idea. Let me explain ...

First, the title is wrong. Ubuntu is absolutely making Linux MUCH friendlier
to use than ever before. In fact I would seriously doubt if Linux could be as
popular as it is now without Ubuntu.

But the problems mentioned in the article are real --- every Ubuntu upgrade
fixes some issues and breaks some others, especially drivers. I think the
reasons are pretty obvious here: Apple has only a small portfolio of hardware
configuration and generally Mac users don't tweak their systems as much as
Linux folks do, and Apple can actually test each release on all possible
hardware (Hackintosh excluded) AND reasonable system variants before they make
it public and feel pretty confident it won't break too much stuff. So it's not
very fair to compare Ubuntu with OS X for driver compatibility, as there is
simply too much combinations of hardware and software to support. In this
regard, Ubuntu is more similar to Windows.

But Windows has an advantage right now: it has a much larger install base
which forces hardware/software vendors to "manufacture to Windows". And
Windows has only a handful clearly-defined "reference implementations" for
vendors to test out---currently the "reference implementations" are XP and
Vista/Win7, then double the number to account for x86/x64 variants. Even then
it is very hard for Microsoft to keep all devices working for all Windows
users.

The situation is much worse for Ubuntu: officially there are four editions (U,
K, X, and Netbook Remix), and think about the number of platforms it supports.
In addition only a few vendors actually test their products on any flavor of
Linux. And those who do test on Linux are usually big names like Intel (even
then they suck from time to time). Your cheap webcam manufacturers don't
really have the money or time or any incentive to test the $5 crap on Linux
they sold to you. So the reality is, the test coverage for a particular
installation of Ubuntu on a particular hardware configuration for the vast
majority of users is pretty limited. You shouldn't really expect too much more
than what we have now.

The more I think about it, the more I appreciate the effort Ubuntu and the
whole Linux community spent to make Linux more approachable to common folks
like my dad (he's been using Ubuntu for quite some time now and never bothered
by virus/trojan any more -- I just don't upgrade the system as long as it
works).

But problems are still problems. A year ago when my old laptop finally stopped
working after a glass of juice got into its body I switched to a metal
MacBook. I finally decided that my time wasted on figuring out how to make my
webcam work again after each Ubuntu upgrades, if accumulated, is actually
worth something. I feel much happier now on a Mac. Sometimes I still long for
the power of control on Linux and really get annoyed by various little things
on OS X (like even in Snow Leopard the default Terminal.app doesn't support
256 colors -- WTF!!??), but I'm willing to accept the trade-offs. Besides,
when I really need the power of Linux I immediately summon the Ubuntu
installed in VirtualBox and ssh into it (actually I think this is the
preferred way of running Linux -- you avoid all the driver issues by
virtualizing the hardware).

------
davidw
Linkbait title; Ubuntu has done a great deal to make Linux look much better.

~~~
jonathansizz
The article points this out. But it also points out (using the Ubuntu release
notes) that there are quite a few regressions as well.

In other words, there is a lack of professionalism and polish associated with
Ubuntu releases. Maybe they're code-freezing too late in each cycle to be able
to stabilize everything in time for the release?

~~~
cabalamat
> In other words, there is a lack of professionalism and polish associated
> with Ubuntu releases.

I agree. I think they should make their releases less frequent, e.g. move to a
2 year relase cycle. I have zero interest in fiddling with a working computer
setup every six months in order to get the latest goodies.

~~~
mhansen
Their mission is to get more people using Ubuntu - a 6 month release cycle
works wonders for that. People (like me) who think "I could _almost_ use the
permanently" get excited, and give it another go, when a new version comes
out. Also, it generates a lot of buzz.

However, 9.10 hasn't been a smooth ride for me. When I plug in an external
monitor, and open Display Options to enable it, my X server crashes, due to
Compiz not handling such a large resolution.

------
SandB0x
Perhaps the LTS version should be offered more prominently, and the regular
releases billed as experimental?

~~~
cabalamat
Better still, just have the LTS releases.

~~~
jrockway
But then nobody would be testing them.

------
spot
"Canonical is not an open source company, they are just using free software to
try and get a slice of the huge operating system market."

looks like the article is a smear job by someone with a hidden agenda.

------
GiraffeNecktie
They claim that a poll said only 10 percent of people had a flawless install
but the link actually shows 16 percent had a flawless install with another
12.5 percent having only minor problems. I don't know whether those numbers
are good or bad. There's a selection bias in the poll (people with problems
are far more likely to be cruising the site). I'd like to see a random sample.
For myself, I installed Karmic on a quad core desktop and a netbook with no
problems at all. The first time I've installed any Unix without any grief.

~~~
dave_au
It's interesting to compare the results of the polls after they stabilise. I'm
not sure if it fully accounts for selection bias, but it seems to be a better
basis for comparison.

In terms of show stopping problems, Karmic is currently about the same as
Jaunty with about 32% of people reporting they couldn't work around their
issues, while for Intrepid it was 45%.

I can imagine there's selection bias at that level as well - the people who
can't work around problems for one release aren't going to be involved in the
poll for the next release.

Anecdotally, everyone that I've convinced to try Ubuntu has been badly burnt
by upgrade issues - only my girlfriend has continued to use it since I do the
upgrades for her. I'm sticking with it as I seem to be able to workaround or
fix anything that comes up, although it feels like I'm rolling dice everytime.

------
mhotchen
About an hour ago I downloaded the windows installer for Ubuntu. It ran just
like any other installer on windows and when I restarted there it was, right
beside windows. I can also uninstall it with the add/remove programs window.

That was by far the most painless install of any OS I've ever installed.

~~~
windsurfer
Keep in mind the ubuntu boot sequence you will experience will be slightly
slower by doing so.

~~~
htsh
Its not just the boot process, but disk access in general will be slower,
especially if your disk is fragmented. The file system is implemented as a
single file on the windows partition.

<http://linux.about.com/od/dist/gr/dstwubi.htm>
<http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-536450.html>

~~~
jrockway
I use Debian in a Windows VMware host (at work), and it is more than fast
enough. The only problem is that VMWare's X server is broken in such a way as
to not be able to draw window decorations if they are drawn via X's standard
function to draw window decorations. Very stupid.

~~~
windsurfer
I had that problem in Ubuntu and switched to VirtualBox. Surprisingly, when I
enabled 3D rendering in VirtualBox and enabled compositing in OpenBox, My
performance and snappiness increased.

------
mapleoin
Here's a sort of reply to these sort of articles from Jono Bacon, Ubuntu's
community manager: [http://www.jonobacon.org/2009/11/06/the-intersection-of-
qual...](http://www.jonobacon.org/2009/11/06/the-intersection-of-quality-and-
expectations/)

------
jrockway
Ubuntu is about optimizing the common case at the expense of the corner cases.
If you want something that is actually stable, use Debian.

~~~
adg
Do you have any specific examples? I've been bumping up against this wall a
bit lately and have never tried Debian.

~~~
jrockway
Packages that are in Debian stable are extensively pre-tested by the users of
unstable and testing. I have been an unstable user for years, and the one or
two time a year things break (I update approximately weekly) and I try to
report a bug, the bug has already been reported and resolved. This is what
they call _un_ stable, so imagine how well stable works.

Debian unstable doesn't have releases, so packages that make major changes
have to apply cleanly to a variety of configurations (not just whatever the
previous version was). Since people are testing these packages daily, any
problems are resolved way before anything is marked "stable". These changes
are also incremental, so instead of a testing team having to work out 100s of
major changes with a six-month deadline, they are made and tested as-needed.

The end result is a system that is very up-to-date but rarely breaks. (Debian
stable probably "never" breaks, but it is not exactly up-to-date either.)

------
jrockway
I am not sure why people expect reliability from a bunch of unrelated software
packages written in C without any automatic testing. Of course stuff is going
to break. My laptop's sound card alternately breaks every other major kernel
release. Nobody to test + no automatic tests + minor changes in the sound
subsystem = breakage. (I don't care about this, though, as the card is junk
and I have a decent USB DAC connected to my machine. But still...)

I am mildly surprised every time I see a Linux system boot to completion. (And
yes, Linux is my favorite OS.)

------
tghw
Wow, what a useless article. "Early" adopters experiencing bugs?! Clearly the
author must be new to "early" adopting. (Why he uses quotes for "early" I
don't really understand.)

~~~
mapleoin
Because "early adopting" is generally used when talking about beta software,
but in this case the software was declared released, but the users'
experiences resembled that of early adopters'.

~~~
jrockway
Bad when it's Linux, great when it's Revision A Apple hardware...

~~~
rbanffy
Plus: there are no reports of Ubuntu installs like iPods ;-)

It's also easier to patch software, although it's harder to make it run on
hardware someone else designed and who will not tell you anything about how it
works. Apple doesn't have this problem either: the least they can do is OSX
folks pointing fingers to Macintosh hardware designers.

But I have to admit Apple hardware has the good looks on its side.

~~~
rbanffy
oops... Ubuntu installs catching fire like iPods...

mental note: never, ever engage in witty comments past bedtime.

------
rbanffy
That's weird... It worked here flawlessly. I even did an upgrade over from
last release and not with a fresh reinstall...

The worse that happened is that it disabled my 3rd party repos (Skype,
VirtualBox) - that is after warning me it would.

------
barnaby
Yeah, Canonical's own release notes for my netbook actually recommended _not_
upgrading because of regressions.

I did however upgrade my desktop just fine and I _love_ it!

------
kirkR
I had issues with my WPA2 keys in 9.10. Could not get my router to accept my
password. I downgraded back to 9.04 were everything works flawless.

~~~
Rabidmonkey1
You should have just tried the WICD package, which replaced Network Manager
quite well.

~~~
kirkR
I did try the WICD package and it didn't work.

------
shaddi
>Free software is supposed to improve with each new release. Take OS X, which
gets faster. Cleaner. Better.

Funny, my experience has been just the opposite...

(before you downmod: I'm referring to 10.6, and yes I know it's been fine for
some people and not fine for others; this is my personal experience)

------
brent
Hey Christopher Smart, Stop Making Linux Magazine Look Bad

------
sleepingbot
I would say it _just_ the other way around. Not kidding. And using on
_production_ 9.10. Smooth.

~~~
r11t
I am using Ubuntu 9.10 as my primary OS also and it has been nothing sort of
satisfactory. However the article does point out a few useful suggestions in
order for Ubuntu to be the leader in Linux Desktop Computing.

~~~
krakensden
It does? All I read was whining.

