It's always interesting reading about the preconceptions that newcomers bring with them to a new platform.
One of Ubuntu's features is that it'll install the proprietary mp3s and graphics drivers for you. Obviously something went wrong in this case (I believe "jockey" is the part that does this). Yet unaware that this feature exists, the user goes off onto the internet and downloads and installs drivers themselves.
I have to repeatedly tell people new to Ubuntu "If you're downloading stuff to install from the internet then 99% of the time you're going in the wrong direction". I was disappointed to see that Firefox 4 prompts for that kind of activity if you attempt to download with Ubuntu, rather than suggest a PPA. Though Canonical should really have systems in place for this. I believe they've been working on it and with Mozilla's faster release pace hopefully it's all hooked up.
Relatedly, my father just installed Ubuntu by himself the other day. I would have thought he would be touch and go even using it, so that's a ringing endorsment.
The worst part about installing something from the internet is that ubuntu isn't able to keep a record of the install, and because of that it isn't simple to uninstall it. (I don't think this is applicable for a .deb package though)
I have similar experiences with Linux in the last couple of month. And I think I understand, why they are not adressed. Excuse the boldness, but Linux install is simply broken. Is it that all the volunteer developers are to busy with other small projects? And the big guys like google invest in their little app-api's (Java and stuff ...) to work around those limitations, instead of support the "real Linux"?
My experiences come from Suse11.4, because Ubuntu does not install on 512MB RAM anymore, but I don't expect big differences.
People complain about crapware on windows, but Linux is much worse. Install a Linux from the shelf, and your drive get's loaded with useless applications. The difference is, on windows they are installed for commercial reasons, on linux, they are preinstalled, because to install them yourself is close to impossible. So all the Linux distributions ship them. Yes, OpenOffice, or whatever you are called these days, I'm looking at you too.
It's all about this illusion, you can do all this stuff with it "out of the box".
I installed Skype, and it did not install Qt4 with it, and Chrome did not install libpng. You had to invoke them via terminal to find out. All these "dependency-checks". I guess Linux want's to share a lib with all applications. After I installed VLC, I have conflicts all over the place, so I just click them away.
And the kicker ... I had to compile a webcam diver myself.
Looking back, a normal user could use such an OS as long as he does not install anything new, and it does not matter if via web or "install-center".
A few days ago there was this "ubuntu-test-drive a new application" feature. My reaction ... what a waste of time and energy.
Looks like this turned into a rant, but so was the OP.
I understand. Nobody wants to do testing in their sparetime, instead they want to work on the next big thing ...
4 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 18.0 ms ] threadOne of Ubuntu's features is that it'll install the proprietary mp3s and graphics drivers for you. Obviously something went wrong in this case (I believe "jockey" is the part that does this). Yet unaware that this feature exists, the user goes off onto the internet and downloads and installs drivers themselves.
I have to repeatedly tell people new to Ubuntu "If you're downloading stuff to install from the internet then 99% of the time you're going in the wrong direction". I was disappointed to see that Firefox 4 prompts for that kind of activity if you attempt to download with Ubuntu, rather than suggest a PPA. Though Canonical should really have systems in place for this. I believe they've been working on it and with Mozilla's faster release pace hopefully it's all hooked up.
Relatedly, my father just installed Ubuntu by himself the other day. I would have thought he would be touch and go even using it, so that's a ringing endorsment.
My experiences come from Suse11.4, because Ubuntu does not install on 512MB RAM anymore, but I don't expect big differences.
People complain about crapware on windows, but Linux is much worse. Install a Linux from the shelf, and your drive get's loaded with useless applications. The difference is, on windows they are installed for commercial reasons, on linux, they are preinstalled, because to install them yourself is close to impossible. So all the Linux distributions ship them. Yes, OpenOffice, or whatever you are called these days, I'm looking at you too. It's all about this illusion, you can do all this stuff with it "out of the box".
I installed Skype, and it did not install Qt4 with it, and Chrome did not install libpng. You had to invoke them via terminal to find out. All these "dependency-checks". I guess Linux want's to share a lib with all applications. After I installed VLC, I have conflicts all over the place, so I just click them away. And the kicker ... I had to compile a webcam diver myself.
Looking back, a normal user could use such an OS as long as he does not install anything new, and it does not matter if via web or "install-center".
A few days ago there was this "ubuntu-test-drive a new application" feature. My reaction ... what a waste of time and energy.
Looks like this turned into a rant, but so was the OP. I understand. Nobody wants to do testing in their sparetime, instead they want to work on the next big thing ...