Ubuntu 8.04 Is Ready to Take On Windows
ubuntu.eeepc at gmail.com
Thu May 1 06:16:11 UTC 2008
Of course, the main reason linux (ubuntu) will never over take windows is
the same reason Mac will never over take windows...MONEY.
Symantec makes windows software (primarily and first) because of money.
Adobe makes windows software (primarily and first) because of money.
every startup wants to either be the next Microsoft or be bought by
Ubuntu is great, but the FREE model does not make much money.
Sorry, but that is the truth. Keep trying with the grass roots efforts and
little by little home users will use it more and more, but thats about it.
Rock on Ubuntu.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM, John Toliver <john.toliver at gmail.com>
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 11:09 -0700, michael wilson wrote:
> One thing needs to be fixed before Ubuntu takes on windows. The ability
> to totally nuke the boot process through the package manager needs to be
> removed. There is NO WAY I can make windows un-bootable through add/remove
> programs. Yet, I can remove a few packages with no warning and make ubuntu
> not boot and unable to run any programs requiring a complete clean
> I know this is a sore subject, but to convince non-teachniocal people to
> use this software, users must be protected from themselves.
> Fix this and there is a chance.
> Sub points to this are automatic installation of printer and network
> Rock on
> OK. That is a valid point here's my laundry list Get some coffee:
> - What I think would make Linux ready to take on windows is equivalent
> hardware support. (Please no flaming) Until someone can walk into any
> store and get any (I mean most) hardware and it works, windows will stay on
> top. Admittedly some of this has nothing to do with the Linux community as
> many vendors release their products closed source but....
> -Also, a systematic (AND DOCUMENTED) method for fixing a system that has
> crashed. A proven, and documented method of recovering from the majority of
> system failures. If the filesystem fails, a method that is tested and fail
> safe to fix it. If Gnome/KDE decides to take a vacation-A method to fix
> that. If your Xserver goes nuts, a method to take care of that. Then all
> the little things that don't work (but that are really close to working if
> you tweak them enough (like being able to simply plug your laptop into most
> any windows network and have it be able to find the resources it needs,
> browse the network like if you were on a windows machine etc.)
> -Good documentation: Think support.microsoft.com. It may be a money
> hungry company but they have documentation for everything and IT people rely
> on that stuff..... I rely on it for work.
> *One area I think would really set Ubuntu ABOVE Windows, is if ALL the
> necessary tools to repair most problems with an OS were included on the
> CD/DVD. With a windows system, you do something to break the system, then
> you need to be on the internet to research the problem and download any
> software or documents to help you fix the problem. If Ubuntu came with
> every tool to Automagically fix the mission crtitcal parts of your system
> (fstab, xserver, gnome, filesystem issues, system restore tools etc.)it
> would be a serious nail in the coffin.- Here the emphasis being on being
> able to fix your system to a usable state, without an internet connection.
> Or, better yet System restore.
> -Also, Windows system upgrades are still cleaner (no flames) It's just
> that too many odd undocumented problems exist out there. If it weren't for
> this list, and the forums, Ubuntu might be in hot water. I went from Gutsy
> to Hardy and blew the weekend trying to figure out how I was going to fix
> openoffice, and a few other packages. That type of thing shouldn't happen,
> I know it wasn't Canonicals fault but the problem is still the same to the
> end user, who, if it's grandma, would still be asking you why you took away
> her "Winders puter'.
> I say this not to beat up on Ubuntu because I love it. Most of the time
> it fits me better than windows has ever done. It's the first Linux OS I've
> tried to use, that has worked on my hardware, and wasn't so complicated to
> get going. I decided to dual boot just to be safe and I can't remember the
> last time I booted into XP for anything. I love the concept of synaptic,
> and the ability to do major installations on the fly w/o rebooting and of
> course the customizability etc.
> But emphasis shouldn't really be on compiz, or any of the "bling" yet. It
> should be on making the core functionality rock solid. It should take a
> computer science major to break it, and still be usable by someone who knows
> next to nothing of computers. Once I can get excited because I can do
> something windows can't, and then go to my friends no-name-brand computer
> and do the same for him, then compiz is worth it.
> At that point, you can walk into businesses and say, "look what my OS can
> do, it does everything you are already doing, it's more stable, just as
> functional, just as secure, ****FREE****, and virtually no learning curve.
> When non-IT business persons who don't know a thing about computing see
> that they can continue being productive with the technology at a much lower
> TCO, They'll leave MS like a bad movie :-)
> Patience yields far greater results than brute force or rage ever could
> so relax......it's just life !!!
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-users