Ubuntu 8.04 Is Ready to Take On Windows

[Avi Greenbury]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:39:11 -0400
John Toliver <john.toliver at gmail.com> wrote:


> -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.  

If you want to start the project, I'm sure, as with all the others, you'll find willing contributors.

>		     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.)  

You can pretty much do that on any 'desktop' OS.
Why you'd want to browse the network like you're on a Windows machine is beyond me, though.

> 
> -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.

There already is good documentation. It just happens to be written and distributed in much the same way as the OS.

> *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.

They generally are. What're you finding yourself missing? 
If they're not, there are free full recovery CDs.

> -Also, Windows system upgrades are still cleaner (no flames) 

They're more silent, granted.

>								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've never had any real issues upgrading between major versions of Linux. Odd ones trying to downgrade, or skip ones out, but I can't imagine it's any cleaner with Windows.
MS do tend to advocate the idea of rebuilding from scratch for each upgrade, though.

> 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,

No. I completely and utterly disagree with that. When breaking something, it should be made obvious that you're breaking something. People in general should be made more aware of the inner workings of computers, computers shouldn't be made stupid.

>						 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.

There's plenty. In fact, there're hundreds of small things that I keep noticing non-nix users seeing that you wouldn't particularly ask for, but they're incredibly handy.
Personally, I'd rather all these 'niceties' than a switch to just being a free Windows.

> 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.

You already can, really. Except the learning curve, but that is changing. 


The biggest thing that Linux is missing, IMO, is a proper Exchange rival. But one-big-app-that-does-everything just isn't the nix way.

-- 
Avi Greenbury