Originally Posted by Dawlish7

one distro ubuntu, ubuntu just works,

firstly ubuntu utilises .deb which is basicly an installer package that installs the program and all its dependencies just like windows does it, you download it, run it.. the end

on a default install ubuntu of mine which included everything i don't have to install anything from cli, ubuntu is very user friendly, my point is we are used to how windows does it so we thing that is normal you bring in change and it becomes unusable, ubuntu is not a tweak os imo, you can customize what you want but that is linux at its nature, with ubuntu now evan being packaged with dells i think it is ready for mainstream, even if there is problems linux has a massive user base full or support and people willing to help, also using dell as as example they have adopted this, they support it can help you with problems just as if you were using windows

i am not trying to flame you since i use all mainstream os's, its just your really wrong... JK JK



Linux does not need backwards compatability as it comes with software that you will ever need, if it does not have said software it is easily attainable bar a few exemptions but to the normal average joe all their needs a fulfilled, linux is not only developed in peoples free time, look at major corporations such as red hat, you pay for support but mostly it is free as in forums etc

Originally Posted by TheSandman

not quite, what per say if I want to play a older game that has no linux equviliant then? Also the linux IM programs dont offer the features of the full fleged IM programs, why would I want to give up features I enjoy in Yahoo 9 and Live Messenger just to use Linux? Also the big argument Windows sucks because it crash's isn't all that relevant today, it worked fine for Windows 9x, but XP solved those problems, XP and Vista Crash's are less rare and are usally tied to hardware or software malfunction not the OS. I can see no reason for wide spread market adoption of Linux over Windows.

Originally Posted by Dawlish7

one distro ubuntu, ubuntu just works,

Originally Posted by TheSandman

exception to the rule though thats the point. There is another thing to take into account backwards compatability. Vista will run most programs that date back to 2000 , XP will run most programs dating back to about 97. Linux can't claim this kind of support. Linux is free and devoloped by people in there free time, and it not taken seriously to be a desktop OS, its a tweak OS nothing more. The linux crowd's wish to replace Windows would mean all those programmers would have to sit down and hammer out a version that everything works on, with a stable working version of wine, wide range of drivers written by the team for hardware, and a GUI that was more user friendly, and then speed the entire OS up.

Originally Posted by TheSandman

not quite, what per say if I want to play a older game that has no linux equviliant then? Also the linux IM programs dont offer the features of the full fleged IM programs, why would I want to give up features I enjoy in Yahoo 9 and Live Messenger just to use Linux? Also the big argument Windows sucks because it crash's isn't all that relevant today, it worked fine for Windows 9x, but XP solved those problems, XP and Vista Crash's are less rare and are usally tied to hardware or software malfunction not the OS. I can see no reason for wide spread market adoption of Linux over Windows.

Originally Posted by nathris

... most of the time.

Trust me, I've used every release since Edgy, I even have the Karmic alpha on my laptop. Ubuntu is by far the best distro, but it still has a long way to go.

It took them until 8.10 just to get wireless working out of the box, and even then I can't connect to my university's secure connection because its lacking some of the features available on windows.

Plus 9.04 completely broke the Intel graphics drivers, so even gnome is painfully slow, and as far as I can tell we won't be getting a fix at least until Karmic is finished.

They still haven't fixed the compizconfig-settings-manager bug that's been around since 8.04, and it looks like they are content to let users figure out the simple-ccsm workaround by themselves. This is not how a mainstream OS operates.

Originally Posted by lattyware

Of course, the answer is you should use an open protocol so a good Linux client can be made for it. That said, I find Pidgin's MSN support fine.

You can see no reason? It's better in a multitude of ways and it's free.

Originally Posted by Redmist

Note the part in the video above at 23:00 where he say Canonical does not give back to the Linux community. I'm not a fan of Ubuntu at all.

Originally Posted by TheSandman

its more secure thats about it. windows is just as stable yet as a wider range of software, you can argue Linux has opensource eqivilants of most, but are the open source versions as feature rich? Is there a reason people risk jail time by pirating paid software instead of going open source even when they know there is a free program similar? Features, windows programs have them, Linux doesn't. The average joe doesnt want to make the switch, they want to deal with the hassle of linux period. Your right we are spoiled by our OS, they made it user friendly and simple, one reason the computer didn't get massive adoption untill the 90's was this purpose alot of folks didnt want to memorize Dos command structure. We like the fact it all just works. Once Linux can claim it all works out of the box then we will care.

Originally Posted by lattyware

Sorry? I find open source software to be on a generally higher standard. You are pulling what you say out of your ass.

Originally Posted by nathris

I'm a fan of Ubuntu because Canonical is the only linux developer that seems to have a grasp of the real world. They understand that if you release something, it should actually work, rather than having to make excuses and empty promises of patches coming soon.

Originally Posted by nathris

... most of the time.

Trust me, I've used every release since Edgy, I even have the Karmic alpha on my laptop. Ubuntu is by far the best distro, but it still has a long way to go.

It took them until 8.10 just to get wireless working out of the box, and even then I can't connect to my university's secure connection because its lacking some of the features available on windows.

Plus 9.04 completely broke the Intel graphics drivers, so even gnome is painfully slow, and as far as I can tell we won't be getting a fix at least until Karmic is finished.

They still haven't fixed the compizconfig-settings-manager bug that's been around since 8.04, and it looks like they are content to let users figure out the simple-ccsm workaround by themselves. This is not how a mainstream OS operates.

Originally Posted by Redmist

Apparently, from what you say, they're not doing a very good job of it.

I'm not arguing that Linux is ready for the desktop, I don't think it is either. I'm also not an Elitist who doesn't want Linux to be accessible to anyone. I think if you want to take the time to learn Linux it will really pay off, but if your the kind of person who wants everything to just work and doesn't mind paying a premium for it, then I think you should go ahead and do that.