On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:34:55 -0400, Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
> This article was commissioned by Mr Ubuntu, so it is hardly surprising that
> Dell did not want to commit to real figures. I thought that Ms Dell handled
> it very well.
>
> Feisty Fawn should be renamed Frumpy Friesian.. the download takes a longer
> time than getting Vista x86 and 64 combined, and the default install desktop
> is terrible, sporting two flavors of slurry brown.. Kubuntu looks better, as
> does PClinuxOS..
And what does the download speed have to do with anything? You have the
choice of downloading a CD or DVD image. Personally I generally just go
with a CD Image. If you are getting slow download speeds, choose a
different mirror.
I don't understand though what that has to do with OS? Is download speed
of the CD image from a 3rd party server now a measure for the quality of
an OS?
As far as the UI goes, Ubuntu actually does have some different color
themes than the standard brown. (Systems->Preference->Theme). At work I
also use a different theme via Beryl that I find more to my liking.
And then, as you so correctly stated, you have choice. You can run Kubuntu
instead and get the KDE environment, which you like..and I personally
don't like at all. Only difference between Ubuntu and Kubuntu is the User
Interface. I suspect PCLinuxOS probably uses KDE as well.
No one UI will every make everyone happy. There'll always be people who
like it and always be people who think it's the ugliest thing they have
ever seen.
But what do you do when you don't like Aero in Vista? You can choose
between Aero, Aero, Aero, Aero, Aero or Aero. And if you don't like Aero,
you can pick Aero.
>
> Open Office is ok, but is very reminiscent of WP 5.2 for Windows or MS 2.0
> for Windows. It is free of course, but the price is an 'old' look and not
> quite all of the features
True, it doesn't have a fancy little ribbon and someone who is heavy into
publishing and does lots of word processing might miss some features
present in MS Office. Also someone that does heavy work with Excel might
miss some features present in MS Office. Access is a disaster that
shouldn't even exist so I won't go into that. The atrocities I've seen
committed in companies with Access are just unspeakable.
But honestly, for the average home user and standard every day office use,
I think Open Office is perfectly fine. It's perfectly capable of doing
standard run of the mill spreadsheets. It's perfectly capable of letting
the secretary write the latest company memo. It's perfectly capable of
letting the average student write their latest presentation, paper, etc.
>
> 25,000 apps? Even Beryl will have problems displaying that many.. lol.. most
> of the home computers I see have only 5 apps and that includes Calculator,
> Address Book and Notepad
25,000 apps actually is misleading and I don't get why people like Alias
go around screaming that number at the top of their lungs. 25,000
packages, maybe. The number is actually closer to 21,396 as my package
manager currently reports. And a package isn't necessarily an app.
A package can be:
- Language pack for an application
- Shared Library (DLL equivalent of windows)
- Additional content for an application
- Meta package that allows for easy auto selection of the correct packages
for a given application (for instance, the linux-generic meta package
always ensures the latest kernel packages are installed without the user
having to care what those packages actually are)
- Help files / documentation
- Development files, source code
- Debug files
- And more...
There are applications out there, such as my development environment
Eclipse, that consist of over 200 packages that make up that application.
There is one meta package for Eclipse and installing that will then
install all other appropriate packages, that way one does not need to know
what all needs to be installed.
Works very well really.
>
> MS does like competition because the competition makes MS products look
> good. Linux is its own worst enemy and always has been. There are too many
> players and little cohesion between them. Remember back to the early days
> before the PC, all of the different manufacturers all doing their own
> thing?
Don't know. MS looked pretty bad when Vista won't even recognize the core
components of my system correctly such as sound and video and Microsoft's
own keyboard. Ubuntu on the other hand recognizes everything correctly out
of the box except for my video card. The current beta version
recognizes everything, video card included. All my hardware is very up to
date high end hardware from major manufactures. Nothing weird or exotic.
So I don't know, I can't say that me having to go around hunting on the
web for beta drivers to make my hardware work under Vista makes Microsoft
look all that great in my eyes. I mean it's running reasonably now, but it
took quite a bit of effort. I simply would expect better from a company
such as MS.
>
> Linux in commerce is a very different ballpark. One would expect it to
> do well as UNIX always was essentially the OS of choice, but the
> criteria are very different.
>
> Desktop Linux has a long way to go, and I have a feeling that it will
> eventually follow the path of MS and Windows, where one type will break
> away from the rest of the pack. The development of such a flavor will
> require payment, and it will have to lose the lunatic fringe supporters
> who presently make ridiculous claims for it.
>
One thing, and I think that's another misconception out there, is that a
lot of people don't use Linux because it's free. Sure there are people who
do, but plenty also simply use it, such as myself, because in many
respects it outperforms windows and is less of a headache. I'd much rather
pay for Ubuntu than I'd ever pay for Windows. And honestly, there are
things I can do under Ubuntu that I simply *cannot* do under windows, or
at the very least not without the help of a dozen 3rd party programs. At
the same time, there are currently also things I still need Windows for,
but that's largely just due 3rd party software I need which is windows
only. Only reason I honestly keep windows around, and luckily it's not
stuff I need very often.
Besides, there already are versions that require payment. Redhat is one
and it does perfectly fine.
Also, Ubuntu does perfectly fine on the Desktop, especially if it
comes pre-configured. I say all the time, and I say it again, most
peopel don't install and configure operating Systems. The work I went to in
order to get Vista running correctly on this computer would be just as
much beyond most people than it would be to configure linux. There's no
difference in that regard.
Co-worker of mine is happily running Ubuntu. He doesn't ever want to see
windows again. He's never been happier with his machine. It's stable,
fast, and meets every single one of his needs. I configured it for him of
course as he has absolutely zero technical knowledge. But once it's
configured....all he has to do is point and click which he does happily
all day long with zero problems.
I'll agree that Ubuntu or any other Linux distro may not always that easy
to set up for a novice or beginner. But once it's configured and properly
set up? No issues.
> For free, it is good, but free isn't quite everything.. as always, those
> who can afford to pay for the best invariably get a better product,
> whether it be an OS, washing machine or car.
No but paying money isn't quite everything either. I think that Windows is
starting to become obscenely expensive. I mean if you want a version that
can actually *do* something and isn't crippled and stripped down, such as
Ultimate, the price tag is quite steep.
Just because something is more expensive, doesn't necessarily make it
better. It just makes it more expensive.
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
