Well it doesn't have to be Ubuntu on the OEM machines but they shouldn't throw Slackware on there or a not-well supported OS, and the OS should be fully usable not some command line and should have a good package manager with a variety of software available from the repositories. From many sources though and even television programs say Ubuntu should be the starting Linux OS and I agree because I did "start" with Ubuntu (and I did learn my way around the command-line using it), as in it was my first main Linux OS. Before that I put others on and tried Live distros like Knoppix, but Ubuntu worked the best from a clean install and it keeps up-to-date. With some distros like DSL which isn't well supported (think it "died" in '04) it's a pain to get Firefox 3 on there, let alone another DE whereas Ubuntu you just launch Synaptics, search XFCE, check the box and install. There is also a driver manager in ubuntu where you can just select which drivers to enable. But Linux still has a long way to go to get to the masses.

Who said anything about slackware? That's the extreme. I would not suggest Arch either for much the same reason. They are "supported", but they're not for beginners. I'm not sure what support you're referring to though? Ubuntu has no support either, unless you're referring to the forums? Technically that is not support.

Debian has the same package manager as Ubuntu (obviously) and lots of software available in the repositories. It also installs gnome by default. My grandmother would be able to install (it if she were alive).

That's because it's the "in thing" and popular. The people on reviewing it or commenting on it on TV are probably dazzled by stuff like compiz-fusion. This is how Ubuntu got a lot of attention, by essentially shipping with compiz-fusion pre-installed. A lot of newbies install Ubuntu just to see that and their next post on the forum is how to remove Ubuntu and go back to windows. I'm glad you stuck at it and you should use whatever works for you, but you should give some other distributions a go as well. I started out with Mandrake 9.0 back in about 2002 but there is no way I'd go back to Mandriva now.

Debian comes with Firefox 3 and you can simply launch Synaptic to install XFCE, KDE or anything else.

The "hardware drivers" manager is one of the main differences. I find that to be horrendously buggy. In the past it has broken the X server and presented me with a black screen. This involved more time at the terminal getting it fixed - which I don't mind so much - but for a beginner, that's not on. If Ubuntu is going to ship with such a tool then the tool needs to be fully automated in that it should recover from failures. Otherwise it's not living up to Ubuntu's "user friendly" claims and "Linux for Human Beings" motto.

It's also the part that commonly breaks at dist-upgrade time. Because the driver was built for the older kernel, xorg version etc, once you upgrade, reboot and the kernel module tries to start you will often get hangs and lock ups or a black screen. The only solution is to purge the driver. "Hardware drivers" also has nothing inbuilt to handle this, so what happened? A lot of people turn up on the forums with the usual "my display stopped working after upgrade" problem. This happened in the recent Intrepid to Jaunty upgrade. The common answer they received was: "reinstall".

The simple answer is that at dist-upgrade the incompatible proprietary drivers should be purged.

Depending on what you do with your PC you may never need proprietary drivers anyway. I installed the ATI driver myself from the Debian repos. It involved a bit of command line work, but there are guides available. I use it because I play some games, otherwise I'd definitely use the open source driver instead. Much more stable than the proprietary binary blobs provided by Nvidia and AMD/ATI.

Here's one example of Ubuntu's magic: My ATI X1150; every other Linux distro it causes glitches and rainbows to appear on the screen if I say, wake from standby (if I can sleep in that distro), even during a reboot or shutdown process. If I install the Ubuntu drivers, that goes away and I can sleep. The BCM WiFi also has drivers so no more NDis wrapper. More and more companies are getting behind Ubuntu and in the end there will be even more support and drivers, NVidia also has amazing support. Also with Ubuntu, it has that HP utility installed by default for my printer, and all machines with wifi, if I boot from the installer disc, it detects the wireless points and works flawlessly. This was not the case with Ubuntu 8.08/7.10 and lower, as some machines would have wireless issues, and most other Linux distros I must use ndiswrapper. I find 9.04 not only faster booting that most of the other distros (including puppy which is like 200MB), but it does everything so much faster now.

But if this was a year or two ago, I'd say I didn't like Ubuntu because of all the weird crashes and glitches, but they all seem to be gone with these latest versions. You should give it a shot. It also has a stable 64-bit version too which most Linux's don't have, you must find a 64-bit kernel and compile yourself. Distros like Puppy and Slackware remain to be 32-bit. There are pre-built distros like Slam64 which is supposedly Slackware with a 64-bit kernel preinstalled but yet, it would not even detect my CD drive once I reached setup which made no sense at all (I was booted from the CD!). One issue I had with Fedora too was setting a static IP in a fresh install, where Ubuntu was fine! One killer feature Ubuntu seemed to implement before anyone is now you can format an ext4 partition during install, where Fedora etc. have just added that in their latest release. Gentoo I am not a fan as it spent like 2/3 hours installing on my HPafXXXX then when I rebooted it was just all messed up =/

I'm always into trying new distros though.

They're not "Ubuntu drivers". The fglrx proprietary drivers are not exclusive to Ubuntu and if you're talking about the latest release 9.04 then I'm afraid the proprietary driver won't support that card as it's now considered legacy.

Nvidia has good Linux support not good Ubuntu support. You're confusing what is Ubuntu and what is GNU/Linux.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is because of HP's pretty good Linux support and not Ubuntu.

Once again you're confusing the issue. Wireless is still an issue and it depends almost entirely on which wireless chipset you have. Later versions of Ubuntu have simply shipped with updated wireless drivers. If you had a wireless chipset that doesn't work so well then you would be thinking very differently. Again the credit goes to the developers of such open source drivers and not Ubuntu. Other distributions also have these updated drivers. Debian 5.0 supports my wireless adaptor and loads the same kernel module for it that Ubuntu 9.04 does. This is because this functionality/support in Ubuntu has come from upstream.

I have given it a shot. I've used it since 6.06 and I am now in the position to know that it's nothing special - mostly hype. The 64 bit version is not stable, neither are any of the Ubuntu releases stable. It's based on the unstable Debian release. Most distros have 64 bit releases, including Debian, so I'm not sure where you've got the idea from that Ubuntu is unique in that?

Very vague... the non detection of the CD is not unusual. This happens in windows all the time. The solution is often rather complex. It's probably down to you having a SATA CDROM drive. Such distros as slackware are very stripped down so you can't expect them to fully support every piece of hardware.

I know they are "Ubuntu drivers" lol but the way fglrx is implemented into Ubuntu, it detects my ATI in one machine whereas in other distros I must manually find and they sometimes don't work/weird bugs with the rainbows and sleep. Sure it's ATI's fault, but at least Ubuntu gets the best results.

Ubuntu is Linux, and if I asked any novice what Linux is they'd either say the penguin, Ubuntu, or they'd be totally confused. As for the NVidia support again, Ubuntu installs an NVidia control panel and in other Linuxes you must manually find.

Other Linux distros I installed did not place the HP icon in my toolbar and I couldn't use all the features without manually finding a method, yet again. It's the way Ubuntu sees the big picture with automating what what would be difficult processes to the average user.

Ubuntu is Deibian based so it's bound to share smilarities. Ubuntu/Debain ships these built in wheras in other non-Debian Linuxes it's a manual find/download/install & re-load modules or reboot and pray there's no problems. The wireless I had troubles with was BCM4300 (I think) and it works fine in Windows/OS X/Ubuntu like 8.04 or higher, any Ubuntu lower or other distros I'd get random disconnects etc. so it's something they did in Ubuntu to fix it.

I know some distros have 64-bit releases, I wouldn't say most. Slackware's 64 release as I said has funny results vs the 32 bit. As for Ubuntu's 64-bit stablility, I have had no crashes whatsoever. Even when my NTFS was corrupted from un-clean mounts in Win7 and causing BSOD's until I finally fixed it, and OS X was random panicing for god knows why (hackintosh glitches possibly), the only OS working fine was Ubuntu 64.

Yes but the thing is, with 32 bit Slack, it installed and worked fine when installed on this one system I have with 4GB of RAM and Q6600. Slam64 however (which to my understanding is Slackware w/ 64-bit kernel) booted to the installer from the disc but during the install process it could not find the disc! So I tried network installs from removable devices, etc. and still the same error. Spent a few hours in IRC trying to get the bottom of the problem but everyone was puzzled). Windows 7, Ubuntu, and Leopard all saw the drive fine, along with the BIOS.

So from personal experience as being a technology enthusiast working with a variety of machines w/ different hardware, Ubuntu now the way it is, has the best results from a fresh install as a Linux distro, not to mention a Live CD which many but not all distro's have. Drivers load from the Live CD out of the box so you can test a new machine and it's hardware compatibility, it's a nice clean UI so it makes for a great rescue disc you can hand to friends that are non-technical, support is always there if not on the forums, in IRC (which I admit is pretty bad because of the flooding of "newbs" and their questions). Even from a fresh Ubuntu install to a newcomer, they will still need help until it reaches the point where out of the box, "everything works".

Just a few hours ago my friend couldn't delete the songs from his MP3 player in XP so I plugged it in my Windows 7 laptop and they still wouldn't delete. Booted into Ubuntu 9.04 Live CD, didn't see the player so I unplugged it and plugged it back in, detected it, auto-mounted, double clicked the icon and cleared the MP3 players contents fine. Sure, all Linuxes that support mounting FAT/whatever the drive was, but I could easily tell which partition the drive was because it showed with an autorun dialog and the icon of MP3 player and it even detected the brand.

My 2^2 cents.

Yes it works for you, but not for everyone. The "Hardware drivers" manager can be a deathtrap for inexperienced users and experienced users don't need it anyway. Work it out.

nvidia-settings is in the same debian package as the drivers. This has been a case for a while. So if you install it in Debian you also get the control panel. I'm not sure how it's handled in other distros but I'm pretty sure this is not exclusive to Ubuntu and Debian.


That's perhaps because not everyone has an HP printer and a lot of Linux users do not want to see proprietary software/logos littered all over their desktop?


Yes I know that Ubuntu is Debian based, I had mentioned that once or twice already. The B43 driver is the one I linked to. It also works in Debian - and on any Linux distro for that matter. You may find configuration easier because of the network manager applet. This is in Debian as well and has been proved to be problematic for a lot of users (I have problems with network manager - though I have less problems in Debian than I was having on my Jaunty box). This is why you see so many posts at ubuntuforums about wireless which involve removing network manager and setting up the connection using iwconfig. There are still a lot of people using ndiswrapper as well because a lot of chipsets are not supported.


Slamd64 is not Slackware's 64 bit release it's an unofficial port. Also you cannot compare any "desktop Linux" to anything like slackware so forget it. If you want to try other distros for comparison with Ubuntu, go for something like openSUSE, Mandriva, Centos or Gentoo. Whatever the case it will be swings and roundabouts. The best approach is to use what works best on your hardware and if Ubuntu is that, then use it. But remember that Ubuntu is not the only Linux, it's far from perfect and it doesn't work for everyone. Ubuntu is also a one way process in that it takes a lot from Debian and GNU/Linux as a whole and gives next to nothing back.


Ubuntu is very good as a livecd - that's it's main strength in fact. Whether Ubuntu works best or not is a matter of opinion. It works for you.

That's something else that almost any other "desktop linux" distribution can do. MP3 players are detected, automounted and with an icon added to the desktop as are USB flash drives (because it's the same thing). This not a Ubuntu exclusive feature.

Yes I know what you are saying, but the fact that Ubuntu can detect all of these obscure hardware combos (X1150, BCM4300, Nvidia, every single hardware combo I threw at it) worked OUT OF THE BOX with no tweaking says a lot, and again if it wasn't for all the support and work going into this distro it would probably be #5 or less on distro watch. As for the MP3 player, it detected the brand and make. Normally distros it would just appear as either an MP3 player or Removable Media; it wouldn't gather all the info. Ubuntu is now at the point where there OS is rock solid; IE Jaunty; they felt 8.10 was good 'n rock solid and now needed to spend optimizing code, while at the same time making it a tad easier and convenient.

Sure, Ubuntu looks somewhat like Fedora and install process is similar to other distros, but when you combine all the things it does out of the box and it still fits on a single CD (compared to "bloated" distros that span multiple discs/DVD) and you can boot from it; it's amazing.

The thing I see and gather from all these "Ubuntu haters" (not you; just many of the people I know and see on IRC) is they are just scared because it's gaining too much attraction and brining in some of the "Windows users" over to Linux. You know what that means, eventually if too many people move over to Linux you'll see those malicious programmers start targeting more and more Linux boxes. You should see all the red hat fanatics that always say "Ubuntu isn't Linux it's Windows". Well that's what happens when a Linux distro comes "mainstream". Maybe some day another distro will be as stable and have as many features as Ubuntu and work on a wide range of hardware; still fitting on a single Live disc. Once you get used to Ubuntu and a general idea of how Linux works, move on to something such as Slackware and get the gist of it and try other distros just to compare the features and how they work. Slackware makes a great desktop OS; I just wished the Slamd64 (Slackware alternative for 64-bit machines then) would actually install. And OK yes, Slamd64 it's an "unofficial port".

It's popularity is down to marketing and the money thrown at the project. The hardware you're saying that was detected would be detected by any other distribution. The only exception is proprietary drivers for obvious reasons. Also you're wrong about it detecting all kinds of "obscure hardware combos". Again: it works for you, but there are plenty of people on the ubuntuforums who's hardware it does not work so well with.

It is only removable media so the brand and make are unimportant to the user. Other distros are also detecting the brand and make but are not displaying it, or are using a different/older driver version to meet the same ends. (it's a simple device and vendor ID so there is no way that it could not be detected unless it's very new and uncrecognised)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble once again, but Ubuntu is not "rock solid". It's based on the unstable testing version of Debian, so it simply cannot be considered a "stable distro". I would ask you very kindly, without any insult intended, not to perpetuate this myth.

Ubuntu is a very bloated distro! Other distros simply have more software on the other discs for servers etc. With Ubuntu you fetch most of this from the repos.

You always get fanboys. But a lot of what you have said there is false information that is put out by Ubuntu fanboys. There are no real "haters". And the only reason why Ubuntu is disliked in some circles is because it feeds from downstream but pushes next to nothing back upstream. Ubuntu isn't a threat to anyone or anything. It's simply "not that great" and most of the fuss about it is pure hype. Like yourself I once used and loved Ubuntu, but then I discovered that there are other distributions out there from reading not just the Ubuntuforums. I also got sick of seeing unanswered questions and the fanboys ganging up in the testimonials forum to either lecture or flame anyone that complains.

What other distros should do then is implement the "restricted driver system" (which I don't see how it can be bad; works fine for me every time) and display as much information as it can to help with the user experience if it wants to gain traction. I want Linux to succeed in the marketplace but it needs to do more than just "sit there". Of course the closest Linux is to getting mainstream with Windows and OS X as we know it is the netbook niche, and even there Linux is failing (some number a while back like 60% of netbooks with Linux were returned just because people didn't know how to use it) Now this is Linux in general, but it's safe to say Ubuntu was chosen for most of these machines. Would they have done better on netbooks with a different distro and have the support for it?

On MSN my one friend started a group convo with me because this lady's laptop had Ubuntu on it and she didn't know what to do with it and she immediately wanted Windows on it. She couldn't even get her dial-up modem working correctly even though the tools are there. Would they would of had a better chance with something other than that Ubuntu; should of they gone with another distro?

As for Ubuntu's "bloatness" I personally think it has the best balance of software needed for the average user with a clean UI out of the box. Also remember, 9.04 is very fast so they did slim out what I would consider "bloatness" being lots of redundant code and creating new methods for speeding things up (and they did jump on the ext4 bandwagon ahead of the big others which helped a lot). For server side, they make a server edition with just a command line. I don't see how anyone can think it's still bloated for a 650MB CD unless you compare it with DSL, Puppy, TinyMe, etc. which are missing half of the features of a typical Ubuntu install.

Mostly the fact I stand up for Ubuntu is in my experience with on not just my machine, with several machines, it just detects it all and runs fast. With older versions though; eg: I popped in a 7.10 disc in my desktop and it wouldn't even boot, whereas 8.04+ did. Same with a classmates laptop; tried I believe it was 8.04 and it would boot but hang, and half of the 7.10 or 8.04 (can't remember) discs have issues booting on Dell Optiplex 260 (maybe 230) model, but there was a solution I found. You Google for any Ubuntu problem and there is a higher chance of finding the solution compared to other distros because of the sheer amount of user base, and some solutions on any Linux forum can/may apply to other distros as well.

The "restricted drivers" now known as "hardware drivers" applet works for you, but doesn't work for everyone. No other distributions would adopt it - and I think it may one of those bits of Ubuntu's proprietary code anyway (as with the launchpad.net software). But don't quote me on that.

Linux has never really set out to do this. It's FOSS and that's what's good about about it! Once it starts going for profit... well that's the beginning of the end. I for one hope that the current situation of freedom, choice, security and stability lasts. Iit's not really an issue for me if the OS I use is well marketed or popular or not. The main thing is if it does what I want it to do.

It's not safe to say that the majority used Ubuntu no. A large number of netbooks were preloaded with Linpus Lite. I doubt they would have done better with any Linux distro. The problem is that the masses are not ready for Linux yet. It's not that Linux is that difficult, it's just that people are so used to Windows. People forget that MacOSX has the same issues - people are simply not familiar with it. It's important to remember that there are no distributions that are setting out to take one Windows - not even Ubuntu has made this claim. The problem lies in that popular culture assumes it does. This is because people cannot shake off the proprietary way of thinking. "oh if these Ubuntu people have started a new OS that means they want to compete with Windows right?" Wrong. Even Apples are not competing with Windows for the desktop market. Apple have has their own following since day one and it has always been like that. Apple has actually been losing out due to a lot of the old Mac exclusive software becoming available on the PC. This is why they've diversified into other personal data products that tie in with their OS. (the "Apple lock in" in action.)

Exactly. Average Joe wants what he's familiar with. Ubuntu is supposed to be "Linux for Human Beings", yet this lady could not get on with it. This goes towards proving the point that Ubuntu is "mis sold" as a "user friendly" distro. I've used all version of Ubuntu since Dapper and Debian since Sarge and I can tell you for a fact that Ubuntu is no more or less user friendly than Debian - or any other mainstream desktop distro for that matter - and if it is, the difference is negligible. You have to remember that most users don't play games so 3D won't be an issue, so installing the ATI or Nvidia proprietary kernel modules won't be something they'll be doing. Also most of such people don't know how to install a device driver under Windows anyway. Wireless and wired networking works the same in Debian as it does in Ubuntu, the only difference is the installation of the proprietary wireless drivers using the "hardware drivers" applet. But 9 times out of 10 you don't need these as there is a more stable FOSS driver available or you end up having to use ndiswrapper anyway. A poll would be interesting on the Ubuntu forums: Do you have the proprietary ATI/Nvidia drivers installed? Yes, No, Don't no, didn't work. I think the results would be surprising.

9.04 is not any "faster" than previous versions in real terms. The only difference is a faster boot. Boot up is not usually a factor for Linux users as we are used to having a stable OS that rarely needs rebooting (unlike windows that often needs rebooting daily). Debian 5.0 still boots much faster than Ubuntu 9.04 anyway. Optimizing the boot up is another bit of "marketing" from canonical. This "fast booting" mentality mainly comes from Windows users that see the boot time as a measure of how fast their hardware is. It's not relevant.

I talk to people all the time that see things very differently to this. If you go to the official forums you will see hundreds of unanswered posts. In the past I've googled searching for resolutions to some small and obscure problems I've had with Debian (usually when installing games or anything to do with wireless NICs). The results are very predictable: stacks of "ubuntuforums" results. I usually know what these will be like before I even click on them so these days I rarely bother. It's usually either "reinstall" or the post asking the same question as me is completely unanswered!

On the whole though most people find that their hardware is detected and it all works well, though the same would occur if they installed Debian.

Ubuntu having the best balance of ease of use and stability and at the same time as being the #1 distro people are using right now; it still is not easy to use for the average user. Not because Windows they are more used to which is a common misconception, sure it's a factor but not the only one. Typical users will never want to use the command line and in Windows, guaranteed 99% of hardware will work with Windows whereas Linux, not so much. Not to mention the Windows applications do seem to be faster than the Linux alternative; ie: Open Office vs MS Office, no doubt MS office is faster at launching. Firefox on Linux is also slower than Windows and OS X (which is very confusing but so true, you cannot deny that), not to mention flash support even with the open flash attempts, all fail miserably (crashes, funky behavior, etc.). Jaunty specifically IS MUCH FASTER than it's predecessors not only in boot time but in application. Use it side by side on identical machines. It beats some distros such as Slackware, Fedora, etc. in benchmarks, copying network files, etc.

As for the forums having 100s of unanswered posts, if you use the search feature for a problem you should find your answers. Think of it like a giant databse; library. If not, you must pursue your thread, post once a day on updates until you get to the bottom because threads do get buried. All of my problems as of 9.04 and help with the forums get solved fairly quickly; and they usually are specific application issues, not so much the OS, but it is a combination.

What I'm trying to get at is; people think Ubuntu isn't all that and it's not Linux when it is the closest chance as of now that Linux has at getting mainstream along the sides of Windows and OS X which is a good thing but unfortunatelty, most Linux users fear. Since most people that use other distro's hate on Ubuntu, chances of Linux ever reaching the masses are slimmed further. Why wouldn't you want Linux sold with a business model, you can still download the free copy? Sure, it's free open source software, but if you have a company behind it like Ubuntu you can actually make Linux open eyes to show a new alternative than Windows. It still costs cheaper than a machine with Windows and what you are paying the "tax" for is support from the companies. Eg: Dell, most machines you can get Ubuntu and it strips like $50 maybe more off the cost, but they still need to charge a small fee on the OS for the support calls they will get. Ubuntu's not the only Linux company to "charge" for services; remember Linspire or Freespire? Lindows? Also having Linux on mainstream machines with companies to hold their backs, it will only help raise competition with other OS's (commercial or not) which is always healthy for the market, causing more innovation and in the end, a better end user experience which in my opinion, is half of computing. And again, you can download Ubuntu for free but it's nice that you can get it preloaded VS Windows, price stripped off, sure it's a learning curve for newcomers, but the support is there from OEMS like Dell. And yes, Ubuntu is the most offered Linux distro on computers by OEMs, servers I don't know but consumer side; it's Ubuntu.

You ignored everything I've posted about marketing and Debian being able to do the same as Ubuntu. You also seem to refuse to include other distributions in this.

It's not a common misconception. People use what they are used to. If windows does things a certain way, they expect other OSes to do the same.

This is a factor, but it is down to hardware vendors not providing good driver support, or supporting open source developers by providing at least some source code or specs etc. (AMD/ATI have done this recently but they are the exception rather than the rule).

OpenOffice is a different program to MS Office, you cannot compare those in terms of performance on specific platforms. Firefox is optimised for win32 - it's faster under Windows because it's coded for it. Opera is nice and fast under Linux however.

I've not noticed this. With all due respect you're pulling statistics out of thin air. These kind of claims need data. From what I've seen Jaunty is faster booting but that's it. Any other speed increases would be application specific, possibly due to new versions of those applications in the repos? See how Jaunty compares to Debian unstable (it's parent) and that will be a true gauge of what is Ubuntu and what is just normal updates acquired from upstream.

I've been a member there since 2006 I think I know how to search and post threads by now. I hardly post there. I prefer to go elsewhere and get informed answers.

As I said I'm not interested in Linux gaining popularity by being marketed commercially a la Ubuntu. Cost is also not a factor. There is free as in speech and free as in beer. The important one with Linux in the former. Look it up.

Paying for/selling support is allowed under the GNU/GPL and that's not the issue look that up as well. That's what Red Hat are doing after all.

I didn't ignore your Debian because Ubuntu is Debian based so yes, much applies. But Ubuntu takes it's Debian base a step further by adding further ease of use and functionality on top of what Debian already is. Ubuntu, Fedora, SuSe, Mint, and Debian are the top 5 distro's right now according to distrowatch, and as you can see Mint derrives from Ubuntu which derives from Debian, yet Ubuntu is on top.

As for other OSs doing things a certain way and what users expect, all OS's should have a similar ease of use; you wanna rearrange and item you should drag and touch to place it with a cursor or touch screen...The way OS X and Windows 7 works has a natural feel which Ubuntu almost has and no other distro has. What they need to implement in Ubuntu/other Linuxes is a way to just grab and drag icons and menus all over the place. In OS X and Windows 7 you can rearrange your taskbar/doc without thinking, whereas Linux the icons by default are normally small and not easily arrangeable. You shouldn't know how to edit system files to change the way the OS works, it should be built in with ease of access in mind.They need more dragging and dropping, even in Ubuntu/Debian Gnome's interface you should be able lets say, to drag the Applications menu to the bottom of the screen in the corner, or after the System menu.

For the typical programmer, yes, having the source is nice. For a typical user, who cares if it's open or not? As long as it works and it works well they could care less about the source code and knowing it's "open". The "Hardware Drivers" system works great on a variety of machines with obscure hardware and normally the drivers for wireless etc. just work out of the box.

Firefox as I understand is also open source so why not make it optimize for Linux and make it faster than Windows (I think Ubuntu uses their own Firefox I believe but it's still slower than Windows binary), same with Open Office, in theory it should launch and perform faster than MS Office.

This is what bugs me most. I don't pull "statistics out of thin air". I don't read charts from people that analyze this stuff in depth, I sit at a machine with a multi-boot system, boot one OS, launch some apps, copy files, test the speed so I can get a hands on feel. Jaunty feels much quicker from personal use than other distros and not just one machine, several machines. And yes there actually are reports out there that run tests that show this, but as I said, test for yourself and scrap the charts someone else did.

That's how you get your answers resolved if you have an issue, by searching, not reading the posts on the front page.

I noticed you personally are not interested in Linux gaining traction, but I do because I believe that's the only thing that will help Linux improve in terms of ease-of-use and stability. Linux remained far behind in usability and popularity until recently and now that it's catching up, it may very well wind up on many desktops and maybe by 2020 we'll see Windows, Mac, and Linux desktop's side-by-side.

Why do some people wish for it to remain a niche, just so they won't get those average users asking them questions? It won't be "cool" anymore to use Linux? Viruses will wind up on Linux causing more programmers having to fix these holes while more and more flaws are discovered? Remember when OS X was the clean, safe OS. Now that it's gained traction you see all these Java exploits, trojans, etc. hitting OS X.

Ubuntu is a great distro and never limit yourself to one OS, and don't limit yourself to one Linux OS. Try them all, compare features and speed, then decide which one works and which one doesn't, which ones have those easy to use applications. Don't give up because of one bad experience. I keep trying new distros all the time and different versions and I like most of them but in the end; Ubuntu gives the best of all worlds; fast, easy, stable, and well supported. Yes, again, it's Debian based, you can use Debian. Ubuntu is Debian but it is just better suited for the typical user because of the community backbone in place and growing along with the marketing helping Linux get to novices. I'm sure if more people used Debian or other OS's that more companies would get behind it in place of Ubuntu but they just aren't, does anyone know why? I personally think it's because of how strong Ubuntu came out when it was released and it quickly took over as the number 1 Linux distro in downloads and all because again, of it's combination of ease of use and stability.

You clearly haven't understood where I'm coming from, nor do you really seem to grasp the Open Source philosophy. Without which there would be no Linux. So I won't attempt to challenge any of your other points as it's going over old ground again and again.

You've entirely... entirely missed the point here. "having the source is nice"?! I rest my case. Please go and find out why having the source is vital. If you don't know this by now then I'm not sure you ever will.

I'm amazed that any Linux user could be capable of coming out with a statement like this!?

Why do you think Linux is secure, stable and has such an abundance of free software available? Why does Ubuntu have repositories full of such software? Software that for the most part inter-operates and shares components perfectly. Without the open source element, Linux would cease to exist. It is so very secure precisely because of this! Not because it's less common that windows! That is a stupid myth put out by clueless people. GNU/Linux code is tested, scrutinised, debugged, fixed and often re-written by millions of programmers/users worldwide. MS or Apple code is coded and tested by MS or Apple employees! GNU/Linux code is patched and updated again and again and again until it's right. Proprietary code is only patched if it's cost effective. That's the big difference.

GNU/Linux is, in simple terms, tested constantly by "hackers" that try to break into it. The reason that it's so much more secure than windows is because it's solid, has proper user and process level permissions and is not full of holes and exploits like Windows. So if you think Linux is secure simply because no one is, or less people are, targeting it then you are gravely mistaken.

So you think if Linux is more popular than Windows and it's full of newbs, that Linux still will be as "secure"? Sure, fundamentally Linux is hands down secure, but if it was the most popular choice for users, the hackers aren't going for the 1% userbase, they'll go for the marketshare; ie Linux. You cannot argue the fact that if Linux was the tallest nail, it will get hammered first. No one can argue that. Hackers in the end are there for profit, and if 99% were using Linux, why would they go after 1% Windows?

Yes having a program open source is nice for those who can program, but otherwise a novice doesn't care how it was built as long as it works! It's not that hard to see! You must learn how to put yourself in the body of a novice and think how someone new to computers would react. They wouldn't know if it was open source or not, they'd know if it was free, and if they paid for it would it be that much better? Case of Windows and OS X, closed source, must pay, yet easy to use for new comers. Linux, free, open, difficult to use for new comers. In the end again; Ubuntu is the closest you will get to a consumer wanting to choose the free VS the paid and it is not quite there whereas Windows and OS X is.

I love the idea of open source software and Ubuntu combines much open source software and takes it one step further by bundling easy to use; stable applications and wrapping them in it's own easy to use consumer oriented OS.

What do you think get's hacked mostly? Desktops or servers? And what is running on Servers! Work it out.

Sorry mate - no further comment. You've now got to the stage where you're clearly talking bollox. Just you carry on there with your fingers stuck in your ears.

Have a nice day.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to attack you and please try to be nice to me you sound mean when you personally attack me , and yes Linux is strong in the server market for it's stability and security. What I'm getting at is they need the Desktop Linux to be more user friendly so people will choose Linux as their OS, not Windows or Mac. Sure you're telling me Linux is great for servers and you must be leet to use Linux, and I'm telling you it's not just a server OS and Linux makes a great desktop OS, just needs more time before it's the OS of choice for consumers. I'm not talking bollocks, I'm talking the future of computing.

Sorry if I was rude, but I do feel that you are missing the point of GNU/Linux software.

Anyway, I've stated my opinion and there's no hard feelings on my part.

I seem to be in more favor of the Fedora area but lately I've been testing the OpenSuSE 11.2 Milestone with its 2.6.30 Linux kernel , I really like it and might switch from my Fedora KDE install. Debian is also my second.

It's pretty funny how old this thread is, Mandrake has been long gone and Mandriva has taken its place.

Almost every distro I try has SOME issue with networking with my computers. Apparently it is impossible to make something browse Windows Vista and Mac OS 10.4/10.5 shares out of the box. (Yet Mac OS doesn't seem to have any problem doing it..)