After Ubuntu, Windows Looks Increasingly Bad 774
mrcgran writes "Sys-Con has a look at some advantages of using Ubuntu over Windows. 'My recent switch to a single-boot Ubuntu setup on my Thinkpad T60 simply floors me on a regular basis. Most recently it's had to do with the experience of maintaining the software. Fresh from a very long Windows 2000 experience and a four-month Windows XP experience along with a long-time Linux sys admin role puts me in a great position to assess Ubuntu. Three prior attempts over the years at using Linux as my daily desktop OS had me primed for failure. Well, Ubuntu takes Linux where I've long hoped it would go — easy to use, reliable, dependable, great applications too but more on that later. It has some elegance to it — bet you never heard that about a Linux desktop before.'"
I'm very impressed with Ubuntu (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I'm looking forward to UbuntuDupe's post about how Ubuntu sucks because nobody helped with his troubles using Ubuntu, despite his tantrum on the forums.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been using KDE as my work desktop for years (Score:2, Insightful)
There were some things that I couldn't do, but there was a lot more that I could do to offset that. With the extra flexibility that linux gave, and the ability to show off an alternate desktop, I would not go back.
Features (Score:3, Insightful)
Sys admin not always the best to assess software. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find sys admins often don't make the best user-friendly assessments of desktop software and OSs, especially from average Joe's point of view. No offense to the author, who makes many valid points, but I'd rather see a comparison of Ubuntu, Vista, and OS X from a school teacher or small business owner.
No, not really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Will get bashed (Score:4, Insightful)
For system admins linux might be good but if 30 min of fiddling with the command line to just get the system working is needed then it will not become mainstream.
Also on that hp comp ubuntu takes n15 min to boot up. I am not lying. Xp on the same machine is much faster.I tried getting help on some linux boards and all I got were nasty replies.
So there is a lot of things that have to be done before linux becomes mainstream and really fights microsoft.
Go ahead and bash me all you want butthis is true.
Written by a sysadmin? (Score:5, Insightful)
"2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries."
I call bullshit on the author being a Linux admin. I'm not trolling and this certainly isn't flamebait, only truth: "It's Linux - no worries" is a load of crap and everyone here knows it.
not worried about security? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
That's FANTASTIC! Who is this guy and what's his IP?
Yes, MS sucks, Windows sucks, bugs galore and all that, but all nontrivial software is going to have bugs, and some of those bugs will lead to vulnerabilities, and some of those vulnerabilities will lead to viruses, attacks and so on. The reason that there aren't a lot of Linux viruses/attacks prawling around the net is because the Windows population is orders of magnitude larger than than the Linux population, making the choice obvious for any would-be parasite. Maybe Ubuntu is way better software than Windows in any number of ways - ehm, I mean, of course it is, but if it were to sweep Windows clean off the face of the Earth and take its place, you'd be installing Symantec for Ubuntu and worrying about script kiddies, trojans and the like. If Ubuntu is better then it'll be harder to exploit, but exploits will happen - the perceived calm right now exists because too few people are trying to attack the platform.
Linux Security and Noobs (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries.
3) Thanks to #1 and #2, I'm free from products like Symantec and Norton and the dollar expense, the complexity of administering them (those pop-ups are annoying and a productivity hit), and wondering when they expire next.
But look at what happened with Firefox. Initially, just like Linux or Mac, no-one bothered trying to break the security. There was no hacks to get around popup blockers, etc. Now Firefox is just a little more popular and the threat landscape has changed.
This isn't to say that Linux can't be made more resilient to viruses if and when they finally show up. It can, and, more importantly, it probably will. Just don't go around saying that Linux is immune to viruses and spyware. Especially, don't go around claiming that this stuff is impossible, because that's exactly the kind of challenge that blackhats go for.
Re:NEWS FLASH! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sys admin not always the best to assess softwar (Score:3, Insightful)
And this, people, is why Linux will *never* own significant acrege in the desktop market: The people who drive most Linux development *are not* interested in desktop usability and *user* experience. This is not a troll / flamebait / cut, it's simply the truth, the definition of "usability" is very different from Linux developer to "average Joe User".
Re:Nice pitch, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
"I needed to resubscribe to Symantec on a Windows machine. Again this is a 30-60 minute timeout from production AND a $49 charge AND a hassle with product keys and sending data about my machine and purchases around to companies that I'd choose not have"
Of course, he could have easily picked up a completely free AV like Avast and had it loaded in 5 minutes (including time to register). It still would not be easier than "no antivirus" (though LINUX has exploits as well), but it would get rid of this false-delemmia posited as though NAV is the only option (though I've never foudn it taking nearly a half-hour to install)
The list goes on and on, from railing about something he "heard Vista did" to complaining about how IBMs auto-restore function failed (as though Windows was somehow related to a pre-OS restore function). It showes either a near-complete lack of comprehension of the subject, or a downright disingenuious Windows-bash.
There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to advocate either OS. I dislike liars pretending to be on a moral high-horse.
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure? The article mentions Symantec more often than Microsoft. I don't doubt the moral of the story--the advantages of Ubuntu over XP--but the body of the article if FUD.
He makes it sound like Symantec AV is a) absolutely 100% required to run Windows, yet at the same time, b) makes Windows 100% unusable. In fact, neither is true. Okay, there is some evidence for point b, but point a is crap. There are plenty of other options for Windows anti-virus. Many are not resource hogs, and some are even free (as in doughnuts).
When he's not complaining about Symantec, he mostly addresses ease of installation. Yes, Windows is pain to install, even before you get to applications, with the patches and security updates and reboots, etc. But that should be a minor point of comparison. Ubuntu beats Windows on day 1, but what about day 2 until day [get new computer/decide to wipe system and reinstall everything]? It's worth my while to put in a few extra hours on day 1 if that effort will save me a few minutes a day for the next few hundred days.
So aside from Symantec and OS installation, what about a comparison of everyday computer use? He addresses several issues that have nothing to with Ubuntu vs. Windows. Backups? Okay, you can use the same backup procedure for your desktop and servers with Ubuntu because your servers are linux. If my servers are Windows, doesn't that same point become an advantage to running Windows on the desktop? And printing from the internet, what does this have to do with desktop OS?
I do not doubt the point he is trying to make--Ubuntu is a good desktop OS and has many advantages over MS Windows--I just don't see much of a valid argument made here to support that point.
Re:uhm, no (Score:3, Insightful)
rate the 2 on
1 office stuff (write letters print stuff maybe whip up a spreadsheet )
2 Online stuff (email and surfing)
3 Multimedia (cds and DVDs)
4 General Look and Feel
5 System stuff (getting around the filesystem organizing stuff ect)
Re:Written by a sysadmin? (Score:4, Insightful)
He's talking about running it on the desktop here... Really, there aren't any worries if you don't have a firewall and connect the default Ubuntu to the 'net. Pretty much all services that would be exposed to network are disabled or not installed by default anyway. What exactly is your problem with connecting a default install of Ubuntu desktop to the 'net and giving it to grandma?
Re:Print version (Score:3, Insightful)
that didn't take long (Score:5, Insightful)
Just um, how often do we need to see these, anyway?
When did XP come out? (Score:4, Insightful)
And this guy has only been using XP for four months?
Call me unimpressed with his "great position" to evaluate software.
Re:No advantage (Score:2, Insightful)
As a unix\linux\windows admin who spent a great deal of time in a windows\linux environment, I find windows to be more difficult to secure. Unix and linux have certain things layered well for my way of thinking.
Common driver locations , common binary locations , no registry that people can bury crap into to auto load stuff. Having to assume everybody who uses the ms machine is an idiot and lock them down in the Ad profile versus the user being told basically your stupid and you can't mess up this system without a major effort. The one thing I usually don't like is not every program loads the config files to a specific folder. I would love to see that but it probably wouldn't happen.
Windows admins are a dime a dozen for a reason , it's easy to find some people who claim to know what they are doing. Not so easy in the unix or linux worlds.But I do believe in using the right OS for the job that needs to be done , and usually that MS for the desktop and Solaris or linux for the servers.
Re:Will get bashed (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure why you had to resort to command line anything for your linux desktop. My presumption would be a piece of hardware that was unusual or not supported by the standard install of the OS. I rarely hear of that or encounter that with releases in the last year and would suggest you might want to try again. There's been giant leaps in hardware support. Of course, purchasing a PC from Dell with Ubuntu guarantees no problems such as you described.
So, I would have to say your comments sound a bit dated, it would be interesting to know how long ago you tried to install Ubuntu on the machine you mentioned. Also, you may want to choose XFCE for the desktop environment. It's designed to help speed things up on older PC's. But for a typical grandma on a current-ish PC I would argue that a standard Ubuntu install requires much less trouble or messing with to get working and keep working. Grandma and you don't have to know anything about linux because odds are if she doesn't know how to do it in Linux, she didn't know how to do it in Windows either. The only real setup issue that will continue to remain is having to add support for WMA files and other proprietary codecs. I'll concede that annoyance, but, it seems a small nuisance that you have to do once vs the many annoyances of maintaining a Windows PC connected to the Internet.
Just my $0.02. Take it for what little it's worth.
Re:Nice pitch, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. I have a lot more use for linux than windows...My windows PC is basically a beefy Xbox that I occasionally use to run photoshop and dreamweaver.
But a passing familiarity with XP doesn't qualify you to judge all of Microsoft. What about Win2k3? What about Vista? A Vista-to-Feisty comparison would at least be apples to apples. Comparing an OS released in April to two released in 2000 and 2001 respectively, is absurd.
Re:I'm very impressed with Ubuntu (Score:5, Insightful)
Not here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not worried about security? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows desktops make great zombie machines and they're a fairly sure thing for botnets etc. but script kiddies still exist who scan random *nix boxes to use them as irc servers, ftp servers, file storage etc.
Nah. Windows sucks as a desktop. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu gets it more right than Windows. The applications themselves are less important, partly because they're mostly free, they get out of the way. Then you have the folders right there on the desktop so you can access the documents themselves directly. The application becomes just a tool to work on the information, which is what it's supposed to be. Ubuntu is actually easier to use than Windows. The metaphor makes sense.
Re:Print version (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I say it? Windows has the worst desktop in all of computing. Start buttons, taskbars, a work paradigm that encourages monolithic apps and maximized windows, a desktop that gets abusively filled with every program shortcut known to man, a defective clipboard model (crtl-C!?), sloppy filename/type handling (annakournikova.jpg.exe), annoying alerts and confirmation dialogs, application-centric workflow, the list goes on and on.
It was "good enough" on 14-inch monitors in 1995, I'll grant you, and I'm no big fan of the Gnome/KDE attempts to replace it. But there are a few of us out there who think it's a pretty sorry excuse for a desktop in this day and age.
Re:Print version (Score:1, Insightful)
10. stability: I must say windows improved a lot since 95, it very rarely crashes on me, but I still get considerably more problems from my windows box in my office than from any of my linux boxes at home, and I use it much less.
9. security: again, MS improved a lot, these days it is actually possible to secure a windows desktop computer pretty well, and if you avoid using IE, outlook and office, put your computer behind a good firewall and have good full time IT staff handling security patches and maintaining the firewall, you are actually pretty safe.
8. cost: again, that does not bother me too much, as it is my employer who is paying for it, but I wouldn't buy windows for my home computer, I have better ways to use the money.
7. lack of software: this used to be a big one. Again, these days most applications I use have been ported to windows, so the situation is not as bad as it used to be.
6. software installation: this is still a big problem. There is no good way on windows to install software. As I wrote above, there are good applications for windows, but to get them, one has to go all over the web, download bunch of
5. upgrading: There is no way on windows to keep your software up to date. If you want to have an up to date desktop, you have to watch bunch of websites for new releases, and manually upgrade every application you are using.
4. file system organization: the way the files are organized is just a mess. There is no logical organization, and finding where your files are can be a nightmare. And what's with the drive letters?
3. system integration: even though there are now good applications running on windows, most of them do not integrate well with the system, nor with each other. One of them expects unix type paths, another windows type paths. One works with "focus follow mouse", another doesn't. They keep their data files at different places, problem closely connected with the file system organization problem mentioned above.
2. User interface (window manager): There is so much that's wrong with windows user interface that it occupies the top two reasons. The window manager itself is horrible, even worse than metacity. Only one desktop. No window shading. Hardcoded unintuitive keyboard shotcuts, if there are shortcuts at all.
1. the rest of the user interface: You cannot cut and paste with mouse, at least not in an easy way. Not only there is number of demented modal dialog windows, but there are modal dialog windows from which you have to open another modal dialog window. If you do that, the first window stops responding, and you cannot even move it or iconify it, until you close the top dialog. If that window obscures something that you need to see in order to use the top most dialog box, too bad. The way the programs menu is (not) organized is just impossible. I really don't understand how somebody can call that a good user interface.
Re:Sys admin not always the best to assess softwar (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Print version (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean? Is that a bad keystroke to assign to "copy"? IMHO Windows' clipboard is one of its best features. I can copy/paste with confidence distinct types of data between programs and it still hasn't given me an unexpected result.
The filename/type thing *is* a screwup, I agree.
Re:uhm, no -- corporate environment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm very impressed with Ubuntu (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem I'm still having with Linux today is the not-yet-flawless USB support. When I plug my USB drive in my computer, I want it to mount, every time. Under my current hardware, with Fedora 6, it mounts about 75% of the time. A 25% failure rate for something as common as plugging in a USB drive is fine by me, but is a total showstopper for most people, especially when it can't be blamed on the hardware (same USB drive on same machine with Windows works everytime) or the device manufacturer (do USB drives use proprietary drivers?).
I love Linux, and I use it on a daily basis, but I still belive it has some shortcomings.
Re:more evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
Most adults can do many tasks on a computer if they have a real reason to try. My mother managed to install Java so she could play Yahoo games. My cousin put together a bare bones laptop because it was the only way his father would allow him to buy a computer. (he had to build it himself) He was 13 at the time with no prior experience upgrading or building systems. The difference between an adult and a 3 year old is curiosity and willingness to learn new things.
Re:Nice pitch, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Feisty: Ohh, pretty. Everything I need in a 30 minute install.
Vista: I've been waiting 2 weeks for it to finish opening wordpad.
Re:Popup / flash / whatever alert (Score:5, Insightful)
It was nice to read an article that stated that his Linux experience overcame many of the incredulous defects being purposefully incorported. I do not like the fact that the monopolist is forcing these sorts of things down the throat of consumers due to their monopoly. It is always best to have competition. Linux is now a better OS than Windows is and only great things are coming up. It is the great OS that Linux is that has been causing Microsoft to grunt and growl with muted voices at IP in Linux. Now they just need to sue us so we can get this stuff out in the open and end this farce thus ending the claims of IP infringement.
Re:Print version (Score:2, Insightful)
- Windows Resource Protection
- Windows Integrity Control
- User Interface Process Isolation
- User Interface Privilege Isolation
- User Account Control
- Patch Guard
- Mandatory Integrity Controls
- Filter Manager
- File System Filter
- Address Space Layout Randomization
Yes some people complain about too many UAC prompts. People need to realize that this is very much a new operating system that has been designed to be backward compatible with as many applications as possible. It was also designed for security. Applications that are specifically designed for Vista should have little or no UAC prompts.
The main problem with Vista is driver and codec support. This happens to be the same problem with Linux, though it has gotten better over the years. His experiences with 2000 and XP are irrelevant. I'm not an M$ fanboy, but I do try to stay informed. Verifiable facts are very important to me. I'm dubious as to his experiences with Vista.
Re:Print version (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm very impressed with Ubuntu (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice pitch, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm very impressed with Ubuntu (Score:3, Insightful)
Well install Ubuntu then. In my experience with Ubuntu it automounts 100% of the time.
Re:Popup / flash / whatever alert (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lunix d00d like Lunix... SHOCKING!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sys-con's not qualified (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes perfect sense to me as Vista is a bloated piece of crap.
Re:Print version (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows has the worst desktop in all of computing.
The windows desktop isn't all bad. There are some good usable elements to it.
Start buttons,
While the layout of what's in the start menu is more of an issue, the actual concept of a start menu isn't really bad. The start menu gives you a single point that is always available on the screen to access almost everything on the computer. Pretty good usability decision in my opinion. Unlike way before when you always had to keep going back to the desktop or "program manager" to get to programs you can leave what you're working with and start up another application or open another document. Also, unlike toolbars and docks, it doesn't take up additional screen real estate.
taskbars,
What's wrong with the taskbar? It's a great idea that could be implemented a little better. It shows me all of my applications that are running regardless of if I can see the window or not. Sure, it looks cluttered when there are too many windows but that's find because I always have full visibility of what applications are running or open. We're even seeing the concept reused as something called "tabs."
a work paradigm that encourages monolithic apps and maximized windows,
Ok, this is more of the fault of the developers of applications and not necessarily the desktop. But with all of the applications I work with, I have sometimes felt that working maximized was better while other times working with multiple windows is better. Windows is great because it allows you to do both. For example, when I just need to sit in front of the text editor to really just finish writing a module, I maximize the window because I know I won't be using other windows much if ever. Now when I move over to testing and debugging, having the other windows open like the shell alongside the text editor help and that's when I "un-maximize" the text editor window so I can see both. On the mac desktop you always see people resizing windows especially when they really just want to work with one application. I find that clumsy compared to windows where if you really just want to work with one application, you maximize. When you "un-maximize" (restore down) it returns the window to the original size. I find this saves me a lot of time since I don't have to spend that much time resizing windows.
Another trick is that if you double click the title bar for any window, it is the same thing as clicking the maximize button. If the window is already maximized, it "un-maximizes" the window. Since the window title bar (while in the maximized state) is flush against the top of the screen, it's actually very fast to un-maximize the window with the mouse.
a desktop that gets abusively filled with every program shortcut known to man,
Again, this is more of the fault of the application developers than the desktop. The Windows desktop actually was going in the right direction by removing things from the desktop except the trash bin. I find that every application has the stupid "install icon to desktop" option checked by default when it really should be left off. I no longer start things from the desktop and my desktop space is more of a temporary space with a bunch of junk on it. Everything I actually need to save is kept in a place away from the desktop. That's because with the way I work, I treat anything on the desktop as one-time use that will probably be trashed later. But if it wasn't right there in front of my face, it would just get lost somewhere and I would never clean it up.
a defective clipboard model (crtl-C!?),
The actual windows clipboard is far from defective and actually works the best out of any platform I've used. Now, the key-binding could be better and so could other things like drag and drop. But if there's anything windows has done well, it's gotten developers to stick to some standards like this. On other systems (linux comes to mind) there's so many d
Re:This is especially true (Score:4, Insightful)
NX is fast and responsive over dial-up, and usable over GPRS.
NX is fast enough that you may want to consider setting up an NX server in your server farm, and proxy your RDP connections through it. It does an excellent job of this.
The difference between NX and plain X is incredible, and having used both, I prefer working with NX over RDP.