Canonical: Ubuntu To Soon Ship On 5% Of PCs

[M1kkko]

1. When an OEM is building a Linux distro, they should pre-install various things that will make --

I'm yelling "NO!" at my computer screen. Not this again. OEMs have been doing this with their Windows machines for years.
I think the standard, clean Ubuntu experience would serve end users much better. Should an OEM want to improve on it, they'd better do it upstream.

So it's up to Ubuntu to incorporate the Wine compatibility layer as a part of the operating system whenever it's ready for it (if there's still demand then).

Just my thoughts.

4. Make sure that shipping distros provide the latest stable updates to end-user-visible applications! This is critically important.

Couldn't agree more. Everything in the Ubuntu software center should be available as their latest stable version.

Almost all people want what everyone else has. They're not going to want something different until it's the cool thing to do, or until everyone else is doing it. Everyone wants to stay on Windows because that's where everyone's at.

Think different.

I personally feel that linux isn't ready yet for mass production computers. I find it easy and I know how to make it easy for others to use, but there are several problems that need to be fixed first:

1. GUI standardization. I like how linux has variations of DEs, but it can confuse people --
2. More importantly, package standardization. We've got .deb, .rpm, portage/emerge, and pacman/AUR --
3. Consistent, reliable video drivers.
4. Knowing how to set it up.

Do you think that when Canonical partners with OEMs to produce Ubuntu-powered machines they will have any of those problems?

[rock]

Clearly we need a UEFI that secure boots only Ubuntu.

[zeealpal]

you can live entirely in the repository. and windows package choice is not exactly intuitive either. do you want x86 or 64. what the eff is x86?!!! and don't get me started with .net dependencies. you install a damn program and it asks you to manually go get .net 3.5 because 4.0 is not backwards compatible. I think linux is as easy to use as windows. the problem is lack of grade A software and lack of QA (too buggy). i'm waiting until the wayland transition is complete and we get valve games.

One, if you let your (legal) Windows version do its updates, you get all the .Net versions you need. Really I've rarely seen .Net dependencies be an issue for the standard consumer (who is our target audience)

I assume you do know that x86 is the 32Bit CPU architecture used in standard PC processors, and x64 is the 64Bit version of this. If unsure, install the 32Bit version as it will still run. Knowing if your PC is 23/64Bit is really quite simple, My Computer > System Properties. It says the system type as: 64-bit Operating System. For the standard consumer, this is really not much of an issue that affects how they work.

Though, personally I don't find Linux harder to use than Windows, many people would still.

[finalzone]

3. Consistent, reliable video drivers. I think you all know what I mean by this and why its important for the typical consumer. I hope something like wayland can improve this some day.

Vendors dependant. Having done installation of Microsoft Windows series, the default driver is no different from say Radeon or Nouveau drivers. Remember that bundled Windows system relied on third parties drivers. Mac hardware are mainly specific.

[leif81]

Your computer experience is only as good as the worst part, so even if Linux is a fantastic Web OS, when it can't run a particular desired app the sum of the experience is going to be "it can't run what I want."

I have a hard time believing this is a legitimate reason for not using a Linux desktop. How do Windows users buy Mac's all the time and do just fine? There's tons of apps they can no longer run. I think it's about managing expectations and guiding users to find equivalent apps.

[FreeBooteR69]

allquixotic

The biggest problem for Ubuntu and other Linux distros shipping to the masses is that, in a lot of cases, customers are installing Windows after they get the unit. And not just dual booting; they wipe Linux and never come back as soon as they figure out that it won't run whatever exe trash they download from the internet. And then they immediately stick in a Windows CD (often pirated) and don't look back.

I can also make statements that imply that in many cases Windows PC purchasers dual boot with Ubuntu (GNU/Linux) or remove Windows entirely as soon as they are infected by viruses, or their systems bogs down with greedy resource hungry, registry munching ant-virus software.

[garegin]

you can live entirely in the repository. and windows package choice is not exactly intuitive either. do you want x86 or 64. what the eff is x86?!!! and don't get me started with .net dependencies. you install a damn program and it asks you to manually go get .net 3.5 because 4.0 is not backwards compatible. I think linux is as easy to use as windows. the problem is lack of grade A software and lack of QA (too buggy). i'm waiting until the wayland transition is complete and we get valve games.

[schmidtbag]

I personally feel that linux isn't ready yet for mass production computers. I find it easy and I know how to make it easy for others to use, but there are several problems that need to be fixed first:

1. GUI standardization. I like how linux has variations of DEs, but it can confuse people, especially for example you're using LXDE and you want to install 1 KDE program, which demands the entire KDE suite. I like the idea of having a default DE, but none of them qualifiy. GNOME changes way too drastically, KDE is too bloated and glitchy, LXDE lacks too many features (but is otherwise arguably the best), Unity is (AFAIK) Ubuntu only, I'm not really sure about XFCE but it never impressed me, and all other minor DEs are way too incomplete. I like having variation, but we need a standard. GNOME 2 was it but I noticed many distros aren't comfortable with GNOME anymore.
2. More importantly, package standardization. We've got .deb, .rpm, portage/emerge, and pacman/AUR as just some of the very popular forms of package handling, and that is far too much. In Windows you have .exe and .msi - that's it, and they're compatible with the same OS. In mac you've got .dmg. Linux is drastically user-unfriendly because if you've got someone who buys a computer from a store, they might not understand the difference between Ubuntu and Fedora, so they download an .rpm file and get frustrated that double click it doesn't work with apt-get. Then once they thought they learned their lesson, they get confused when there's a separate package for Debian and Ubuntu when they both end in .deb.
3. Consistent, reliable video drivers. I think you all know what I mean by this and why its important for the typical consumer. I hope something like wayland can improve this some day.
4. Knowing how to set it up. When a new user first gets into linux, you need to learn a whole new series of programs and tools, many things don't react the same way that you'd be used to, and they must deal with the problems mentioned above. Also, distros like Ubuntu like to force new programs and features down your throat without your permission, which can really throw people off when its time for a distro upgrade.


I love linux. I use Debian and Arch, I use KDE and LXDE (I set up other people with GNOME 2). I use intel, AMD, nvidia, and very soon ARM. That being said, I am comfortable with variety and change, but most people aren't as open as I am, or many people on these forums.

[elanthis]

This isn't the 90's though. I'd love to see some numbers that show percent of time a user spends in their web browser vs. all other apps combined. I'm betting the browser trumps like 10:1

In which case, the Windows browsers have better graphics acceleration, more mainstream browser choices, more available plugins, and better sandboxing/security. So, yeah. Go Linux.

Also, that small fraction of non-Web apps still freaking matter. People run all kinds of little (or big) apps that are not Linux-friendly. Even if it's just "non-essential" items like games. Your computer experience is only as good as the worst part, so even if Linux is a fantastic Web OS, when it can't run a particular desired app the sum of the experience is going to be "it can't run what I want."

Put in a crass metaphor: Your ratio of non-sex to sex every day is quite likely higher than 10:1 but that doesn't mean that you're going to opt into a sex-free life to save a few bucks on the costs of dating.

[leif81]

apple had a similar problem in the 90s when there was a severe lack of apps.

This isn't the 90's though. I'd love to see some numbers that show percent of time a user spends in their web browser vs. all other apps combined. I'm betting the browser trumps like 10:1