Anyway, It's still a great OS, but there's no way the average computer user is going to be satisfied with Ubuntu unless the developers somehow fix these little annoyances.
Anyway, It's still a great OS, but there's no way the average computer user is going to be satisfied with Ubuntu unless the developers somehow fix these little annoyances.
Non-technical users don't install operating systems.
Ubuntu is the closest candidate to fixing the structural problem of "very few computers come preinstalled with a supported, free-as-in-freedom operating system". Until that problem is fixed, and as long as people are ending up having to install an operating system on arbitrary computers with millions of different hardware combinations, such annoyances will continue at some level.
Look, this is probably generally true - however, the last bare metal Ubuntu install I did was as simply as insert disc, click the install prompts, accept all defaults and your done. Yeah, it took an hour or two all told.
It certainly has been quite different in the past but any user that can watch a DVD on their computer can install an [selected] OS if they want to.
Hardware compatibility is another question. If the manufacturers would just test and have a "Ubuntu ready" label then that issue would be largely moot, at least as much so as with MS Windows.
The question of hardware compatibility and other technicalities aside, the entire notion of the "operating system" being decoupled from the computer and installable separately is alien to most non-technical computer users, and the idea of installing a "third party" operating system is simply uninteresting; which is why I said "don't", not "can't". Why should they, when they already bought a computer with an "operating system", and it largely works?
My point is that the "download an .iso file from the internet, burn a CD / flash disk and install something called an operating system" model, while it's largely successful for the audience it's intended for today, is not way to advance the use of free operating systems in the broader computing ecosystem; striving towards more viable and widespread Linux-preinstalled devices is. But surely the success of the former will reinforce the latter, since a critical mass is needed.
If the answer is simply that you believe another OS will support more (though maybe not all) of her hardware, why not at least recommend that she get a Live CD, try it and see? Then she can weigh for herself the benefits of a (mostly) Free software OS against the extra cost of getting her hardware to work, instead of just accepting your guess that it's not worth it.
Sorry, this is an unreasonable expectation, and one that should be corrected, not reinforced. The "average user" has no right to expect that an operating system should work with any and all hardware, simply because one operating system has a monopoly position with respect to users and a monopsony-ish position with respect to hardware makers. It hurts all computer users, and Free software users in particular, when we allow such companies to set our expectations.