Hacker News Reader

Switchable graphics do indeed suck. I returned a laptop because of it, despite being told specifically the model I ordered did not have Optimus hybrid graphics. But it's not unsolvable. It's problem with companies not supporting Linux. Nvidia just joined the Linux foundation and ways to accommodate switchable graphics are already being discussed. It rules out some of the newest hardware in the short term but I have no doubt it'll become a non-issue eventually.

>Linux won't be ready until you can download a file from the Internet, run it, and install it just with a couple clicks (and not "you need to set the 'exectuable' flag!" error).

The Software Center has long since solved that problem, as well things like apt links in pages and it's far better than what's available on Windows at the moment (download exe, allow exe to run, hopes it's not a virus/malware, manually update it often etc).

>Linux won't be ready until you never have to reconfigure the graphics driver from the command line upon boot.

For a lot of systems it's simply a matter of using the GUI in Ubuntu to check for and enable proprietary drivers. Again it's down to support from other companies and that appears to be growing.

>Linux won't be ready until you can run a system update and install a new program at the same time.

Installers can block each other on Windows as well. This point just seems like nit-picking.

>The Software Center... [is] far better than what's available on Windows at the moment

I agree on this, though not everything that can or should be installed on Ubuntu comes through the Software Center or even as a .deb or apt repo. For things outside of this, a .exe file on Windows has the upper hand. .exe (or .msi) is a Windows universal. .deb and .rpm are not Linux universals.

>Installers can block each other on Windows as well. This point just seems like nit-picking.

And it's frustrating. You will notice I said "it has to be better than 'better than Windows'", because "better than Windows" still means "learning something other than Windows".

I use Ubuntu. I like it. I'm excited to see where they're going. I'm one of the seemingly few people who don't condemn Canonical for their tight-fisted control over their system. But this article is flawed, and I think throwing some constructive criticism into the mix would be helpful.

Eh, .deb may as well be a "universal"--I have not found any packages online that were packaged for Linux without a .deb file. They always either have a .deb or only provide the source for Linux users. Now, they sometimes don't even have an .rpm file, which is a little annoying on Fedora, but that's a different story. And, of course, they almost never have any other packages, but that's only to be expected--anybody using a non-deb, non-rpm distro can very probably fend for themselves. And, these days, I think only a small minority of new users choose distros other than Ubuntu, so supporting .rpm files is also less important.

Also, is installing a file at the same time as doing an update really a big feature? I've never even wanted it on Linux and I don't think I ever used it on Windows either.

>And it's frustrating.

Absolutely, on any system. I'll admit I swear every now and again when I get caught trying to run apt-get with synaptic open on another workspace.

>You will notice I said "it has to be better than 'better than Windows'", because "better than Windows" still means "learning something other than Windows".

I agree. I guess I'm guilty of accepting a limitation because it's commonplace. I assume overcoming that limitation on Ubuntu/any system using apt would be extremely technically challenging and given the few times it occurs it's not a priority.

Chunk any overly long install queues and set the requested package to check for dependencies and add itself to the next chunk, after the current chunk is processed.

Does any package manager do something like this? I can't think of any linux package managers that allows simultaneous installs or updates.

'Software Manager' on Mint queues installs so that you can choose and set things to install with it while it is installing stuff. A few of the simplified package managers do this now. Not sure if any do intelligent chunking or integrate particularly well with the standard update utility yet.

It needs improvement, sure, but I still don't see it as a UX killer, especially when compared to most commercial install and update systems.

>Linux won't be ready until you can download a file from the Internet, run it, and install it just with a couple clicks (and not "you need to set the 'exectuable' flag!" error).

That way of installing software has to go. Seriously. Stop it. It's horrible.

I'm not getting into a religious war but:

I've had printer driver problems on OSX and on some Windows versions. The problem with printers is the evil practice of selling the machines at (or near) loss, and making money on ink / toner. Caveat Emptor applies.

Windows users (used to? Still do?) have problems with installing software. They wouldn't use the add software wizard; the software would install things in weird places; there were legacy problems. A common technique used by Windows users was to just reformat and reinstall. That's user ignorance, not a fault of the OS, but it still shows that simple app installs can cause problems.

And dropping to the command line to do stuff - well, you do that on any os, especially if you're a power user. Are there really simple tasks that can only be done on cli in Linux, that a typical user would come across?

I agree that Linux isn't ready for the masses; but then I think OS X and Windows are not really ready for the masses.

>but then I think OS X and Windows are not really ready for the masses

They're not, I agree, but they're there regardless. And it takes something special and completely different to break out of that (see, iPad).

My definition of competitiveness does not imply equivalence. For example, Windows and OSX are expensive, while Ubuntu is free. A free market would suggest that it should be slightly inferior since it is free. Each OS has strengths and weaknesses. The point of this article is to illuminate the fact that Ubuntu can be seriously considered as an alternative to Windows/OSX for the average person.

having spent countless nights to get all my laptop's devices work and sleep/hibernate - I have come to the conclusion that "free" is a bit wrong word to describe ubuntu, and that I'm in it only for "geek" cred. However, it certainly getting cheaper with each release. Now, I only need to edit grub once to enable hibernation.

I've also had printer issues, particularly with OSX. Printer idiosyncrasies still exist on all platforms, but I'm not about to call OSX unworthy because it doesn't work with a certain printer.

I mostly agree with you. I do recommend Linux to the more technical audience but stay away from recommending to non-tech friends and family.

I think part of the problem can be solved if there was some nice hardware that came with Linux preinstalled, with all the driver configuration work already done for you. That will still not solve the printer issue you described, but the "install graphics/sound/wifi driver" issue can be dealt with that way. Sure Linux is not properly compatible with every wifi device out there, but neither is, say, OSX. OSX gets around the problem by the fact that it only ships on Apple hardware. It would be great if we had Canonical computers for example.

edit: FWIW, I do commend companies like System76 and ZaReason that ship linux based systems but we need bigger players in the space to make a difference.

What System76 needs to do is become an Amazon partner (as well as their current business). If I could go on Amazon and order a System76 laptop with the backing of Amazon, I would be much happier.

"I think part of the problem can be solved if there was some nice hardware that came with Linux preinstalled, with all the driver configuration work already done for you."

Something to think about: How many percent of the non-tech people you know have installed a fresh copy of Windows by themselves? It's always the tech savvy family member who does it

And installing a copy of Mac OS X is not only questionably legal but also significantly more difficult than installing Linux :).

In my experience, ~90% of all the problems I've had with Linux are at install time--missing drivers, complicated partitioning...etc. Once I have the system running, I've actually had less problems with Linux than either Windows or OS X.

> Linux won't be ready until you can run a system update and install a new program at the same time.

Mac/Windows won't be ready until I can run programs and update them at the same time.

Mac/Windows won't be ready until I don't get calls from relatives asking about setting up their hardware/software/whateverware.

Argue all you want. The issue has nothing to do with anything you've mentioned. The issue is merely support: X is not ready until relative Y is available to support it.

I don't know if you just didn't read my last paragraph or if you're intentionally being daft.

Linux won't be ready until you can download a file from the Internet, run it, and install it just with a couple clicks (and not "you need to set the 'exectuable' flag!" error).

We're talking about Ubuntu, not all Linux distributions. And in Ubuntu, that works fine: try downloading any .deb and double clicking it.

It's a legitimate criticism that you can't install software while updating your system.

Sure, I quoted that particular line for a reason; I don't disagree with the rest.

Oh please, don't get me started on installing software on Windows or OS X. Linux package managers are the nuts!

See my above post. Not being able to install 2 unrelated packages at once is a legit criticism. The merits of Windows/OSX installation are irrelevant to that point.

Open up a package manager, select two, or loads of, unrelated packages, apply.

Is not a legitimate criticism.

Run an update of 60 packages, browse the internet while waiting for it to complete, find a .deb you're curious about and try to install it. You can't. Regardless of dependencies. Apt uses a global lock. That is bad UX, whether you acknowledge it or not.

How often, other than when you run the first large system update, is this a real issue?

I mean, I'm all for the *.deb to automatically queue when clicked, as that would be nice, but I do not see why I would particularly want it to mess with the system while the system is being messed with.

Also, I could always virtualise if I want the functionality of having an explicit split between system and userland.

Well, the criticism was in fact "you can't install software while updating your system," and it's true - if your system is updating, you have to wait to install another package.

In practice, I don't see this as a major problem, but on the other hand, many people have slower connections that me.

It'd be nice if the apt clients could download the packages without locking the database, and let you select and queue packages even if others are already being installed.

That certainly appears to be the original criticism, but the criticism seemed to be moving, so I answered where it had seemingly moved to.

Is the risk of trying to shoot a moving target.

This is one reason I moved away from Ubuntu, other package managers don't have this problem. Is it unsolvable for Ubuntu/Debian? I don't know. I don't think it matters to most users. At least the users who have put up with "You must restart now" and "Make sure to close all other programs before continuing" for all these years.

You can install software while updating your system, just not by using the same process that is currently updating your system and there is no particular distinction between software and system anyway.

A better apt queuing system might be nice admittedly, but if apt is installing software/updates with dependencies, then letting it complete before other software with their own dependencies are added, might be a good idea.

But you can always use one of the other myriad of ways to install software other than apt, while apt is running.

I'm using 11.10 at home, and when I download a file from the Internet as a .deb, it will install from the Ubuntu Software Center (but not if an update is running). If I download it as anything else (.sh, etc), it needs to have the flag set manually. Unfortunately, quite a few installers come as .sh for universal compatibility.

Most recently, installing VMWare tools I ran into this. Granted most consumers won't be installing VMWare Tools, but you do run into the issue of "what format will your software ship in?" .deb? .rpm?

I think the question is whether one should treat different distros as just different "flavors" of the same OS, or different OSs. I mean, no one complains about Mac OSX because their software packages don't work in other BSD based OSs.

I actually find this criticism hilarous because I have observed that using a software center is far more easy for novices to do than downloading a file, choosing the correct one, saving it to a folder, finding it and opening it. And sometimes (far less frequently nowadays I admit) manage the software dependencies and download another thing.

This clumsy way is an habit from windows, debian has been light years ahead for a long time. Search your package name, click, click, install. Now App stores are all the rage and people fail to recognize that they have existed since a decade on linux...

I totally concur. I recently tried an experiment - could my girlfriend use the Wubi installer and get Ubuntu going without any boyfriend tech-support?

Results:

The installer is far from perfect, but after a few tries and a few seemingly random glitches it repartitioned and installed flawlessly. She was able to boot into Oneric no problem.

Once she was there, she liked everything. Thought it looked really "zoomy" and way better than her experience with XP. Found the Software Center, and thought it was a great idea. Then, she tried to download some software.

At that point she got some confusing non-human-readable errors. Hmmm, I guess she'll try another one. No luck.

Finally she turns to me, and I realize she's not connected to Wifi. I try to connect, and it auto-promts me to install the Wifi drivers. "Awesome," I thought, maybe she didn't need my help after all!

Then, upon attempting the install it quits with a hilariously unreadable error that I wish I could remember at the moment. I realize that it's trying to download the Wifi drivers when there's no connection.

To put it bluntly, my girlfriend has no idea what an ethernet cable is. To expect her to figure out she needs one and further go buy one is far too ambitious for a distribution that claims it's for "everyone".

I understand the license implication for restricted drivers, but this in fact proves the point that Linux may never in fact be for "everyone". (And don't get me wrong, I'm an Arch fanatic!)

To be brief, Ubuntu is pleasing UI but terrible UX for anyone not willing to troubleshoot problems on their own.

That sounds like good progress to me. Much better than what I had to go through to install Ubuntu for the first time not too long ago. I think the obvious solution here would be to replace those cryptic errors with clearer ones which explain the problem and solution much better. For example, how about a suggestion to plug your computer into a router during the WiFi driver download?

I remember in 2004 trying to install Fedora on my desktop and having it not recognize my wifi, NIC, or USB ports. Trying to find the right driver at the library and copying it and all its dependencies onto a couple floppy disks was quite entertaining.

Good points there, I completely forgot about Lexmark printers because the last one I bought wouldn't work on Mac OS X or Linux and I returned it; haven't bought Lexmark again. That's not to say that people shouldn't buy them, just explaining my view.

In my experience: cheap inkjet printers are a nightmare on anything except recent Windows versions. If you want to use a printer for anything other than recent windows versions, don't buy one. Pony up and buy something better.

>> Linux won't be ready until you can download a file from the Internet, run it, and install it just with a couple clicks (and not "you need to set the 'exectuable' flag!" error).

I probably agree with a lot of your other assertions, but this seems to miss one of the central purposes of a repository-based package manager system.

Security may not be a very high priority at this moment for novice users of Linux distributions, but it will swiftly become one as Ubuntu continues to gain popularity. The old paradigm you're describing - download a solitary binary, double-click to install it across the system - is a huge security hole that Microsoft (for instance) has spent and will spend billions of dollars to patch around; the vast majority of exploits on Windows machines seem to be based on the fact that an unsuspecting user can easily download and run code that is swiftly given root access to their whole machine.

The repository system - a system where the set of programs available for easy download and installation is carefully managed and maintained - is an idea that was decades ahead of its time, and it's only just now that repositories (and their children, "app stores") are becoming a fact of life on lots of platforms. App stores are useful because they make things easier for users, but they're also extremely beneficial from a security standpoint. They also offer a simple, obvious, secure way for individual applications to be updated and patched when necessary.

tl;dr - Novice users should be strongly discouraged from downloading and installing standalone programs. This is not a feature of Windows; it's a bug. Yes, there are lots of essential Linux programs that are not available easily on the Ubuntu Software Center. The solution to that problem is to improve the repositories by adding them. Making it easier for novice users to run downloaded code blindly would be a mistake.

I have a Microsoft webcam. The kind that is sold with a big label on the USB plug saying INSTALL THE DRIVER BEFORE PLUGGING !

It never worked on my wife's Vista. It worked without installing drivers on Ubuntu. A microsoft hardware failing on a microsoft software. This day I decided Ubuntu was ready for mainstream.

A few hardware makers play foul (I am hating nVidia a lot on the whole Optimus issue) but when it comes to software, I think that it is superior in usability under linux.

It is easier to install new software, new hardware, to share files. On the subject of file sharing, I have seen people on a network using different versions of Windows (XP, Vista and 7 IIRC) they couldn't manage to see each other easily. I had to copy from one to the other using my ubuntu laptop.

Sure, you can find cases where linux will be inferior, but on average, I think it is more than ready for mainstream.

People are really not reading my last paragraph, are they?

If Windows rates a 6/10, you don't unseat them by being 7/10 or even 8/10. You need to be better than "better than Windows". Ubuntu is striving to not be "better than Windows" but rather "really good on its own merits, without need for comparison". I like this and I appreciate this, but they're not quite there yet. Two years, maybe.

To be fair, it rule one of persuasive writing to put your thesis at the beginning of your argument and follow with your supporting arguments. As it is, you're changing your entire argument in the second to last sentence.

Eh, when I'm writing on a forum, I tend to use train of thought. I don't really feel I'm changing my argument, more of clarifying that I'm not picking on Ubuntu (as all systems have problems), but Ubuntu has a more significant problem of needing to be better than better. Windows and OSX don't need to be good at anything and they would still keep their marketshare.

Truth is windows will always lose, as long as a microsoft peripheral works better on linux than windows. similarly, any HP printer works perfectly on linux, but on windows it is a tedious work. I stopped supporting my circle's windows for those reasons; simply suggest them linux or bye.

IT is not a question of grades, but solely of marketing power. Vista was unanimously hated. How many millions copies did they sell ? Merit has nothing to do with that. Even a 10/10 Ubuntu would not manage to unseat windows as it is.

OTOH, I recently managed to fire up an old PCI "winmodem" (which used to be the bane of linux existence) and it worked instantly in Ubuntu. Windows 7 wouldn't even finish bootup with it in.

If you want to use hardware that's more than year or two old, Ubuntu is the way to go.

I don't know. I don't have a problem with not being able to install stuff while updating stuff. Incidentally, the same is true for Windows and Windows Update enabled programs (think Office, Visual Studio) or OSX and the App Store.

Also, while I agree that the command line should never be necessary, it is often the most convenient way to solve problems on Windows and OSX, too.

I agree, sleep functions still don't work on my hardware and gnome 3 is unfortunately designed to make shutdown inconvenient.

Another problem you did not mention is tearing during video playback. Desktop computers are heavily used for watching video, so until Wayland hopefully fixes this Linux won't be a great desktop replacement.

"Have a Lexmark wireless printer? Tough luck, there is no way to print to it from Linux."

Lexmark printer compatibility page for Ubuntu;

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HardwareSupportComponentsP...

setting up a lexmark x4650 printer for wireless printing with 64 bit ubuntu;

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1692003

Do you really think a non-technical person is going to follow these steps? Excuse me while I LOL.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?s=6ea2f28955ceeb4024e4f...

Not many, but that is vastly different from saying that there is no way of doing it.