Walt Mossberg Reviews Dell Ubuntu: "...still too rough around the edges..." | Hacker News Reader

Walt Mossberg Reviews Dell Ubuntu: "...still too rough around the edges..."

ptech.allthingsd.com

17 pointsnickb25 comments

All of the issues he mentioned are Dell's fault, not Ubuntu's.

If you take a "naked-iron" laptop, regardless of the manufacturer, and install a boxed version of Windows on it, it will be the same thing (if not worse): you will have to hunt down latest drivers, OS patches, BIOS updates and so on. Just look at the list in "drivers/software" category on Lenovo web site: yes, you have to install them all, and some of them are patches (!) for XP specific to Lenovo laptops, and touchpad configuration utility is made by Lenovo, not Microsoft.

If Dell wanted to make end user experience flawless, they could have provided the same level of "OS-tweaking" to make sure their hardware is well-supported.

In fact, barebone version of Ubuntu probably beats Windows by the number of hardware supported out of the box.

I think one of the most amazing things about Ubuntu/Debian is the apt-get based packaging system. Neither Mac nor Windows have anything nearly as good as that. That's its biggest advantage in my view, and if that doesn't matter to you then Linux probably isn't for you.

You know I really do like apt, but it isn't perfect, and 'rough around the edges' isn't a bad description for it (I know he meant Ubuntu as a whole).

I've had multiple times that by using apt-get autoremove, my entire Ubuntu installation has been fubared. It is almost nicer how Windows and Mac apps ship with all the required libraries and functionality they need, and you don't have to worry about it (both as a developer and a user). Add to that the confusion where programming languages have their own package managers (should I use Python's easy_install or the .debs?) and there's even more of a mess.

I've never had any difficulties on my Mac or on Windows due to a lack of a package manager, but I have had problems using apt.

I don't understand, what advantages does using a package manager have over simply shipping an app with the libraries/programs it needs? Yeah, you save hard drive space, but with hundreds of gigabytes of data, is that even important?

I had a problem due to Windows not having a package manager. I had emacs and RCS installed, and it worked fine. Then I installed a CVS package that included the programs it needed, including RCS programs. Its version didn't work with emacs. If there were a package manager I would have been warned about the conflict.

I've been using Debian for years, and Ubuntu recently, but I had to look up autoremove; I've never used that apt-get feature. I have used autoclean, which is benign. It does sound like there are problems with autoremove that should be fixed, but for now why not just avoid that feature?

You make a really good point.

I think one advantage a package management system has is unified updates. The down side is that could cause problems when configuration file formats change. Gentoo tries to handle this by managing all config files in CVS, so you can diff different versions and merge them. Luckily, in reality, config file formats don't change all that often.

> Gentoo tries to handle this by managing all config files in CVS, so you can diff different versions and merge them.

Am I missing something? I wish it did this, but unless something has changed recently it just gives you a tool for merging updates in (and doesn't store old revisions).

Oops, I keep forgeting this is not part of portage. This is done so often that it should really be made a sensible default for any mainstream distribution.

dispatch-conf and etc-update are the two config updating tools included with gentoo's portage. dispatch-conf is the newer and preferred tool.

Be default dispatch-conf keeps a backup of your config files in /etc/config-archive. Optionally it can use rcs to track changes.

It makes finding packages easier, it makes updating them much easier and it makes removing them reliable.

It's not just about space; say somebody finds a security exploit in a widely-used library. How many copies of (eg.) libpng do you have on your system? Can you depend on every program that uses it to put out an update?

Try supporting your parents who live far away. What do you do if security wholes in several applications crop up, as was for example the case with Java, Flash and Winamp several times? How do you explain to a normal user through the phone how to update those applications, and make sure that the old versions are properly removed (which the auto-updaters that come with most applications often don't do)?

OS X has both Macports and Fink - not quite as great as apt-get but pretty close

The two or three times I've used Macports, the version of the program Macports installed was out-of-date to the point of not working at all on my machine. I just end up recompiling from source. (The last example of this was with FreeImage.)

Now just yesterday I had a problem with apt-get on Ubuntu installing a bogus version of (I think it was) Ruby Gems.

yeah I've had the same problem with stuff that isn't that popular (to me that is) - though the good part about macports and fink is that they pretty much run in a sandbox (not a true one but at least in file location) that you can reset or wipe out... not to mention it's a lot easier to find where stuff is installed

While all his complaints are fair, other systems have their share of rough edges. I have yet to find an OS that doesn't require tracking down some "enabling software" to perform common tasks. Just a couple days ago, I had to help a friend figure out how to get divx videos embedded in a web page to play on Safari for OS X. The problem isn't fully solved after installing the official divx player because it crashes Safari instead of playing the video about about 1/4 of the time.

Windows is simply high-maintenance. I have never seen a novice user obtain a Windows machine and keep it in good working order without help. Help can be a simple set of instructions for routine maintenance, but most people don't find out that any maintenance is require until the machine breaks in some way.

I can't make a general recommendation for the author's target audience. I've recommended Mac, Linux and Windows systems to people who fit this description, and most people have been happy with their OS. What I recommend varies based on exactly how the person is using the computer.

That's quite stupid: all the issues she mentions are also the case for Windows: no control panel for touchpads, no DVD player bundled, and to watch anything interesting you have to install Codec packs from dodgy download pages - I prefer a package manager for that. iPod, I don't know why she couldn't connect it (never had such problems with Ubuntu and external drives). I never tried syncing the iPod, but it's not as if Windows comes with bundled iPod syncing either.

I guess you need a person in the know to set up Ubuntu properly for you, but that's it.

OS X scores a few points in the mentioned problem areas (at least it comes with a DVD player), but it isn't for everyone, either. Personally, I can't stand it.

>I guess you need a person in the know to set up Ubuntu properly for you, but that's it.

This is true of Windows as well. Even assuming the manufacturer has everything working out of the box, it's unlikely that it has virus and spyware protection included that won't demand money within a couple months, automatic defragmentation, etc....

>I evaluated it strictly from the point of view of an average user, someone who wouldn't want to enter text commands...

It's a little sad that "average" means "prefers to express thoughts as a series of connected images and actions, rather than as text."

Why exactly is that sad?

I wonder how Ubuntu will be reviewed by an user who is using a computer for the first time and has no OS exposure of any kind before?? hmmm...

This is another semi-misleading title. The article points out that Ubuntu on Dell, as with all versions of Linux, is still not ready for the mass market. However, as the readers of this site are not "average" computer users the "too rough" comment does not really apply to us. Yes, I have to hack a bit to get my multiple monitor setup to work. Yes, I expect to.

Although I have a recently purchased Dell Ubuntu and am quite pleased with it I would never recommend it to say... my mom.

I'm a little disappointed in Mossberg with this. He's right about some things - it is too much trouble to get DVDs, Flash, etc. working with Ubuntu, especially when so many things work so well.

I've been strongly recommending Ubuntu or OS X to the cloud of relatives, friends, relatives of friends, and friends of relatives who seem to think that just because I do something with computers that I'm a resource for desktop support. I would much prefer to try to fix problems with Ubuntu than those with Windows. Mossberg should have asked his resident hackers which they'd rather fix.

I think you've just touched on the most important point of the whole discussion: the best OS for the average user is the one that their friend/relative/lover geek will be happy to fix for beer/home cooked meal/sex.

Depends. I'd prefer to have an OS that the end-user can use easily so that fixes are less frequent. However, if the payoff is sex then perhaps I would reconsider.

The way I usually describe it to friends and family:

Mac OS X if you want a nice prepackaged experience. Linux if you like to tinker and completely personalize your machine. Windows if you have to (but don't call me when it breaks ;).

Somehow I can't trust Mossberg when he reviews anything non-Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com