30 days with Linux @ [H] Consumer

[kfries6]

Printing in Linux is a land mine. And there really is no reason for it. HP has probably contributed more lines of code to CUPS than anyone else. And many of their printers are the worst compatability wise. So it is really hit or miss. But with the average home printer costing under $100, its hard to not say, just buy a new printer.

Now for a true counter point to the original article. I switched my home desktop to Ubuntu on a lark about 3 weeks ago. I had such great success in making it work, I immediately switched my SuSe laptop I use at work to Ubuntu. With the exception of the 915 resolution driver (and why is this not on the install CD!?!?!) everything installed perfectly. No hardware incompatabilities once the optional repositories were enabled.

One of the problems we have been constantly having is connecting to our corporate printers. SuSe keeps loosing the connection, and needs to be re-setup every few days. Fedora, well forget about it. But Ubuntu, connected to the AD, found the printer, and was printing pages in 5 minutes. We have some Windows desktops that were not that easy to set up.

For me, once I downloaded the ppd from linuxprinting.org, printer setup was EXTREMELY easy.

The original article was pretty much dead on on everything else. Though it did miss one element that really sucks in Ubuntu... Japanese language input. They had it working well in Dapper from what I understand, but that was not the case in Edgy.

 

[Catweazle]

The problem with the OPs original statement is not about the amount of homework they are willing to do or not do. More and more the "Average Joe" is asking their favorite geek questions. That geek reads things like HardOCP.

Where articles like this hit the "Average Joe" is that they don't want to spend a lot of money, and we (the geeks that will be answering the neverending questions) would like to have them set up and fairly bullet proof. Windows is moving away from that easy to use world (Vista has more hardware incompatabilities than Ubuntu does) and Linux is getting more user friendly. I know when people that keep relying on me to keep their system running, I am considering Linux more and more.

Precisely, which is why personal attacks like the one launched at bbz_ghost, based on elitism, are completely unwarranted.

The article under discussion is designed to address the suitability of current Linux distros for consumers. That's the Joes and Joannas, and they don't necessatily comprise a narrowly restrictvie stereotype. They may or may not be novices. They may or may not be prepared to roll the sleeves up and get busy configuring or working out how to do stuff. The only thing they really have in common is that their primary motivation is the desire to use the bloody thing, rather than the love of the fiddling around.

 

[Brian Boyko]

Printing in Linux is a land mine. And there really is no reason for it. HP has probably contributed more lines of code to CUPS than anyone else. And many of their printers are the worst compatability wise. So it is really hit or miss. But with the average home printer costing under $100, its hard to not say, just buy a new printer.

To be honest, if you can't get your printer working in Linux, I'd say to stick with Windows. It's true that an average home inkjet would cost under $100 but I would not recommend anything other than a lazer printer. They're under $200 and they save you tons of money in the long run.

 

[Brian Boyko]

A few updates.

First, Photoshop. I've been able to get Photoshop working on a virtual machine with 512 MB of virtual RAM on Whakataruna - I'm using VirtualBox, not VMWare. Virtualbox does everything VMWare does and is open source, so there you go.

Photoshop runs just about perfectly in virtualization, and I tried to get Photoshop to work in Wine.

Sadly, Photoshop (CS2) in Wine is slow to start and somewhat buggy. Type support is nonexistent. Suffice to say I'm better off using the virtual machine for Photoshop.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

I'm gonna step out here and say: VirtualBox is quite nice, but it doesn't do everything VMWare can do... and leave it at that. I do like VirtualBox though; I used it recently and had XP Pro flying along in a window under Xubuntu 6.10 with Beryl in full effect, no issues to speak of.

If you get a chance, Brian, most definitely give Parallels a shot at virtualization. Grab the Linux workstation demo and let 'er rip on Whakataruna. You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[eeyrjmr]

-OT-

I use VMware server/player at home with good results.
I have used Qemu as well
I keep meaning to try VirtualBox
I have only just heard of Parallels

does an independent review comparing all these and other virualisation solutions (Xen...) exist? with an explanation of what is best for what?

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Not that I'm aware of but... wouldn't be a bad idea... for an article, eh? Considering consumers <hint, hint> are using virtualization solutions more and more, it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea.

I could probably throw together a suite of tests for all of them in a few days time: VMWare Server, Workstation, VirtualPC 2007, VirtualServer 2005, Parallels, Virtual Box, etc... anyone, anyone?

What would people consider valid stuff to test for across the VMs as well as what should be the actual OS used for the guest? My thinking is XP since the hosts would be changing, and XP has so many ways to be tested - and I don't mean stuff like 3DMark, that's effectively useless for this stuff. PCMark05 would work well as a system benchmark, I'd say.

I could create a solid VM for each virtualization solution, then back it up after tuning it (defragging it and making it solid/packed) and then go from there. That's the beauty of VMs: no matter what host you're running, as long as the VM software is the same on the host OSes you can do anything with the guest VM.

Interest? Let me know, hell, maybe I could put together something that [H]ardConsumer might consider worthy of publication.

 

[merlin747]

Brian,

Rather than poo-poo a 64 bit linux distro for problems with apps or drivers, check out Vista 64 bit _right now_. You'll find that things are just as bad, if not worse than the Linux side of the fence. Before you ask, yes, I am a developer and have run Vista 64 bit through its beta period. I have seen my video, audio, and more improving, but not exactly where I would expect them to be... at least not what you imply you expect from Vista. Things are better with Vista 32 bit, but I still have issues with an NVidia card I had originally bought for gaming.

If you get the opty, check out the Mac Pros and the 64 bit goodness they offer. I believe you'll be impressed by the polish they offer within the OS.

Kelly

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Just curious, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but from my understanding Tiger is only 64 bit from the console iirc. GUI level applications don't function at 64 bit levels, only stuff from the Terminal/command line under Tiger.

Leopard, well, that's another story altogether.

 

[Jason_Wall]

Brian,

Rather than poo-poo a 64 bit linux distro for problems with apps or drivers, check out Vista 64 bit _right now_. You'll find that things are just as bad, if not worse than the Linux side of the fence. Before you ask, yes, I am a developer and have run Vista 64 bit through its beta period. I have seen my video, audio, and more improving, but not exactly where I would expect them to be... at least not what you imply you expect from Vista. Things are better with Vista 32 bit, but I still have issues with an NVidia card I had originally bought for gaming.

If you get the opty, check out the Mac Pros and the 64 bit goodness they offer. I believe you'll be impressed by the polish they offer within the OS.

Kelly

Don't worry - you're going to get all the apples that you want. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Brian Boyko]

Don't worry - you're going to get all the apples that you want. I'll leave it at that.

 

[43n1m4]

It's funny... I don't see the review of Ubuntu as a typical consumer review.
The amount of fixing done at pro IT level makes me wonder how this review can be seen as a consumer-oriented review, and the long time used on the Beryl GUI makes me wonder where the focus is.

 

[eeyrjmr]

It's funny... I don't see the review of Ubuntu as a typical consumer review.
The amount of fixing done at pro IT level makes me wonder how this review can be seen as a consumer-oriented review, and the long time used on the Beryl GUI makes me wonder where the focus is.

*sigh* THAT wasn't the aim of of this 30day experiment

http://consumer.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI5OCwxLCxoY29uc3VtZXI=

But what about power users, such as the typical audience of HardOCP - those who know how to build their own computers, but not compile their own programs? Or people who may not know how to do something, but aren't afraid of taking the time to figure it out? Is Linux truly an alternative? Can they do everything they did in Windows? The truth is, we didn't know, but we very much wanted to find out.

THIS was NOT if JOE-AVERAGE can use it (which they can btw)
What fix's are you talking about? there are documented steps to gain mp3/dvd playback as well as 3D drivers. They are not fix's

Also if you want to take this the way of Joe-Average, this was to see if Ubuntu/linux was an alternative to Vista... Now vista has some piss-poor driver support (worse then linux) and a bitch-nasty suspend/sleep bug. Is Joe-Average going to know how to keep track of driver updates? is Joe-Average going to know how to keep track of program updates for compatability? Ubuntu will keep the OS and the programs uptodate from its repository

 

[GreNME]

THIS was NOT if JOE-AVERAGE can use it (which they can btw)
What fix's are you talking about? there are documented steps to gain mp3/dvd playback as well as 3D drivers. They are not fix's

I wouldn't have called what was in the article "fixes," mostly because I agree with you about the pretty standard documented solutions for the most common uses for the desktop regarding Linux. However, I would say that a lot of the article had some intellectual dishonesty when evaluating the differences and similarities between Ubuntu and Vista. In the ways Vista can be annoying, Ubuntu often is as well, and vice versa. However, the tracks for finding solutions for those annoyances are far more spread out and not always blatantly obvious in Ubuntu (though I would agree that Ubuntu is far and beyond better than most other distros with this). There is simply no OSS answer to the MSKB, and currently no alternative to the "Check for Solutions Online" feature built into Vista. For everyday computing, this makes a huge difference. For workstations in a domain environment or under the watchful eye of Mr Power User, it doesn't necessarily make a huge difference (because you assume a certain level of pre-defined knowledge and search capability).

If anything, Vista is the version of Windows that is most like Linux, so while the apples-to-apples comparison is more appropos, ignoring the support structure is a bit dishonest, in my opinion.

Also if you want to take this the way of Joe-Average, this was to see if Ubuntu/linux was an alternative to Vista... Now vista has some piss-poor driver support (worse then linux) and a bitch-nasty suspend/sleep bug. Is Joe-Average going to know how to keep track of driver updates? is Joe-Average going to know how to keep track of program updates for compatability? Ubuntu will keep the OS and the programs uptodate from its repository

Vista's driver support is well above most Linux distros, though I won't necessarily challenge you on Ubuntu's driver support (as I've not yet needed help on either OS). However, driver updates and program updates are both handled just fine in Vista through the new Windows Update control panel. All the user has to do is make sure they select the little check-box to update their Microsoft programs, and it will be done. Microsoft isn't allowed to update 3rd-party programs, mostly for licensing reasons, so that's a moot point. I would agree it would be cool for Microsoft to allow the use of OSS repositories for its Windows Update module with regard to 3rd-party OSS programs, but once again that's a trust issue, and how many OSS projects really trust Microsoft?

I think Microsoft has a long way to go to repair its "big bad wolf" image before we can start making repository comparisons, since most repositories are going to have to have a good reason to trust Microsoft before we can have that option. Wouldn't you agree? (or, you know, MS could do like Apple and require it from certain developers, but that would surely draw more monopoly accusations)

 

[Brian Boyko]

I wouldn't have called what was in the article "fixes," mostly because I agree with you about the pretty standard documented solutions for the most common uses for the desktop regarding Linux. However, I would say that a lot of the article had some intellectual dishonesty when evaluating the differences and similarities between Ubuntu and Vista. In the ways Vista can be annoying, Ubuntu often is as well, and vice versa. However, the tracks for finding solutions for those annoyances are far more spread out and not always blatantly obvious in Ubuntu (though I would agree that Ubuntu is far and beyond better than most other distros with this).

I actually tried not to make comparisons of Vista, because this wasn't an evaluation of Vista.

In short, no comparison was intended, and I don't go into Vista's problems. I don't know how this could be "intellectually dishonest" when I'm not comparing the two operating systems but looking at Ubuntu on it's own merits.

If anything, Vista is the version of Windows that is most like Linux, so while the apples-to-apples comparison is more appropos, ignoring the support structure is a bit dishonest, in my opinion.

Again, I ignored the support structure of Vista because this wasn't an evaluation of Vista.

Vista's driver support is well above most Linux distros, though I won't necessarily challenge you on Ubuntu's driver support (as I've not yet needed help on either OS). However, driver updates and program updates are both handled just fine in Vista through the new Windows Update control panel. All the user has to do is make sure they select the little check-box to update their Microsoft programs, and it will be done.

Again, I can't speak to this because this wasn't an evaluation of Vista or a comparison of Vista to Ubuntu.

Microsoft isn't allowed to update 3rd-party programs, mostly for licensing reasons, so that's a moot point. I would agree it would be cool for Microsoft to allow the use of OSS repositories for its Windows Update module with regard to 3rd-party OSS programs, but once again that's a trust issue, and how many OSS projects really trust Microsoft?

I think you may be misunderstanding something about the software update feature. Microsoft isn't allowed to update 3rd-party commercial programs. Neither is Ubuntu. However, items that adhere to the GNU license are freely distributable - yes, even by Microsoft, so OSS trust of Microsoft isn't an issue here. In short, if Microsoft wanted to distribute OSS programs, (up to and including an Microsoft branded version of Linux,) they could, so long as they did not make any changes without also making the source code available. So whether an OSS developer trusts Microsoft is not an issue.

 

[Monkey34]

Just read the article, and I have to say - well done. It pretty much sums up my experiences in Linux. Its good for the usage I give it, but I'd really like to see it more developed so I could offer it more to the consumer. I just cant devote the time to support all the questions I would get from people who only know how to click the big blue "e" to get online, and cant even figure out how to change the wallpaper.

 

[Commander Suzdal]

I think you may be misunderstanding something about the software update feature. Microsoft isn't allowed to update 3rd-party commercial programs. Neither is Ubuntu. However, items that adhere to the GNU license are freely distributable - yes, even by Microsoft, so OSS trust of Microsoft isn't an issue here. In short, if Microsoft wanted to distribute OSS programs, (up to and including an Microsoft branded version of Linux,) they could, so long as they did not make any changes without also making the source code available. So whether an OSS developer trusts Microsoft is not an issue.

Hmmm! Now that is probably something they have cooking in the back rooms in Redmond. If Linux distros start getting desktop-friendly enough that they begin to impact MS's sales in a major way, they can turn on a dime like they did with the Internet, offer a branded distro with all kinds of nice extras and freebees, and try to make money on the application side. I'm sure they hope they never have to, but I'm also sure that if they see no alternative, they will pursue the change with the same intensity that they do everything else.

 

[gostriker]

Very nice article! I had all the same problems, but basically solved none of them. Still after reading this I think I will try to install ubantu (yet again) over the vista beta partition. Hope I don't screw up my start up.

 

[GreNME]

Due to the length of my reply, I have to break this into two posts, even after shortening it by more than a quarter initially.

I actually tried not to make comparisons of Vista, because this wasn't an evaluation of Vista.

Read your own article again and count how many times you compare the Ubuntu install to both Windows and Mac OS. What you did not do is contrast, which would require direct references to both. Comparisons can be done using a much broader brush and with far more generalizations, which is exactly what you did throughout.

In short, no comparison was intended, and I don't go into Vista's problems.

Sure you do. You just don't outright say it. You make comments about the install process, about playing media, and so on. You make direct comments about DRM with regard to Vista, and you state flatly that there are things you can do in Linux that you can't in Windows-- were you using the royal "you" or the personal "you" there?

I don't know how this could be "intellectually dishonest" when I'm not comparing the two operating systems but looking at Ubuntu on it's own merits.

Oh, you can be plenty intellectually dishonest even when evaluating only Ubuntu, though I could easily go over with you the numerous ways you were intellectually dishonest overall:

• Quote from the article: Complaining about Windows Vista is a national past time on Internet forums these days. Windows Vista "costs too much," "has onerous product activation," "requires too much hardware," etc. These complaints are often followed up by a very simple boast: "I'm just going to switch to Linux (or Mac)." -- Beginning your article with outrageous, overblown, and FUD-like comments is intellectually dishonest because it allows you to couch the rest of your article in a contrasting light without you having ever actually made such a thesis yourself in your own words. I can even believe that you did not consciously intend to make it a contrasting article, but the intellectual dishonesty in letting others frame the context for you while running with that theme-- and you sure do throughout the article-- is a pretty good example coming right out of the gate on this one.
  -
• Your "low-end" system used in the article is nowhere near low-end. Ars Technica would label that their mid-range box, and you'll not find specs to match that system in any retail store pre-built up until just the past few months. Either your perspective is quite skewed, or you were being intellectually dishonest. My opinion is that it was probably a bit of both, since most intellectual dishonesty comes from overly-skewed views to begin with.
  -
• Quote from the article: A unique feature that Gnome has over Windows is that this desktop is fully customizable. --- First off, there you go comparing to Windows again, and second off, what you said is flat-out untrue. The Windows Desktop is no less customizable than GNOME. What you should have said to avoid such intellectual dishonesty is that GNOME is more easily customized on many levels, and that when all else fails the setup for the GNOME configuration is just a few text config files, which can (in many cases) be more easily recovered than the Windows Explorer Shell (ouotside of full backups). Perhaps you are not aware of the many ways in which the Windows desktop can be fully customized-- including using multiple shells-- but what you said in the article is patently false, especially if you are focusing on the power user as the target audience.
  -
• Quote from the article: This [InstallPad] is, hands down, a better system than I have seen on either Mac OS X or Windows. InstallPad is a similar application for Windows, but this Gnome application is much, much more robust. --- Robust how? Since this article is supposed to be a review of Ubuntu only, and not a comparison, you could have quantified your rather nebulous statement. You either need to explain what makes one better or worse in the article, or leave out the 'better-than' comments without any detail to back them up. After all, you claim this is an evaluation article, so why not some evaluation on how this component works? One could easily compare the gnome-app-install module to the "add/remove Windows components" module in Windows, or to Vista's add/remove app. I count this as intellectual dishonesty in the same way that the desktop customization comment was made.
  -
• Your "historical" digression on installation-- you seem to fail to mention that unless you have the proper Apt repositories, you won't always find the software you're looking for. Further, emphasis should be added that no internet connection means no access to the Apt repositories, something I would count as a serious negative when trying to get a system set up per user preferences when starting from scratch. Leaving out the bad while highlighting the good == intellectual dishonesty.
  -
• Quote from the article: I can also, if I wish, install different themes. These were easy to install and configure - even more so than the WindowBlinds program for Windows XP. Installing a new theme on Metacity is a matter of download, drag, and drop. --- Whoops, more Windows / Linux comparisons, and more intellectual dishonesty. This one wouldn't have been so bad if it hadn't been for the focus solely on WindowBlinds for Windows XP. Since Windows has many different methods for customization that vary between 2000, XP, and Vista, I'd say the intellectual dishonesty is pretty easy to see here when ignoring something like just being able to double-click a theme (like Royale from MCE, which works on all versions of XP) to open the display properties and instantly apply the theme. Vista is even more Linux-like when it comes to altering its Aero Glass properties, but this isn't a competition, right? Nevermind that I pointed out more than one comment from you already that seemed to frame it in such a fashion.
  -
• You mention Beryl, but you fail to mention the hardware requirements to run all of the nifty features you mention. Of course, since your "low-end" system was so skewed in comparison to real-world systems, this is hardly surprising. The system requirements are indeed lower for the fancy *nix windowing bells and whistles, but the implication should always be there that it needs to be run on modern hardware. Funny you fail to mention that. A simple link to the system requirements comment on their FAQ page would have sufficed. Interestingly, the requirements are fairly beefy.
  -
• Quote from the article: On the other hand, Gnome has had "Gnome Applets" for years - these are little programs that run in the Gnome panels. If you want to know the time, the local weather, or keep an eye on your system's health, you can use an applet to do so. Since you can add new panels whenever and wherever you like, the function - if not the execution - is very similar to Vista's Gadgets, which is a rip-off of Apple’s Widgets, which in turn was taken from Konfabulator, which was probably inspired by something else in turn. --- So Vista's use of widgets (gadgets) is a rip-off, but Apple's were just "taken" from Konfab. I'd like Revisionist History 101 for $500, Alex. Let's see... MS publishes their aims for widgets back in September of 2001, Apple doesn't roll out the Dashboard until well after Konfabulator (the first to release the concept to the public) is available, but Vista is ripping off Apple? Why not just focus on the fact that Linux has had widgets for the longest time, and the more they got popular in the other two mainstream OSes the more they became popular in Gnome? You'd have been more honest just saying that Linux had this capability before both Windows and Mac OS, but you had to put Vista in the pejorative (despite your claimed intentions). Why?
  -
• Your short video: you say this isn't a comparison to Windows, yet you repeatedly use the phrase "just like Windows" throughout your video. Which is it? Are you comparing, or are you reviewing? Since the Linux desktop can stand on its own merits, why all the comparisons to Windows? Say you didn't intend the article to be a comparison all you like, but you have a recorded video with you constantly making it a comparison.
  -
• The DVD issue: You very carefully circle the subject of proprietary formats with retail DVDs, and you even come close to actually pointing out why Windows and Mac OS even have DRM to begin with. However, you never point out to the reader that the whole "DRM" thing in Windows (and Mac OS) is to allow for the 'protected' content of the (greedy) RIAA and (bottom-feeding) MPAA to be played on those operating systems. So, you allow the FUD-like comments of others to frame the initial tenor of the article (see above), and yet when you have the chance to clarify something that not only is a huge sticking point for many users, but something that we (the consumers) should be pressuring Hollywood to offer (legal) support for in Linux, you just gloss right over the issue.
  -
• Quote from the article: Setting up the e-mail account (a Gmail account) is a walk in the park. Indeed, Evolution seems to be almost exactly like Outlook; with mail, contacts, calendars, memos, and tasks. --- Considering Outlook is the only MS Office app for which there is no single alternative, it seems you are either seriously unaware of the capabilities of Outlook or you are allowing your comparison of Evolution to Outlook be intentionally misleading. I won't get overly pedantic about the differences between the two applications, if only because I really like Evolution, but it is horribly misleading to compare Outlook and Evolution. However, what would have been a more appropriate and honest statement is something how Evolution is an app for Linux that handles between 70% - 80% of the things Outlook does, and can usually cover 100% of what even the power user will use the app for.
  -
• Quote from the article: The GIMP has 95% of the features most people would use from Photoshop - the ability to convert and edit images. Still, as a very experienced Photoshop hand, I missed the typography support from Photoshop, being able to configure repetitive batch processes, and found that some of the commands were just outright counter-intuitive. --- Wow. Just wow. All I can say to this is that I know about 40 architectural designers, about two dozen web designers, a handful of graphics designers, and a couple of animators who would laugh you out of the building for claiming that GIMP can do 95% of what Photoshop does. You would have been able to hang on to a vestige of credibility of you compared it to Illustrator or maybe Jasc Paint Shop Pro, but there is no way in hell you are "experienced" with Photoshop in even the loosest sense of the term after your blatantly false comment in the article.
  -
• I strongly urge you to go back to the article and add a comment about Windows licensing right after your comment about pulling some Windows files off the CDs.
  -
• Quote from the article (in reference to performance): In this area, Ubuntu is ahead of Windows XP. I had all sorts of bugs and problems, but the one thing I never had in Ubuntu is a slow and unresponsive system that takes forever to start new processes or even to stop them. --- And I've had problems in both *nix and Windows with runaway processes. I've also had absolutely zero issues with either since I began being responsible with what is and isn't allowed to run on my system. What I'm getting at here is that your comment, while pointing the finger at the OS, is missing the point that the problem usually exists between the keyboard and the chair.
  -
• The false statement about the ATI drivers has been covered earlier in the thread.
  -
• Quote from the article: System updates are also ahead of the curve to both Windows and Mac OS X. Windows has security updates that automatically download and install, Windows Update is there for the more routine security and stability patches. Mac OS X includes both stability and security releases in its System Update utility, but that system update ends at Apple's product line - so it will update iLife, the core OS, and a few other Apple programs, but it won't automatically update, say, Microsoft products. --- Not true for both Apple and Microsoft updates. However, by default, both Microsoft and Apple are obliged to only offer what you need to maintain security instead of opening updates to their whole repository of available updates. The reason for this is, as mentioned earlier, to avoid monopolistic behavior. Additionally, any application worth a damn has an update option under the help menu-- including open-source apps like Firefox, Thunderbird, and Mozilla-- and they are no more difficult than an Apt front-end (and, in many cases, fewer clicks). But who's comparing (besides you)?

 

[GreNME]

This is the second half of my reply:

Again, I ignored the support structure of Vista because this wasn't an evaluation of Vista.

So, you are saying you didn't write the following: The resources available for solving Linux problems are much better than those for Windows. How many times have you Googled a BSOD error only to pull up a Windows Help page that gives you a bunch of general drivel with no solutions? With Linux, if you have a problem, you have flesh-and-blood resources that can help you. For all of our problems, we found some kind of work-around. It may have taken a while to find, but we eventually got our system working in the manner that we wanted it to. This is definitely not always the case with Windows problems.

You have a lot of gall, considering you are posting this in the OS forum on the [H], where the vast majority of threads are asking for help with their OS troubles, and the vast majority of those questions being about Windows. There exists no repository of size and breadth to the Microsoft Knowledge Base (on the web), even though I can think of a few that come pretty damned close. You must not know of the literally dozens of public newsgroups for Microsoft products, either. Or the MSDN blogs, other forums like this, or the wealth of help sites out there (at least equal in number to Linux sites).

How the hell is that ignoring the support structure?

Again, I can't speak to this because this wasn't an evaluation of Vista or a comparison of Vista to Ubuntu.

And yet you couldn't stop making Windows comparisons throughout your article, mostly in the negative. You see, you keep claiming that it wasn't a comparison, and yet the entirety of your article and the accompanying video contain loads and loads of comparisons.

I think you may be misunderstanding something about the software update feature. Microsoft isn't allowed to update 3rd-party commercial programs. Neither is Ubuntu. However, items that adhere to the GNU license are freely distributable - yes, even by Microsoft, so OSS trust of Microsoft isn't an issue here. In short, if Microsoft wanted to distribute OSS programs, (up to and including an Microsoft branded version of Linux,) they could, so long as they did not make any changes without also making the source code available. So whether an OSS developer trusts Microsoft is not an issue.

I think that perhaps it is you who do not understand what you are dealing with. You also seem to not understand the GPL and why Microsoft would not be allowed to add GPL apps to its Windows Update module (or Apple to its updater). Yes, the GPL is an open license, but it is very specific in the conditions under which it may be distributed, and those conditions would require one of two things of Microsoft and Apple: 1) they create and open a CVS library for outside update and revisioning, or 2) they allow their update modules to point to repositories that exist out of the realm of their testing and internal checking area. CVS libraries have been compromised in the past, but I won't say whether or not you understand the serious reservations both Microsoft and Apple have about using them. The problem with the GPL isn't the code, it's the manner in which it is distributed (which would require fundemental changes in the update modules for both Windows and Mac OS, without providing any improvement or ability to keep the code they hand out in check). While I am completely sure there are ways for Microsoft and/or Apple to utilize some third option that I have not already heard of, the chances of that happening in light of the impression the OSS development community (rightly and wrongly) has regarding the monopolistic tendencies of Microsoft are about slim and none, so putting the onus solely on the shoulders of Microsoft in this case is not quite looking at it from a realist perspective. Granted, Microsoft has gone a long way toward making nice with a lot of open source development communities over the past few years, but there is still plenty of bad blood that exists and articles like yours only perpetuate that mentality.

Brian, I can understand your main sentiments in the article regarding the high viability of Linux, especially in the power user part of the computing community. However, I went to the article expecting a thorough overview of how Linux is a capable and efficient desktop OS on its own merits and without the "X vs Y" baggage, and was instead offered the same old "look at this, it's as good as Windows... better, even!" prattling that puts Linux at odds with Windows and Mac OS, when that is barely even true any more outside of market BS put forth by companies with vested interests. I've been into the whole "power user" scene for only about ten years, and in the IT field for less than that, but I've learned enough that the world of computing is now so adversarial only because articles like this are still the predominant fare out there when it comes to exposing people to the alternatives to the big-market-share giants out there.

So, feel free to take umbrage that I-- some dude on a forum who isn't publishing articles himself-- don't approve of the way in which you wrote your article. You can feel justified in the thought that I really don't disagree with your conclusion that Linux is pretty much "there" as a desktop on many levels, and is a great OS for many parts of daily use that the typical power user will likely feel they "must have." I'll even go so far as to say that I'm trying to put together a Linux install that meets all the desktop requirements in the IT department I manage, which is no small feat considering half of them are going to have to remain on Windows for compatibility with AutoDesk software. Linux is a damned fine OS: has plenty of customizable aspects, runs tons of software, can be compatible with a whole host of hardware, plays nice with Active Directory, and (most importantly) it can easily meet the needs of the user in almost any configuration. The only difference between my view and the view described in your article is that mine isn't based on Linux as an alternative to Windows, it is based on the merits of Linux on its own and its ability to not only contribute to, but integrate seamlessly with, what is admittedly a very Windows world.

If you've read this far before rushing to the "reply" button to give me a rhetorical lashing, then it should be clear that I'm not arguing that Linux is inferior or that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. I am saying that the way you put forth that message in your article is misleading, false in some places, and ultimately results in an intellectually dishonest assessment of an otherwise kickass distribution. I agree that Ubuntu is a very good Linux distribution and a great desktop OS. Take from that what you will, since I assume you will continue to write articles and will (hopefully) continue to use whatever works for you. In the grand scheme of things, what does one guy's take on your article really mean when you not only got the article put out there in the first place, but also received many times many accolades and positive reinforcement about the article? (bear in mind that I'm pointing this out pre-emptively, for the dozen or so others who probably won't bother reading this far and are already typing furiously about how everything I've posted is a load of biased garbage)

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Joe Average would say: "Holy shit dude, that's a rebuttal for an article that's nearly as long if not longer than the article itself... whoa..."

Just kidding, so don't take my comments to seriously. HA... as if people around here do.

But seriously, wow, just... wow. And I don't mean Vista-like "WOW" either. That took a lot of work.

 

[GreNME]

Actually, it was just me putting to type what I've basically been categorizing and putting together in my head for about 5 days or so. I have about a 7-day shelf-life for this kind of stuff if I don't put it to text, so this was practically lost.

Well, it's that and the fact that I'm an overly verbose windbag.

 

[Brian Boyko]

Hmmm! Now that is probably something they have cooking in the back rooms in Redmond. If Linux distros start getting desktop-friendly enough that they begin to impact MS's sales in a major way, they can turn on a dime like they did with the Internet, offer a branded distro with all kinds of nice extras and freebees, and try to make money on the application side. I'm sure they hope they never have to, but I'm also sure that if they see no alternative, they will pursue the change with the same intensity that they do everything else.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure that in the grand scheme of things, having Windows on the desktop as a monopoly leveraging tool is nice, but I believe that they make the bulk of their money on providing Windows Server to enterprise applications (which is where they're really fighting Linux - and why they may be trying to get into this space with Novell) and Office products. Windows can net Microsoft as little as $30 for an OEM copy to a manufacturer like Dell; Office, however, is nearly as ubiquitous and is much, much more, with very few discounts.

Microsoft would rather they had both the OS and Office-App marketplaces as monopolies but they will adapt to market changes - they just don't want to have to if they can avoid it.

 

[Monkey34]

GreNME, I think that everyone here can say your points are well taken. What you took time to note is true, but I think its also worth noting that even if he screwed himself up by attempting to do a fair independant review of Ubuntu ( and ended up doing another comparison article ), the fact remains that Windows is the status-quo OS that everyone from novice to enthusiast can relate to.............and anyone trying a "new" OS will compare it to.

 

[Jason_Wall]

Due to the length of my reply, I have to break this into two posts, even after shortening it by more than a quarter initially.

First, thank you for your thoughts and your interest in the article. You have obviously put a lot of time into your responses, and we appreciate that. Unfortunately, I don't have the amount of disposable time to address all of your points, but I'll try to hit the main ones so that your concerns are addressed.

Oh, you can be plenty intellectually dishonest even when evaluating only Ubuntu, though I could easily go over with you the numerous ways you were intellectually dishonest overall:
[*] Quote from the article: Complaining about Windows Vista is a national past time on Internet forums these days. Windows Vista "costs too much," "has onerous product activation," "requires too much hardware," etc. These complaints are often followed up by a very simple boast: "I'm just going to switch to Linux (or Mac)." -- Beginning your article with outrageous, overblown, and FUD-like comments is intellectually dishonest because it allows you to couch the rest of your article in a contrasting light without you having ever actually made such a thesis yourself in your own words. I can even believe that you did not consciously intend to make it a contrasting article, but the intellectual dishonesty in letting others frame the context for you while running with that theme-- and you sure do throughout the article-- is a pretty good example coming right out of the gate on this one.

First of all, "intellectually dishonest" seems to be some sort of catch-phrase you use with a more than necessary profuseness that we, as journalists, take a bit of offense to. It implies that our intent was to deceive by purposefully providing or witholding information. I enjoy criticism, as it's healthy for raising the bar of our content, but I won't be called dishonest. If you have hard information refuting some of the facts we put out in the article, then please let us know - we will correct the article as appropriate. Your opinions are your own, and I'd thank you to not ensconce them in a veil of omnipotent veracity while sundering our efforts.

Also as a general comment, you have a tendency to make absolute statements pertaining to how a statement is completely false. I would generally advise against making such statements, as there are always exceptions. I believe your use of "misleading" is more appropriate in most cases.

To address your comment, specifically, we did not make these statements. We quoted other posters, readers, and very possibly, rather uninformed members of the consumer base. These quotations were not to be intended as the thesis for the article - and if this is what you gleaned from those opening passages, perhaps your general misconceptions about the rest of the article are a bit more affable in that context. The reason that we did this article is not because of the validity of those quotations, but because such outrageous claims were being made at all.

Is Linux an option? That's the thesis. From that perspective alone, there must be comparisons made at some point to OSes that are more familiar to consumers to show that a person that has grown up exclusively in a Mac or Windows environment can function in Linux. I don't see the problem with this. And in my opinion, it would be irresponsible to NOT compare certain details that serve to ground the discussion.

I'll see if I can create an analogy. Say your job is building airplanes. That's all you do - that's all you've known. One day, someone tells you the airplane industry might be changing and that you might consider building cars instead. You've never built a car, but someone tells you about it. They can tell you one of two ways: introducing completely new knowledge without any perspective of your pre-existing knowledge, or they could use your current knowledge base to build on. Are there similarities between building cars and airplanes? Well, not many, but there are some things - and those things would greatly help a person gain perspective on the new enterprise.

It's unfortunate that you interpreted our comments about Windows and Mac as criticisms. Our goal was to ground the reader in something concrete so that they could gain perspective of why that particular Linux feature was better or worse. Regrettably, and I can see from some of your comments, we became a bit more opinionated in our observations of the other OSes than I would have liked - that's my fault as the editor. While we weren't grading Ubuntu on a Microsoft or Apple curve, I can see how you might get that impression.

[*] Your "low-end" system used in the article is nowhere near low-end. Ars Technica would label that their mid-range box, and you'll not find specs to match that system in any retail store pre-built up until just the past few months. Either your perspective is quite skewed, or you were being intellectually dishonest. My opinion is that it was probably a bit of both, since most intellectual dishonesty comes from overly-skewed views to begin with.

What AT believes to be a mid-range or low-end box is irrelevant. The estimated value of our low-end box is $500. The hardware is actually around $400, since the chassis is a nice one. That's low-end any way you slice it. Perhaps you may be confused, as the hardware in our low-end box ("Whakataruna") hasn't been included in prebuilt OEM systems in several months - and even then - it was low-end. Just because it can be bought in a B/M doesn't mean that it's already at least mid-range. In fact, I would characterize most systems in a B/M as being low-end. Our mid-range Puget system is just that - mid-range. Its price and hardware profile are spot-on with our research that shows the current average OEM system being purchased. This was intentional, as we performed research to find this out. It was quite exhaustive, and we're sorry if AT disagrees.

[*] Quote from the article: A unique feature that Gnome has over Windows is that this desktop is fully customizable. --- First off, there you go comparing to Windows again, and second off, what you said is flat-out untrue. The Windows Desktop is no less customizable than GNOME. What you should have said to avoid such intellectual dishonesty is that GNOME is more easily customized on many levels, and that when all else fails the setup for the GNOME configuration is just a few text config files, which can (in many cases) be more easily recovered than the Windows Explorer Shell (ouotside of full backups). Perhaps you are not aware of the many ways in which the Windows desktop can be fully customized-- including using multiple shells-- but what you said in the article is patently false, especially if you are focusing on the power user as the target audience.

Perhaps you're correct - perhaps we don't know all of the wicked sick tweaks you can do to Windows to make it more customizable. But I've been using Windows XP for a number of years and pride myself on being a tweak artist. It's ridiculous for you to say that our statement is "flat-out untrue," because it's not. A casual or even power user will not be able to attain the level of customization that Linux affords on the Windows desktop. An EXPERT user may be a more appropriate designation. That said, your revision is probably more accurate - it is indeed EASIER to attain the same level of customization on Linux than it is on Windows, but I would also say that most consumers will not be able to gain the same level.

[*] Your "historical" digression on installation-- you seem to fail to mention that unless you have the proper Apt repositories, you won't always find the software you're looking for. Further, emphasis should be added that no internet connection means no access to the Apt repositories, something I would count as a serious negative when trying to get a system set up per user preferences when starting from scratch. Leaving out the bad while highlighting the good == intellectual dishonesty.

Your comments == profound exceptions to the rule. If you get Edgy, you'll have the correct APT reps. And yes, if you don't have internet, you're up a creek. But considering that you would have to somehow have the internet to either download the OS or at least place a mail order for it, aren't we excluding the Ozark Mountain user? This is also to include the people reading this article - which is only available on the internet. Do you know many power users - or even casual users - without internet?

[*] Quote from the article: I can also, if I wish, install different themes. These were easy to install and configure - even more so than the WindowBlinds program for Windows XP. Installing a new theme on Metacity is a matter of download, drag, and drop. --- Whoops, more Windows / Linux comparisons, and more intellectual dishonesty. This one wouldn't have been so bad if it hadn't been for the focus solely on WindowBlinds for Windows XP. Since Windows has many different methods for customization that vary between 2000, XP, and Vista, I'd say the intellectual dishonesty is pretty easy to see here when ignoring something like just being able to double-click a theme (like Royale from MCE, which works on all versions of XP) to open the display properties and instantly apply the theme. Vista is even more Linux-like when it comes to altering its Aero Glass properties, but this isn't a competition, right? Nevermind that I pointed out more than one comment from you already that seemed to frame it in such a fashion.

Again, WindowBlinds was used as a point of reference. It's a package most folks are familiar with. It would be impractical to enter into a diatribe about the subtle differences. The desktop UI selection module that we showed in the video is more extensive than anything I've seen in Windows, and it's easily used. Comparing Royale or Aero to what we see with Linux is ludicrous. Comparing a single theme or family of themes to the sheer multitude of options in Linux would serve little purpose. WindowBlinds was the most appropriate point of reference.

[*] You mention Beryl, but you fail to mention the hardware requirements to run all of the nifty features you mention. Of course, since your "low-end" system was so skewed in comparison to real-world systems, this is hardly surprising. The system requirements are indeed lower for the fancy *nix windowing bells and whistles, but the implication should always be there that it needs to be run on modern hardware. Funny you fail to mention that. A simple link to the system requirements comment on their FAQ page would have sufficed. Interestingly, the requirements are fairly beefy.

Again, what others think of the status of our low-end system is a matter opinion. Looking at the system requirements for Beryl, I'd hardly call them beefy. There are handheld PCs that could run this interface. 1.2GHz, 256MB of RAM, and an integrated video chipset. Sure, this was beefy - 4 years ago or so...

[*] Quote from the article: On the other hand, Gnome has had "Gnome Applets" for years - these are little programs that run in the Gnome panels. If you want to know the time, the local weather, or keep an eye on your system's health, you can use an applet to do so. Since you can add new panels whenever and wherever you like, the function - if not the execution - is very similar to Vista's Gadgets, which is a rip-off of Apple&#8217;s Widgets, which in turn was taken from Konfabulator, which was probably inspired by something else in turn. --- So Vista's use of widgets (gadgets) is a rip-off, but Apple's were just "taken" from Konfab. I'd like Revisionist History 101 for $500, Alex. Let's see... MS publishes their aims for widgets back in September of 2001, Apple doesn't roll out the Dashboard until well after Konfabulator (the first to release the concept to the public) is available, but Vista is ripping off Apple? Why not just focus on the fact that Linux has had widgets for the longest time, and the more they got popular in the other two mainstream OSes the more they became popular in Gnome? You'd have been more honest just saying that Linux had this capability before both Windows and Mac OS, but you had to put Vista in the pejorative (despite your claimed intentions). Why?

I can't begin to tell you how many different versions of the same story we get as pertains to Widgets, Gadgets, etc. Everyone seems to have their own timeline. Konfab said they had it first, Apple says they included it on their 1984 OS, the PC world claims it was integrated as part of Project Athena from IBM back around '83. Apple was the first to make it part of the OS - not an add-on. That's where the clock starts.

[*] Your short video: you say this isn't a comparison to Windows, yet you repeatedly use the phrase "just like Windows" throughout your video. Which is it? Are you comparing, or are you reviewing? Since the Linux desktop can stand on its own merits, why all the comparisons to Windows? Say you didn't intend the article to be a comparison all you like, but you have a recorded video with you constantly making it a comparison.

Again, this is not a "preaching to the choir" article - this is addressed to folks who may be interested in switching to Linux from the other two OSes. Wouldn't you say it's important to allow the reader to feel like they could have a certain comfort level with a new OS by being able to make it look like their old OS? Sorry, I just don't see the sin here.

[*] The DVD issue: You very carefully circle the subject of proprietary formats with retail DVDs, and you even come close to actually pointing out why Windows and Mac OS even have DRM to begin with. However, you never point out to the reader that the whole "DRM" thing in Windows (and Mac OS) is to allow for the 'protected' content of the (greedy) RIAA and (bottom-feeding) MPAA to be played on those operating systems. So, you allow the FUD-like comments of others to frame the initial tenor of the article (see above), and yet when you have the chance to clarify something that not only is a huge sticking point for many users, but something that we (the consumers) should be pressuring Hollywood to offer (legal) support for in Linux, you just gloss right over the issue.

This is a complicated issue that deals very closely with legalities. We thought it best to err on the side of caution as far as our statments about DVD functionality were concerned.

[*] Quote from the article: Setting up the e-mail account (a Gmail account) is a walk in the park. Indeed, Evolution seems to be almost exactly like Outlook; with mail, contacts, calendars, memos, and tasks. --- Considering Outlook is the only MS Office app for which there is no single alternative, it seems you are either seriously unaware of the capabilities of Outlook or you are allowing your comparison of Evolution to Outlook be intentionally misleading. I won't get overly pedantic about the differences between the two applications, if only because I really like Evolution, but it is horribly misleading to compare Outlook and Evolution. However, what would have been a more appropriate and honest statement is something how Evolution is an app for Linux that handles between 70&#37; - 80% of the things Outlook does, and can usually cover 100% of what even the power user will use the app for.

There are many email alternatives to Outlook. We found Evolution to resemble Outlook the most out of all of those clients - simple as that. We didn't say they were exactly alike - they're almost exactly alike, and we didn't have to confine ourselves to percentages.
-

[*] Quote from the article: The GIMP has 95% of the features most people would use from Photoshop - the ability to convert and edit images. Still, as a very experienced Photoshop hand, I missed the typography support from Photoshop, being able to configure repetitive batch processes, and found that some of the commands were just outright counter-intuitive. --- Wow. Just wow. All I can say to this is that I know about 40 architectural designers, about two dozen web designers, a handful of graphics designers, and a couple of animators who would laugh you out of the building for claiming that GIMP can do 95% of what Photoshop does. You would have been able to hang on to a vestige of credibility of you compared it to Illustrator or maybe Jasc Paint Shop Pro, but there is no way in hell you are "experienced" with Photoshop in even the loosest sense of the term after your blatantly false comment in the article.

I believe we were quite clear in the fact that the GIMP is missing some key functionality that PS has over it. That's great you know all of those great minds who have very specialized uses for PS - that's not who we were talking about. For most users, they will have a preponderance of functionality in the GIMP, although there will be a few key features missing.

[*] Quote from the article (in reference to performance): In this area, Ubuntu is ahead of Windows XP. I had all sorts of bugs and problems, but the one thing I never had in Ubuntu is a slow and unresponsive system that takes forever to start new processes or even to stop them. --- What I'm getting at here is that your comment, while pointing the finger at the OS, is missing the point that the problem usually exists between the keyboard and the chair.

I would agree . There are inherent instabilities in some OSes in particular applications, but largely, most problems are introduced by the user. The approach we took in our experience is that we did what we thought anyone else would do. So if we ran into a problem, chances are, someone else has, or will, too.

 

[Jason_Wall]

So, you are saying you didn't write the following: The resources available for solving Linux problems are much better than those for Windows. How many times have you Googled a BSOD error only to pull up a Windows Help page that gives you a bunch of general drivel with no solutions? With Linux, if you have a problem, you have flesh-and-blood resources that can help you. For all of our problems, we found some kind of work-around. It may have taken a while to find, but we eventually got our system working in the manner that we wanted it to. This is definitely not always the case with Windows problems.

You have a lot of gall, considering you are posting this in the OS forum on the [H], where the vast majority of threads are asking for help with their OS troubles, and the vast majority of those questions being about Windows. There exists no repository of size and breadth to the Microsoft Knowledge Base (on the web), even though I can think of a few that come pretty damned close. You must not know of the literally dozens of public newsgroups for Microsoft products, either. Or the MSDN blogs, other forums like this, or the wealth of help sites out there (at least equal in number to Linux sites).

You're right, the MKB is one hell of a database with all sorts of information. In all my travels, however, I'm not sure I've ever seen a truly useful MKB article. Lots of effort for essentially no benefit. The best resource I've found is a Google search for a BSOD or general Windows error, which is hardly centralized and only sometimes produces relevant results. On the other hand, using the few centralized Linux sites, chats, and message boards gets you direct help on your problem. While it's not as organized or official as the MKB, there's at least the possibility of some guru figuring out your problem - that is, if it hasn't been addressed before.

How the hell is that ignoring the support structure?

Well, honestly, it's not, but in the context of the article - essentially by the nature of it - there was no way to compare the results we would get from Linux support resources to that of Microsoft's. So, we did our best to abstractly draw on our past experiences to again - give a perspective.

Brian, I can understand your main sentiments in the article regarding the high viability of Linux, especially in the power user part of the computing community. However, I went to the article expecting a thorough overview of how Linux is a capable and efficient desktop OS on its own merits and without the "X vs Y" baggage, and was instead offered the same old "look at this, it's as good as Windows... better, even!" prattling that puts Linux at odds with Windows and Mac OS, when that is barely even true any more outside of market BS put forth by companies with vested interests. I've been into the whole "power user" scene for only about ten years, and in the IT field for less than that, but I've learned enough that the world of computing is now so adversarial only because articles like this are still the predominant fare out there when it comes to exposing people to the alternatives to the big-market-share giants out there.

For what it's worth, the preponderance of responses to this article have been of the very positive sense, with adjectives such as "unbiased," "fair," "complete," and "honest" being quite prevalent. I'm very sorry that this article wasn't quite what you were looking for, and if you find one, be sure to link it to me - I'd love to read it. As to your expectations, I'd like to believe that we satisfied them - we talked about the features of Linux, sometimes in the context of what is familiar in Windows and Mac. I find this preferable over the usual "features of Mac and Windows, sometimes in the context of Linux" - which I find to predominate the content on this subject.

So, feel free to take umbrage that I-- some dude on a forum who isn't publishing articles himself-- don't approve of the way in which you wrote your article. You can feel justified in the thought that I really don't disagree with your conclusion that Linux is pretty much "there" as a desktop on many levels, and is a great OS for many parts of daily use that the typical power user will likely feel they "must have." The only difference between my view and the view described in your article is that mine isn't based on Linux as an alternative to Windows, it is based on the merits of Linux on its own and its ability to not only contribute to, but integrate seamlessly with, what is admittedly a very Windows world.

How could you make the argument that a Linux system could contribute and integrate into a Windows world without making references to comparable Windows functionality? Perhaps you see why we made mention of Windows features when it was appropriate.

If you've read this far before rushing to the "reply" button to give me a rhetorical lashing, then it should be clear that I'm not arguing that Linux is inferior or that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. I am saying that the way you put forth that message in your article is misleading, false in some places, and ultimately results in an intellectually dishonest assessment of an otherwise kickass distribution.

Yes, I read the entire two posts before beginning my responses, and, as I said in the beginning, I thank you for your thoughts and your time.

I also again defend that in whatever comparisons we made, I don't believe we cast either Ubuntu or Windows in a false light. It may not be the light that YOU wanted them cast in, but I hesitate to say that any were blatantly, or intentionally, false. I can see how your interpretation and perhaps a double standard could portend to you being misled on some items. I daresay that your initial interpretation of our introductory paragraph got you off on the wrong foot. I'm sorry if we weren't completely clear of what our thesis was. By its nature, SOME comparisons to Windows and Mac would be necessary - sorry that you didn't agree.

I believe that we still conveyed Ubuntu as being a kick-ass distro, if for no other reason than Brian stating that he would be installing it for use on his own machine. On our conclusion page, the "Good" section was markedly longer than the others. The "Bad" and "Ugly" sections are regrettable, but were well-founded as they are issues that affect the whole community. I would assume that as a Linux user, you would appreciate us pointing out the faults so that folks like Scott Ritchie and Matt Zimmerman get involved and interested in our problems so that future distros are the better for it.

 

[Catweazle]

First of all, "intellectually dishonest" seems to be some sort of catch-phrase you use with a more than necessary profuseness that we, as journalists, take a bit of offense to. It implies that our intent was to deceive by purposefully providing or witholding information. I enjoy criticism, as it's healthy for raising the bar of our content, but I won't be called dishonest. If you have hard information refuting some of the facts we put out in the article, then please let us know - we will correct the article as appropriate. Your opinions are your own, and I'd thank you to not ensconce them in a veil of omnipotent veracity while sundering our efforts.

As a journalist myself I'd have to express some measure of agreement with your contention that the term "intellectually dishonest" can be seen as offensive. However, GreNME has also openly acknowledged that he is not a person who writes professionally, and when I adopt the position of a reader I can also see that he has simply adopted a term to express a valid concept, however regrettable that term might be to somebody or other. It's quite easy to see the intent of the comment, and that intent is not malicious.

The term was introduced in this thread in response to continued claims that the article under discussion was some form of 'pure' assessment of a Linux distro, and not a form of evaluating Vista or a comparison between Vista and Ubuntu. And with good reason. Such an esoteric goal is an unattainable one. The everyday desktop computing world is predominately a 'Windows' world, and any attempt to assess an alternative OS must necessarily include qulaitiative comparison. That's what has occurred in this article (as was only to be expected) and claims that it hasn't occurred are an exercise in wishful thinking. If GreNME chose to express that fact by using the term "intellectual dishonesty" then perhaps he is simply trying to say that the person making the claims is kidding himself. That's how I read it, anyway!

If Brian Boyko truly thinks that the article is somehow a 'pure' assessment of a Linux distro then he is, in effect, kidding himself. As a matter of fact the article's introduction clearly establishes it as a comparitive piece of work which is designed to assess the product's readiness to be a competitor or alternative. GreNME has perhaps been a bit too strong in his comments, but the general thrust of what he is saying is quite valid in light of the subsequent claims which have been made.


You mob like to target what you describe as a "[H]ard" audience. I write for a "Consumer" audience. Both of us are using artificial constructs which don't exist in any pure or exclusive form. Does positioning this article toward the so-called [H]ard audience somehow make it a purely intellectual exercise, totally divorced from the Windows world? Nope, it does not. It is still an article examining whether or not an alternative is viable, and aimed at consumers.

I've gritted the teeth a tad at GreNME's use of the term "intellectual dishonesty". I've bridled, though, at Brian's attempts to claim that the article is really other than what I can clearly see it to be.

 

[Jason_Wall]

As a journalist myself I'd have to express some measure of agreement with your contention that the term "intellectually dishonest" can be seen as offensive. However, GreNME has also openly acknowledged that he is not a person who writes professionally, and when I adopt the position of a reader I can also see that he has simply adopted a term to express a valid concept, however regrettable that term might be to somebody or other. It's quite easy to see the intent of the comment, and that intent is not malicious.

The term was introduced in this thread in response to continued claims that the article under discussion was some form of 'pure' assessment of a Linux distro, and not a form of evaluating Vista or a comparison between Vista and Ubuntu. And with good reason. Such an esoteric goal is an unattainable one. The everyday desktop computing world is predominately a 'Windows' world, and any attempt to assess an alternative OS must necessarily include qulaitiative comparison. That's what has occurred in this article (as was only to be expected) and claims that it hasn't occurred are an exercise in wishful thinking. If GreNME chose to express that fact by using the term "intellectual dishonesty" then perhaps he is simply trying to say that the person making the claims is kidding himself. That's how I read it, anyway!

Very well written response - thanks.

No I don't believe there was malicious intent, but I don't think it can be disputed that GreNME definitely wanted to poke us in the eye .

Your second graph there describes very well the conundrum we fell into with this article. It's impossible to describe darkness without light - an extremely rough analogy, but you get the point. It's hard to design a frame of reference without a starting point. Since, in everyone's admission, this is a Windows world, we had to start somewhere. In retrospect, we may have compared a bit too much, especially in light of some of the other articles we have coming up. I don't think it hurt the article, but I'm sorry that it distracted some of you and perhaps seemed to go awry of our initial goals.

Honestly, our initial plan for this article was to draw DIRECT comparisons between Windows and Linux pound for pound. We later scrapped that idea when we figured out there was enough stuff right AND wrong with Linux to merit its own article. It's possible that some of that mentality leaked into its current form. Again, that's my fault as the editor.

And again, I really don't think it hurt the article. In fact, I think it made it much more accessible to people who weren't familiar with Linux at all and needed some lifelines every now and then to help them get their bearings.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

And again, I really don't think it hurt the article. In fact, I think it made it much more accessible to people who weren't familiar with Linux at all and needed some lifelines every now and then to help them get their bearings.

Dare I say who? Just kidding, I'm not interested in starting up another boondoggle threadwar sooo...

I personally write anything I write in terms of guides, articles, tips, tweaks, etc. aimed squarely at - yep, you guessed it - Joe Average, consumer that happens to own a computer. I add redundant redundancy so that I know the person can never ever come back and say "Hey, you didn't tell me that" or anything even remotely similar.

For Joe Average, repetition truly is the mother of all skill - the hard part is getting him to do it the first time. Everything after that is icing on a cake that's rolling downhill.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Sweet freakin' geezus, GreNME... now you really have posted more content than the original article itself. My god... or some higher power.

I can't believe this has gone this far, so... I'm just gonna sit on the bench from now on as this one plays out.

/me walks to the bench humming "Centerfield" by John Fogerty...

"Put me in Coach... I'm ready to play... today... look at me... I can be... Centerfield..."

 

[GreNME]

To quote Austin Powers: aaaand... I'm spent.

Jason, Brian, I'm more than willing to attempt to clarify more if you really wish, but I honestly don't see much more than us disagreeing on definitions (once more, socratic method) and hashing that out over and over. You don't have to please me. You have plenty of people who got a lot from the article, and that's a good thing.

 

[GreNME]

Oh, and:

As a journalist myself I'd have to express some measure of agreement with your contention that the term "intellectually dishonest" can be seen as offensive. However, GreNME has also openly acknowledged that he is not a person who writes professionally, and when I adopt the position of a reader I can also see that he has simply adopted a term to express a valid concept, however regrettable that term might be to somebody or other. It's quite easy to see the intent of the comment, and that intent is not malicious.

Yeah, I should have made sure to clarify that in the beginning, and I hope I've subsequently clarified my usage of the term. The dishonesty was not accusing anyone of lying or using a false premise, it was in continually making the claim of purity in the assessment where there really could be none, and the constant value judgments made throughout the article itself (against the claimed intentions of the article by both the author and editor in this very thread).

 

[Catweazle]

.. It's possible that some of that mentality leaked into its current form. Again, that's my fault as the editor.

I'd suspect it's an inevitability rather than an error which merits the attribution of fault. No matter how the article is approached, it is discussing the practicality of performing tasks which the vast majority of people perform under Windows, and discussing that without making comparitive statements would result in an article which was somewhat bereft of meaningful explanation.

And again, I really don't think it hurt the article. In fact, I think it made it much more accessible to people who weren't familiar with Linux at all and needed some lifelines every now and then to help them get their bearings.

For sure.

And at the same time I'd consider that to be the only real semblance of any possible 'flaw' in the article. The attempt to 'position' the article in relation to the "[H]ard" audience was unnecessary. I can't see that lengthy critiques which go into endless detail are really helpful, as otherwise the article itself was quite worthwhile. The article author might hold some desire for the article to be seen as one pertaining to some form of 'elite' audience, and others contributing to the thread may wish to think that the article's "intended audience was the enthusiasts and power users", but really it is a simple question posed and examined at length, and presented for whomever might be reading it.

 

[Jason_Wall]

Jason, Brian, I'm more than willing to attempt to clarify more if you really wish, but I honestly don't see much more than us disagreeing on definitions (once more, socratic method) and hashing that out over and over. You don't have to please me. You have plenty of people who got a lot from the article, and that's a good thing.

No, no clarification needed. I know exactly what you're saying - I knew what you were saying the first time you posted. I posted a response out of courtesy so that you might be able to understand why we did things the way we did. I'm sorry that you disagreed with some of our methodologies and rationale. We'll have to agree to disagree on some of those items.

Again, we thank you for your thoughts and valuable feedback.

 

[Jason_Wall]

And at the same time I'd consider that to be the only real semblance of any possible 'flaw' in the article. The attempt to 'position' the article in relation to the "[H]ard" audience was unnecessary. I can't see that lengthy critiques which go into endless detail are really helpful, as otherwise the article itself was quite worthwhile. The article author might hold some desire for the article to be seen as one pertaining to some form of 'elite' audience, and others contributing to the thread may wish to think that the article's "intended audience was the enthusiasts and power users", but really it is a simple question posed and examined at length, and presented for whomever might be reading it.

I would agree. This has been a major point of contention throughout this 12-page discussion: who is this article meant for?

We originally said, "Well, a normal [H] reader." Well, over the last couple of years, that readership has increased greatly and has come to also include the non-super-enthusiast crowd - in other words, it's hard to classify a current [H] reader as having a standardized knowledge level. And especially in an article such as this one, where it was featured on Digg and Slashdot, we reached a whole new demographic of reader.

So, I think a bit of the slosh we find ourselves in is that we limited the scope of who would find this information useful and/or who we were "personifying" as writers. We've got at least one more of these types of articles coming up very soon, and revisiting this philosophy will play a major role in how the next article is approached. We may decide to come from the same angle, but I can promise you that the idea will be revisited between Brian and I.

 

[odoe]

That's it.
This is a [H] Consumer thread, but it's in my sandbox. So I am asking that you not be condescending in this thread and rant just to rant. Critiques are one thing, but just blatant ranting to rant is another. I'm not having it here. Enough.

 

[Brian Boyko]

I'll have more to say on this in a bit, and I'll try to explain my stance. Jason's pretty much 100% on-target though.

 

[eeyrjmr]

I liked the artical, and with most propper writing it has their personal flair to it

If I was to do this 30days as a linux user (assuming I never used it...) I would be able to do that fine, it would be the whole write-up that is the issue

THAT is my biggest issue with GreNME critism with this artical. Has he ever done a 30day and more to the point written it up to the quality that is artical was.

Sure some technical aspect should be crisisized, but credit where credit is due it is a decent writeup to the right audience

 

[Brian Boyko]

The term was introduced in this thread in response to continued claims that the article under discussion was some form of 'pure' assessment of a Linux distro, and not a form of evaluating Vista or a comparison between Vista and Ubuntu.

I agree with many of your points, except this. If anything, I tried to contain my comparisons between Linux and Windows to the XP version except where such comparisons to Vista were inevitable - the Desklets vs. Gadgets vs. Widgets example, for example. Other than that, I tried not to make value judgments about Vista because I haven't evaluated Vista.

If Brian Boyko truly thinks that the article is somehow a 'pure' assessment of a Linux distro then he is, in effect, kidding himself. As a matter of fact the article's introduction clearly establishes it as a comparitive piece of work which is designed to assess the product's readiness to be a competitor or alternative.

If that's what you got from the introduction, I think it would have been served by a rewrite. The working thesis was: "Is switching to Linux a viable option for Windows users who are for whatever reason, unhappy with Vista?" However, and this is where some of the confusion is coming from, I did NOT attempt to answer the question "Is switching to Linux a better option for Windows users than switching to Vista or sticking with XP?" That decision has to be made on an individual basis - and I'm hoping that this article has helped give people the information they could use to make an informed decision to that regard.

Or in other words, I don't care if reading the article helped you come to the decision to try Linux or come to the decision to stay away from Linux, so long as the article helped you come to an informed decision.

I've gritted the teeth a tad at GreNME's use of the term "intellectual dishonesty". I've bridled, though, at Brian's attempts to claim that the article is really other than what I can clearly see it to be.

Looking at it from your perspective, I can see your point. No, this article was not written in a vaccuum, and for claiming that it was, I was clearly in error.

What I can say is that I did my best not to reduce the evaluation of Linux to a feature-for-feature comparison of Windows and did my best, whenever possible, to try to take Linux on it's own terms, and used Windows as a way to explain the concepts, rather than some ideal to which Linux should aspire, or some dystopia to which Linux rises from - an approach taken by many who have treaded in these same waters.

If I have failed to do so, I still hope that the article contains value and presents what is a fair look at Linux, where the inevitable subjectivity has been kept to a minimum.

 

[Commander Suzdal]

Here is something that's been bubbling on the back burner of my brain for a long time. I sometimes wonder if the endless debate over Linux vs. Windows and the mountains of effort that are being put into making Linux better are not taking us down a road that will ultimately prove disappointing.

As I understand it, Linux is derived from Unix. This makes it stable, scalable, almost infinitely customizable, and good with security issues. BUT, Unix has been around since 1969. Once you get beyond a text CLI and a line printer, you start getting into layers and layers of patches, mods, and hocus-pocus to adapt it to modern hardware and applications. I read an article once about what a labyrinthine kludge X-Windows is once you get under the hood. It's a well-documented, well-understood kludge that gets the job done, but still a mess from a design concept point of view. I'm sure that's not the only subsystem in the Linux/Unix world that's gone through a similar messy evolution.

It almost goes without saying that Windows is a kludgy, patchy mess in its own right.

So what I'm wondering is, if the open-source movement is free to do whatever and however it wants, is it wise to pin all of one's hopes on Linux and Linux alone (or BSD, or any other Unix variant)? I mean, even the Mac OS has gone that route. Have there been no new ideas in OS design since 1969? Since OSS is not constrained by profit margins or market share, can't a talented group of gurus come up with something really new? A modern OS with support for all the latest concepts and goodies built in right from the get-go? I'm talking multi-tasking, memory management, multi-threading, multi-processing, networking, GUIs, 3D acceleration,whatever. All clean and neat and logical, not cobbled together over decades with loads of baggage.

Wouldn't that be more exciting than trying to put lipstick on the pigs that we're stuck with now? Or am I just crazy?