LINUX in 2009? & Why can't other distros be like Ubuntu?

I have been testing out Distros as a curious hobby of mine, but I been using Ubuntu as my main distro. I mainly use it for Browsing and playing Multimedia.


I would like to know what you guys thinks Distros should focus on, and what you see Linux around 2009 being?

I would personally like to see a WORKING APP that syncs with smartphones or regular phone via usb or Bluetooth. The way that ActiveSync works with Outlook.

Would also like to see Gnome & KDE Desktop ......EASILY switchable. There might already be an easy way, but I don't know of it.

Most Linux distros are almost WIFI incompatible unless you really know how to fix it. All I know is MadWiFi which only worked on half of the Distros I tried.
This is a HUGE reason I stuck with Ubuntu.

Compiling(or whatever you call it) hardware is still a huge problem for me.


If it wasn't for Ubuntu, I probally would have gave up on Linux a long time ago. But I've tested alot of Distros that I actually like better than Ubuntu. Only if they were as compatible as Ubuntu.

 

To me Linux is still a toy or a hobby. It's made some great strides in recent years but with so many distros, it's going in a million directions at once. Instead of unified support, you get hacked drivers and workarounds. Every year there's a new golden child distro that everyone flocks to and then abandons. In two years, will Ubuntu even be in the same ballpark as the next best thing?

Of the 'golden children' of 2001/2002: Redhat is going server, Caldera and SuSE(sp?) are phased out more or less, and so many others are following suit.

Linux is an impractical solution as-is. Without direct driver support and easy installation, it will never be a mainstream choice....

 

Thats highly debatable. With some distros, Hardware support is the only real negative. But then again, thats a HUGE negative.

So Close, but yet So Far...... IMO

 

Ubuntu is great because it has a HUGE financial backbone. : )

 

In 2009 I see Linux taking on the gaming market, because that's the only thing left for them to conquer really.

 

I think a big step for Linux is going to happen when the Driver recourses are consolidated. I mean think about it, you have to search all over the web for wireless, video (you name it) drivers. If all of the available Linux drivers could be put together into a few CD downloads, so that you would have an OS disk and a Driver disk, it would make everyones life easier.

Another big step is to get Linux on all of the school desktops out there, this would not only increase its overall popularity but would add an element of familiarity to Linux. Essentially a whole generation would be reached, So that when Linux started becoming more usable for the average person more, this generation would not think it to be some strange outlandish (perhaps even slightly geekish) thing like they do now.

 

Closed source software prevents the consolidation of all drivers into the kernel.

 

Desktop switching is already easy. Whats so hard about selecting your desktop when you login? Fedora, Ubutnu, Mandriva, and SuSe all have easy switch desktops.

 

"In 2009 I see Linux taking on the gaming market, because that's the only thing left for them to conquer really."

I gather from most of your posts that you are pro-Linux, but the truth is that Linux hasn't really conquered anything; this isn't a matter of my opinion, as I am neutral towards the OS, but a matter of just getting facts straight here. Linux hasn't conquered much really. In my opinion it's just making itself known to common users as it still lacks these critical implementations:
- laptop power management is completely missing
- 99% universal hardware compatibility akin to Windows is lacking
- Wifi support is really not present, which is ridiculous
- Linux has not abandoned the command line yet, which is an archaic and unfamiliar user interface for the 99% of users who are accustomed to Windows. Even with Beryl and the upcoming KDE 4.0 Linux has failed to abandon the command line, which means that thousands more users will be unable to competently troubleshoot that driver/hardware problem.

Save for laptop power management, all these implementations must be completed in order to prepare Linux for competition with Windows; because I think we can assume that Linux developers will want to go for the "big apple".

Linux isn't meant to be a gaming platform; it never was. The closest thing we've seen so far for Windows compatible games has been Wine, and Wine is unreliable at best except for the most common and generic games. Linux is, in fact, behind Microsoft's now "old" OS of Windows XP in terms of gaming. So I fail to see how Linux has "conquered everything except for gaming".

 

Hehe, **** straight I'm a Linux fanboy. Unashamedly, too.

Wrong! My notebook features the same CPU scaling as it does with Windows. I can set dynamic scaling, performance, powersave mode, allo the same as Windows. I can even undervolt it.

Blame hardware manufacturers for that. But if you buy decent hardware, it'll work.

I've never had any troubles with wireless, I started out using NDISwrapper for my old Acer, and now with an Intel 3945, wireless works perfectly of LiveCDs, and works from first boot.

Actually, a lot of USERS love the command line, as it gives them more precise control over their system workings. It also helps in the display of error messages, making diagnosis easier than a GUI method. But - if you love your GUI's, you don't really NEED to touch the command line on a modern Linux system. I can set up a full Ubuntu system without touching the command line, including FGLRX drivers.

The blame for that lies in closed source graphics API's and other crap produced by Microsoft. Games from developers such as Id and Epic have been seen to run better than on Windows in some cases. Linux supports 3D graphics just fine, it's game manufacturers choice whether to use OpenGL or DirectX.

I am a fanboy, yes. I use what's best for me, which at the moment happens to be GNU/Linux, a year ago, it was Windows XP. Maybe tomorrow it'll be Leopard, I don't know. For me, Linux has conquered everything but the games, because it's easier to run, easier to maintain, looks prettier, runs better software (with the exception of games) and runs faster.

 

Well, my wish list above is based on my own experience. I don't think that blaming the hardware vendors is a good excuse. It is equally the fault of the developers for not adapting to the hardware vendors as it is the vendors' fault for following M$-defined standards.

Btw, wifi has never worked for me, probably because I own an Atheros chipset. Don't say "install the madwifi driver" or I'll have a heart attack. I would pay someone if they could fix the d*** thing.

Anyways, you like Linux, I like GUI-oriented OSs. Thankfully MS is moving in this direction, not that I applaud all of their pursuits. Check out my post in the thread "So, I'm looking at all the people/links bashing Vista... and..." in Software and you'll see what I mean.

 

Well, what if I were to say "The Fram oil filter for my Honda won't properly fit my Mazda. I blame the manufacturer!"

You can't just assign blame like that to either side. You need to consider that right now Linux and Windows are distinctly different products geared at different markets.

The average Linux user needs to be much more computer-savvy than the average windows user to get most things done. Until that changes, there will still be a divide. There have been some great strides in that direction lately though.

It will probably come down to the average user being more comfortable with technology and the technology being 'nicer' to the average user. Apple has had a lot of success bridging that gap.

 

SO far I've been very impressed with Ubuntu.

What would I like, better hardware support, more applications (two areas that I can specifically think of that are definitely missing are Video editing and games, although I'm curious what games are available).

I really like the idea of the sync with mobile phones/PDA's, although I guess requires decoding the outlook stuff (given that at least my PDA has Windows Mobile on it).

 

I have not had driver issues running Ubuntu, Debian and Red Hat on three different notebooks. What distros do you find hardware problems on? Do you have something to back this up?

Agreed. Once Linux comes to a point where all Windows based games can be played, there isn't ANY reason to stick to Microsoft. (Not that there is any right now, for that matter...)

 

certainly I can assign blame to the hardware manufacturers... microsoft doesn't write drivers for your printer, your fancy 18-button mouse, or even your network card. the hardware manufacturer writes the drivers, and many manufacturers only care to write drivers for windows.

the hilarious thing is, there are members of the Linux community WAITING to write drivers for various pieces of hardware. people willing to do this, for free, and yet many manufacturers refuse to even just provide adequate specifications so that people can do this.

what I'm looking forward to is when the Nouveau guys have finished their completely GPL implementation of the nVidia 3d graphics drivers. then there will be native nVidia support in pretty much every distro out of the box...

 

The command line on *nix is not archaic, it has been supported and improved over many years. It was only Microsoft that tried to convince everyone that there wasn't any use for a command line.

For most users (probably?), trying to learn the foreign language that is a command line shell is too much work, although I find it much easier to learn that than a real foreign language. As humans, we use language written and verbal to communicate with each other, yet when it comes to computers most users have a strong opinion that actually instructing a computer in a written form is archaic, I find that an odd contradiction.

 

Yea Microsoft is trying to dumb us down in my opinion and its working with most of the consumers

 

It'd be nice to have a real discussion rather than just diss microsoft.

Microsoft isn't dumbing down the consumer, by what I hear from 'enlightened' power users they're all plenty stupid to begin with. These consumers are also ruining it for everyone else, apparently.

Computers are like any other consumer good and are loaded with an operating system that appeals to the average consumer. Why is that such a crime? Maybe they don't want to tinker with everything just to get it up and running.

It doesn't help to just assume somebody is using Windows because they're an idiot who doesn't know better. I've been hearing that argument for years. If you want to talk about appealing to the lowest level of computer experience, look at Apple's success in selling computers to people who would otherwise just own a typewriter.

If people want to have a power toy, they'll eventually migrate to Linux in some fashion.

Anyway not to carry on, just tired of seeing the same back-and-forth on this topic.

 

Now Otaku, I think you have a good point, and I am not trying to bash what you have to say. I don't want to bash MS needlessly as well, but here are some things I have noticed.

1) That if Windows is geared for the average user, why do I get at least four phone calls a week from (non-tech, normal) family and friends needing help on Win XP.

2) Why, for 14 years of my 21 year existence had I been mucking around with Windows? Every single thing is harder to do ON A DAILY basis in windows. Now I agree that you can pop in a DVD and play instantly in Windows without enabling DMA and downloading libdvdcss. But look at the DAILY work - that is, after a few months, it takes a minute to get into Media Player. Eventually it takes 5 minutes to boot up. Ever since ditching Windows in 2006, I find myself less stressed about losing valuable data and work. I am happier. Yeah, my whole life has changed because of Linux.

3) I never hear these (Windows) complaints from Mac OS users. These people are content. Why does MS screw humans' lives over with their product? Why are their programs built so badly? Why has MS dominated the world as we know it? These questions I cannot answer. I do know that things are changing, and people are going to see the light.

 

Guatam, the complaints you hear are from the very same people who call you every week, users who don't know how to use or maintain computers effectively. I know a couple of friends who don't defrag their hard drives and then they complain about the OS. The truth is that, whenever Windows does something the user doesn't want it to do, it's usually the direct result of the user's mistake (or in some cases ineptitude).

To RefinedPower and all those who think MS's lean towards a GUI-based OS is "dumbing-down" consumers, I believe you are wrong. I'd like to respectfully dsagree because I know that Linux has great potential, and that my university uses servers running Linux.

I want to point out that Timberwolf just claimed that humans interact better with text than visual cues, but in point of fact humans rely mostly on facial expressions, gestures, and other audio/visual cues to interact with one another. With today's graphics cards coming closer to rendering more robust GUIs (the way Aero uses vectors as opposed to the raster desktop), advances in visual communication between the human and computer are becoming more intuitive and efficiently designed. Better processors allow for more advanced speech recognition, something now integrated into Office 2007. Microsoft is essentially gearing their new OS, Vista, towards communicating with users in a new way; audio/visual communication rather than the old text-based communication. That's why I'm calling the command line archaic, because it IS. In the future we will see operating systems that obey voice commands and allow you to compile documents using vocal dictation and commands, not old interaction mediums such as the command line.

 

My limited understanding of the gestures and cues used between people is that they are about social interaction, the mind boggles at just what level of interfacing you are hoping to achieve with your computer.

 

Thanks for a long reply. My whole point is that you SHOULDNT have to maintain anything if its for the average user. My Ubuntu box hasn't ever needed scandiscs or defrags, and it doesn't consume all the virtual memory. It doesn't need to be restarted every day. Think about it. That's progress.

Another way to look at it - I just finished waxing my new car. Most people don't wax their cars. Just because they don't doesn't mean that their cars won't start. Microsoft makes product that need constant attention. Most normal people (who are not computer obsessed like I am) should NOT have to wax their cars if they don't want it to look showroom perfect. You get my point.

Respectfully disagreeing. Command line is BOSS for a number of reasons. It allows quick access to alterations. It allows you to repair the GUI in case of failure. IT allows for a whole slew of great things that would take too long to enumerate here. I don't think command line will, or should, ever go away.

 

I'll get to other comments later ....too much to write.

But basically my MAIN reason for using Linux is for ........

The quickest Websurfing via Firefox. I never seen any quicker on any OS using any other browser.

No real worries about Virus & Spy/Adware.

More Mulitimedia friendly IMO.

Keeps my Notebook cooler.

Quicker Shutdown time. I sure wish startup time was quicker tho.

 

Glad to hear Linux is working out for you. IF you want to improve your startup time (in (K)Ubuntu/Debian) you can use BUM (Boot-Up-Manger)...that's a simple way to do it without causing serious problems. You can do it via command line as well, and that's more powerful.

 

Should I copy and paste that big 3rd paragraph I typed in my last post?

 

I think there is good BSD addition since the release of PCBSD 1.3 and DesktopBSD which based on FreeBSD OS, they are ready Desktop OS with single CD instead of many cds to install it.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=99703

 

BSD does seem like a nice OS, though when I tried it there were some Xorg issues that I could not get fixed. It develops slightly sower than does Linux but supposedly that translates into a more Stable Distrobution.

 

You are right, that was a problem, because they were limited with man power, now this has been changed, they are going to release Xorg 7.2 into the ports this week or so.

Things got much much better, BSD is about quality over quantity, please try the latest DesktopBSD 1.6-RC1, I'm sure you'll like it