Ubuntu 8.04 - First Impressions [modified]
-
Before you read this, be it known that I WANT Linux to work. I don't install stuff just to ridicule it. I do it because I think it might be usable. So, this isn't a rip on Ubuntu as much as it is the "Linux Experience". Short version - another not-ready-for-primetime desktop Long Version - Keep in mind that these are first impressions after installing on a clean hard drive, and only "dealing" with it for about an hour. Each time I install a new version of Ubuntu (this is my 5th or 6th new version), I start with a clean hard drive and high expectations. Once again, I am left feeling just a little annoyed at the whole thing. I just want to install the OS and start working. I'm not interested in tweaking or adjusting - I just want to move on with my life and ignore the underlying OS. With ANY linux distro you might happen to mention, this is simply not a realistic expectation. I'm a Windows user. I like the way Windows "just works", and even if this sounds unreasonable, I expect Linux to be able to give me a similar experience. I have a fairly powerful system with a AMD Opteron 185, 22gb RAM, a nVidia 8800GTX video card, and a Creative Audigy sound card. I'm also using a dual-monitor setup comprised of a Samsung 225 22-inch width-screen (1620x1080), and a Viewsonic VP912 19-inch (1280x1024). This is all pretty standard stuff nowadays and shouldn't be a surprise to any OS. However, Ubuntu 8.04 begs to differ. 1) Ubuntu seems to know about my sound card (the volume control applet is in the system tray), but I've yet to hear any sound come from the speakers. I've got the volume turned all the way up, and still nothing. This has happened with EVERY version of the OS. Why haven't they fixed this yet? It seems they're using something called "pulse audio". I don't know what this is, and I don't really care - I just want my freakin sound card to work. As yet, I haven't found a resolution because the Ubuntu forums are about as organized as a one-man rock fight. I'm sure it will involve command line gyrations - this is VERY anti-new-user. Joe-Q-Sixpack will NOT like this. *I* don't like it. 2) When the OS first installs on a dual-monitor system, it clones the display so that all displays attached to the system show the same thing. The resolution defaults to the highest resolution achievable by the lowest resolution monitor. In my case, both monitors were set to 1280x1024. If you cut the OS a little slack, I suppose you could call this approach completely understandable. However, Li
-
Before you read this, be it known that I WANT Linux to work. I don't install stuff just to ridicule it. I do it because I think it might be usable. So, this isn't a rip on Ubuntu as much as it is the "Linux Experience". Short version - another not-ready-for-primetime desktop Long Version - Keep in mind that these are first impressions after installing on a clean hard drive, and only "dealing" with it for about an hour. Each time I install a new version of Ubuntu (this is my 5th or 6th new version), I start with a clean hard drive and high expectations. Once again, I am left feeling just a little annoyed at the whole thing. I just want to install the OS and start working. I'm not interested in tweaking or adjusting - I just want to move on with my life and ignore the underlying OS. With ANY linux distro you might happen to mention, this is simply not a realistic expectation. I'm a Windows user. I like the way Windows "just works", and even if this sounds unreasonable, I expect Linux to be able to give me a similar experience. I have a fairly powerful system with a AMD Opteron 185, 22gb RAM, a nVidia 8800GTX video card, and a Creative Audigy sound card. I'm also using a dual-monitor setup comprised of a Samsung 225 22-inch width-screen (1620x1080), and a Viewsonic VP912 19-inch (1280x1024). This is all pretty standard stuff nowadays and shouldn't be a surprise to any OS. However, Ubuntu 8.04 begs to differ. 1) Ubuntu seems to know about my sound card (the volume control applet is in the system tray), but I've yet to hear any sound come from the speakers. I've got the volume turned all the way up, and still nothing. This has happened with EVERY version of the OS. Why haven't they fixed this yet? It seems they're using something called "pulse audio". I don't know what this is, and I don't really care - I just want my freakin sound card to work. As yet, I haven't found a resolution because the Ubuntu forums are about as organized as a one-man rock fight. I'm sure it will involve command line gyrations - this is VERY anti-new-user. Joe-Q-Sixpack will NOT like this. *I* don't like it. 2) When the OS first installs on a dual-monitor system, it clones the display so that all displays attached to the system show the same thing. The resolution defaults to the highest resolution achievable by the lowest resolution monitor. In my case, both monitors were set to 1280x1024. If you cut the OS a little slack, I suppose you could call this approach completely understandable. However, Li
Sums up why Linux will never be ready for the masses, merely for [some] techies. The masses (and most techies) looking for an alternative are likely to go for a Mac, as several CPians seem to have done recently.
Kevin
-
Sums up why Linux will never be ready for the masses, merely for [some] techies. The masses (and most techies) looking for an alternative are likely to go for a Mac, as several CPians seem to have done recently.
Kevin
I refuse to buy yet more hardware just to run an alternative OS. Without having Windows in a VM (or a dual-boot machine, you still can't develop .Net apps under OS/X or Linux. This makes it completely pointless for a Windows developer to have anything but Windows.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I refuse to buy yet more hardware just to run an alternative OS. Without having Windows in a VM (or a dual-boot machine, you still can't develop .Net apps under OS/X or Linux. This makes it completely pointless for a Windows developer to have anything but Windows.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
This makes it completely pointless for a Windows developer to have anything but Windows.
I agree. But if you aren't a Windows developer and want something else it's likely a better bet than opting for Linux (if you have the cash to spare). Or, if you're just an end-user rather than a developer. BTW, if you are a Windows developer why are you even bothering with Linux?
Kevin
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
This makes it completely pointless for a Windows developer to have anything but Windows.
I agree. But if you aren't a Windows developer and want something else it's likely a better bet than opting for Linux (if you have the cash to spare). Or, if you're just an end-user rather than a developer. BTW, if you are a Windows developer why are you even bothering with Linux?
Kevin
Well, I'm hoping that Wine eventually gets to the point that I can run VS200x without needing Windows to do so. If that ever happens, I can ditch Windows altogether as a day-to-day OS.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Before you read this, be it known that I WANT Linux to work. I don't install stuff just to ridicule it. I do it because I think it might be usable. So, this isn't a rip on Ubuntu as much as it is the "Linux Experience". Short version - another not-ready-for-primetime desktop Long Version - Keep in mind that these are first impressions after installing on a clean hard drive, and only "dealing" with it for about an hour. Each time I install a new version of Ubuntu (this is my 5th or 6th new version), I start with a clean hard drive and high expectations. Once again, I am left feeling just a little annoyed at the whole thing. I just want to install the OS and start working. I'm not interested in tweaking or adjusting - I just want to move on with my life and ignore the underlying OS. With ANY linux distro you might happen to mention, this is simply not a realistic expectation. I'm a Windows user. I like the way Windows "just works", and even if this sounds unreasonable, I expect Linux to be able to give me a similar experience. I have a fairly powerful system with a AMD Opteron 185, 22gb RAM, a nVidia 8800GTX video card, and a Creative Audigy sound card. I'm also using a dual-monitor setup comprised of a Samsung 225 22-inch width-screen (1620x1080), and a Viewsonic VP912 19-inch (1280x1024). This is all pretty standard stuff nowadays and shouldn't be a surprise to any OS. However, Ubuntu 8.04 begs to differ. 1) Ubuntu seems to know about my sound card (the volume control applet is in the system tray), but I've yet to hear any sound come from the speakers. I've got the volume turned all the way up, and still nothing. This has happened with EVERY version of the OS. Why haven't they fixed this yet? It seems they're using something called "pulse audio". I don't know what this is, and I don't really care - I just want my freakin sound card to work. As yet, I haven't found a resolution because the Ubuntu forums are about as organized as a one-man rock fight. I'm sure it will involve command line gyrations - this is VERY anti-new-user. Joe-Q-Sixpack will NOT like this. *I* don't like it. 2) When the OS first installs on a dual-monitor system, it clones the display so that all displays attached to the system show the same thing. The resolution defaults to the highest resolution achievable by the lowest resolution monitor. In my case, both monitors were set to 1280x1024. If you cut the OS a little slack, I suppose you could call this approach completely understandable. However, Li
-
Sums up why Linux will never be ready for the masses, merely for [some] techies. The masses (and most techies) looking for an alternative are likely to go for a Mac, as several CPians seem to have done recently.
Kevin
It is a "chicken-egg story" with Linux. Many manufacturers do not create drivers for Linux because of its low acceptance in the retail market; it is tough to have a good acceptance until devices are supported well. The slightest hiccup with Vista in this regard was not taken well by users. If you are deploying a server, you can always choose supported hardware. There is also no need to get wireless, sound, multiple monitors, and media codecs -- the stuff that Linux finds tough.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Sums up why Linux will never be ready for the masses, merely for [some] techies.
Even though I find Linux on the desktop quite distant, I will not say never. Got to be optimistic, right? :)
-
Before you read this, be it known that I WANT Linux to work. I don't install stuff just to ridicule it. I do it because I think it might be usable. So, this isn't a rip on Ubuntu as much as it is the "Linux Experience". Short version - another not-ready-for-primetime desktop Long Version - Keep in mind that these are first impressions after installing on a clean hard drive, and only "dealing" with it for about an hour. Each time I install a new version of Ubuntu (this is my 5th or 6th new version), I start with a clean hard drive and high expectations. Once again, I am left feeling just a little annoyed at the whole thing. I just want to install the OS and start working. I'm not interested in tweaking or adjusting - I just want to move on with my life and ignore the underlying OS. With ANY linux distro you might happen to mention, this is simply not a realistic expectation. I'm a Windows user. I like the way Windows "just works", and even if this sounds unreasonable, I expect Linux to be able to give me a similar experience. I have a fairly powerful system with a AMD Opteron 185, 22gb RAM, a nVidia 8800GTX video card, and a Creative Audigy sound card. I'm also using a dual-monitor setup comprised of a Samsung 225 22-inch width-screen (1620x1080), and a Viewsonic VP912 19-inch (1280x1024). This is all pretty standard stuff nowadays and shouldn't be a surprise to any OS. However, Ubuntu 8.04 begs to differ. 1) Ubuntu seems to know about my sound card (the volume control applet is in the system tray), but I've yet to hear any sound come from the speakers. I've got the volume turned all the way up, and still nothing. This has happened with EVERY version of the OS. Why haven't they fixed this yet? It seems they're using something called "pulse audio". I don't know what this is, and I don't really care - I just want my freakin sound card to work. As yet, I haven't found a resolution because the Ubuntu forums are about as organized as a one-man rock fight. I'm sure it will involve command line gyrations - this is VERY anti-new-user. Joe-Q-Sixpack will NOT like this. *I* don't like it. 2) When the OS first installs on a dual-monitor system, it clones the display so that all displays attached to the system show the same thing. The resolution defaults to the highest resolution achievable by the lowest resolution monitor. In my case, both monitors were set to 1280x1024. If you cut the OS a little slack, I suppose you could call this approach completely understandable. However, Li
After a HD crash (~6 months ago) I needed to re-install an OS on my 3 year old Dell. After many of the same Linux "trials" that John mentioned I decided to make a serious effort on Ubuntu 7.10. A few days ago I updated to 8.04. Here is my opinion so far. Short version - 98% of everything I need works just fine. About the same percent as Windows, but a different 2% is missing. Longer version - I need to go to the terminal WAY less in Ubuntu 7.10 and 8.04 than any previous Linux I've ever tried. I REALLY like that Ubuntu picks a single "best of breed" for each application type instead of giving me 13 different text editors and 8 different media players and such like most other distros. My hardware is middle of the road at best. 2.8Ghz Intel Pentium 4, 2Gb RAM, embedded Intel graphics, sound and ethernet with a single 20" Dell LCD display. I'll address each of Johns problems in order. 1) Sound just works. It has since the initial install w/o any tweaking. No idea why John's system has issues. 2) NA - I have a single display 3) Linux is not Windows. I promise you that Microsoft makes no effort to mimic Linux or Mac keystrokes. That being said, Ubuntu uses Gnome desktop. I've heard that KDE (Kubuntu) is a bit more "Windows-esque" so maybe thats an option. 4) I enabled the Ubuntu "Restricted" and "Multiverse" repositories in "Software Sources" and installed all my codecs and a few proprietary apps (Flash, Shockwave, Sun Java, etc...) with a few clicks. 5 & 6) Fonts can be a PITA. Luckily I found simple instructions online for adding all the Microsoft truetype fonts including the new Office 2007 ones. Currently my fonts (even in FF) look as good as anything I've seen from Windows XP. 7) Wine is crap. However, If I needed to run Windows apps I'd be running Windows. My biggest headache with Ubuntu was getting my networked Brother MFC 640CW printer/scanner to work. Poor documentation, lots of terminal commands and config file tweaking. I finally got it but it wasn't fun. On a side note, the Windows driver installation for this printer is no picnic either but my wife's MacBook Pro found it and added drivers in a couple seconds. What is my missing 2% in Ubuntu? I have a fancy Sony remote for my home theater and the Sony programming software is Windows only. Wine failed miserably and I have yet to try virtualizing Windows under Linux. I have my doubts. I use Slysoft AnyDVD and CloneDVD to make back-ups of my DVD collection. I'm currently looking for Li
-
Before you read this, be it known that I WANT Linux to work. I don't install stuff just to ridicule it. I do it because I think it might be usable. So, this isn't a rip on Ubuntu as much as it is the "Linux Experience". Short version - another not-ready-for-primetime desktop Long Version - Keep in mind that these are first impressions after installing on a clean hard drive, and only "dealing" with it for about an hour. Each time I install a new version of Ubuntu (this is my 5th or 6th new version), I start with a clean hard drive and high expectations. Once again, I am left feeling just a little annoyed at the whole thing. I just want to install the OS and start working. I'm not interested in tweaking or adjusting - I just want to move on with my life and ignore the underlying OS. With ANY linux distro you might happen to mention, this is simply not a realistic expectation. I'm a Windows user. I like the way Windows "just works", and even if this sounds unreasonable, I expect Linux to be able to give me a similar experience. I have a fairly powerful system with a AMD Opteron 185, 22gb RAM, a nVidia 8800GTX video card, and a Creative Audigy sound card. I'm also using a dual-monitor setup comprised of a Samsung 225 22-inch width-screen (1620x1080), and a Viewsonic VP912 19-inch (1280x1024). This is all pretty standard stuff nowadays and shouldn't be a surprise to any OS. However, Ubuntu 8.04 begs to differ. 1) Ubuntu seems to know about my sound card (the volume control applet is in the system tray), but I've yet to hear any sound come from the speakers. I've got the volume turned all the way up, and still nothing. This has happened with EVERY version of the OS. Why haven't they fixed this yet? It seems they're using something called "pulse audio". I don't know what this is, and I don't really care - I just want my freakin sound card to work. As yet, I haven't found a resolution because the Ubuntu forums are about as organized as a one-man rock fight. I'm sure it will involve command line gyrations - this is VERY anti-new-user. Joe-Q-Sixpack will NOT like this. *I* don't like it. 2) When the OS first installs on a dual-monitor system, it clones the display so that all displays attached to the system show the same thing. The resolution defaults to the highest resolution achievable by the lowest resolution monitor. In my case, both monitors were set to 1280x1024. If you cut the OS a little slack, I suppose you could call this approach completely understandable. However, Li
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I haven't tried different fonts yet, but at this point, I'm not optimistic.
Yes What's up with that? I tried zillion different things and I cannot get it to work either. Is it because of FireFox Beta 5? Seems not because it works on from Mac FireFox 5.
Screenshot (160 KB) looks like this. Is it sam eon your machine?
-
It is a "chicken-egg story" with Linux. Many manufacturers do not create drivers for Linux because of its low acceptance in the retail market; it is tough to have a good acceptance until devices are supported well. The slightest hiccup with Vista in this regard was not taken well by users. If you are deploying a server, you can always choose supported hardware. There is also no need to get wireless, sound, multiple monitors, and media codecs -- the stuff that Linux finds tough.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Sums up why Linux will never be ready for the masses, merely for [some] techies.
Even though I find Linux on the desktop quite distant, I will not say never. Got to be optimistic, right? :)
Thomas George wrote:
t is a "chicken-egg story" with Linux. Many manufacturers do not create drivers for Linux because of its low acceptance in the retail market;
Actually that's only part of the story - some manufactures *do* provide drivers, but they don't provide source so the kernel and distro jack asses throw a fit and refuse to distribute the drivers leaving it up to the user to go find it. Both Nvidia and ATI fall under this category, and I imagine there's quite a few others as well. IMHO this attitude is a major barrier, what vendor wants to deal with people who act like 5 year olds?
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I haven't tried different fonts yet, but at this point, I'm not optimistic.
Yes What's up with that? I tried zillion different things and I cannot get it to work either. Is it because of FireFox Beta 5? Seems not because it works on from Mac FireFox 5.
Screenshot (160 KB) looks like this. Is it sam eon your machine?
It's because Linux uses free fonts, and their default fonts are set to weird-ass hippie fonts.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Is it sam eon your machine?
Nope. The font is really small - not unreadable small, just smaller than what I'm used to.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
-
After a HD crash (~6 months ago) I needed to re-install an OS on my 3 year old Dell. After many of the same Linux "trials" that John mentioned I decided to make a serious effort on Ubuntu 7.10. A few days ago I updated to 8.04. Here is my opinion so far. Short version - 98% of everything I need works just fine. About the same percent as Windows, but a different 2% is missing. Longer version - I need to go to the terminal WAY less in Ubuntu 7.10 and 8.04 than any previous Linux I've ever tried. I REALLY like that Ubuntu picks a single "best of breed" for each application type instead of giving me 13 different text editors and 8 different media players and such like most other distros. My hardware is middle of the road at best. 2.8Ghz Intel Pentium 4, 2Gb RAM, embedded Intel graphics, sound and ethernet with a single 20" Dell LCD display. I'll address each of Johns problems in order. 1) Sound just works. It has since the initial install w/o any tweaking. No idea why John's system has issues. 2) NA - I have a single display 3) Linux is not Windows. I promise you that Microsoft makes no effort to mimic Linux or Mac keystrokes. That being said, Ubuntu uses Gnome desktop. I've heard that KDE (Kubuntu) is a bit more "Windows-esque" so maybe thats an option. 4) I enabled the Ubuntu "Restricted" and "Multiverse" repositories in "Software Sources" and installed all my codecs and a few proprietary apps (Flash, Shockwave, Sun Java, etc...) with a few clicks. 5 & 6) Fonts can be a PITA. Luckily I found simple instructions online for adding all the Microsoft truetype fonts including the new Office 2007 ones. Currently my fonts (even in FF) look as good as anything I've seen from Windows XP. 7) Wine is crap. However, If I needed to run Windows apps I'd be running Windows. My biggest headache with Ubuntu was getting my networked Brother MFC 640CW printer/scanner to work. Poor documentation, lots of terminal commands and config file tweaking. I finally got it but it wasn't fun. On a side note, the Windows driver installation for this printer is no picnic either but my wife's MacBook Pro found it and added drivers in a couple seconds. What is my missing 2% in Ubuntu? I have a fancy Sony remote for my home theater and the Sony programming software is Windows only. Wine failed miserably and I have yet to try virtualizing Windows under Linux. I have my doubts. I use Slysoft AnyDVD and CloneDVD to make back-ups of my DVD collection. I'm currently looking for Li
You're coming at it from a completely different perspective. You've been using it for months. I'm coming at it from the perspective of a Windows user looking to see what Linux is all about. Unfortunately, Linux is all about the command line, and is still rife with problems that prevent it from taking hold as a desktop OS. My sound issues are all too common. My display issues are WAY too common. The fact that I have to go to the command line to fix things is a BIG put-off (yes, even for me). We haven't even started talking about drivers or printing yet. I'm glad that Ubuntu no longer gives you a dozen different programs that all do the same thing (in fact, that's a big relief). A big step towards usability would be an icon on the initial desktop that installed the codecs/fonts/minutia that it seems that EVERYBODY needs/wants. I spent over an hour installing crap, and while I now have fonts/codecs, I still have no sound, and my second monitor is useless. Finally, I never said that Linux was Windows. I simply think that they need to give a nod towards Windows functionality that everyone is used to (talking about editing hot keys).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
It's because Linux uses free fonts, and their default fonts are set to weird-ass hippie fonts.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Is it sam eon your machine?
Nope. The font is really small - not unreadable small, just smaller than what I'm used to.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Ubuntu-804-Is-Ready-to-Take-On-Windows/?kc=EWKNLBOE050308STR1[^] Fascinating this should arrive in my email box :). I think I'm going to have to start playing a little more with Linux.
Charlie Gilley Will program for food...
-
Before you read this, be it known that I WANT Linux to work. I don't install stuff just to ridicule it. I do it because I think it might be usable. So, this isn't a rip on Ubuntu as much as it is the "Linux Experience". Short version - another not-ready-for-primetime desktop Long Version - Keep in mind that these are first impressions after installing on a clean hard drive, and only "dealing" with it for about an hour. Each time I install a new version of Ubuntu (this is my 5th or 6th new version), I start with a clean hard drive and high expectations. Once again, I am left feeling just a little annoyed at the whole thing. I just want to install the OS and start working. I'm not interested in tweaking or adjusting - I just want to move on with my life and ignore the underlying OS. With ANY linux distro you might happen to mention, this is simply not a realistic expectation. I'm a Windows user. I like the way Windows "just works", and even if this sounds unreasonable, I expect Linux to be able to give me a similar experience. I have a fairly powerful system with a AMD Opteron 185, 22gb RAM, a nVidia 8800GTX video card, and a Creative Audigy sound card. I'm also using a dual-monitor setup comprised of a Samsung 225 22-inch width-screen (1620x1080), and a Viewsonic VP912 19-inch (1280x1024). This is all pretty standard stuff nowadays and shouldn't be a surprise to any OS. However, Ubuntu 8.04 begs to differ. 1) Ubuntu seems to know about my sound card (the volume control applet is in the system tray), but I've yet to hear any sound come from the speakers. I've got the volume turned all the way up, and still nothing. This has happened with EVERY version of the OS. Why haven't they fixed this yet? It seems they're using something called "pulse audio". I don't know what this is, and I don't really care - I just want my freakin sound card to work. As yet, I haven't found a resolution because the Ubuntu forums are about as organized as a one-man rock fight. I'm sure it will involve command line gyrations - this is VERY anti-new-user. Joe-Q-Sixpack will NOT like this. *I* don't like it. 2) When the OS first installs on a dual-monitor system, it clones the display so that all displays attached to the system show the same thing. The resolution defaults to the highest resolution achievable by the lowest resolution monitor. In my case, both monitors were set to 1280x1024. If you cut the OS a little slack, I suppose you could call this approach completely understandable. However, Li
Can't say I disagree with you much, except for codec support. There are plethora of video/audio codecs and containers and they are constantly changing. So if you want to make sure you computer can play everything you have to install multiple codecs, no matter if you run linux of windows. It's a little easier now because two projects ffdshow and haali can handle majority of video and audio codecs/containers now, but couple of years ago you had to intstall haali to split mkv stream, ffdshow to decode xvid/divx video, ogm splitter, ogg audio decoder, ac3 filter to decode ac3 streams, CoreAAC decoder to decode aac audio, vobsub/vsfilter to show software subs. Hope I'm not forgetting anything. Plus couple of years ago ffdshow had poor x264 performance so you had to install CoreAVC to decode high def video. And I'm not even mentioning quicktime/realtime videos that need their own codecs to decode if you don't want to use apple/realtime shit for apps. With the speed audio and video codecs and containers are evolving it's a little unrealistic to expect any OS to support everything out of the box.
-
Before you read this, be it known that I WANT Linux to work. I don't install stuff just to ridicule it. I do it because I think it might be usable. So, this isn't a rip on Ubuntu as much as it is the "Linux Experience". Short version - another not-ready-for-primetime desktop Long Version - Keep in mind that these are first impressions after installing on a clean hard drive, and only "dealing" with it for about an hour. Each time I install a new version of Ubuntu (this is my 5th or 6th new version), I start with a clean hard drive and high expectations. Once again, I am left feeling just a little annoyed at the whole thing. I just want to install the OS and start working. I'm not interested in tweaking or adjusting - I just want to move on with my life and ignore the underlying OS. With ANY linux distro you might happen to mention, this is simply not a realistic expectation. I'm a Windows user. I like the way Windows "just works", and even if this sounds unreasonable, I expect Linux to be able to give me a similar experience. I have a fairly powerful system with a AMD Opteron 185, 22gb RAM, a nVidia 8800GTX video card, and a Creative Audigy sound card. I'm also using a dual-monitor setup comprised of a Samsung 225 22-inch width-screen (1620x1080), and a Viewsonic VP912 19-inch (1280x1024). This is all pretty standard stuff nowadays and shouldn't be a surprise to any OS. However, Ubuntu 8.04 begs to differ. 1) Ubuntu seems to know about my sound card (the volume control applet is in the system tray), but I've yet to hear any sound come from the speakers. I've got the volume turned all the way up, and still nothing. This has happened with EVERY version of the OS. Why haven't they fixed this yet? It seems they're using something called "pulse audio". I don't know what this is, and I don't really care - I just want my freakin sound card to work. As yet, I haven't found a resolution because the Ubuntu forums are about as organized as a one-man rock fight. I'm sure it will involve command line gyrations - this is VERY anti-new-user. Joe-Q-Sixpack will NOT like this. *I* don't like it. 2) When the OS first installs on a dual-monitor system, it clones the display so that all displays attached to the system show the same thing. The resolution defaults to the highest resolution achievable by the lowest resolution monitor. In my case, both monitors were set to 1280x1024. If you cut the OS a little slack, I suppose you could call this approach completely understandable. However, Li
-
You're coming at it from a completely different perspective. You've been using it for months. I'm coming at it from the perspective of a Windows user looking to see what Linux is all about. Unfortunately, Linux is all about the command line, and is still rife with problems that prevent it from taking hold as a desktop OS. My sound issues are all too common. My display issues are WAY too common. The fact that I have to go to the command line to fix things is a BIG put-off (yes, even for me). We haven't even started talking about drivers or printing yet. I'm glad that Ubuntu no longer gives you a dozen different programs that all do the same thing (in fact, that's a big relief). A big step towards usability would be an icon on the initial desktop that installed the codecs/fonts/minutia that it seems that EVERYBODY needs/wants. I spent over an hour installing crap, and while I now have fonts/codecs, I still have no sound, and my second monitor is useless. Finally, I never said that Linux was Windows. I simply think that they need to give a nod towards Windows functionality that everyone is used to (talking about editing hot keys).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Unfortunately, Linux is all about the command line, and is still rife with problems that prevent it from taking hold as a desktop OS. My sound issues are all too common. My display issues are WAY too common.
I'm sure there were/are 10's of thousands of people who have experienced sound and display problems with Windows XP & Vista. Look at any support forum. Your experiences (while not fun for you) are not indicative of Ubuntu (Linux) as a whole.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The fact that I have to go to the command line to fix things is a BIG put-off
Agreed
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
A big step towards usability would be an icon on the initial desktop that installed the codecs/fonts/minutia that it seems that EVERYBODY needs/wants. I spent over an hour installing crap
I disagree. I despise most Dell, HP, Sony PCs precisely because they come pre-installed with crapware. I prefer to install that kind of stuff myself.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
We haven't even started talking about drivers or printing yet.
While the average user (justifiably) is only interested in results - I actually give the Linux folks a huge amount of credit despite the lingering problems with drivers. They get virtually no support from the peripheral industry.
