IBM & Ubuntu
It is a good change I agree, that IBM is working with a distro that has worked hard over the past five years to produce what is a winner in my opinion. The Ubuntu 9.10, will be in the right place at the right time when the Windows 7(R) fallout hits and more will want to jump ship ...again !. I can say some are looking at Ubuntu over Mac, cost being one reason, the other reason is the hardware selection Linux offers. Ubuntu has done very good work on its server and desktop offerings to take advantage of that hardware selection for users, that should make Ubuntu shine over Windows 7(R) and Mac ...just my opinion.

Yes, it does take as long as a year to put such an endeavor together. There is more involved than just saying, "This is what we're going to do." They have to prepare software, platforms, concepts, marketing strategies, etc.

Where I see the weakness in Linux is its catering to the business area. That's where it's always fallen short. The core group that pushes computers to the next level has always been GAMERS. If Linux ever hopes to stand any chance as a competitor to Micro$oft... it needs to be centralized in concept (a core version rather than a dozen straggler versions)-- and it needs to start trying to get the major game companies to support Linux.

Contrary to popular thought, it is not business that fuels the computer industry. It is the home user. Linux works fine for most business applications. If it ever hopes to go beyond that... it needs to look at the home / hobbyist / game user.

Interesting read, but i think that any organization that is on a 3 year hardware replacement plan should have no issues. even if they are on a 4 or 5 year plan, y the time they get to the point of the older desktops, they should be ready for replacement anyway, at which point its a justifiable expense. The big microsoft (and even the medium sized ones) will not be swayed easily as most of them value the intigration that properly deployed microsoft services offer, and they are either too lazy or dont have the time to investigate other offerings. when you tie exchange 2007, office sharepoint server and active directory together, its a very appealing package. then you throw in options for groove server and office communication services and the appeal continues to climb for many larger customers. besides who wants to migrate 500+ users from Active Directory to LDAP. even assuming you keep your server infrastructure, how do you make your ubuntu desktops observe compliance policies from your windows GP?

Heh, Ubuntu with an XP VM that supports 3D acceleration, best of all worlds... Cheap, recent PC games, but a productive environment otherwise..

@Wayfinder

"a core version rather than a dozen straggler versions"

Of those you mention as straggler, they don't make it far with serious Linux users. The kernel is the focus when talking about Linux, not a boxed OS. A kernel as you well know, is what all distros have in common, the rest is a matter of those willing to do the work to make a distro someone would use. A "core version" has no meaning, as Linux is only a kernel first, and in fact there is only one kernel source that all kernel versions are created from. The versions are numbers and with Linux this only means design paths they are taking. The fact is you can get a "core version", just select the best distro that works for you and go with it.

I wonder how much money (if any) from this will make it's way back to Canonical and Ubuntu?

Just take a look at MSFT Answers ... it's Vista all over again. Crashes-still the BSOD/Data Loss/Software incompatibility. And, as per the usual, MSFT's answer is either disable functionality, don't try to use that software, etc. Basically, they say 'we made this OS, it's up to you and everyone else to rewrite/redo/reorganize your lives to work around it'. And, btw, it's gonna cost you.
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx

Yes we need a core linux, a system that uses the most stable kernel, most stable libraries and most stable apps that are available at the time. Produce a distribution that will not change for 2 or 3 years or more except for patches to serious problems.
The applications should at least go 1 for 1 against Microsoft for functionally.
When a new version (after 2 or 3 years) is ready, it does not break what the users have built on the previous version. The upgrade is painless and a non event.
Users want to get work done, not administer and rebuild their systems.

The office applications for Ubuntu, are rather low grade compared to Office, especially the Lotus Smart Suite which I removed after one day of use.. Ubuntu can create new life to systems. but there needs to be more work on applications, especially a replacement for Visio and web site creator tool. I also agree that games should be part of the equation. However there is a disconnect. but it is catching up, and I think if a proper fire is made on development applications. maybe in 4 or 5 years, Linux can be the complete solution. Not before.

I've been using Linux in some variety for ten years now, but Ubuntu has really crossed a real usability threshold for me: I've found myself downloading windows utilities by accident, forgetting that I'm on Linux. It's not that I've made them look or behave identically, but that I get everything done exactly as smoothly now as I do in Windows, without a hitch in sight.

Of course if I had to use Outlook at home, then I might notice the difference. I certainly wouldn't be happy to be stuck with Notes, that's for sure.

Most computer users I come across don't really care what OS they use as long as it everything works. You have to admit that getting new peripherals to work 100% can be difficult at times. Now you want windows users that will return a camera, printer, mp3 player just because they didn't take the time to read the oversimplified instructions for windows and swear the device must be broken. I spend a weekend about once every 2 months "fixing" computers for friends and family who spend most of their free time using the things but can't be bothered to take the time to learn the most basic of routine system maintenance. No, until linux has more robust support from both hardware vendors and other average computer users linux will never be a good choice for home use.

RE: Edge's comments - as a 25+ yr MSFT IT Div Mgr who has used Symphony and Open Office for 5+ years, I have to say either you are so dedicated to MSFT that you can't give a fair eval OR you haven't actually installed and used either.

With respect to the contributor who suggested that "Linux works fine for most business applications," I must beg to differ in part. Yes, it's true that a great many applications for general business usage run on Linux (Open Office, web apps and such) there are myriad niche applications that are vital to the specific lines of business of many industries for which only Windows versions are available.
Another problem with some of these industry-specific niche apps is, once businesses have used one of them for several years, the cost of migrating data from one app to another is a business analytical task that is daunting in both technical and financial terms. This is a significant contributor to what I'd like to call application inertia and by extension platform inertia.
I am as much of a FLOSS advocate as anyone, but most of my clients have no alternative to Windows on the desktop. For now I advocate free software solutions where appropriate, but pragmatism in terms of client value has to trump ideology.
That being said, I applaud the IBM/Canonical effort in this article. It is wonderful to have such a venerable partner as IBM to add its weight and prestige to the move away from Redmond's hegemony. Kudos to IBM and Canonical for another step in the journey toward real and effective competition with the Microsoft juggernaut.

I agree that Linux needs a stable and "easy to install and upgrade" distribution, which should increase desktop usage. Good, professional games from EA and the like would also help considerably. The problems I see, however, are thus:

* IF EA or some other game company was to port a few of their top titles over to Linux, most of you would be flat-out disgusted because their offerings wouldn't be FOSS, or you'd bitch up a storm because they wanted $45.00 a piece for one of their games.

* You have to be a Linux geek to run the OS with any kind of familiarity. This is no problemo in the server world, where this is expected, of course, and it's also the reason why Linux has made inroads into this area. You'll also note that the vast majority of the large corporations supporting Linux have almost all of their interests -- if not ALL of their interests -- in the server world. AHEM!

* Common, top-notch graphics and sound-card manufacturers just aren't releasing their proprietary device drivers to the Linux community, and asking end users to go to web sites, download drivers, and install them is asking WAY too much of a common end user -- not going to happen. (I won't even bring up things such as end users being asked to scourer the web for "install at your own risk" codecs, such as mp3, just to have a somewhat usable PC.)

* Large numbers of individual programmers and small businesses making a decent living in Linux world just isn't happening, and until this hurdle is jumped and is common place, Linux is going to be right where it deserves to be: in its small-niche non-server markets, such as phones, embedded systems, and net books, and as a server on the back end, serving up things such as web pages an DBMS queries.

After 35 years in this industry, I think I can say this and sleep very, very well tonight: FOSS is a really nice thing when you're a poor student, grinding away, just trying make a B in Calc II and damn glad you got it and run; however, in the real world, folks have to put some meat on the table and pay bills, and until Linux is accepted by the normal, everyday end user, where they don't have to fuss and go overboard learning about their operating system, just to get a video to play decently, then Linux is going to be right where it deserves to be -- at the short end of the stick and buried in its geekified obscurity.

Interesting comments..

@ J green
the point MOGH was putting across is there is already a "core linux" and that is the current stable version of the linux kernel at this time. (ie think of it as the petrol internal combustion engine in a car)

distributions (ergo car manufacturers.. Toyota.. Ferrari and the like) can swing the "Operating System" anyway they like usually using other well known open source projects (GNOME, KDE etc). the more stable, complete, easiest and generally better ones become the most popular (just like certain car models!). At the present point in time there are a few (one could refer to these as "core") distributions that a quite popular. Suse\OpenSuse, Red Hat\Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu.

One thing that Ubuntu tries to strive towards (as the others do too) is having stable releases. These releases are stable at the present time of release and will have upgrades (important security updates and the like) for at least 2 years after release. there is a stable release every 2 years called a "long term release" this is supported for even longer and this should be regarded as the equivalent to say a Windows XP or the recent Windows 7 release. This is the stable release for the average person and will continue to be stable for a very long time.

There are also releases every 6 months which include some of the new things happening in open source etc but for the average person who isn't particularly interested in Operating Systems or upgrading every 6 months should just install the LTS version and carry on with life. In the Linux world you are never forced to upgrade to the latest version of anything.

the upgrade path you are suggesting (upgrade to the next stable version after 2 - 3 years) is perfectly possible with the current Ubuntu System (you just need to wait that long) and out of all the operating systems (Mac OS and Windows) Ubuntu (and most Linux distros) is the most likely to cause a trouble free in place "upgrade" (have you actually done an in place "upgrade" from say XP to Windows 7? I think it very unlikely all your apps and settings will work perfectly if at all possible)

I know many will say that they want the latest version of Firefox or OpenOffice or InsertAppHere etc in their LTS version just like they can do with Windows XP and although possible is not as easy as it is in Win XP understandably.

But, you can understand through that Ubuntu or other Linux Distro's cant just create an OS and expect application developers to port\develop\support there latest version to every version of the OS (as "genuine" windows can expect being 60% of the market) so to some extent Ubuntu must do that themselves but to most people version 3.0 of firefox aint going to hurt them (just as version 6.0 of internet explorer which I still see some places.. although that might hurt some people :) ).. it is still supported (security patches etc) by Mozilla so is still supported by Ubuntu.

So in conclusion if you want stability choose stability..

We have been using Linux (Ubuntu) in our business and at home for many years. We have a small office with a dozen computers. Linux works very well for us, we just could NOT afford the cost of Windows software. Our equipment is a bit outdated, but is more than adequate for Linux. For a small business, Ubuntu is excellent. Interestingly enough, once the staff got used to it many of them started using it at home as well! BT

This is a bit biased, because you don't really need to upgrade all the computers in order to deploy Windows 7. It seems actually lighter than Windows Vista.
As for security, no OS is immune to attacks. It's just that MS has been the preferred target due to its vast installed base. And, on the other hand, you could think of it as being actually more secure because all eyes are on it.

We've being running our business on nearly 100% free software for 10 years very happily. There are excellent options for all categories of software, including accounting. The only proprietary apps we run:
1. a NZ-specific payroll application to meet compliance requirements (no usable FOSS alternative available) - the Windows version runs happily on Wine (and the app vendor has set up a page for Linux users, pointing them towards us as a commercial support provider)
2. a couple copies of MS Windows XP *soley* for testing the Drupal (GPL'd) software we develop on crap Microsoft-only browsers, i.e. IE :) of various versions. We run these exclusively as virtual machines on Linux, and only run them occasionally when testing/debugging is required for these unfortunate pieces of software (we test on Mac OS X Safari using a colleagues apple laptop).
3. Opera and Chrome (on Linux) as alternative browsers to test our web applications.

We use Ubuntu Linux (9.10 on the desk/laptop, 8.04.3 on the server) - we love it, and enjoy the benefit of being able to apply the same skills/lore on both platforms. We use OpenOffice, Drupal, Inkscape, the Gimp, Scribus, Planner, Thunderbird/Evolution, Firefox, etc. I wonder how much we've saved in a) license fees over the years, and b) grey hairs due to total lack of virus/trojan/spyware issues.

Needless to say, we're sure that Ubuntu Linux is ready for business. We've been doing it for years.

I work at IBM and have been using a Ubuntu Desktop at work for about a year.
I started with Ubuntu 8.04 64-bit and have migrated to Ubuntu 9.04 32-bit. (Issues with Lotus Notes in 64-bit at the time with 9.04)

I am running this PC Thinkpad T61 3Gb RAM with no major issues.
I use Lotus Notes and Open Office and everything that needs windows I use vmware player to run a copy of windows XP.

Everything works fine. There are a few headaches with some documents and some websites that still require IE but for most of my work the only time I use the Windows VM image is for our customer VPN access.

For any IBM internal sites that do not open in Firefox we can raise bugs against the site.

People within IBM are steadily improving the packages every week to ensure compatibility of applications and they have already been testing Ubuntu 9.10.

This setup is improving to the point where you can just clean install Ubuntu and run a simple script and everything is downloaded and installed on your PC to the point that its almost ready for every user with the base IBM packages for any IBM employee.

Not sure if I am able to talk about the other innovations.

Such a joy to work for IBM with this level of freedom.

If you look at the big picture, I'm pretty sure that opensource is going to conquer the desktop in the end after-all. Though its hard to break Microsoft monopoly on games, it's not impossible.

Take a look at Sony's PS3 for example. It's obvious that we don't need Microsoft Directx environment to deliver a great game experience. Someday, Sony or another company will opensource its gaming platform, and Linux will be set.

Linux is a great platform and ubuntu is one of the best stepping stones from windows to linux. But it does not fit seemlessly into a pre-existing windows based network.

It will be a massive effort for all but the smallest of companies to change over, there are still people out there running windows 95.

Unless changing to a cloud based system and only need desktops to get on to the cloud, mid to large companys will stick to windows.

Does anyone trust IBM to be the one to get every one on linux?

I'm sitting here very happily on Ubuntu 9.10 beta and love it! I hope that at some point they also embrace the slightly later releases of the fantastic KDE desktop! :)

Well, I'd love to go MS-free, and 7 looks like it keeps all the UI crap I hate about Vista (even if it works this time, I'm not a fan of gooshy interface...yeah I'm strange I know).

But! The thing is, as ever, software support. Things like word processing and spreadsheeting and databasing are increasingly platform-independent, but professional softwares just aren't. In my case, it's SAS and SPSS, but the situation is similar for folks in other fields. I am literally stuck with Windows, until (a) those guys come out with Linux versions (which it makes not sense why SAS hasn't yet, given its UNIX base); or (b) R develops more fully.

It'd be really nice if they'd support schools with this. Get the students who are most likely to "cause problems" with "hacking" to act as junior sysadmins and network admins to give them some real experience.

have any of you used ubuntu before?

a stable core linux is the LTS release, meaning it will be supported for 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on servers. linux is so stable that i have servers i set up and literally forgotten about them. 8.4 was an LTS, 9.10 will be as well. LTS versions are long term commitments to support and consistency. sure, a new version of ubuntu comes out every 6 months, but LTS releases stay supported for many years with security updates and the like.

also, have any of you done tech support before?

end users don't troubleshoot anything. they don't rebuild anything. they call someone to do that for them. their PC comes with windows installed already, either by the IT department in the workplace, or by the vendor at home. when something goes wrong, they call someone to fix it, again, either the IT department in the workplace, or the vendor, a friend/family member, or a third party like the geeksquad at home.

the problem isn't that end users can't use linux. that's no differnent that not knowing how to use windows. the problem is that the IT departments/friends/geeksquads of the world don't want to learn how to support linux.

@Randall Jouett:

You're wrong, dead wrong, on so many levels.

Not all Linux users aren't Stallmanesque FOSS zealots. We voted with our pocketbooks to support games like Penumbra and World of Goo that were ported specifically to Linux.

Nvidia and ATI do have rather good drivers for their best offerings, I can assure you. Every last bleeding edge feature may not be activated in the Linux version, but they are nonetheless quite capable. In most cases, those drivers are installed automatically under friendly distributions such as K/Ubuntu, the worst-case scenario is that the user just has to click on a button (most don't seem to bother with the confusing button anymore because they realized that nothing particularly bad happens when the FOSS "be free or else" people throw tantrums).

Valve's Steam service (and assorted Windows games that aren't burdened by excessive DRM) run just fine under Wine. Valve's extremely popular Orange Box bundle (Half Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2) all run just fine. Valve has been talking for a while about porting Steam to Linux and hired people specifically to work on that goal last year.

Many developers do make good money in Linux. IBM isn't just running a charity, here. Linux development also is boosted by the efforts of companies like Google. A couple of up-and-coming developers such as 2D Boy and Frictional Games (the Penumbra series) found that they could compete in the Linux market and gain recognition in BOTH Linux and Windows worlds. Had they focused solely on developing for Windows, they likely would be just more nobodies fighting for scraps in that market.

Friendly Linux distributions such as K/Ubuntu and its derivatives like Mint simply don't require a resident geek anymore. They're more trouble-free to novice users than Windows because they don't scare users with malware and most common applications come pre-installed. Wireless just works in most cases, which is more than I can say for wireless networking under Windows Vista.

Your objections are outdated and such protests are becoming more pathetic by the day. If you had made an honest effort to install a modern Linux OS and to do things with it recently, you'd know this. People are more and more starting to see through the fear, uncertainty, and doubt you and other ignorant Microsoft shills are attempting to spread. The fact that you posted that drivel aptly demonstrates that you --aren't-- sleeping well. You know the threat is looming.

Applications, applications, applications, applications...

Linux will never be serious competitor in the home or enterprise desktop market until it can clone the Windows API perfectly and run Windows applications. Working for a local city/municipal government, we just have too many funky, quirky little applications that all require Windows XP. They may not even run on 7 for long awhile. Everything from utility billing software to building permit software. It's all quirky and all built around XP.

Linux is great on the server side and great if the only thing one does on the desktop is write documents and spreadsheets. Until it can reliably run obscure software X from small vendor Y it will never happen. At least not until everything is web based apps, if that ever happens.

Using XP is only a band-aid, Microsoft will eventually drop ALL support and stop releasing patches. If anybody waits that long, they will be left scrambling to migrate to something else as quickly as possible to avoid getting hit with security breaches which at that point won't be fixed.

Hopefully business will wake up and realize that migrating away from Microsoft products will in fact save them a lot of time and money in the long run. Sure, any migration is a challenge, but it CAN be done.

Regarding Chris comments.
Ubuntu 9.10 is not an LTS version.
Ubuntu 10.04 will be an LTS version.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

We have migrated from development on Solaris
machines to Ubuntu HardyHeron Linux at this Financial company.
And people have come with their Windows laptop
and beg me to put Linux on it.

Yeah, Ubuntu is spreading.

Interesting comments..

@ J green
the point MOGH was putting across is there is already a "core linux" and that is the current stable version of the linux kernel at this time. (ie think of it as the petrol internal combustion engine in a car)

distributions (ergo car manufacturers.. Toyota.. Ferrari and the like) can swing the "Operating System" anyway they like usually using other well known open source projects (GNOME, KDE etc). the more stable, complete, easiest and generally better ones become the most popular (just like certain car models!). At the present point in time there are a few (one could refer to these as "core") distributions that a quite popular. Suse\OpenSuse, Red Hat\Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu.

One thing that Ubuntu tries to strive towards (as the others do too) is having stable releases. These releases are stable at the present time of release and will have upgrades (important security updates and the like) for at least 2 years after release. there is a stable release every 2 years called a "long term release" this is supported for even longer and this should be regarded as the equivalent to say a Windows XP or the recent Windows 7 release. This is the stable release for the average person and will continue to be stable for a very long time.

There are also releases every 6 months which include some of the new things happening in open source etc but for the average person who isn't particularly interested in Operating Systems or upgrading every 6 months should just install the LTS version and carry on with life. In the Linux world you are never forced to upgrade to the latest version of anything.

the upgrade path you are suggesting (upgrade to the next stable version after 2 - 3 years) is perfectly possible with the current Ubuntu System (you just need to wait that long) and out of all the operating systems (Mac OS and Windows) Ubuntu (and most Linux distros) is the most likely to cause a trouble free in place "upgrade" (have you actually done an in place "upgrade" from say XP to Windows 7? I think it very unlikely all your apps and settings will work perfectly if at all possible)

I know many will say that they want the latest version of Firefox or OpenOffice or InsertAppHere etc in their LTS version just like they can do with Windows XP and although possible is not as easy as it is in Win XP understandably.

But, you can understand through that Ubuntu or other Linux Distro's cant just create an OS and expect application developers to port\develop\support there latest version to every version of the OS (as "genuine" windows can expect being 60% of the market) so to some extent Ubuntu must do that themselves but to most people version 3.0 of firefox aint going to hurt them (just as version 6.0 of internet explorer which I still see some places.. although that might hurt some people :) ).. it is still supported (security patches etc) by Mozilla so is still supported by Ubuntu.

So in conclusion if you want stability choose stability..

Interesting comments..

@ J green
the point MOGH was putting across is there is already a "core linux" and that is the current stable version of the linux kernel at this time. (ie think of it as the petrol internal combustion engine in a car)

distributions (ergo car manufacturers.. Toyota.. Ferrari and the like) can swing the "Operating System" anyway they like usually using other well known open source projects (GNOME, KDE etc). the more stable, complete, easiest and generally better ones become the most popular (just like certain car models!). At the present point in time there are a few (one could refer to these as "core") distributions that a quite popular. Suse\OpenSuse, Red Hat\Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu.

One thing that Ubuntu tries to strive towards (as the others do too) is having stable releases. These releases are stable at the present time of release and will have upgrades (important security updates and the like) for at least 2 years after release. there is a stable release every 2 years called a "long term release" this is supported for even longer and this should be regarded as the equivalent to say a Windows XP or the recent Windows 7 release. This is the stable release for the average person and will continue to be stable for a very long time.

There are also releases every 6 months which include some of the new things happening in open source etc but for the average person who isn't particularly interested in Operating Systems or upgrading every 6 months should just install the LTS version and carry on with life. In the Linux world you are never forced to upgrade to the latest version of anything.

the upgrade path you are suggesting (upgrade to the next stable version after 2 - 3 years) is perfectly possible with the current Ubuntu System (you just need to wait that long) and out of all the operating systems (Mac OS and Windows) Ubuntu (and most Linux distros) is the most likely to cause a trouble free in place "upgrade" (have you actually done an in place "upgrade" from say XP to Windows 7? I think it very unlikely all your apps and settings will work perfectly if at all possible)

I know many will say that they want the latest version of Firefox or OpenOffice or InsertAppHere etc in their LTS version just like they can do with Windows XP and although possible is not as easy as it is in Win XP understandably.

But, you can understand through that Ubuntu or other Linux Distro's cant just create an OS and expect application developers to port\develop\support there latest version to every version of the OS (as "genuine" windows can expect being 60% of the market) so to some extent Ubuntu must do that themselves but to most people version 3.0 of firefox aint going to hurt them (just as version 6.0 of internet explorer which I still see some places.. although that might hurt some people :) ).. it is still supported (security patches etc) by Mozilla so is still supported by Ubuntu.

So in conclusion if you want stability choose stability..

@Andrew Edmunds - that is a terrible idea. Linux is not windows and will never be windows. Run a VM with XP if you want windows, or just stay on that side of the fence. Making a windows clone is something that will never happen - it's like saying that all motorcycles must be retrofitted with four wheels and a steering wheel before they're useful.

Reading these comments, it is both shocking and sad that the public has so little clue as to what Linux is or even how an operating system works. I'm going to go back to bed now.

>>Making a windows clone is something that will never happen

Hmm.

ReactOS is a free, modern operating system based on the design of Windows XP/2003. Written completely from scratch...
The main goal of the ReactOS project is to provide an operating system which is binary compatible with Windows.

So Dimdoze 7 is here. I'll not be supporting any more criminals due to a product that has so many insecurities and also, will need a lot of attention to keep it propped up. Our department is staying with Ubuntu to save time, hassle, and money, also our help-desk to reducing its numbers so more saving there too!

I love linux but it is missing one thing AD. Samba, extended acls, cups and ldap just can not match AD. Wow it hurt me to say that.

Hey guys, since The Straggler made his random comments, this thread has gone for a detour in the dessert!

Ubuntu is actually a serious release, which in actually provides an viable operating system platform. Clearly not a Straggler version - I would say.

So maybe some commentators should ACTUALLY install and use the OS before blogging, blurping or boasting!

@Scott:

First are foremost, I'm not a Winblows -- washing mouth out with soap! -- zealot. I'm actually a Dragonfly, OpenBSD, and Plan 9 groupie on PC hardware, and I'm also a Mac zealot -- and then some! :^D

As far as gaming is concerned, I think I'll stick with an Winblows XP for now, let noobs beta Winblows 7 for me for 6 months, and then give it a once over and see how it's getting along with the overall gaming community. (Wine for 7 anytime soon -- not happening.) VMware or some other virtualization package: too slow, especially for RTS and the like.

K/Ubuntu. I've run ubuntu 9.10 recently and had to visit numerous sites for binary-only drivers.
Installed Abobe Flash for firefox and proceeded to watch freeze-frame videos on youtube and hulu. I'll pass, thank you very much. This was all done on new, top-notch hardware, btw. Also, apt-get wasn't having anything to do with this, as far as the driver updates went, anyway. Read: I had to visit sites, download drivers, run "tar -xvzf " on all of them, and then install.
This still asking WAY too much of an end user!

As far as gaming companies jumping on the Linux bandwagon goes, I'll just say this: I'll take another look at Linux gaming when EA and the like jump on the bandwagon. Until this happens, I'll run Winblows native, thank you very much.

You think I'm spewing FUD, huh? I'll have you know that I've lived in the Unix world on a daily basis since the days of the early PDP-11 and have used Linux daily since it existed. You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger Linux/Unix proponent than myself.

I stand solidly by my previous comments. Ubuntu and other distros are raising the peg, without doubt, but until the large software vendors start jumping on line and the edges are cleaned up a bit, I don't think we're going to see Linux aplenty anytime soon. (Unfortunately.)

Regards...

Anyone that thinks having game support is important show how clueless they are.

Ubuntu 9.10 is a great OS. That said it lacks business software support and drivers in some cases.

Those two are where it really counts.

For a company to use Ubuntu on the desktop it will have to either have native Linux versions of ALL of the software they use for run their business or an alternative. Alternatives usually mean conversion which can cost $$$. Just one critical application that cant run on Ubuntu at the desktop or has not alternative will stop the move to Ubuntu dead.

Drives as well. If a company is limited on what hardware they can use, then the adoption will be limited.

At home the same thing has to happen. Can joe user plug in their iPod and use it with Ubuntu? Easily purchase music like they can with iTunes? Play movies easily? Is there easy to use photo and movie making software like there is on Windows and Mac? Can joe user go to costco and buy that printer that is on sale and know it will work on Ubuntu?

Games dont mean anything. If Ubuntu had full software and driver support and no game support is would be a huge success. Appls like Photoshop, Quickbooks, AutoCad etc.

Look at the Mac, its way more popular than Ubuntu, because it has lots of driver support and lots of mainstream software support. Not as much as Windows in both cases but way more than Linux and its way more popular and it sucks when it comes to games.

Console gaming is killing PC gaming, just look at the annual sales.

I'm a Windows trained tech that's been in the game for 7+ yrs. When Vista first came out I started to learn about Linux. Ubuntu 7.04 was my first stop, then Fedora and the other popular distro's.
Ubuntu 9.10 is awesome and since I've been using Linux I find myself using Windows only because I have to support it. With Ubuntu you get the desktop or server software for free. A lot of times people need a media or file server without MS Home Server, Linux is there. I find Office 2007 to be very...heavy, and with features most don't use.
Look those that speak ill of Ubuntu need to try if for a few weeks without the MS blinders on, then comment. I can do everything I need to do with Linux. I'm not a gamer, that's what consoles are for anyway.

I have often loaded Linux on friends computers after a crash when they do not have their Win install disks. When I am done, they comment, "I like this version of Windows!"

The truth of the matter, for home use for most people, Windows is all they need. Most home users do not but Half Life, etc but download games from yahoo, etc. When they ask me about games, I ask them what kind of games do they want and then install some from the repositories. They always love them. Frozen Bubble is a hit!

To say the home user will not adopt until EA gamers are happy is ridiculous. Gamers set the pace of hardware, (video cards, soundcards, monitors, etc), not home adoption.

The average home user does e-mail, Web apps (Facebook, etc.), basic office documents, and photos. The average home user uses less than 4GB of HDD space. The average home user can get away with Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org and The GIMP. Most of them do not even need Thunderbird as they use online e-mail (GMail, HoTMaiL, Yahoo! Mail, etc.).

For every system I have converted in the home to Linux, only two had what they called a "must have" Windows app. In one case, the app ran in WINE. In the other, I showed them a comparable Linux app and they preferred it. Then their are the things that Linux does out the box that Windows does not. My Brother in Port St Lucie was thrilled to know he can play chess across the Internet or through e-mail with my Uncle in Dallas. Yes you can do that in Windows if both parties buy compatible chess programs. My brother had Chessmaster 3000 before his WinXP box died.

But Ubuntu does have issues with drivers. I tried to load Heron on a friend's laptop and many drivers just did not work. I had to use another computer to get to the Internet to get drivers for his network cards before continuing to look for other drivers and still could not get his sound to work. However, I loaded PCLinuxOS 2009 and everything worked great out of the box. It is not a matter of Linux but of the Distro.

Still, people say that Office has features that OOo does not have but most people do not use those few extra features, the best of which are supported by plug-ins anyway. But my wife's company moved from MSOffice 2003 to MSOffice 2007 and have gotten nothing but complaints from users ever since. When my wife gets home she uses my OOo to do her reports and then export it to MSO2k7, not because OOo has more features but because she finds it easier to use for the things she does.

I know several photographers/graphic artists who prefer The GIMP over Adobe Photoshop. I know two who would rather use APS because the do not like the screen layout of The GIMP. That is fine also because no matter how capable the software is, it will not help if the user cannot understand it. In brief; to each his own.

How crappy is Windows 7? I have no idea if it is even crappy at all. For all I know it may be better than Ubuntu or PCLOS because I have not had the pleasure (or displeasure) of using it yet but when I do, I will opine.

TKS