Ubuntu Is A Joke

[OxfordWill]

Didn't this all start because nikster tried to install an .rpm version of java rather than a .deb on Ubuntu, and then over-reacted?

Yes. One wonders where the real joke lies.

Edited April 13, 2010 by OxfordWill

[nikster]

Didn't this all start because nikster tried to install an .rpm version of java rather than a .deb on Ubuntu, and then over-reacted?

Yes. One wonders where the real joke lies.

Sorry for having been absent from this thread for a while - it seemed like it was going to die, but I see it alive and well.

So I did some more debugging. I am working on a very large Java Applet which simply doesn't work on Ubuntu. It turns out that the bug that's causing this had been reported to Sun in 2006 (!!) and hasn't been fixed. I don't think it's fixed in the OpenJDK version but I was unable to try because OpenJDK simply didn't work. I Could hardly believe it but I Googled a bit and it turns out that Applets and/or signed Applet might just not work under Ubuntu 9.10. So there.

After hours spent on the command line, and trying three different Java installs, I am more convinced than ever that Ubuntu is indeed a joke. Installing software seems to be an impossibility. There's tools to make it "easy" - two different ones. And you can circumvent it all and do it by hand. Wow. When it comes to usability, quite often, choice is a bad thing. For example, there's about 4 different locations where browser plug-ins may reside. It's all such a mess, it's hard to believe.

There is the Ubuntu Software Manager. It's "easy". Select what you want and install. Except when what you want doesn't show up in the packages. Then you are screwed. Sun Java is on version 6u15 in the package manager. The latest version contains very important fixes, and is 6u19 - that's 4 official releases further. How is a normal person who is not a Java developer supposed to know this?

Then there is the "synaptics package manager" to be found in the system preferences. I don't know what it's doing different from the aforementioned software manager. It seems to be the same thing, except listing lots of stuff that I can't figure out the meaning of. Unix command line utilities? Some sort of shared libraries? I don't know. It all seems like gibberish. Maybe that's why they made the Software Manager, but they forgot to remove the package manager - having two ways to accomplish the same thing is not smart.

None of these worked for installing the latest Java. But both install OpenJDK and the IcedTea plug-in. I read that that's the official, preferred Java install on ubuntu because it's open source. Great. So I thought, I'd give these a try. I pain-stakingly (and manually) un-installed the java binaries I had installed before. There is a site which lists the about 20 terminal commands required to install / uninstall the latest Java, you can copy-paste from there. Takes forever, but at least it works exactly as promised.

Anyway, installed OpenJDK/IcedTea and ... nothing! Neither Firefox, nor Chrome found the plug-in. No plug-in. Even though Software Manager lists both as installed. I took this as a sign to go back to the terminal, at least something can be accomplished there.

Followed the 20 steps to install the JRE, uninstall the JRE, install the JDK. All had the same bug. Got nowhere.

Along the way there's also some weirdness about running Firefox 3.6. You can't just install FF 3.6. You first have to search the web, there are then about 10 different ways to do it, some of which didn't work. One of them worked, forgot what it's called but always keeps FF at the latest version, kinda surprised a special tool is required for that.

In summary, software installation is a huge mess in Ubuntu. This is worse than the Registry in Windows.

To the above I hear you about the .deb packages - that's an improvement. But why is there no tool to automate this.

Ubuntu at the end of the day suffers from too much freedom in all the wrong places. Example, my manual Java install. I could install Java anywhere on the system I want. Why? No reason. Install in /etc? in /opt? in usr/bin/ in usr/local/bin? Why not! There is no sense or reason to this. It just makes it harder to create automatic installers and uninstallers. And it makes it impossible for, say, the Software Manager, to register my manual install, and perhaps display it in its list of installed software. I get the impression Linux / Ubuntu likes to shoot itself in the foot, make more work for itself or for the users, when it's not necessary. Make proper defaults for everything, is that so hard? Apps go here, libraries there, end of story.

Final word, I hate the way ubuntu organizes apps. I install something - then the guesswork starts where that was put. In Utilities? Network? Office? Preferences, even? Can this be removed, I'd really like a flat list of apps installed on the system. The organization does nothing for me, just makes it harder to find stuff.

Edited April 13, 2010 by nikster

[OxfordWill]

Can you provide a link for the bug in question please?

[dave_boo]

Sorry for having been absent from this thread for a while - it seemed like it was going to die, but I see it alive and well.

So I did some more debugging. I am working on a very large Java Applet which simply doesn't work on Ubuntu. It turns out that the bug that's causing this had been reported to Sun in 2006 (!!) and hasn't been fixed. I don't think it's fixed in the OpenJDK version but I was unable to try because OpenJDK simply didn't work. I Could hardly believe it but I Googled a bit and it turns out that Applets and/or signed Applet might just not work under Ubuntu 9.10. So there.

Please explain how Sun's decisions to support/not support a platform is the platform's fault.

After hours spent on the command line, and trying three different Java installs, I am more convinced than ever that Ubuntu is indeed a joke. Installing software seems to be an impossibility. There's tools to make it "easy" - two different ones. And you can circumvent it all and do it by hand. Wow. When it comes to usability, quite often, choice is a bad thing. For example, there's about 4 different locations where browser plug-ins may reside. It's all such a mess, it's hard to believe.

You do realise that a lot of those different locations are there for a reason don't you? Unlike Windows there is proper security and someone installing something in their account has an extremely hard time hosing the whole system.

There is the Ubuntu Software Manager. It's "easy". Select what you want and install. Except when what you want doesn't show up in the packages. Then you are screwed. Sun Java is on version 6u15 in the package manager. The latest version contains very important fixes, and is 6u19 - that's 4 official releases further. How is a normal person who is not a Java developer supposed to know this?

And ignoring the fact that stability is prized, what do those four revisions bring? And would a normal user need them? How often does a Windows user update; i.e. would that be something found on that platform also?

Then there is the "synaptics package manager" to be found in the system preferences. I don't know what it's doing different from the aforementioned software manager. It seems to be the same thing, except listing lots of stuff that I can't figure out the meaning of. Unix command line utilities? Some sort of shared libraries? I don't know. It all seems like gibberish. Maybe that's why they made the Software Manager, but they forgot to remove the package manager - having two ways to accomplish the same thing is not smart.

The "Add/Remove Applications" is for people who can't figure out what they need or would be confused by choice. Power users would poke around in Synaptics an find exactly what they need.

None of these worked for installing the latest Java. But both install OpenJDK and the IcedTea plug-in. I read that that's the official, preferred Java install on ubuntu because it's open source. Great. So I thought, I'd give these a try. I pain-stakingly (and manually) un-installed the java binaries I had installed before. There is a site which lists the about 20 terminal commands required to install / uninstall the latest Java, you can copy-paste from there. Takes forever, but at least it works exactly as promised.

Anyway, installed OpenJDK/IcedTea and ... nothing! Neither Firefox, nor Chrome found the plug-in. No plug-in. Even though Software Manager lists both as installed. I took this as a sign to go back to the terminal, at least something can be accomplished there.

Followed the 20 steps to install the JRE, uninstall the JRE, install the JDK. All had the same bug. Got nowhere.

Along the way there's also some weirdness about running Firefox 3.6. You can't just install FF 3.6. You first have to search the web, there are then about 10 different ways to do it, some of which didn't work. One of them worked, forgot what it's called but always keeps FF at the latest version, kinda surprised a special tool is required for that.

Can't help you with Firefox (Opera's better anyways and I'm still rocking v3.5.9), but here's the list of packages that I have installed that has Java working just fine for me.

In summary, software installation is a huge mess in Ubuntu. This is worse than the Registry in Windows.

Because Windows automatically resolves dependencies, right?

To the above I hear you about the .deb packages - that's an improvement. But why is there no tool to automate this.

Ubuntu at the end of the day suffers from too much freedom in all the wrong places. Example, my manual Java install. I could install Java anywhere on the system I want. Why? No reason. Install in /etc? in /opt? in usr/bin/ in usr/local/bin? Why not! There is no sense or reason to this. It just makes it harder to create automatic installers and uninstallers. And it makes it impossible for, say, the Software Manager, to register my manual install, and perhaps display it in its list of installed software. I get the impression Linux / Ubuntu likes to shoot itself in the foot, make more work for itself or for the users, when it's not necessary. Make proper defaults for everything, is that so hard? Apps go here, libraries there, end of story.

Final word, I hate the way ubuntu organizes apps. I install something - then the guesswork starts where that was put. In Utilities? Network? Office? Preferences, even? Can this be removed, I'd really like a flat list of apps installed on the system. The organization does nothing for me, just makes it harder to find stuff.

I guess right click on the "Applications" menu and choosing Edit Menus with drag and drop available is difficult for a Java programmer?

[dave_boo]

A Ubuntu questions I guess?

Just installed the current 64bit version on a system. Ran all the package updates, added VLC. Then copied a couple of HD files [1080p & 720p] to play. Was prompted in one case to add 264 support which I did. Then welcome to Stutter is Us.

The files play perfectly on a 32bit Vista Home Premium set-up. Thoughts?

Vista machine

4 core CPU, 4 GB RAM, nVidia 8500GT

Ubuntu machine

4 core CPU 4 Gb RAM nVidia GF240 [Note this is using the proprietary driver set from nVidia installed through the update process]

Regards

The easiest thing to do would be to install Medibuntu repository and update. If that doesn't work using mplayer/vlc/xine, then installing the svn ffmpeg (which is what I did) helps you out. Finally, again using Medibuntu, you can install XBMC--originally offered on the old XBOX as a media centre and quite comparable to the Windows version. It automatically uses Nvidia's VDPAU perhaps the best solution in that your videos that nVidia allows to be accelerated will playback on the GPU rather than the CPU. The following graph is linked from Phoronix's website and is an article about the ION platform...way underpowered compared to your GPU and yet a good way to see the possible improvement.

[SinghaJoe]

Sorry for having been absent from this thread for a while - it seemed like it was going to die, but I see it alive and well.

So I did some more debugging. I am working on a very large Java Applet which simply doesn't work on Ubuntu. It turns out that the bug that's causing this had been reported to Sun in 2006 (!!) and hasn't been fixed. I don't think it's fixed in the OpenJDK version but I was unable to try because OpenJDK simply didn't work. I Could hardly believe it but I Googled a bit and it turns out that Applets and/or signed Applet might just not work under Ubuntu 9.10. So there.

Taking your word for truth, this is Sun being lazy not Ubuntu being a joke.

And if you need OpenJDK working perhaps Ubuntu just doesn't suit your need. That's far off from Ubuntu being a joke, I dare to say

After hours spent on the command line, and trying three different Java installs, I am more convinced than ever that Ubuntu is indeed a joke. Installing software seems to be an impossibility. There's tools to make it "easy" - two different ones. And you can circumvent it all and do it by hand. Wow. When it comes to usability, quite often, choice is a bad thing.

That last sentence is the real joke: Ubuntu has a centralized and automatic management of system upgrade I.E. not just the OS but every application in your system is automatically updated.

For example, there's about 4 different locations where browser plug-ins may reside. It's all such a mess, it's hard to believe.

There is the Ubuntu Software Manager. It's "easy". Select what you want and install. Except when what you want doesn't show up in the packages. Then you are screwed. Sun Java is on version 6u15 in the package manager. The latest version contains very important fixes, and is 6u19 - that's 4 official releases further. How is a normal person who is not a Java developer supposed to know this?

Internet is a great tool, didn't you know? And Ubuntu has a very large community, perhaps the largest in the linux world

[SinghaJoe]

Anyway, installed OpenJDK/IcedTea and ... nothing! Neither Firefox, nor Chrome found the plug-in. No plug-in. Even though Software Manager lists both as installed. I took this as a sign to go back to the terminal, at least something can be accomplished there.

Followed the 20 steps to install the JRE, uninstall the JRE, install the JDK. All had the same bug. Got nowhere.

In addition to a huge community, Ubuntu also has a great documentation: perhaps you shoud read what's in here:

aaahttps://help.ubuntu.com/community/AMD64/FirefoxAndPlugins#64-bit%20Firefox%20and%2064-bit%20Java%20plugin

Along the way there's also some weirdness about running Firefox 3.6. You can't just install FF 3.6. You first have to search the web, there are then about 10 different ways to do it, some of which didn't work. One of them worked, forgot what it's called but always keeps FF at the latest version, kinda surprised a special tool is required for that.

In summary, software installation is a huge mess in Ubuntu. This is worse than the Registry in Windows.

Your comment is another joke. Windows registry is a true mess, and gradually screws up as time goes by and new apps are installed / old ones removed. Linux is so much better as its overall behavior is pretty consistent over time, while Windows degrades substantially.

To the above I hear you about the .deb packages - that's an improvement. But why is there no tool to automate this.

Joke again. You think you're entitled to rant about Ubuntu and you didn't know about .deb packages?

For debian-based Linux flavors .deb files are like .exe in Windows !!

And what do you mean there's no tool to automate? Again, Ubuntu has a centralized automatic update management, Windows has not.g

Ubuntu at the end of the day suffers from too much freedom in all the wrong places. Example, my manual Java install. I could install Java anywhere on the system I want. Why? No reason. Install in /etc? in /opt? in usr/bin/ in usr/local/bin? Why not! There is no sense or reason to this. It just makes it harder to create automatic installers and uninstallers. And it makes it impossible for, say, the Software Manager, to register my manual install, and perhaps display it in its list of installed software. I get the impression Linux / Ubuntu likes to shoot itself in the foot, make more work for itself or for the users, when it's not necessary. Make proper defaults for everything, is that so hard? Apps go here, libraries there, end of story.

Final word, I hate the way ubuntu organizes apps. I install something - then the guesswork starts where that was put. In Utilities? Network? Office? Preferences, even? Can this be removed, I'd really like a flat list of apps installed on the system. The organization does nothing for me, just makes it harder to find stuff.

Download "Where is application?" from here:

aaahttp://ubuntuwin.altervista.org/index.php?id=19

then double click on it and once finished add it to your gnome panel, it will tell you where any newly installed app is (in the application menu)

Oh, and remember that Ubuntu IS NOT Windows. If you look for something who works like windows just stick to it.

Edited April 13, 2010 by SinghaJoe

[nikster]

I don't mean to rant but you guys really are the worst apologists. Why not admit something is crap? At least then you can go and improve it.

Along the way there's also some weirdness about running Firefox 3.6. You can't just install FF 3.6. You first have to search the web, there are then about 10 different ways to do it, some of which didn't work. One of them worked, forgot what it's called but always keeps FF at the latest version, kinda surprised a special tool is required for that.

In summary, software installation is a huge mess in Ubuntu. This is worse than the Registry in Windows.

Your comment is another joke. Windows registry is a true mess, and gradually screws up as time goes by and new apps are installed / old ones removed. Linux is so much better as its overall behavior is pretty consistent over time, while Windows degrades substantially.

To clarify, yes my comparison with the Windows registry was meant as a slight. I said Ubuntu is worse, and I stand by it, because there are 5 different ways to do it that I am now aware of. There should be one way, and one way that is well thought out.

OS X does the best job here. Drag an application into the applications folder. The end. That's how it should be. That's what ubuntu should just plain out copy. It's not a hard concept, and it's not hard to implement. Of course OS X does this using a clever little trick that displays an application as a single .app file whereas in reality it's a special folder containing many sub-folders. On the level of unix tools, you only see the folders. But even so, it's not that hard to copy.

The Windows registry is a horrible idea, and indeed it leads to the gradual decline of every Windows install - but the good thing is, there is only one, and installs follow a certain pattern which is by and large adhered to.

In ubuntu, I can use synaptics, software manager, apt-get, aptitude, completely manual install, .deb packages... and I am sure there are 10 more ways to install apps. Some of these know about each other, others don't. That's just plain idiotic, it makes system maintenance a nightmare.

Admittedly this is a first impression. But it is one that makes me turn my back on this system forever.

Even unix tools... I mean.. come on so now Linux people are quite often hackers, and this system is written by programmers for programmers. So you would kinda think, 10 years after it arrived on Mac OS X, that Ubuntu would have a comparable terminal application installed by default. One with proper selection, unlimited backscrolling (by default, again), split windows. But no. OS X had a better terminal app in the year 2000 than Ubuntu has in 2010.

[nikster]

@ SinghaJoe one more thing, I had actually found the page you refer to with the FF plugins. It's slightly confusing with the 32 bit and 64 bit versions and so on, but I did actually follow the 32 bit install and guess what, it didn't work.

And yes, I did *not* spend a lot of time searching forums or looking for help with what I was doing wrong because I simply don't care. I don't care to learn this. It should work. If it doesn't work, no thanks, I am outta here. No matter how fast I might find help in forums and so on, it's going to be much faster to follow the manual steps I found on the easy plug-in install page elsewhere - a lot more steps, but it worked on the first try.

It's just a matter of time and interest. If I buy an electric drill in the shop, take it home, and find it doesn't work, I don't go looking for help online, then proceed to take the drill apart and fix whatever may be broken. Instead, I take the drill back to the shop and get another one that works.

[OxfordWill]

You cared so little you thought .rpm files were relevant.

Please go back to windows- you deserve it.

Meanwhile I will continue to run ubuntu on the java coders' workstations in our offices.

Edited April 15, 2010 by OxfordWill

[SinghaJoe]

To clarify, yes my comparison with the Windows registry was meant as a slight. I said Ubuntu is worse, and I stand by it, because there are 5 different ways to do it that I am now aware of. There should be one way, and one way that is well thought out.

OS X does the best job here. Drag an application into the applications folder. The end. That's how it should be. That's what ubuntu should just plain out copy. It's not a hard concept, and it's not hard to implement. Of course OS X does this using a clever little trick that displays an application as a single .app file whereas in reality it's a special folder containing many sub-folders. On the level of unix tools, you only see the folders. But even so, it's not that hard to copy.

The Windows registry is a horrible idea, and indeed it leads to the gradual decline of every Windows install - but the good thing is, there is only one, and installs follow a certain pattern which is by and large adhered to.

In ubuntu, I can use synaptics, software manager, apt-get, aptitude, completely manual install, .deb packages... and I am sure there are 10 more ways to install apps. Some of these know about each other, others don't. That's just plain idiotic, it makes system maintenance a nightmare.

Admittedly this is a first impression. But it is one that makes me turn my back on this system forever.

Even unix tools... I mean.. come on so now Linux people are quite often hackers, and this system is written by programmers for programmers. So you would kinda think, 10 years after it arrived on Mac OS X, that Ubuntu would have a comparable terminal application installed by default. One with proper selection, unlimited backscrolling (by default, again), split windows. But no. OS X had a better terminal app in the year 2000 than Ubuntu has in 2010.

Linux distros are built upon the work of others. Ubuntu is built upon Debian and it takes the great dpkg and apt tools from that distro. These are back-end tools, i.e. tools which work directly in the OS shell. Aptitude and Synaptic are simply the front-end, i.e. are graphical user interfaces for that SAME tools.

Its as simple as that. No mess at all.

Ubuntu Software Center is meant to be the "easy-end" to software management, and it is in the plan to improve it until it will be ready to substitute the debian-derived tools. When that happens, Ubuntu will be much more like you want. For now accept that Ubuntu Linux has a plurality of tools to manage software.

I agree that Apple OS X is top notch in terms of easy-of-use though.

Edited April 15, 2010 by SinghaJoe

[SinghaJoe]

@ SinghaJoe one more thing, I had actually found the page you refer to with the FF plugins. It's slightly confusing with the 32 bit and 64 bit versions and so on, but I did actually follow the 32 bit install and guess what, it didn't work.

Sorry I thought you were running a 64bit installation.

And yes, I did *not* spend a lot of time searching forums or looking for help with what I was doing wrong because I simply don't care. I don't care to learn this. It should work. If it doesn't work, no thanks, I am outta here. No matter how fast I might find help in forums and so on, it's going to be much faster to follow the manual steps I found on the easy plug-in install page elsewhere - a lot more steps, but it worked on the first try.

You found it where? How did you find it without searching for it?

It's plain ridiculous and indeed a joke that you pretend to use an OS without even bothering to read the documentation or to search for the info you need.

BTW is not that time consuming, just google it on ubuntuforums.org:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=java+6u19%3Aubuntuforums.org

Result no.5 is what you're looking for:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1...light=java+6u19

It took me 1 min to find out.

Is that so hard? Does it take too much time?

It's just a matter of time and interest. If I buy an electric drill in the shop, take it home, and find it doesn't work, I don't go looking for help online, then proceed to take the drill apart and fix whatever may be broken. Instead, I take the drill back to the shop and get another one that works.

Wrong analogy. You didn't buy anything. Ubuntu Linux is a free OS which comes also with free productivity softwares included. Regular security and major updates are also provided free of charge, and automatically taken care by the system.

You should just thanks ubuntu developers and community, instead of senseless ranting at them

Edited April 15, 2010 by SinghaJoe

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

As to the "Mac OS does that and Ubuntu should copy that", well, Ubuntu does, sort of - you open your package manager (Synaptic) and drag/drop a .deb file in there and it will install. Easy. Any needed dependency will be installed along, automatically.

As to "Windows registry", it (the registry) is the reason why Windows slows down all by itself over time..... as stuff accumulates in the registry and makes this data-monster become huge and ultra-huge and the slightest bug in there can (and often does) result in a system that behaves badly or, worse, doesn't work at all. And Windows apps have the tendency to remove their folders and files upon uninstall, yet leave plenty of registry entries behind - and apps like "registry cleaners" do a poor job in removing those, they often remove entries that are still needed, too, creating more problems.

I am sitting in front of a Windows box right now, it has been freshly installed last Christmas with genuine XP Home and the user, a 12-year old boy, keeps installing and uninstalling games all the time. Also Windows updates put their entries into the registry. Although the computer is "clean" from a software point of view (also no viruses/spyware/nasties) it is really sluggish compared to when i first set it up four months ago.... my Ubuntu-box however still runs as snappy as on the first day despite me having installed a TON of apps on it (and also removed some again) and that is over a year (when Ubuntu Jaunty 9.04 came out).

In Windows installing things and similar tasks have only one way because that is how Microsoft rules you should live your life - in Linux you get to chose which of several possibilities you like most. I know Linux users who prefer to do almost everything from command line - it gives them the ultimate control over what happens on THEIR computers. I myself am not good enough in command line work, i am a mouse pusher, but even as such i like to have choices and to try a second way if the first doesn't work how i want it to. In Linux you can even compile software from source, matching 100% exactly YOUR system, giving you the best possible performance of that software. That would be your ultimate way of installing something, starting with the source code of that "something". Hey, you can even build your very own entire operating system from source - "Linux From Scratch". Try that with Windows......

Best regards.....

Thanh

[A_Traveller]

A Ubuntu questions I guess?

Just installed the current 64bit version on a system. Ran all the package updates, added VLC. Then copied a couple of HD files [1080p & 720p] to play. Was prompted in one case to add 264 support which I did. Then welcome to Stutter is Us.

The files play perfectly on a 32bit Vista Home Premium set-up. Thoughts?

Vista machine

4 core CPU, 4 GB RAM, nVidia 8500GT

Ubuntu machine

4 core CPU 4 Gb RAM nVidia GF240 [Note this is using the proprietary driver set from nVidia installed through the update process]

Regards

The easiest thing to do would be to install Medibuntu repository and update. If that doesn't work using mplayer/vlc/xine, then installing the svn ffmpeg (which is what I did) helps you out. Finally, again using Medibuntu, you can install XBMC--originally offered on the old XBOX as a media centre and quite comparable to the Windows version. <a href="http://"http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzE2Mg"" target="_blank">It automatically uses Nvidia's VDPAU</a> perhaps the best solution in that your videos that nVidia allows to be accelerated will playback on the GPU rather than the CPU. The following graph is linked from Phoronix's website and is an article about the ION platform...way underpowered compared to your GPU and yet a good way to see the possible improvement.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, and as I returned to BKK today I applied your knowledge. I tried the Medibuntu link first, which improved matters, and then installed XBMC [though the dialogues look odd to me at 1920*1080]. It's interesting to note that after these this forum was more legible [a font is installed with the media tools I guess].

I do have sympathy for nikster's point though, after all the media technology is kept separate, as far as I can see owing to some of it not being politically correct in terms of licensing. As an approach, from a user perspective this is self-defeating to the aim for greater desktop uptake.

Regards & again thanks Dave.

[welo]

Nikster,

I do understand your frustration so well, but pls do not forget that while you are an advanced and experienced Windows user you are just a newbie on Linux (just like me). Windows just seems so easy because you know all the tricks and workarounds that make it run smooth.

When you are a pro on one thing, it is just sooo frustrating to learn and get used to another thing. And surely even more if this other thing has some glitches and annoyances (which both Linux and Windows have).

@all

I am a bit disappointed that nobody here is interested in a reasonable discussion about software installation/maintenance via central repositories vs. Windows (or maybe OSX) style installer packages. I tried to start one in post nr 16 and 17, but nobody responded other than nikster.

I guess it is far more entertaining to bash somebody who is ranting on Linux than to engage in a real discussion

Like I said before, I do see advantages to the repository approach: Tested compatibility and safety, ease of install (for software in the repository), dependency management. But there are definitely downsides, too: doesn't it favor established software and weaken competition, since unpopular software probably doesn't make it into the repositories? And what about security concerns, since the overhead of repository management tasks might sometimes delay the distribution of important security updates.

Of course the repository approach actually eases the update process for the system as a whole (system plus installed applications), therefore might often actually speed up and promote installation of security updates.

Btw who is responsible of maintaining a package in the repository for a specific distribution. The software vendor / maintainer or the distribution maintainer? Who is to blame if the Java package is out-of-date or the Firefox plugin not working on Ubuntu?

I don't really understand the discussion about the Windows registry here, since it relates more to config files and the /etc folder on Linux than to the discussion about installers and repositories.

I also assume that the times when a blown up Windows registry slowed down the system are long over - isn't it just a database? Nowadays it shouldn't really matter if it has 10.000 or 100.000 entries, it's all about caches and indices anyway...

On Windows I do like software repository sites such as softpedia.com and filehippo.com, and I wished the filehippo update checker could also automatically download and install applications updates.

I hate all those little resident startup applications which sole purpose is to check for updates on one specific software (the Adobe Updater being my nr1 enemy) - why can't that be centralized?

peace

welo

[Richard-BKK]

To the original post, and everybody else... YES, Ubuntu is a joke, and after using it for 3-years I'm still smiling, that is what I call a good joke. That is the effect of Linux, but with all good jokes - you need to be intelligent enough to understand it, and you need to clear your mind of stress from previous encounters with humorist wannabe operating systems. The same is with operating systems, if you run Windows XP and switch to Linux, you need to understand that you are using another operating system - an operating system that thanks its roots from ideas from innovative software engineers long before Bill Gates bought himself a operating system, modified it and sold it in a good marketing package to IBM.

For me personal, Windows XP and 7 are good creations, Linux is nothing less or better. Mac OSX is also not better or worse, it are all flavors of Operating Systems we can now-a-day run on Intel X86 processors. Life is never been so good.

I have to agree that some hardware, mostly with a sticker saying "Designed for Windows" doesn't work that well with Linux (or is hard to install). But than, the sticker says it, the manufacturer did say it was designed for MS Windows. How many I hear complaining that some Windows XP hardware doesn't work in Windows 7 (and likely will never work). I always buy my hardware with as much operating systems in mind. And I never had complains about some hardware not working with Linux. Oops, maybe the gamepad I once bought, but it was so dirt-cheap that I could not let it stay at the shop. (it is also very likely that the gamepad is just broken...)

[joncl]

A Ubuntu questions I guess?

Just installed the current 64bit version on a system. Ran all the package updates, added VLC. Then copied a couple of HD files [1080p & 720p] to play. Was prompted in one case to add 264 support which I did. Then welcome to Stutter is Us.

I am surprised as VLC will never prompt for new codec nor plugins. Were you using mplayer or movieplayer instead?

[A_Traveller]

^ VLC will prompt, have had it do so in Windows. However, I was only using VLC at that time.

Regards

[joncl]

^ VLC will prompt, have had it do so in Windows. However, I was only using VLC at that time.

Regards

Never seen VLC prompt on windows, linux or OSX. Are you really sure you do not mean mplayer or the likes. I mean really sure?

[A_Traveller]

To be as polite as I can be the answer to your last question is affirmative.

As the old saying goes "Just because you have not seen it, the Great Wall of China still exists irrespective.".

Regards

[Richard-BKK]

By default Ubuntu doesn't update the VLC packages, therefore if you want to use the latest VLC media-player you need to add a repository. In Ubuntu 9.10 and later this is easily done by opening a Terminal (Applications->Accessories->Terminal).

Opening this you get a prompt which will look like me@my-computer:~$

After the prompt you enter sudo add-apt-repository ppa:c-korn/vlc (you can also do copy paste with your mouse) and enter, your computer will now ask for your password. And your new repository is added. After this you can follow your regular way for software updates and you will find that Ubuntu finds the latest VLC media-player. (The latest VLC media-player will "fix" a few little bugs and adds more media playing capability)

[nikster]

Ok well maybe it's about expectations. In this day and age, I expect my OS to be a tool to be used. While it's true I had to spend a lot of time in the Windows trenches in the past, I never said Windows was good. But then, Windows never made me enter 20 commands in the command line in order to get Java installed. You'd think someone would write a script - if I was using Ubuntu I'd replace all the steps on that easylinux page with one clever script. It needs to allow for different file names for the download and the unpack, otherwise I'd have done it already.

Anyway: My expectation was that Ubuntu is now, by and large, and end user OS. That was wrong. It's still a tinker toy with lots of things added on to make it "easier", sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

I use OS X so maybe I am a bit pampered on the usability front. Far be it from me, however, to call OS X perfect, or even easy. It's not easy, normal people still have to ask me how to do this and that, and I still have a large repository of things I'd rather not have to know about my OS in my head.

I am not "used to" Windows or OS X and "need to get used to" Ubuntu. I am still of the opinion that operating systems and computers need to get used to people rather than the other way around. I am keenly aware of the shortcomings of all OSs. But Ubuntu seems to have more than its fair share. It's raw. OS X does a pretty good job hiding the unix underpinnings. You never need the command line, it manages permissions transparently, etc. Ubuntu still has to learn a lot about this. Note I didn't even get into hardware compatibility as I am running Ubuntu in a Virtual Machine where that is no issue.

By the way I don't see the merit of the "but it's free" argument. Is the argument "because it's free, it's crap"? That seems to be an argument that Microsoft would make. If I give you a free car, only it will break down every time you go on a trip, would you take it? The topic of free vs paid has nothing to do with usability.

I have OS X for two reasons: One, I decided if I have to look at a computer all day long, I might as well look at something pretty. Two, OS X saves me time and thereby money. I pay a few 100$ more for a Mac than a PC, but I recuperate this within 2 hours of switching on the machine - that's how long it takes to set up a new Mac so it's an exact copy of my old Mac work environment. With Windows, I have to spend days installing and un-installing things. My clients aren't going to pay for that time. Ubuntu seems, frankly, even worse. So this is a no-brainer.

Edited April 24, 2010 by nikster

[nikster]

@all

I am a bit disappointed that nobody here is interested in a reasonable discussion about software installation/maintenance via central repositories vs. Windows (or maybe OSX) style installer packages. I tried to start one in post nr 16 and 17, but nobody responded other than nikster.

Maybe start another topic on it? To me it's clear that there is only the OS X way. Everyone else should get over it and copy that. Though OS X itself is now tainted by the use of the "Applications Support" directory, even Apple apps use this folder hidden somewhere in the user's Library folder. I don't know why.

OS X works like this:

- Each application is in its own folder.app. The application is entirely contained in this folder.

- The application remains functional wherever the user drags it on their system and even across systems.

- The .app folder appears as a single, launchable file in the Finder, so you don't see the mess that's underneath.

- System libraries of different versions can co-exist in the system folder. But most apps should never need to install any libraries. Hard disk space is not an issue in this day and age, so each app should just package all it needs in one bundle.

This is how it should work, there are some technical hurdles but by and large nothing that's very hard to do from a programmer's perspective.

Maintenance is a pretty big topic for me too. I do switch machines every 1 - 2 years and I like to minimize downtime. Again OS X migration assistant transfers old installs onto a new install - it takes as long as it takes to copy the files from a TimeMachine backup or old Mac. Very simple. In the old days, I'd get the same effect by simply copying my preferences folder and all my apps from the old system to the new system. Neat organization and self-contained applications make system migration trivial. On Windows and I believe also Ubuntu, this would just be impossible because of the way the system is set up.

[Richard-BKK]

@nikster

You say "20 commands in the command line in order to get Java installed", guess you do it wrong. Lets do it the official way.

In the menu left-top (Applications then select Ubuntu Software Center Ubuntu Software Center now opens and enter in the search java, now you get all selections, for just the runtime plugin and java-vm select Sun Java 6 Runtime after you click on it you will see an arrow click button on the right side... click on that button...now Ubuntu Software Center opens a screen saying Install or Website.

I not see any command line commands here, also we do not have to search the internet for the Sun Java software nor do we have to download untrusted programs which can be infected by viruses....

[OxfordWill]

/nvm

Edited April 28, 2010 by OxfordWill

[nikster]

@nikster

You say "20 commands in the command line in order to get Java installed", guess you do it wrong. Lets do it the official way.

In the menu left-top (Applications then select Ubuntu Software Center Ubuntu Software Center now opens and enter in the search java, now you get all selections, for just the runtime plugin and java-vm select Sun Java 6 Runtime after you click on it you will see an arrow click button on the right side... click on that button...now Ubuntu Software Center opens a screen saying Install or Website.

I not see any command line commands here, also we do not have to search the internet for the Sun Java software nor do we have to download untrusted programs which can be infected by viruses....

Richard - I believe I pointed out that I tried this. The Java version offered by Ubuntu is 6u15. That's 4 full updates behind the current one, 6u19. In addition, those updates fix critical Linux errors.

In an ideal world, the Ubuntu Software Center would simple offer the latest version. But it doesn't. Why, I don't know. It's mysterious. In fact, I think offering an outdated version can be worse than offering no version at all because hackers _will_ exploit security holes fixed in the latest versions... that way they catch all the laggards who didn't update.

Caught an article in BusinessWeek that pretty much agrees with my assessment of Ubuntu. I personally think Ubuntu is missing a user interface guy. One user interface God. Design by committee always results in a terrible mess, and Ubuntu is testament to that, despite the fact that Ubuntu is actually intended to clean up much of the mess in other Linux installs. It does succeed in some ways, but not enough.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-2...aroslovsky.html

[Richard-BKK]

@nikster,

If you looked at the actual security improvements up to Java 6u21 you will notice that nothing will effect a Linux right system. Ubuntu users are never in root mode online so very unlikely that it even gets close to a security problem. Even Java 6u21 or any other security update will not help if a user is asked to enter his user password to install software when visiting a website... If people not understand this, no security fix or protection in the world will help them...

[dave_boo]

Richard - I believe I pointed out that I tried this. The Java version offered by Ubuntu is 6u15. That's 4 full updates behind the current one, 6u19. In addition, those updates fix critical Linux errors.

Ummh, they're not Linux errors, but rather Sun's Java errors..... that's why Sun offers the updates to their products. And I could be wrong, but isn't the included screenshot offering to install 6u20 (which is even greater than what you're looking for)?

In an ideal world, the Ubuntu Software Center would simple offer the latest version. But it doesn't. Why, I don't know. It's mysterious. In fact, I think offering an outdated version can be worse than offering no version at all because hackers _will_ exploit security holes fixed in the latest versions... that way they catch all the laggards who didn't update.

Hmm, do you realise how many corporate IT departments delay the release of patches and updates simply to proof them? Isn't that a good idea?

Caught an article in BusinessWeek that pretty much agrees with my assessment of Ubuntu. I personally think Ubuntu is missing a user interface guy. One user interface God. Design by committee always results in a terrible mess, and Ubuntu is testament to that, despite the fact that Ubuntu is actually intended to clean up much of the mess in other Linux installs. It does succeed in some ways, but not enough.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-2...aroslovsky.html

If you don't even understand about WM (Windows Managers), how can we have an intelligent discussion? And while I'm no Martha Stewart, I think the below screenshot looks just as good as anything out of OSX-ville.

(Note that I have a 1920x1080 on the left and a 1680x1050 on the right; hence the 30 pixel gap in the right half of the picture)

Edited April 30, 2010 by dave_boo

[welo]

Caught an article in BusinessWeek that pretty much agrees with my assessment of Ubuntu. I personally think Ubuntu is missing a user interface guy. One user interface God. Design by committee always results in a terrible mess, and Ubuntu is testament to that, despite the fact that Ubuntu is actually intended to clean up much of the mess in other Linux installs. It does succeed in some ways, but not enough.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-2...aroslovsky.html

Not a good article IMHO - doesn't argue its point well enough (which doesn't mean your statement is wrong)

WM (Windows Managers)[/url], how can we have an intelligent discussion? And while I'm no Martha Stewart, I think the below screenshot looks just as good as anything out of OSX-ville.

(Note that I have a 1920x1080 on the left and a 1680x1050 on the right; hence the 30 pixel gap in the right half of the picture)

[/b]

dave, user interface design is not only about the 'looks', it's about usability in general, intuitiveness, ease of use, how well things play together, the concept behind the UI, etc. Installing and managing the software on your PC is also an aspect of usability.

I dare say that Ubuntu's UI of course suffers from the fact that it is a collection of software developed by various persons/companies and are not under the supervision of a strong UI guru/department. I guess the Ubuntu team can only do so much to level out the usability aspects of the various applications they try to unite under one hood and introduce a global 'look & feel'.

Other OSes suffer the same problem with 3rd party apps. The Adobe suite on Windows used to bring some Mac style UI elements to Windows which was sometimes confusing for Windows users. With Linux the same problem appears on much 'lower levels' of the OS.

I think Linux has come a long way and improved a lot, but Ubuntu is not there yet where I personally would like to see it. The software manager that is not 'yet ready' to completely replace the standard tool set is one example.

For some those issues might be a show-stopper, other can easily accept it and embrace the many other benefits that Linux offers in other areas.

I don't think it benefits Ubuntu if users ignore or deny those problems. Which doesn't mean that all problems mentioned in this thread fall into this category and cannot be disputed.

I myself got pretty frustrated too when coming back to Linux with Ubuntu 9.10, see thread here.

I remember dave_boo recommended openSuse to me which has a longer history of smoothing the user experience and provides a all-in-one configuration & management tool to ease system maintenance.

welo

[dave_boo]

WM (Windows Managers)[/url], how can we have an intelligent discussion? And while I'm no Martha Stewart, I think the below screenshot looks just as good as anything out of OSX-ville.

(Note that I have a 1920x1080 on the left and a 1680x1050 on the right; hence the 30 pixel gap in the right half of the picture)

dave, user interface design is not only about the 'looks', it's about usability in general, intuitiveness, ease of use, how well things play together, the concept behind the UI, etc. Installing and managing the software on your PC is also an aspect of usability.

I dare say that Ubuntu's UI of course suffers from the fact that it is a collection of software developed by various persons/companies and are not under the supervision of a strong UI guru/department. I guess the Ubuntu team can only do so much to level out the usability aspects of the various applications they try to unite under one hood and introduce a global 'look & feel'.

Other OSes suffer the same problem with 3rd party apps. The Adobe suite on Windows used to bring some Mac style UI elements to Windows which was sometimes confusing for Windows users. With Linux the same problem appears on much 'lower levels' of the OS.

I think Linux has come a long way and improved a lot, but Ubuntu is not there yet where I personally would like to see it. The software manager that is not 'yet ready' to completely replace the standard tool set is one example.

For some those issues might be a show-stopper, other can easily accept it and embrace the many other benefits that Linux offers in other areas.

I don't think it benefits Ubuntu if users ignore or deny those problems. Which doesn't mean that all problems mentioned in this thread fall into this category and cannot be disputed.

I myself got pretty frustrated too when coming back to Linux with Ubuntu 9.10, see thread here.

I remember dave_boo recommended openSuse to me which has a longer history of smoothing the user experience and provides a all-in-one configuration & management tool to ease system maintenance.

welo

Perhaps I'm still stuck in the 80's. You remember back when getting a DOS prompt was what a freshly booted computer gave you? The standards that I hear flung around regarding 'usability' and 'design interface' are so arbitrary and subjective it's really impossible to refute them.

I have yet to have found any dialouge boxes out of place in Gnome/KDE (although I still don't like KDE 4.xx!) nor found glaring instances of things not 'playing together'. I may be one of the odd men out, but I prefer my applications to be slightly dissimilar; the confusion of whether the app I'm in does what I need it to or not is quickly re-enforced by the different looks. This is across OSes, for instance I don't expect my Windows apps to look alike if one transcodes dvds to *.mkv and the other then burns them to a disk for instance. I would love to hear examples of low level 'look & feel' discordance you are refering to.

I also believe that some of the disconnect experienced by former Windows users comes from them not understanding an olde tyme *nix principle; to whit, "Make each program do one thing well." I.E., while there are attemts to shove multiple programmes into one GUI, the best tool is one that will just 'git 'er done'. Further down that article it has a quote that put quite a smile on my face "Unix is user-friendly. It just isn't promiscuous about which users it's friendly with."

I also find the insistence that the software manager be a one stop shop a bit disconcerting. For instance, while you can use the control panel to uninstall programmes in Windows (and with quite a bit of difficulty, much more than in Linux's package managers anyways, install programmes), it's not really a valid comparison. Even, in at least the iPhone and perhaps OSX itself, the 'App Store' is seperate from the system settings is it not? And isn't Apple's solutions the most elegant out there?

And I do love my SuSE, but this is an Ubuntu bashing thread and I have to defend all distros.....