Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

fossforce.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#31

Post by hack_edu »

vacri wrote: post #25
hack_edu wrote: post #9

The most important thing he can do is railroad through a Nexus-style Ubuntu exemplar hardware platform. All you need is one or two devices. I'd pay 25% over a comparable Apple for a real Ubuntu-Debian laptop with Apple-quality build and a real software-hardware pairing. I'm tired of flimsy setups from a weekend configuration tutorial hack job or Dell's XPS empty gesture.

Thinkpads. Thinkpads have good build quality - they pass more military toughness tests than 'toughbooks' do, and they're generally 'just work' when it comes to linux (sometimes you'll need a broadcom driver or similar if you're using Debian)

generally... and I hate to be that guy, but Thinkpads build quality has really suffered of late; plastic is not a way to go. And, 'military-grade' or 'passed all one-hundred and whatever tests used to certify for the US Army' are well-known marketing gimmicks used out of context.

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#32

Post by hack_edu »

hpaavola wrote: post #29
StavrosK wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to recommend this, but my Macbook Air runs Ubuntu pretty much perfectly, and pretty much out of the box.

So does Asus Zenbook Prime and many models from Lenovo. I have Zenbook and it's almost perfect. Minor touchpad issues, ambien light sensor does not work and screen is always at max bright after reboot, that's about it. The problem of course is that this is fairly expensive machine and people won't tolerate those quirks when enough money is involved.

almost

I have a ZenBook too as my primary Ubuntu machine. It's almost good enough. I also suffer all the points you list, each of which are 100% dealbreakers and perfect examples of how almost it is yet no one goes the extra mile. A little bit of effort/sway from Canonical would go a long way.

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#33

Post by davexunit »

stinos wrote: post #26
davexunit wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many perfectly usable, free, desktop environments to choose from on GNU/Linux. I just can't take complaints like this seriously.

yes there are such environments. Never denied that. But as I said, I consider them only perfectly usable for computer savvy users who are able to fix what they break and configure what they buy and spend time on it . That last part kills it for me.

And you would be wrong. GNOME 3, Cinnamon, Unity, etc. are all made for "regular people" to use and they work just fine when I have used them. I think you are perpetuating a popular myth that GNU/Linux desktop environments are only for so called "power users" and programmers.

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#34

Post by mkr-hn »

I use a non-free Windows 7 install dual booted with my free Ubuntu install. All the software I use works roughly the same on both, and the formats I create in are open specifications with widespread support.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm free. I can take my data anywhere I want and do anything I choose with it. The presence of proprietary formats and proprietary software hasn't crowded out the--by my perception--superior open source options, which seems to be the main fear of people who tell me not to use proprietary software. Show me a free-by-your-definition operating system that's compelling enough to make me want to switch from an environment where I'm already free to do whatever I want.

Mark Shuttleworth found a way to get ordinary people to use a Linux-based operating system. If you want your idea of a free desktop operating system to thrive, you need to figure out how The Ubuntu Foundation did it with their definition of free.

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#35

Post by jb17 »

Shorel wrote: post #22
themstheones wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently you've never tried gentoo.

I have tried it, it just takes a week to install, while Ubuntu takes some hours (I test several configurations until I'm happy with one).

How did it take you weeks to install? You basically just extract a small archive.

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#36

Post by vertex-four »

stinos wrote: post #26
davexunit wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many perfectly usable, free, desktop environments to choose from on GNU/Linux. I just can't take complaints like this seriously.

yes there are such environments. Never denied that. But as I said, I consider them only perfectly usable for computer savvy users who are able to fix what they break and configure what they buy and spend time on it . That last part kills it for me.

Honestly, as a current Debian Wheezy user... this isn't true any more. I haven't had to fix anything since I installed it. It's all Just Worked.

If it didn't just work, I'd've bought a Windows license, as I have previously done. This is, in fact, the first Linux install that I've continued using for over a couple of months.

The "it's not very usable" argument was correct in the old GNOME2/KDE3 world, but at least GNOME3 is exceptionally usable and the OS is extremely stable.

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#37

Post by keithpeter »

themstheones wrote: post #17
Mikeb85 wrote: post #3

Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux because he's the only one with vision, and the means to carry out that vision. He's making the tough, unpopular decisions that are advancing desktop Linux into the mainstream, and the only one with the balls to go at it alone. Despite its issues (and it has them), Ubuntu is by far the most usable Linux variety, both on the desktop and server...

Apparently you've never tried gentoo.

Personal use: Someone at the level of confidence with IT required to install and configure gentoo would probably be able to install and configure just about any popular GNU/Linux distribution.

Corporate use: Ubuntu desktop can be deployed in various ways automatically. Canonical will sell configuration systems as well. There was at one point a desktop image available for corporate use that has the social and media integration removed. Not sure about gentoo in that area (if anyone has supported a large scale gentoo installation for end users, let us know!). I would imagine people would be looking more at CentOS or openSuse.

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#38

Post by stinos »

vertex-four wrote: post #36
stinos wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes there are such environments. Never denied that. But as I said, I consider them only perfectly usable for computer savvy users who are able to fix what they break and configure what they buy and spend time on it . That last part kills it for me.

Honestly, as a current Debian Wheezy user... this isn't true any more. I haven't had to fix anything since I installed it. It's all Just Worked. If it didn't just work, I'd've bought a Windows license, as I have previously done. This is, in fact, the first Linux install that I've continued using for over a couple of months. The "it's not very usable" argument was correct in the old GNOME2/KDE3 world, but at least GNO…

It's probably better than it used to be. But it just keeps on coming back to me. Like last month I downloaded a live CD of the latest Debian because I coulnd't find the one I normally use, and it didn't even want to start X. Not on an old pc with a recent graphics card, not on a new one with another recent graphics card. Not generalizing this to everything and maybe I just have bad luck but things like that are an unfortunately large part of my experience with desktop linux.

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#39

Post by ctb_mg »

davexunit wrote: post #33
stinos wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes there are such environments. Never denied that. But as I said, I consider them only perfectly usable for computer savvy users who are able to fix what they break and configure what they buy and spend time on it . That last part kills it for me.

And you would be wrong. GNOME 3, Cinnamon, Unity, etc. are all made for "regular people" to use and they work just fine when I have used them. I think you are perpetuating a popular myth that GNU/Linux desktop environments are only for so called "power users" and programmers.

FWIW, they did give a valid use case and a valid issue in their initial post -- regarding configuration of distro vs. desktop environment. However, I don't know how valid that problem is in many Linux desktop environments today. There have been leaps and bounds in terms of usability and smoothing out the user experiences on Linux desktop environments lately.

Re: Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux

#40

Post by mkr-hn »

keithpeter wrote: post #30
Mikeb85 wrote: post #3

Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux because he's the only one with vision, and the means to carry out that vision. He's making the tough, unpopular decisions that are advancing desktop Linux into the mainstream, and the only one with the balls to go at it alone. Despite its issues (and it has them), Ubuntu is by far the most usable Linux variety, both on the desktop and server...

I would say Canonical rather than Shuttleworth himself personally, but that is a minor nitpick. I have used and like Unity. One issue I really hope gets sorted before 14.04 is the LibreOffice menu bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/7... That is definitely under the 'fit and finish' heading! Imagine a future version of Ubuntu with Unity with that bug landing on the desktops of a few thousan…

Having the good sense to set up a system that can create Ubuntu and let it work is a kind of vision. I vaguely recall something about this being how Steve Jobs worked: he created a system where people could work on ideas, and he only acted as the gatekeeper who kept the bad ideas from reaching the market.
Post reply on HN