Waaaaahhh!!!!!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 27, 2012 2:58 PM EDT |
"My proprietary audio-editing software doesn't run in Ubuntu" ... no mention of open-source equivalents. Could the work be done in http://ardour.org/ ??? Maybe not. But not mentioning it is telling. It's also a good idea to check for hardware support before buying. |
| caitlyn Nov 27, 2012 3:48 PM EDT |
Daniel is setting absolutely impossible expectations for Linux. No surprise that it fails to meet those expectations. ISVs don't develop for Linux for one or more of three basic reasons: 1. There are FOSS equivalents that do a good job at no cost. Daniel may not consider them "professional" because of the lack of cost or commercial support but that doesn't mean they don't exist or do the job well. Huge clue: most of the major Hollywood animation studios and a lot of the production companies do run Linux. 2. Linux is 9% of the enterprise desktop according to Forrester Research. The consumer desktop is harder to measure (no revenue stream to count there) but I'd bet the number is similar. Many ISVs prefer to focus on the 80% of the market that Windows represents or the Apple users who are willing to pay through the nose for something that appears to be cool. Linux users are seen as cheap and too small a market to bother with. 3. Adding an OS (any OS) to the supported platforms represents increased labor costs to the developers. The cost/benefit ratio may not, in the view of the developers, represent a sufficient return in a short enough period of time to add the cost in a weak economy. This is related to #2 but not exactly the same. Regarding hardware support, Linux supports more hardware out of the box than any other OS, period. Vendors who require proprietary drivers sometimes provide Linux support, sometimes they don't. Why? See #2 and #3 above. However, Daniel's claim that any driver not included in Ubuntu doesn't exist is pure bunk. I've downloaded my share of vendor provided drivers that do work. Finally, Ubuntu isn't really the de facto flagship anymore. It's been losing mindshare and market share to Mint, Mageia, Fedora and openSUSE lately and other up and coming distros (i.e.: ROSA) are also gaining ground and could eventually be a threat. I've long contended that Ubuntu has more bugs and issues (what Daniel calls "quirky") than any of the other distros I list. My conclusion: Daniel's criteria setup Linux for failure from the start. His choice of Ubuntu only made matters worse. |
| helios Nov 27, 2012 9:27 PM EDT |
His choice of Ubuntu only made matters worse." Let's go with that. Now, we're talking 2008 here. I did an on-site with a fairly large real estate company, setting up one section of their operation to use Linux to see if it was a viable replacement for Windows XP Professional. Of course, I defaulted to Ubuntu because I concluded that since it was the most popular distro, it would naturally be the most supported across hardware lines. This office used a MegaTron-looking Ricoh print and copy system office-wide. I mean, really....it was a beast. Of course, Ubuntu didn't even see the system and getting it to work in CUPS and the Printing Network was a nightmare. More out of panic than anything, I slid in a live Mandriva CD and without doing a flippin' thing, the system not only saw the printer but went to work configuring it, drawing from the repositories the needed software to make it work. Once installed, the entire print and copy network was up and I was heralded as a genius. I didn't do anything...it just worked. So no, as much as the Fanbase wants to believe it, Ubuntu isn't the be-all end end-all in Linux distros. In fact, if Ubuntu was the only choice I had in my toolkit that day, this company would have never become a Linux shop. As a side note, we did migrate that Real Estate company to Linux two months later but in two years, It became more than I could handle as a one man show and they switched over to RHEL, where they remain today. They keep one lonely Windows server for Exchange because the corporate demands it. |
| tuxchick Nov 27, 2012 10:37 PM EDT |
LOL "the corporate." That's exactly how I think of them. "The corporate made this decision from afar, based on whatever The Consultant pulled out of his butt." |
| jacog Nov 28, 2012 5:47 AM EDT |
No, Ubuntu is not the poster-child for usability. Probably a lot better these days, but I remember being baffled and perhaps even a tad frustrated when people first started touting it as some kind of Linux-for-everybody when Mandriva and even (Open)SUSE was already doing a far dandier job of it. |
| CFWhitman Nov 28, 2012 10:03 AM EDT |
When Ubuntu first became so popular I always kind of wondered what Ubuntu had over Mandriva besides perhaps the package format. At this point the most compelling thing about Ubuntu to me is that it is often targeted for package releases from third party software developers. Of course, I don't use Ubuntu itself, but Ubuntu Studio, Xubuntu, or Lubuntu. |
| BernardSwiss Nov 28, 2012 8:48 PM EDT |
I would say that it's relatively simple why Ubuntu gathered all the attention: Canonical was the first Linux distributor to have some idea about how to market Linux to the masses, real interest in doing so, and also had the resources (technical and financial) to effectively support such marketing. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!