- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Canonical's Jono Bacon on the agony, ecstacy of Ubuntu Karmic - and my rant on the state of Linux today
|
|
|
Comments (21)
1 earlier comment in the full thread.
I agree on the apples/oranges situation of preloaded Windows vs. user- (or expert-) installed Linux.
However, my point here is that whether it's Windows preloaded or Ubuntu either preloaded or installed by your friendly neighborhood Linux geek, when it comes to a six-month upgrade, do you call the geek, or do you just do what the Update Manager says, that being "update to the latest release/distribution" or whatever it says in the dialog box?
If my mythical user, with a Ubuntu system installed by me, did this upgrade and suddenly had bunches of stuff stop working — as I had going both from 8.04 to 9.04 and then from 9.04 to 9.10, that has nothing to do with how the system was initially installed.
And the facts on the ground are that Linux preloads just aren't going to gallop in on a white steed and save us from the indignities of installing the OS and debugging said OS ourselves.
I agree that Windows has a distinct advantage regarding the preload because the hardware maker has somewhat of a vested interest in everything working once the user gets the system hooked up and powered on.
So even though it's a Windows preload vs. a Ubuntu installation after the fact, that's what we're going to have to deal with. For me, right now, the fact that the upgrades seem to be breaking more than they fix is a problem.
Perhaps Ubuntu isn't the distribution that is going to bring Linux to "the masses," to "the next level," or "add your own goal/cliche," but I sure don't see anybody else with that much scale, community involvement, focus on the desktop and desire (although I sometimes doubt the sincerity/commitment) to bring new people into the FOSS revival tent and not just focus on the current Linux-using community.
I'm holding desktop Linux in general, Ubuntu in particular to a high standard. As I say in the original piece, we've seen tremendous progress in the past five years, and there should be much more progress in the next five.
However, my point here is that whether it's Windows preloaded or Ubuntu either preloaded or installed by your friendly neighborhood Linux geek, when it comes to a six-month upgrade, do you call the geek, or do you just do what the Update Manager says, that being "update to the latest release/distribution" or whatever it says in the dialog box?
If my mythical user, with a Ubuntu system installed by me, did this upgrade and suddenly had bunches of stuff stop working — as I had going both from 8.04 to 9.04 and then from 9.04 to 9.10, that has nothing to do with how the system was initially installed.
And the facts on the ground are that Linux preloads just aren't going to gallop in on a white steed and save us from the indignities of installing the OS and debugging said OS ourselves.
I agree that Windows has a distinct advantage regarding the preload because the hardware maker has somewhat of a vested interest in everything working once the user gets the system hooked up and powered on.
So even though it's a Windows preload vs. a Ubuntu installation after the fact, that's what we're going to have to deal with. For me, right now, the fact that the upgrades seem to be breaking more than they fix is a problem.
Perhaps Ubuntu isn't the distribution that is going to bring Linux to "the masses," to "the next level," or "add your own goal/cliche," but I sure don't see anybody else with that much scale, community involvement, focus on the desktop and desire (although I sometimes doubt the sincerity/commitment) to bring new people into the FOSS revival tent and not just focus on the current Linux-using community.
I'm holding desktop Linux in general, Ubuntu in particular to a high standard. As I say in the original piece, we've seen tremendous progress in the past five years, and there should be much more progress in the next five.
First, the six month release cycle with cutting-edge Ubuntu is NOT for the average user. LTS with a two year release cycle makes much more sense and that is what most OEMs are preloading. If you stick with LTS and updates then we're talking once every two to three years. That's far more sensible and reasonable.
I happen to believe that OpenSUSE is as committed to the desktop as Canonical. Considering the size of the desktop developer team in MA I would also say that Red Hat is more committed than most people believe. Mandriva can certainly compete with Ubuntu and is actually more user friendly, IMHO. Ditto Pardus. I think they all want to bring in more customers every bit as much as Canonical does. I think the perceived dominance of Ubuntu on the desktop is actually harmful to the Linux community.
Size of community doesn't equate to quality of community. I get much faster and better answers from the Pardus community than I do from Ubuntu. Ditto Vector Linux.
The "average user" neither installs nor upgrades an OS, period. With a distro that is supported long term (and Red Hat/CentOS/Oracle/Scientific Linux are better than Canonical in this area, with seven years of support) then the upgrade issue becomes a non-issue.
I happen to believe that OpenSUSE is as committed to the desktop as Canonical. Considering the size of the desktop developer team in MA I would also say that Red Hat is more committed than most people believe. Mandriva can certainly compete with Ubuntu and is actually more user friendly, IMHO. Ditto Pardus. I think they all want to bring in more customers every bit as much as Canonical does. I think the perceived dominance of Ubuntu on the desktop is actually harmful to the Linux community.
Size of community doesn't equate to quality of community. I get much faster and better answers from the Pardus community than I do from Ubuntu. Ditto Vector Linux.
The "average user" neither installs nor upgrades an OS, period. With a distro that is supported long term (and Red Hat/CentOS/Oracle/Scientific Linux are better than Canonical in this area, with seven years of support) then the upgrade issue becomes a non-issue.
@Steven_Rosenber I think that Microsoft is too often given a "free pass" on things breaking due to updates too. I've heard plenty of horror stories from Windows users about how they installed some updates and suddenly things quit working too. There are a few factors... Microsoft updates so much less frequently than for example Ubuntu (as caitlyn mentions)... so few Windows users actually do the updates (especially the n00b types, and the experienced Windows users are familiar with how to un f*** Windows when it breaks due to upgrades so they don't perceive it as painfully as they should)... FOSS is evolving and innovating a lot more rapidly than MS is right now. And Microsoft just plain ships a lot less code than distros like Ubuntu do -- a lot of what comes with most Linux distros requires a lot of add-ons and 3rd party software to approximate under Windows.
And then there is that Microsoft has a lot more resources to regression test things, and they get a lot more help from hardware makers with regards to things like drivers. And generally MS gets a free pass and or points fingers if 3rd party software updates or code causes problems.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that while Linux (and particularly Ubuntu) aren't perfect, MS isn't as good as people think they are. If you give a n00b a Linux system and a Windows system, I really don't think its more likely the Windows system will run longer and have fewer problems than the Linux box. Or basically what I'm saying is I think it is less likely a n00b will hose up a Linux install.
And then there is that Microsoft has a lot more resources to regression test things, and they get a lot more help from hardware makers with regards to things like drivers. And generally MS gets a free pass and or points fingers if 3rd party software updates or code causes problems.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that while Linux (and particularly Ubuntu) aren't perfect, MS isn't as good as people think they are. If you give a n00b a Linux system and a Windows system, I really don't think its more likely the Windows system will run longer and have fewer problems than the Linux box. Or basically what I'm saying is I think it is less likely a n00b will hose up a Linux install.
Whether or not the 6-month Ubuntu releases are, in reality, for the "average" user, all the hype surrounding them means that anybody who pays any attention to Ubuntu on the Web is very well going to be drawn up in that hype.
Most Linux distributions with non-rolling releases won't up the version of popular end-user packages such as Firefox, OpenOffice, etc., and the user's perceived or real need for a newer version of a given application or applications is often impetus to upgrade.
Occasionally Mac OS mandates an upgrade to use certain apps. Firefox 3.5 requires OS X 10.4, as does Flash 10, I believe. That was what pushed me from 10.3 to 10.4 on the Macs I take care of. That and the very quiet EOL on 10.3 that Apple doesn't exactly publicize.
But in Linux distros, there's the backports way of keeping apps more current on older distros, and then there's upgrading the entire installation.
I do agree that Windows and Mac systems need just as much if not more attention from those who maintain them, especially because users seem to feel like they can grab any piece of #$% from the Internet, install it and have everything work fine every time.
Most Linux distributions with non-rolling releases won't up the version of popular end-user packages such as Firefox, OpenOffice, etc., and the user's perceived or real need for a newer version of a given application or applications is often impetus to upgrade.
Occasionally Mac OS mandates an upgrade to use certain apps. Firefox 3.5 requires OS X 10.4, as does Flash 10, I believe. That was what pushed me from 10.3 to 10.4 on the Macs I take care of. That and the very quiet EOL on 10.3 that Apple doesn't exactly publicize.
But in Linux distros, there's the backports way of keeping apps more current on older distros, and then there's upgrading the entire installation.
I do agree that Windows and Mac systems need just as much if not more attention from those who maintain them, especially because users seem to feel like they can grab any piece of #$% from the Internet, install it and have everything work fine every time.
Quoting:I think that Microsoft is too often given a "free pass" on things breaking due to updates too.
Yup. I don't remember any media or internet uproar over all the machines that SP3 broke (and is still breaking here and there as machines update to it). And I'm not talking just consumer machines (though there have been plenty of stories of it breaking them), I'm talking Dell Servers that will suddenly no longer load Windows after you install SP3 (I found this out the hard way at a clien'ts place). An update that makes the OS unloadable that requires you to either use your system disk to use the recovery console to remove the update (I believe this is the case with one sitting on my floor right now, but they can't find the Dell install CD), or use your system disk to load a driver (once you find it on Dell's site on the page talking about SP3 breaking that server model) to fix the problem isn't exactly what I would call a minor problem.
As for installing? Yeah...I'd rather install Gentoo (well, I do anyway rather often..lol) than install XP and try to find all the drivers for it any day.
Guess I should be glad that my XP box simply won't install SP3 ... it's some kind of Redmondian dependency issue.
Actually the desktops and laptops where I'm doing some work now all run XP with Service Pack 3. That includes Dells.
Since techiem said servers I wonder if he is referring to Windows Server 2003 or ????
Since techiem said servers I wonder if he is referring to Windows Server 2003 or ????
Trying to remember the exact details of the server.
It could be Server 2003.
I'll have to double check next time I'm there (I was just there today too...).
My personal laptop has no issues with SP3, but I slipstreamed it into the custom install CD I made for it. Apparently it varies by machine/install (as does all software). Some handle it just fine, some break some things, some break Windows totally (i.e. STOP errors on boot).
My personal laptop has no issues with SP3, but I slipstreamed it into the custom install CD I made for it. Apparently it varies by machine/install (as does all software). Some handle it just fine, some break some things, some break Windows totally (i.e. STOP errors on boot).
I think the key to SP3 is logging in as the administrator. I don't have that access ... and I aim to keep those that do away from the box as much as possible.
Yes, you do need admin access. Of course, with a Linux live CD you can reset the admin password pretty darned easily.
Given the ease of entry to a Linux box with a working, unprotected CD drive, BIOS and even GRUB, I'd like a really good reference on how to really protect a Linux installation from intruders (as much as it can be protected, at any rate).
Steven, "she who has physical access to the box owns it." I think your best bet is strong encryption and physical locks. You can disable removable media, you can password-protect the bootloader, you can spackle over the serial port, but then it's like when you raccoon-proof your garbage can, and you lock yourself out. (And often the raccoons can still get in.)
Quoting:You can disable removable mediaOr just remove the CD/DVD and floppy drives altogether.
And epoxy or Glyptal(tm) "J" works better than spackle. On the USB ports and mounting screws, too.
(Can you tell I've done this?)
Don't forget to weld the case shut so they can't open it up and hook up new drives. hehehe.
As ridiculous as these suggestions may seem (gus3's and my even more extreme one), when it comes down to it, if they can get inside your box (physically), there's nothing keeping them from the data other than encryption.
As ridiculous as these suggestions may seem (gus3's and my even more extreme one), when it comes down to it, if they can get inside your box (physically), there's nothing keeping them from the data other than encryption.
> ...there's nothing keeping them from the data other than encryption.
And any encryption can be broken given enough time. And since if they have physical access, then can probably do a bit by bit copy of the drive and take the data with them...
And any encryption can be broken given enough time. And since if they have physical access, then can probably do a bit by bit copy of the drive and take the data with them...
Or capture and torture you until you fess up the password. I would hold out about a nanosecond.
> Or capture and torture you until you fess up the password. I would hold out about a nanosecond.
You can't fool us, TC. We know you've set up a fake password that destroys the hard drive (or better yet, gives fake data, but that's much harder) when entered, for just such occasions.
You can't fool us, TC. We know you've set up a fake password that destroys the hard drive (or better yet, gives fake data, but that's much harder) when entered, for just such occasions.
I thought the fake password was supposed to destroy the hard disk data then set off the emp bomb under the server room just to be sure .....
One word:
Thermite.
Thermite.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Frankly, from what I've seen Windows isn't ready for the "average user" either, unless they get a pre-installed system either. Even then... how long is it before a lot of them bork it up...