Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Will Ubuntu Take Windows 7 In Speed War?

Filed under
Ubuntu

The Ubuntu development community spent much of the last year losing a lot of momentum, as Microsoft gave birth to its Windows 7 operating system and its latest releases of the Linux OS failed to overly impress. It was bound to happen. After several solid years against the Windows platform, while the marketplace ate up and spit out Windows Vista in a fit of disgust, Microsoft finally began drawing a good amount of praise with Windows 7.

Meanwhile, some users began criticizing last year's Ubuntu release, version 9.10 "Karmic Koala," and took issue with items ranging from compatibility with flash-based Web sites like Facebook and Hulu, to boot time.

But among the many differences between Microsoft and the Ubuntu community is speed. While it took more than three (painful) years between the launch of Windows Vista and the launch of Windows 7, the Ubuntu folks are already in full stride toward the next desktop release of the Linux-based desktop OS, version 10.04 -- code-named "Lucid Lynx." (A Lynx is a breed of quick, flexible wildcat.) Lynx, due for launch in April, is known as an "LTS" release (for long-term stable.) We examined its Alpha version 1, which is still pretty much a rough cut, to try to get some sense of what's to come.

rest here




re: Speed War

I (and a zillion other window users) couldn't care less how fast Unoobtu boots.

Until it can RUN Quickbooks and Autocad and Photoshop and CorelDraw and Microsoft Office and the 17 lab-specific window apps that control/manage/monitor our test equipment - it's a hobbyist OS and will never replace Windows OS on the desktop.

All these years, and the fanboys still think it's about the OS. It's NOT. It's ALL ABOUT THE APPS.

or even better

Instead of running said MS software, which is not 'better' software, merely more widely distributed, improve the efforts on native Linux apps that serve the same need.

As far as I am concerned, Linux, the OS, is already 'ready' for everyday use in any environment.

A great many of the native apps that are packaged into default installations/liveCD's, etc... are NOT ready and people easily confuse that with Linux as an OS as being not 'ready'.

Native Linux software developers really need to start focusing on putting out software that people want to use and are confident the apps will be capable.

To me, the biggest problem with Linux app development is this so called 'competition' with MS and even Apple. Forget about competing, just do what needs to be done to make your apps the best they can be.

In the end, by focusing on quality, your 'competition', will be taken up as being won anyway.

Big Bear

re: even better

bigbearomaha wrote:
Instead of running said MS software, which is not 'better' software, merely more widely distributed, improve the efforts on native Linux apps that serve the same need.

I got a kink in my neck reading that paragraph. If Microsoft products aren't better - then why do the native Linux Apps need improving?

I agree, as an OS, Linux is "there". It's easy to install, it run's stable, can be made secure, and has the tools to monitor/manage it (ok, they're not centralized tools - so that's a bit of a problem - but it's getting better).

As to native apps being "As Good" as their windows equivalent, well..... when I can finally stop laughing...... I'll type that's not even close to being true.

Some day (and that day is NOT today, next week, next month, and probably not next year) they might be good enough for hobby/home/tech users.

They are not even CLOSE (not even a smidgen) to being ready to replace Windows Apps in the Business/Enterprise world.

There are numerous short comings - ranging from stupid naming schemes (yes, that actually does matter in the corporate world) to incredibly bad UI, stability, security, lack of features, disjointed navigation, ugly graphics, lack of documentation, and lack of anything but community support (i.e. did you try rebooting quality advice), to name the first 9 that comes to mind.

Lack of AD/GP integration and lack of centralized patch/update control are the two most important missing features (you try going around to 12,000 desktops).

So kudos to Linux to being a "real" OS, but lets not try to fool anyone (include ourselves) that the native Linux Apps are equivalent to their Windows Overlords.

So I stand by my statement - ITS THE APPS NOT THE OS THAT COUNTS.

not so sure about that

You can dog Linux native apps all day long, I have my own personal experiences as well as the input from a variation of levels of users that lets me know Linux native apps are much better than you give them credit for.

Windows apps are fraught with bugs, hence the onslaught of updates that spews forth from Microsoft. They are nowhere near the perfect beast you might like them to be. They have a public record of crashing not only themselves, but can and will take the whole OS down with it. That's not so great. Just being popular and having more copies of it distributed only means it is popular, not better.

It is well documented MS used their money and market share to bully and otherwise force competitive software out of the market. Having the money to sustain patent suits and other thinly veiled law suits as well as abuse OEM contracts does not make Windows software better, only what is most availble.

I did agree with you before and I still do that the apps at this point in time are the most critical. Without solid, usable apps that people want to use (and yes, some of the naming schemes could improve, can't deny that)

Also, I stand firm in my opinion that Linux developers should not be using MS apps as a baseline or measuring stick to build against. It is this short sighted approach I believe that keeps Linux software from being the best it can be.

Big Bear

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Linux 4.14-rc2

I'm back to my usual Sunday release schedule, and rc2 is out there in all the normal places. This was a fairly usual rc2, with a very quiet beginning of the week, and then most changes came in on Friday afternoon and Saturday (with the last few ones showing up Sunday morning). Normally I tend to dislike how that pushes most of my work into the weekend, but this time I took advantage of it, spending the quiet part of last week diving instead. Anyway, the only unusual thing worth noting here is that the security subsystem pull request that came in during the merge window got rejected due to problems, and so rc2 ends up with most of that security pull having been merged in independent pieces instead. Read more Also: Linux 4.14-rc2 Kernel Released

Manjaro Linux Phasing out i686 (32bit) Support

In a not very surprising move by the Manjaro Linux developers, a blog post was made by Philip, the Lead Developer of the popular distribution based off Arch Linux, On Sept. 23 that reveals that 32-bit support will be phased out. In his announcement, Philip says, “Due to the decreasing popularity of i686 among the developers and the community, we have decided to phase out the support of this architecture. The decision means that v17.0.3 ISO will be the last that allows to install 32 bit Manjaro Linux. September and October will be our deprecation period, during which i686 will be still receiving upgraded packages. Starting from November 2017, packaging will no longer require that from maintainers, effectively making i686 unsupported.” Read more

Korora 26 'Bloat' Fedora-based Linux distro available for download -- now 64-bit only

Fedora is my favorite Linux distribution, but I don't always use it. Sometimes I opt for an operating system that is based on it depending on my needs at the moment. Called "Korora," it adds tweaks, repositories, codecs, and packages that aren't found in the normal Fedora operating system. As a result, Korora deviates from Red Hat's strict FOSS focus -- one of the most endearing things about Fedora. While you can add all of these things to Fedora manually, Korora can save you time by doing the work for you. Read more

BackSlash Linux Olaf

While using BackSlash, I had two serious concerns. The first was with desktop performance. The Plasma-based desktop was not as responsive as I'm used to, in either test environment. Often times disabling effects or file indexing will improve the situation, but the desktop still lagged a bit for me. My other issue was the program crashes I experienced. The Discover software manager crashed on me several times, WPS crashed on start-up the first time on both machines, I lost the settings panel once along with my changes in progress. These problems make me think BackSlash's design may be appealing to newcomers, but I have concerns with the environment's stability. Down the road, once the developers have a chance to iron out some issues and polish the interface, I think BackSlash might do well targeting former macOS users, much the same way Zorin OS tries to appeal to former Windows users. But first, I think the distribution needs to stabilize a bit and squash lingering stability bugs. Read more