Software utopianism strikes again

[JEM_staff]

Wall Street Journal Columnist Walt Mossberg says that Ubuntu isn't for mainstream computer users (http://online.wsj.com/public/article..._20080912.html). He may be right, but I would like to know what his basis for comparison is. Though I can see based on his photo that Walt is decades older than I am and has had more access to more operating systems over the course of his career, I have to question his experience in installing, configuring, and using desktop operating systems. The issues he lists are genuine, but not unsolvable, and aren't materially different than the same initial configuration trouble that any user could have with any operating system on any modern computer.

Software utopianism strikes again

[J.F.]

Ubuntu is decades ahead of any Windows before XP, and probably on par with XP in most areas, ahead of it in some, and behind it in some. Anyone who say linux isn't ready for mainstream users is merely thinking of computers that came pre-installed and didn't have troubles. To compare that with a finicky laptop (and laptops are notoriously finicky, even with Windows) is doing a disservice to the public. Most people on most computers would be perfectly happy with most linux distros out today. They'd probably have fewer problems as well. I used to think linux wasn't ready either - three years ago. Linux has grown leaps and bounds since then, to the point where it has the latest Windows running scared. I didn't hear nearly as much fuss over Windows ME, which makes linux look godly in comparison. It makes you wonder who asked/paid for these articles. Vista is taking a pounding right now, so they have to downplay the "enemy" to keep people from defecting.

[Valour]

This guy's been at the WSJ for a while, and they're pretty strict about corporate influence. Imagine the trouble the WSJ would be in if it were caught taking payoffs from big corporations to write anti- or pro- articles.

I think the WSJ guy is right, but not to the detriment of Linux. Dell needs to provide the same level of presintalled OS support that it does for Windows -- or it just needs to slap a certification sticker on the computers it sells that are known to work with Linux and/or BSD, and let the user sort out problems on his own.

Dell isn't giving Ubuntu the same treatment it gives Windows.

[J.F.]

Yes, as you said in the article, it sounds like they're half-assing it. God only knows why. Like the comment on media codecs - if Dell wanted to, they could pay the license fee (which is cheap on a unit basis) like some other folks do and include the media playing standard. Most distros don't because of one of two things - 1) the distro is free, so they can hardly pay for a license on a free install, or 2) because they have a philosophical disagreement with paying software patent fees. We know #2 isn't the case with Dell - they include Windows and MS does pay the fee out of the charge they get for Windows. So if it were #1, they could just state on the web site "$5 added for media codec license fees" and include that standard.

[Valour]

One of the stories I could never quite get enough information for was the fact that Microsoft itself regularly and in some cases flagrantly violates software patents. They just do what they want, and pay the fine if/when it comes up.

Mandriva used to have a "legal" DVD player ala LinDVD. Then they took it out, and one insider told me that he suspected Mandriva ran into contract and licensing issues with Intervideo (Corel?) over it, and it was subsequently removed. The media codecs are also easily accomplished in a "legal" way. If I recall correctly, there is a company that specializes in providing missing media codecs for Linux... can't remember the name of it, but it was something silly and not-related to its function.

And you're right, it would be disgustingly simple for Dell to add these things to the Ubuntu machine setup for extra fees. Nobody nickles-and-dimes better than Dell does.

[jcauseyfd]

wrt the legal codecs for Linux, the company that is offering them is Fluendo. I'm not sure why Mossberg decided to characterize his attempts to obtain them as "bad" or "ugly". The only thing I've run across is warnings that their use may be illegal in your location.

Usually I find Mossberg to be a pretty decent commentator. I suppose one would have to be in order to keep a regular column with the WSJ. Nevertheless, he does seem to have missed the boat on this one. Of all the issues he had with Ubuntu, the only one I have not had a similar issue with in Windows is the mouse thingy. And since I don't use Ubuntu, I'm not real sure whether he is correct that it is hard to adjust the sensitivity.

I know I regularly run into issues with having to download codecs in Windows. Like Linux though, once you download and install them the first time, you can forget about them. I had a problem with playing commercial DVD's on Windows that was installed from a retail box as well. It took some hunting to find a way to play them - same as Linux.

I would guess companies like Dell are bundling other software that enables things like DVD playback with Windows, but they are not doing the same thing with Linux. Shame on Dell for doing that and shame on Mossberg for not seeing through that. From his previous writings/work, I think he probably should know that is what is going on.

JCausey

[Valour]

Originally Posted by jcauseyfd

wrt the legal codecs for Linux, the company that is offering them is Fluendo. I'm not sure why Mossberg decided to characterize his attempts to obtain them as "bad" or "ugly". The only thing I've run across is warnings that their use may be illegal in your location.

Probably because in Synaptic, the codec packages literally have -bad and -ugly in their names. This refers to licensing and code quality issues, respectively.

Usually I find Mossberg to be a pretty decent commentator. I suppose one would have to be in order to keep a regular column with the WSJ. Nevertheless, he does seem to have missed the boat on this one. Of all the issues he had with Ubuntu, the only one I have not had a similar issue with in Windows is the mouse thingy. And since I don't use Ubuntu, I'm not real sure whether he is correct that it is hard to adjust the sensitivity.

He's right -- it is not easy to adjust this. I've said as much in my own Ubuntu reviews. You can fix it by hand-editing xorg.conf, which is an easy thing to do if you have proper instructions. Such instructions should have been provided by Dell.

I know I regularly run into issues with having to download codecs in Windows. Like Linux though, once you download and install them the first time, you can forget about them. I had a problem with playing commercial DVD's on Windows that was installed from a retail box as well. It took some hunting to find a way to play them - same as Linux.

Before there were software DVD decoders, you needed to have a peripheral card hardware decoder installed in your system to play DVDs. The upsides to this were that it was MPEG-2 accelerated, so it got great performance; and it had TV-out and S-video out, so you could watch movies on your television. The company that sold these decoders was Sigma Designs, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't make them anymore. A pity -- this is how I thought Linux would get "legal" DVD playback support.

I would guess companies like Dell are bundling other software that enables things like DVD playback with Windows, but they are not doing the same thing with Linux. Shame on Dell for doing that and shame on Mossberg for not seeing through that. From his previous writings/work, I think he probably should know that is what is going on.

JCausey

Though he didn't say as much, he was really calling out Dell for its poor Linux support, not Ubuntu for its poor codec support. But Mossberg, for some reason, thought that everything would be perfect with Ubuntu, which is the kind of "software utopia" that so many Linux evangelists wrongly project.

It's a losing proposition to try to convince people to switch operating systems when they're not ready to do so. From his article, it looks like Ubuntu fans have been trying to convert Walt Mossberg. This is exactly what happens when reality takes a back seat to evangelism. If Linux were perfect, it wouldn't need so many kernel developers to manage patches. It, like all other operating systems, will never be perfect. It may be better for desktop use than most others, but it will not ever be totally bug- or problem-free.

[Valour]

Thanks for the heads-up on Fluendo, by the way.

Oddly, Fluendo supports Solaris SPARC and Linux PPC, but it doesn't support FreeBSD x86. That's a bit strange.

[J.F.]

The one thing you hear constantly that bugs me is how "easy" Windows programs are to install - just download and double-click them! Not quite - then you click the EULA, then click the default install directory, then click the option to create a start menu item, then click to create a desktop item, then click to install, then click to read (or two clicks to not read) the readme, then click to run (or two clicks to not run) the app and finish. Oh, then maybe restart the computer. Not to mention that Windows programs are scattered across creation. Even when you can find SOME at the same site (like Tucows), they're still hard to locate. And let's not even get started about then having to hunt down any dependencies by hand.

On most linux distros, you open the package manager, scroll down the list of packages, click once to select the package, and when you have all the packages you want selected, click once to install. It automatically finds and selects dependencies for you, downloads, and installs all the packages and their dependencies in the correct order. Done. Having to compile you own program is pretty rare these days. Even when the program isn't in a repo, it's nearly always prepackaged to make it easy to install. Much like Windows, just download and double-click, and I've never had nearly as many clicks after that point as a Windows app. The occasional EULA for a proprietary software package like J2RE, and that's about it.