On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM, turbolad <email address hidden> wrote:

>
> Here's another frustrating issue: why doesn't Ubuntu alert the user that
> the "restricted extras" can be installed to use things like Flash Player,
> play mp3 files etc.?  I know Ubuntu can't legally include the restricted
> extras in the default installation, but why not TELL the user that they can
> install the restricted extras?
>

That was a thing of the past... the new installer, starting with Maverick I
believe, indeed DOES tell the user that they should install restricted
extras if they wish to be able to play mp3 files and the like.

>
> Another thing that home users are familiar with and Ubuntu doesn't seem
> to care about: the user interface.  Ever since Windows 95 – i.e. from
> about the time when people started using computers at home – Windows
> users have the familiarity of the single task bar at the bottom of the
> screen and it's been constant ever since.  In Ubuntu, you have the
> cumbersome "Unity" interface which frustrates users – it really does!
> If Ubuntu were to see how much easier "Lubuntu" is for newcomers from
> Windows, instead of forcing users to learn the Unity interface, then
> Ubuntu would become MUCH more successful.
>

People are used to the "taskbar" because that is what they had been given
from the start, and had known nothing else. Unity, as well as Gnome-shell,
are revolutionary interfaces designed to explore an entirely new paradigm
that has not been explored before - the point of view is that things such
as menus etc are irrelevant now - one can just search for what they want
with a single click and typing, rather than wading through endless lists.
It is most certainly because users are used to the old desktop model that
they do not like the new one - for someone who picks up a computer with the
new model, I am pretty sure they would think the old menus + taskbar style
was a dinosaur from the past; it pretty much is. Then again, if you
absolutely still hate it, what is good about GNU/Linux is the plethora of
choice - install Openbox + tint2 (my other desktop of choice), or XFCE, or
LXDE... All the other *buntus are basically spinoffs with the defaults
changed, which can be attained from any one of the distros.


> Finally – this IS a killer for Ubuntu...
> Users must upgrade the entire Ubuntu install just to: run newer programs,
> use newer hardware and still have their installed version of Ubuntu
> supported?  Upgrading Ubuntu can break things, such as power management,
> drivers for wireless or other hardware devices.  I have strongly suggested
> in the "Ubuntu Brainstorm" that there should be a "live" testing mode
> before upgrading, to see if the newer version of Ubuntu will work before
> the user upgrades Ubuntu AND I have urged the Ubuntu developers to make the
> installation "cleanly" install without affecting the /home directories.


> This is where Microsoft wins again!  Look at Windows XP for example.  It
> was released in 2001 and it is *still* supported by Microsoft until
> April 2014: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173
>
> Users don't have to upgrade Windows just to use a newer versions of most
> programs, except for some newer games, which require Windows Vista or
> Windows 7.
>

MAC OSX also does system upgrades in the same manner as Ubuntu -
incremental ones that you purchase. Upgrading an XP install to Vista is no
different - there are dangers of breaking things all the time, and many
recommend a clean install is better. The Ubuntu upgrade is designed to
handle everything smoothly, and ever since Maverick, I have never had any
issues with upgrades - I upgraded from Lucid -> Maverick, Maverick ->
Natty, and Natty -> Oneiric, and still running strong! And even with XP, it
is becoming more and more cumbersome to install stuff that works on Windows
7, and that's not just because people are eventually going to stop making
installers for it - so yes, even though MS supports XP till 2014, it was
not because they planned to - XP support was supposed to end in 2009 or
something, but because people hated Vista so much with a passion (which I
think was unjustified too - IMHO, Vista, minus the Aero interface, was
indeed a superior product compared to XP... bloated by an order of
magnitude, but superior nonetheless, although still nowhere as awesome as
GNU/Linux) they had no choice but to continue support, else people might
have dumped MS altogether.

Also, I think what you really wish to have is a "rolling release" model,
where you perform occasional updates but the system as a whole never needs
to be upgraded.... Such a thing exists in the GNU/Linux world, just not
with Ubuntu's model - there's Arch Linux, which is pretty rock-solid stable
for everyday use, and Debian Testing/Sid are quasi-rolling release. There
are many others... Windows XP/Vista/7 - none of them are rolling... When
Win8 comes out, 7 will be obsolete, since it has a completely new interface.

I believe we are almost there to closing this bug... All we need is a way
to give the monopoly some competition, and to bring Ubuntu more so to the
masses than it already has!

Manjul

-- 
Manjul Apratim