Ubuntu blues

[Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy]

On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 00:53 +0000, Martin Alderson wrote:
> a) Feels more familiar.

That depends on other systems you have used. If you used Mac a lot,
Windows is not going to be "more familiar" than GNOME.

> b) Very stable (compared to GNOME, which has various crashes of
> nautilus multiple times a week).

I have to say that on my warty desktop (with a few hoary packages) I
have yet to see nautilus crash. There are a couple of apps that actually
do crash once in a while, but unlike Windows system they don't take all
the rest of my applications with them.

> c) Allows me to run Windows Applications (mainly Visual Studio) and
> games (big issue here)

Not much to say here. Windows runs windows applications (and games).
Linux runs UNIX applications. You can use cygwin to wun UNIX apps on
Windows (takes a bit of luck) and you can use wine to run Windows apps
on Linux (also takes some luck). Personally, I play games once in a
while and I don't have a Windows partition, cedega takes care of the
games. It is not free, but I do not have to reboot to play.

> d) Runs big opensource apps _better_ than Linux (eg: Firefox 1.0 took
> me about 45 seconds to install on Windows, took me about half an hour
> reading manuals and mailing lists to work out what the hell I should
> be doing with it, also OpenOffice works a lot better on Windows than
> Linux when it comes to printing and updating it).

You say it runs apps better, and then you compare installation
procedure. I am not sure what kind of person you are, but afaik firefox
comes pre-installed with Ubuntu as well as openoffice. What is it that
you were looking for in those mailing lists and manuals? And even if it
didn't come preinstalled, symantec might not be obvious for a Joe user,
but a minimaly computer-literate person should have no trouble operating
it. Now that this point is refuted, tell me how exactly does firefox RUN
(as separate from INSTALL) better on windows?

> I could go on.

Please not on this list