Seven Free and Useful Web Finds
3. Ubuntu: the Zero-Cost WIndows Replacement
So you like to get a little wild with your computing? Or perhaps you enjoy raising the proverbial middle finger to the even more proverbial "man." In either case, Ubuntu may be just the answer you've been looking for. Essentially, it's a community-developed, Linux-based operating system designed for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the key applications you might need to, say, run your own business or download gobs and gobs of movies: a Web browser, as well as presentation, document, spreadsheet, and instant-messaging software. It's pretty much a full productivity software suite -- with much more stability than Windows -- for the price of a free lunch.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Robin @ May 3rd 2007 5:30PM
This is okay when you are just running basic stuff, if you need anything more, use Windows. Also remember that there is not a lot of software for Ubuntu. Don't try to run a school on this stuff. Most if not all educational software is either windows based or Mac based. I work in a charter school and students and staff have to use this system.
John @ May 19th 2007 7:19AM
Robin,
Your networking people either don't yet know Linux very well or just don't provide you with good information.
Most anything that can run on any Linux can be compiled and run on Ubuntu - this includes clones and freeware versions of most all types of popular software; 99% of Linux software is as free as Linux itself. There is even a clone of MS Office called Open Office, which can deal with all the file formats which MS Office produces.
And even if you cant find a clone or Linux port of your favorite software - there is still wine. Wine is a windows emulator, which can install and run windows software on Linux machines. Wine doesn't work with 100% of windows software, but it is very effective with most stuff.
There are also other free flavors of Linux, not just Ubuntu. Fedora, Debian, CentOS, and the advanced user might enjoy the aggravation of Slackware Linux ... Then there are the open source Unix clones - FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc., but they are not as friendly as most Linux operating systems.
And I have to flatly take issue with the "basics" remark - Linux is more powerful, more scalable, more secure and fathoms more stable than Windows.
Lets see your windows machine pull this off:
uptime
07:11:10 up 453 days, 17:49, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.05, 0.00
SHARON HODGES @ May 21st 2007 10:01AM
HOW DO YOU GET INTO THE FREE SITES
Dave @ May 22nd 2007 2:09PM
John,
Why should the average user have to learn how to "compile and run" on Ubuntu"? Who ever heard of anyone but developers "compiling" on Windows? The average user doesn't even have to know what it means, let alone how to find the proper compiler and learn how to use it.
In my office I use MS Office 2000 and my associate uses Open Office, which I had already tested and rejected for a major client. Why? You say "Open Office... can deal with all the file formats which MS Office produces". By "deal with", you must mean MANGLE. Yes it might even be able to display a few very basic documents "closely" to the way it would appear in MS Office, but try printing or editing and saving the document and "Watch out Nelly!". We have spent several times the cost of getting him an MS Office license, just in the wasted time reformatting shared documents over and over.
Bulleted and numbered paragraphs have their bullets and numbers replaced by Zapf Dingbats, Wingdings and and other weird symbols, and the rest of the formatting all goes to hell.
As much as I despise a monopoly, I'm forced to admit that MS Office is the standard and NOTHING is as compatible with it as necessary for problem free sharing of files with MS Office.
Wine should be spelled whine, because that's what it causes the user to do. It's slow. The compatibility is FAR from 100% and it only adds one more unnecessary layer of complexity (read: bugs, conflicts & problems). If you want/need to run Windows programs, simply run them on Windows, that's all. They aren't designed for Wine.
You just illustrated another of Linux' reasons for failing to overtake Windows already, the multiple, confusing and incompatible flavors.
You also completely twisted the "basics" comment. Robin was referring to the apps, not the OS. I fully agree with the statement you made "Linux is more powerful, more scalable, more secure and fathoms more stable than Windows." But you missed the point. You can't run PhotoShop or other complex (not basic) apps on Linux because of the extent to which it is dependent upon the Windows architecture. There are 10s, if not 100s, of thousands of Windows applications for which there is no equivalent on Linux or the effort to match the Windows app on Linux simply isn't worth it. By "basic" I clearly understand that Robin was referring to functions, such as web browsing and email.
However, you can't possibly claim that Linux is more friendly, popular or useful to the novice user than any recent version of Windows. These users will accept an occasional reboot, long before they try to tackle a compile.
Kudos on your 453 day uptime, but for the average user, it's irrelevant.