How's Ubuntu for the illiterate?

Sweet Jones

I'm going to buy a Dell Inspiron Mini Netbook for my girlfriend and I see that one of the configs (the cheapest one...) comes with Ubuntu as the operating system. She is the type of person who may panic and start to cry at the prospect of trying to print a simple document and struggles to find her way around XP. Internet and word processing are the height of her computer aspirations.

My questions:
- Is Ubuntu user-friendly enough that she will be able to use it without having a nervous breakdown?
- Is it easy to set up Ubuntu with the basics (itunes, etc)?

I apologise for my own ignorance, as I've never used anything in Linux before.
Thanks for your advice.
Jones.

aidan_walsh

Does she have a computer already? Try downloading, burning and running Ubuntu as a LiveCD first and see how she likes it without having to change a thing on the computer.

EDIT - Heh, hit and run information overload. What I mean is go to here and download the latest version of the Desktop edition. Burn that CD image file using your disk burning software and leave the CD in when you restart. If the computer boots from the CD first, it will load Ubuntu and run it as if it was installed on the computer.

Khannie

No itunes in Linux AFAIK. Other than that I'd say it's ready for the average user for browsing / word processing.

Gonna leave this in here instead of moving to unix forum because it's more general.

aidan_walsh

No itunes in Linux AFAIK

Correct, not without something like WINE.

Sweet Jones

Good idea, but nah. Her other computer just broke. Hence the new one.

Shiny

I doubt she will want to use ubuntu.

Linux based laptops have 4 times the return rate of windows based
laptops. These people have attempted to do something simple like
"install a program" , couldn't and simply returned the laptop.

People will say stuff like

"You can sudo apt get ...bla...."
"Run it under emulation with wine or virtual box"
etc

but at the end of the day she will not be able/want to do
any of those things.

Either get one with windows or figure out a way to get windows onto
it as it will save you a tonne of complaining in the long run.

stevire

Sounds like Ubuntu might send her over the edge!! imo, Ubuntu is great but for the general user (word processing and the like) I can't see the advantages of having Ubuntu.

Stick with what she knows, and a more user friendly enviroment as XP/Vista.

Sweet Jones

Thanks for the advice guys. I'll stick with smelly old Windows.

Khannie

stevire wrote: »

for the general user (word processing and the like) I can't see the advantages of having Ubuntu.

It's memory footprint is tiny compared to vista and that counts when your running on a laptop. My own linux install uses < 100MB after booting into a full graphical environment. :eek: Also, it's free.

I think it's a pity that people wont give linux a chance. Installing software is actually much easier (and safer) than on windows.

An Fear Aniar

If you look at the drive size, I think the Windows machine is 16G whereas the Linux one is 8G.

Sweet Jones wrote: »

- Is Ubuntu user-friendly enough that she will be able to use it without having a nervous breakdown?

Depends what she's using it for,surfing, writing docs, listening to or watching media... all easy and very intuitive.

Watch the video here:

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/alliances/en/linux?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz

One big big plus with Linux is that it's virus-free and very secure.


.

DonkeyStyle \o/

Khannie wrote: »

I think it's a pity that people wont give linux a chance. Installing software is actually much easier (and safer) than on windows.

I've given (and continue to give) Linux plenty of chances.
I always wind up Googling endlessly for how to install different bits of hardware that aren't working or finding a way to configure something that isn't made available through the GUI.
I go back to XP when I realize it's just not worth the headache.
But I'll try it again in a few more versions, as I always do.

Shiny

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

I've given (and continue to give) Linux plenty of chances.
I always wind up Googling endlessly for how to install different bits of hardware that aren't working or finding a way to configure something that isn't made available through the GUI.
I go back to XP when I realize it's just not worth the headache.
But I'll try it again in a few more versions, as I always do.

Exact same experience here with Linux EVERY time.

I actually installed ubuntu earlier tonight using wubi. It doesn't get much
easier that that. Yet still it took 2 hours to "attempt" to do something as
simple as sharing a folder. (due to the fact that i didn't "own it"??)

Before that it was a sound card incompatibility.

There is always something.

Hence I advised Sweet Jones against selecting Linux for his girlfriends
laptop as he is the one who will have to listen to the moaning, complaining,
whining and once that is finished he would have to fix the problem too.

Linux is not ready for prime time yet, but in fairness it is getting there.

Snowbat

Remember folks, the user will be someone who has trouble finding her way around XP and the OS and applications will be preinstalled on supported hardware. For browsing, email, and basic Office work, an Ubuntu-based system would be an excellent choice - stable, easy to navigate, no malware, runs well on slower processors, etc..

The people who generally have a hard time with Linux are Windows power users who (understandably) get frustrated when they run into things that Linux does differently, people who require software that is Windows-only or Windows/Mac-only, or owners of hardware that is not yet supported in Linux (usually due to the manufacturer refusing to release technical information to Linux developers).

There is obvious demand for iTunes on Linux but nothing from Apple so far.
http://www.petitiononline.com/itmslin/petition.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=780995

ntlbell

If there is no _real_ reason for her to use ubuntu or any linux distro and she has no _real_ problems with windows don't try and move her over for the sake of it.

it's a pointless exercise

ntlbell

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

One big big plus with Linux is that it's virus-free and very secure.
.

Don't be making false sweeping statement's like this, it helps no one.

An Fear Aniar

ntlbell wrote: »

Don't be making false sweeping statement's like this, it helps no one.

It's not false, it's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses

It's as safe as you can get, unless you were running BSD or something else.

Do you have shares in Microsoft or something?

.

AlmightyCushion

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

One big big plus with Linux is that it's virus-free and very secure.

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's not false, it's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses

In fairness he is correct. You said it's virus-free, it isn't. Taken from your own link.

The number of malicious programs—including viruses, Trojans, and other threats—specifically written for Linux has been on the increase in recent years and more than doubled during 2005 from 422 to 863.

So, while linux does have less viruses and malware than windows it isn't virus free.

ntlbell

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's not false, it's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses

It's as safe as you can get, unless you were running BSD or something else.

Do you have shares in Microsoft or something?

.

No, here's a tip.

google.com +"linux kenrel Vulnerability"

That's just the kernel, now search for vulnerability's in the software that come in your default install of Ubuntu.

As you will see the list gets pretty damn big very quickly.

Advising you not to be giving people bad advice or false advice has nothing to do with liking or disliking microsoft.

Khannie

ntlbell wrote: »

google.com +"linux kenrel Vulnerability"

That will give a very false sense of the actual number of vulnerabilities in the currently deployed kernel on any up to date ubuntu distro.

Just for clarity: I have no virus scanner installed on any linux box I use. The reasons are:

1) All my software comes from a trusted source
2) There are comparatively few viruses for linux
3) I keep my software up to date
4) I don't open funny looking attachments in my email (it's all virus scanned anyway)

I think linux is ready for use as a word processor / web browser / media player. I'd give it to my mother in law if she was using a netbook purely because of the lower memory footprint. I used vista for the first time there recently and it's an absolute memory _hog_ (though I must say a very well integrated piece of kit).

Also, let's not nit pick here. AFA's main point was that linux is a more secure OS than Windows and I'd generally agree with that.

ntlbell

Khannie wrote: »

That will give a very false sense of the actual number of vulnerabilities in the currently deployed kernel on any up to date ubuntu distro.

Just for clarity: I have no virus scanner installed on any linux box I use. The reasons are:

1) All my software comes from a trusted source
2) There are comparatively few viruses for linux
3) I keep my software up to date
4) I don't open funny looking attachments in my email (it's all virus scanned anyway)

I think linux is ready for use as a word processor / web browser / media player. I'd give it to my mother in law if she was using a netbook purely because of the lower memory footprint. I used vista for the first time there recently and it's an absolute memory _hog_ (though I must say a very well integrated piece of kit).

Also, let's not nit pick here. AFA's main point was that linux is a more secure OS than Windows and I'd generally agree with that.

Who said linux wasn't ready? I've had it in on my desktop since RH 5.2 and FreeBSD since 3.2, what has that got to do with anything?

His point was wrong, I corrected it. there's nothing more to it.

There _is_ viruses for linux and as much as it is with XP/VISTA/whatever if common sense is not used linux and windows are as insecure as each other.

I'm not anti-linux it's kept me employed for the last 8 years or so, I am pro good advice and the posters was general incorrect sweeping statments that was mostly FALSE. no nit picking.

An Fear Aniar

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not anti-linux it's kept me employed for the last 8 years or so, I am pro good advice and the posters was general incorrect sweeping statments that was mostly FALSE. no nit picking.

Fair enough, it is possible to make viruses for Linux, that's why I put the Wiki link there.

But the reality at present for the end user experience is that viruses are simply are not an issue. At present. Nobody using a Linux distro has to run anti-virus, anti-spyware software. And even if you did download a virus,it's much more difficult for it to do any damage.

.

ntlbell

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Fair enough, it is possible to make viruses for Linux, that's why I put the Wiki link there.

But the reality at present for the end user experience is that viruses are simply are not an issue. At present. Nobody using a Linux distro has to run anti-virus, anti-spyware software. And even if you did download a virus,it's much more difficult for it to do any damage.

.

which makes the situation less likely, this was never in question.

I just don't like putting the idea into people's head there is no risk as it's completely false if your distro is not kept up to date like any other OS you put yourself at risk.

getting people into a practice of not using anti-virus/anti-spam/ OS updates is bad.
As ubuntu and other distro's like mint grow in popularity and gain more market share more effort wll be put into viruses/spyware etc geared towards linux as the infection space grows, granted at the moment it might not be worth their efforts, but it's best not to start people off on the wrong foot with misleading information.