These things are simple: If Ubuntu were so much better, or just plain better, than other operating systems, more people would use it.
Firefox is, and has been for a long time, much better than IE, and so people use it.
OpenOffice/LibreOffice is not better than Microsoft Office, and so people don’t prefer it over Microsoft Office.
Ubuntu is not better than Windows or OS X, and so very few people prefer it.
Changing from Windows to Ubuntu requires you to find equivalents for all of the software you need.
Changing from your browser -> Firefox = most websites will still work, no additional effort on anyone.
Changing from Microsoft Office to OpenOffice forces you to ensure all the documents open correctly and others can open yours correctly.
It's not always so black and white.
Now.
When Firefox v1.0 was released in 2004, 8 years ago, that was not so, and early adopters who were thinking about recommending Firefox had to consider two important issues:
First, compatibility.
Second, the fact that the idea that you would install a third-party program to browse the web seemed strange, even pointless, to people.
Yet, Firefox was so good already by that time, and it held so much promise, that those who already knew about it did recommend it. As a result, within one year it had 15% market share—an impressive achievement—, and webmasters had to start doing something about browsers that were not Internet Explorer. Today the compatibility problems are largely confined within intranets, and the idea that you would need one particular browser to browse the web seems strange.
Let’s compare that with where desktop Linux is today. What is the promise it helds? Which are its redeeming virtues that would make me and you recommend it to other people?
I have Linux installed on my auxiliary desktop system since 2004 — either Ubuntu or Debian Sid. The main issue that prevented me from switching when I was more enthusiastic was this:
I like to have two sound cards on my desktop systems: The on-board one, which I don’t care about, and a good one with a good DAC. The music I listen to is fed to the good card, which then feeds the amplifier. All other sound generated by the system goes to the on-board card. In 2004, and also in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, there was only one—I repeat, one—audio player that allowed you to select a non-default sound card for its output and at the same time met some basic requirements like proper gapless playback and good UTF-8 support. That was Quod Libet. The option was not exposed in Quod Libet’s GUI; you had to search for it, and then pass it to the program as a command-line argument. But at least there was one program that supported this simple thing. However there was another issue: Because of a bug in ALSA or the kernel (don’t remember which any more) the sound devices of the system were enumerated at random upon booting, with the result that 50% of the times the audo player had the wrong card selected upon starting! :-) So, after some time I got tired of struggling with the system in order to listen to music and abandoned the idea that I would use Linux as my main desktop system. I don’t know how much better things are today, but I would not be surprised if such problems remain.
I still use Linux today but only on my auxiliary desktop system (Debian Sid). I also use Debian on my laptop for a simple reason: I use the laptop for about 5 to 10 hours a week for a narrower set of tasks, and the high maintenance requirements of Windows seem to me too much for that. Debian, even Debian Sid with its occasional hiccups, is MUCH easier to maintain.
Now, one could say that the one issue I say prevented me from switching to desktop Linux is an edge case. It may be. But I am afraid it is only one of the many edge cases that are frought with problems on desktop Linux. Desktop Linux in my eyes is a heap of edge case problems. Not everyone is affected by every problem, by everyone is bound to hit upon a serious one at some time or other. The two exceptions I know are folks who use their machines mainly for developing for the vibrant Linux web ecosystem, and folks who need their desktop/laptop systems for a narrow set of basic tasks.
And then, there's the Software & Games issues... but that's a story for another day.
Those same people may also believe Windows is what a computer is.
Why don't you want to use it? Using Wine is as simple as double-clicking a Windows EXE and letting it install or run. It's no more difficult than using software on Windows (usually)
And sorry to nitpick, but WINE stands for "WINE Is Not an Emulator", because it isn't :)
First off: don't expect this to work well. Wine does not yet support Photoshop CS3. Only read these instructions if you feel like fiddling around, not if you expect to get a working Photoshop.
The other versions look in better shape, but still.
I am eternally grateful to the Humble Bundle folks for insisting on Linux support.
Yes, but that goes both ways. If Ubuntu lacks equivalents for all of the software you need, you cannot say that it's "better than the other OSs", i.e. software availability is a very important metric of "better" in an OS, even more important than the network stack being 5% faster, or the filesystem supporting more esoteric features etc.
So, it would be like saying "Ubuntu is better than OS X/Win if we exclude things that also matter a lot".
Desktop Linux is not for everyone. It all depends on what you use your computer for - if you write software for Mac or Windows or if you rely on perfect Office compatibility, it's most definitely not for you. If you run heavy software that has no Linux counterpart, it's obviously not for you. If you develop software that'll run on Linux, it's a really good choice. If you browse the web for everything, it's a great choice.
I believe on OS X it does the same thing as Windows.
When FF was in beta versions it was already a better browser than IE, but nearly no one knew of it, therefore FF had a small number of users. As awareness of FF grew, so did its popularity.
It is silly to judge the quality of a product or service by the number of people that use it.
"Working with Ubuntu 12.04 is quite simple and elegant… until you want to sit down and see what applications are available on your system."
Which sounds like it really doesn't blow anything out of the water. Then I also read:
"click the “Ubuntu” button in the top left, then click the little white icon on the bottom center that is, I assume, representative of “a comb, a pencil and a building with pacman on it”. Then you expand the “Installed” section by clicking on the left/center of the screen. Then you click on “Filter Results” in the top right."
WAT? That's the complete opposite of a well-thought-out experience for the user.
So why is it that this GUI environment is superior again?
Key phrases:
> In short: It’s fast. Stable. And generally a pleasure to use.
> In fact, this is my only big gripe with the Unity interface. And it’s not a big one. I’m nit-picking here.
On the other hand things that don't work as you expect have some story to it - why don't you like them, what else did you expect, who does it properly, how is it affecting your workflow, how much you dislike that problem. I expect things like that to affect most reviews...