Page 1 of 1

One Response

  1. There are several things about the Linux/Ubuntu community that typify why general acceptance is still for Redmond’s offerings.

    Poor install procedures,
    Poor documentation
    AND
    negligible belief that there are any 64 bit computers…

    The install procedures for each distribution seem proprietary and conflicting. The ‘universal’ tag and its many options seem to work, kind of, more or less, often inconsistently, at best.

    Documentation is usually written, by someone assuming the reader knows more on the subject than the author… If that was the case, they would not need the poorly written offings of most documentation authors in the Linux arena. The real problem is that for Linux to work, there has to be simple (rarely), well written (hardly) documentation of instruction, not assumption.

    Since almost all computers sold of late are 64 Bit, and more than enough come from AMD… Isn’t it nice to know Linux has just recently graduated to 32 Bit Processors, almost exclusively….?

    What is wrong with using software to run on predominantly sold hardware without having to read the poorly written instructions for the nearly idiotic miasma of often difficult to install software???

    Ubuntu 9.10 is now introducing the ‘software store’ with many of the difficult (and promised by them) software packages missing… Like Real Audio (and Helix is NOT Real Audio, yet) Lotus (only old systems, and yet they have lauded their relationship with IBM on this software)… Adobe’s offings… sorta…

    Yet, they are to be praised for going better than the rest of the Linux community, if falling short.

Leave a Reply