Subscribe to Windows IT Pro

How Ubuntu Ditched Me and Why I Ditched Ubuntu


Posted @ 5/11/2011 10:20 AM By Zac Wiggy

 

Ubuntu Linux is the most well-known Linux OS, and it's presented as the user-friendly, free alternative to Windows that doesn't need a powerhouse machine. It's the Linux that, they say, is supposed to provide a nice transition away from Windows and into the peace, love, and understanding of the Free Software world. Well no, Ubuntu. I'm done with you.

The number of people who still regularly use netbooks is probably tiny. They were a trendy item among early adopters, and I suspect those are the same people who've moved on to tablets for their small-mostly-entertainment-but-really-mostly-sitting-in-a-drawer-machine needs. But I like desktop machines, and I don't want to buy any more little computers. So I keep my netbook (which was already a low-end netbook when I reviewed it two years ago) running and up to date for when I want something I can move around.

It shipped with some commercial Linux on it that I didn't care for. I tried a few different Linux distributions before settling on Ubuntu (specifically the "netbook remix") for a long time. I don't really follow Linux versions—the constant upgrades to eight million different components, not all of which are in every distribution, are just too much for me to care about. So when Ubuntu gave me popups about upgrades, I said sure, do whatever you want. That worked fine at first, but the netbook's tiny (4GB) SSD was awfully full with nothing but Ubuntu installed, so eventually I had to delete some things (like OpenOffice, included in Ubuntu) to make room to let the updates finish. Then a couple of major version updates weren't even close to fitting, and I just did full OS installs of the new versions rather than bother with updates.

These reinstalls didn't take too long and weren't too much of a hassle, because all of my documents are stored on an SD card instead of the netbook's SSD. I just had to add a few programs and remove a few others. When the netbook asked me to upgrade to Ubuntu 11.04 last week then said I was over a gigabyte short of space, I figured I do that same again. I dutifully download the 650MB or so ISO and prepared my installation media. A few minutes into the installation, however, I was told that I needed 4.4GB of hard drive space to have a good Ubuntu experience. That was it. There was no apparent way to proceed, or to not install unnecessary applications, or anything else. So I gave up on Ubuntu.

My best guess as to why 4GB isn't enough anymore is that it has something to do with discontinuing a separate netbook version of Ubuntu. When I was trying to install 11.04, it was the full, real Ubuntu. And guess what? The full, real Ubuntu won't run on a machine that easily meets the installation requirements for what is still the world's most popular version of Windows. From the Microsoft page "System requirements for Windows XP operating systems" I see these requirements:

· Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)

· At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)

· At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk

And from the Ubuntu page "InstallationSystemRequirements":

· 1 GHz x86 processor

· 1 Gb of system memory (RAM)

· 8 Gb of hard-drive space

That latter page also says, "A good 'rule of thumb' is that machines that could run XP, Vista, Windows 7 or x86 OS X will almost always be a lot faster with Ubuntu even if they are lower-spec than described below." Good thing they say "almost always."

I think the clear lesson from my experience with Ubuntu is that someone who isn't interested in tinkering with a computer, who wants security updates, and who wants a simple, low-maintenance OS on a low-end machine should avoid Ubuntu, and probably Linux altogether—I'd have had a much more "it just works" experience over the years if I'd paid a few extra dollars for a Windows XP machine.

Luckily, I don't mind a little tinkering, and I grew up in the time when you had to know how to do some relatively complex stuff in DOS if you wanted to play computer games. So I can handle a command line, or command-line-like, experience. I've moved my netbook over to Crunchbang Linux. It's everything that I think Linux should be. It's small—I still have 1.5GB of free space on the netbook's SSD. It's lightweight—CPU usage by the OS is low and there's plenty of power left to do what little a netbook needs to do (web browsing and media playback mostly). I've had to dig into it a little bit—installing Java gave me a couple of weird problems—but I've finally got my netbook set up so that I have a regularly-updated OS that won't require regular reinstallations.

My point with this screed is that Ubuntu Linux doesn't seem to know what it is, and doesn't seem to fulfill a niche. It's not all that easy to use for those who aren't technically inclined—both Windows and Mac seem at least as intuitive to me. It's not especially technologically advanced—different Linux distributions provide much better bang for your hardware buck. Sure, it's free, but just try buying a new computer that doesn't come with a Windows license—you're paying for it anyway, might as well use it. So I guess the target audience for Ubuntu is people who have machines that are nearly, but not quite, powerful enough to run Windows 7, but who don't have a Windows license already, and who aren't comfortable enough tinkering with computers to use a different Linux OS. Seems like a tiny audience to me.

I'd love to be corrected—Canonical really does give the impression that it wants to give the world a beautiful computing experience and is trying its best. I just can't think of a situation where I'd recommend Ubuntu to anyone.

Related Content:

Comments

Add A Comment
  • Posted @ June 23, 2011 08:44 PM by Ken Ham

    Has JoeMonco weighed in on this at all? I can't form an opinion without help from JoeMonco.

  • Posted @ May 16, 2011 08:00 PM by dhlii

    I find this story incomprehensible.
    Windows IT Pro has a presumed technically savy audience and authors. Yet despite professions of skill and technical information Mr. Wiggy is blundering around whimsically. If his netbook was running (or even could) run some permutation of windows, would he be making systems choices this carelessly ?

    As best as I can tell the author seems to wish Ubuntu was more like some other Linux distro. In the end he picked another distro. I do not wish the Statue of Liberty was the Mona Lisa, and I am not sure why Mr. Wiggy thinks that is a good idea. There is a plethora of Linux Distributions because one size does not fit all. Cannonical does endeavor to overshadow many of those. More power to them if they can succeed at that. Regardless, their success in other areas is indisputable. And an editorial ranting about the authors self inflicted wounds is unlikely to change that.

    There is a place in the world for OS X, Windows, and Linux. Within the Linux community there is a place for Ubuntu. I welcome any and all efforts be each of these to expand their market - I benefit.
    I choose to run Ubuntu despite significant unhappiness about many Cannoical decisions. I still choose Ubuntu - because it is still an excellent Linux Distro, and since it is Linux, I can change asset my preferences over those of Cannonical when the issue is important enough.

    I will also point out that the Author was able to replace the factory installed Linux with Ubuntu and then later replace it with something else.
    Even my 10 year old can manage an Ubuntu install. I am an MSCE and I often have a great deal of trouble getting Windows installed (or re-installed) on a machine if it did not come pre-installed.

  • Posted @ May 16, 2011 01:25 PM by Joe Shmoe

    I was in fact able to install and boot Windows 2000 on a 200 MHz Pentium with 64 MB RAM and 1,5 GB hard disk space, but this is barely enough to run notepad or pinball.

    You should compare the latest Ubuntu to a hardware configuration that will run Windows 7 and Office 2010, even though it is perfectly possible to run Linux on hardware that is leaner than the specs above, think of embedded systems like MontaVista Linux.

  • Posted @ May 16, 2011 12:47 PM by Grant Root

    Sorry, but this article is so badly slanted, all of the common sense fell out.

    Yes, OS requirements do increase over time. On an old system with a tiny SSD, you tried installing the very latest version of Ubuntu, which requires 1GHz / 1GB / 8GB. That would properly be compared to the latest version of Windows, which requires 1GHz / 1GB / 16GB. Yup, that's right, twice the hard drive space required by Ubuntu 11.04.

    "What is still the world's most popular version of Windows" is not relevant to much of anything, especially as you do not have any info on the "most popular" version of Ubuntu. Instead, you could use the criteria of continued update support, since Windows XP updates continue to 4/2014. To compare to that, you could still be running Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (long-term support) which will have updates through 4/2013.

    In short, reasonable folks do not expect OS requirements to stay the same forever, nor do they make wild comparisons between apples and oranges. Next time, please think through your premise.

  • Posted @ May 16, 2011 10:47 AM by Ben

    I'm not a big Ubuntu fan, but comparing the install of the latest version of an OS onto a netbook that "was already a low-end netbook when I reviewed it two years ago" to requirements for a version of Windows released in 2001 seems a bit ridiculous.

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here


Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.