Re: Kubuntu 11.04 sucks
I would like to answer the comment made from Snowhog. "Is Kubuntu 11.04 'perfect'? No. But neither was any prior version of Kubuntu or any other flavor of Linux 'perfect'. Heck, no operating system is perfect (how can they be, when they are designed and built by fallible human beings)." I never said that Kubuntu 11.04 should be perfect! I know that there are always small amount of bugs after the fact. The key phrase here is small amount. We should strive for perfection even though we know that we will may not achieve it. It is the striving toward an perceived un-attainable goal here that counts. We should not be o.k. with mediocrity.
Another quote here from Snowhog stating, "As to 2.) Continued lack of proper commercial hardware driver support. How can that be the fault of the Linux (et al) developers? Commercial hardware manufactures do not have to open-source their drivers or provide their proprietary drivers to Linux at all. When they don't, then Linux developers have to reverse engineer drivers - if they can - that are imperfect at best." I understand the frustration here but, it does not solve the problem that the community faces in the opposition's argument not to use Linux or more specifically Kubuntu.
Some comments for GreyGeek are not entirely accurate. "Mark Shuttleworth is good at marketing, which is why Ubuntu rose so quickly into public awareness. He is not, however, marketing Kubuntu." In my estimation, he has not been that good at marketing Ubuntu ether, outside of Great Britain. If you ask the majority of general computer users, the vast majority have not even heard of Ubuntu here in the states.
To answer a criticism of GreyGeek's comment, "Got some money to pay NVidia to release their specs to a FOSS dev group?" Maybe? What I mean is that, if it takes a fund-raiser every year to help in the respect to hardware compatibility with the rest of the industry then, we should explore that option. Libreoffice had a fund-raiser to meet their licensing requirements in Germany. Why not at least explore what it would take to make Kubuntu and Unbuntu a more complete product?
I would like to answer a joke from GreyGeek. "ANY market share it has is either by coattails or the WOW factor.
Or both. People can do their asking here. If they don't like the answers or Kubuntu they can get a refund. Just supply the sales slip." There is more truth in this statement than I think even GreyGeek understands. You have illustrated the problem of the type of thinking that allot of Linux users are accustomed to. You are o.k. with a very small market share. Don't you think that the larger the market share, the more supportive users there would be, the more financial and developmental contributions there would be, and in return a more complete finished product that all humanity could enjoy. As for the refund comment, what GreyGeek does not seem to understand is that, if most general computer users could be somewhat assured that they would receive a QUALITY OS product then most individuals would be willing to pay a minimal fee. I know that Mark Shuttleworth promised that he would never charge for this OS but, if it keeps giving the community an excuse to justify a less that best product then maybe, the community should consider charging a small fee for the OS. I would be more than happy to receive a sales slip if I knew that I had an consistent outstanding product!
Just some outside of the box thinking here.
I would like to answer the comment made from Snowhog. "Is Kubuntu 11.04 'perfect'? No. But neither was any prior version of Kubuntu or any other flavor of Linux 'perfect'. Heck, no operating system is perfect (how can they be, when they are designed and built by fallible human beings)." I never said that Kubuntu 11.04 should be perfect! I know that there are always small amount of bugs after the fact. The key phrase here is small amount. We should strive for perfection even though we know that we will may not achieve it. It is the striving toward an perceived un-attainable goal here that counts. We should not be o.k. with mediocrity.
Another quote here from Snowhog stating, "As to 2.) Continued lack of proper commercial hardware driver support. How can that be the fault of the Linux (et al) developers? Commercial hardware manufactures do not have to open-source their drivers or provide their proprietary drivers to Linux at all. When they don't, then Linux developers have to reverse engineer drivers - if they can - that are imperfect at best." I understand the frustration here but, it does not solve the problem that the community faces in the opposition's argument not to use Linux or more specifically Kubuntu.
Some comments for GreyGeek are not entirely accurate. "Mark Shuttleworth is good at marketing, which is why Ubuntu rose so quickly into public awareness. He is not, however, marketing Kubuntu." In my estimation, he has not been that good at marketing Ubuntu ether, outside of Great Britain. If you ask the majority of general computer users, the vast majority have not even heard of Ubuntu here in the states.
To answer a criticism of GreyGeek's comment, "Got some money to pay NVidia to release their specs to a FOSS dev group?" Maybe? What I mean is that, if it takes a fund-raiser every year to help in the respect to hardware compatibility with the rest of the industry then, we should explore that option. Libreoffice had a fund-raiser to meet their licensing requirements in Germany. Why not at least explore what it would take to make Kubuntu and Unbuntu a more complete product?
I would like to answer a joke from GreyGeek. "ANY market share it has is either by coattails or the WOW factor.
Or both. People can do their asking here. If they don't like the answers or Kubuntu they can get a refund. Just supply the sales slip." There is more truth in this statement than I think even GreyGeek understands. You have illustrated the problem of the type of thinking that allot of Linux users are accustomed to. You are o.k. with a very small market share. Don't you think that the larger the market share, the more supportive users there would be, the more financial and developmental contributions there would be, and in return a more complete finished product that all humanity could enjoy. As for the refund comment, what GreyGeek does not seem to understand is that, if most general computer users could be somewhat assured that they would receive a QUALITY OS product then most individuals would be willing to pay a minimal fee. I know that Mark Shuttleworth promised that he would never charge for this OS but, if it keeps giving the community an excuse to justify a less that best product then maybe, the community should consider charging a small fee for the OS. I would be more than happy to receive a sales slip if I knew that I had an consistent outstanding product!
Just some outside of the box thinking here.
Comment