The whole article was rife with FUD and conflicting statements. It starts by stating that none of the press about Ubuntu (or Linux in general) mentions the difficulties that may arise during install; he even contradicts himself in the very next sentence, "none of the Ubuntu stories--no Linux reviews, for that matter--talk about the inevitable problems many people run into during the installation process. Yet online forums are rife with traffic on stumbling blocks". He then implies that the time to download the ISO is part of the total time required to install Ubuntu, "'A standard installation should take less than 25 minutes.' ...That didn't turn out to be the case. The download of the 697-MB Feisty Fawn image took me 40 minutes." He also complains about how long the LiveCD takes to load, comparing it to the actual installation screens during an MS Windows install, claims to have been "faced with a blank screen", only to admit a couple paragraphs later that it was actually the Ubuntu logo and progress bar (although, I will agree that displaying the boot text would be more helpful when running a LiveCD). After which, he states "if you can't successfully load the Live CD, you can't install Ubuntu," only to briefly mention the Alternate Install CD a couple pages later. He also complains about about the variety of base Ubuntu distros, "I wonder if the Linux newbie to whom Ubuntu is pitched would think of trying Kubuntu next? That's another bone I have to pick with the Ubuntu community." And the rest of the article is even whinier, although apparently he finally got around to looking at some valuable resources, a hardware compatibility list, and a site for Linux on HP laptops, although he did just ignore the information presented, and whined about that too.
-- -Ron Smith _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
