Modify Colors
Something few people seem to realize when they “compare” Windows and Ubuntu is that they are using a computer that was designed and built for Windows, not Ubuntu. Taken to an extreme, this would be like installing OS X on a Dell and saying that it is worse than Windows and recommending people not buy Macs.
Part of the reason why no one realizes that this makes for an unfair comparison is that, thanks to Ubuntu’s hardware support, every thing works – usually. When it doesn’t, though, or when they have to install a driver, the reviewer usually complains about Ubuntu being difficult to use. All of this would have been done for you if you had bought a computer with Ubuntu in the first place.
The problem is that it is almost impossible to make people realize the comparison they are making. There is one good way, though: warn about unknown/incompatible software. I propose an additional screen early in the Ubuntu installer and the Wubi installer that rates its confidence that Ubuntu will run on your hardware between known not to work and extremely confident.
If someone tried to install Ubuntu on a model of computer that Ubuntu has been extensively tested on, the installer would report that it is extremely confident Ubuntu will run well on their system. If all the components are known to work with Ubuntu, but that specific combination had never been tested, the installer would report being confident. If a large amount of the hardware was unknown or known not to work with Ubuntu, the installer would return that it was unsure or that the system was known not to work, respectively.
This rating would not have any effect on a user’s ability to install Ubuntu (if the system was rated “known not to be compatible,” there might be one confirmation screen), but it would let people know in advance if their computer’s hardware is supported. If people still experience hardware compatibility issues, then that would indicate that there was a real issue.
This system would not intrude on most users at all, but would help alert people of issues in cases where their hardware is unlikely to work.
Related posts:
- Recommending Linux With Confidence: Where We Need To Go It is not uncommon for people to ask me my...
- Linux Hardware Compatibility Sites: Does anyone do it right? One almost unavoidable problem with using an operating system that...
- Easy Guaranteed Computer Compatibility Buying new computers, particularly laptops, can be a bit of...
- Hardware Compatibility Info Linux.com published an article explaining where and what to look...
- The Other Side of the Linux Hardware Story I just read Free Software Magazine’s article about the state...
What I really don’t get is why we are lacking an autoconf tool that depending on the notebook model proceeds to the installation of a well known set of software/modules/conf files according to a fixed “compatibility matrix”.
Instead every damn time you install your distro of choice you also need to start tweaking it in order to have the wifi/vga card/functionkeys/younameit working properly.
Not to mention the regressions introduced by software updates (ubuntu anyone?) that will happily screw your install from time to time.
Oh, and I think it would have much wider use than just the Ubuntu setup.
There are many hardware compatibility databases, but there is no client that can connect to all of them. Why do we need a client and a database compatibility tester for each Linux distro?
In fact there is only one Linux kernel, can’t we make a client to test for all of them?
@Genius
would be even far better to download a 5 – 10 mb windows app to check your hardware configuration in the “system hardware device list” and then check an online database for problematic/no-driver hardware (and probably give a recomendation or link to help forum).
saves on bandwidth, time and burning CDs (specially people with slow connections)
true indeed
Umm…there is this thing called a Live CD. It is the standard iso if you go to download Ubuntu (or most other major distros). You boot into Ubuntu off the CD and you can see then and there if everything works or not. It’s much better than what you suggest as the person can actually try the OS before ever installing it in the first place.
JohnMc – I agree with you that processors, motherboards, RAM, and other fairly generic pieces of hardware almost always work (although there are plenty of exceptions on the motherboard front), but why would the hardware check be limited to just this?
As you said, the problem is usually strange model-specific features, WiFi cards, and so on. The installer could scan for these devices and warn of incompatibilities.
Scott Wallace – As far as I know no other major operating system uses anything like this system. (You could argue that Apple’s protections against using OS X on non-Macs are a form of hardware compatibility checks I suppose.) Usually this is not an issue with applications, but in some cases it might be quite useful (E.g. software with unusual system requirement.)
Come on now! This truly is a stretch. I will grant that there is a considerable amount of cross pollination between Microsoft and Intel but it is not to such a point that Ubuntu would not work on a given configuration. I could turn your comparison on its ear. If I took Ubuntu sources and compiled it to run on a PDP-11 and it ran one could say that Ubuntu was configured to run on the platform. While of course Windows has no configuration for a PDP-11. Is the comparison apt? No. You also tend to overlook the fact that since release .01 of Linux it was developed FOR the i386 architecture.
As to the install manager. Its not a bad idea. But again you overlook the issue that most components that won’t work with Linux are NOT the motherboard but given peripherals, be it cards or externals. That in and of itself is not an issue for Linux/Ubuntu but the OEM mfrs not releasing their chipsets/codebases for open source folks to develop drivers for. In that case your install manager won’t be able to resolve the issue other than reporting it won’t work. But that is like flogging the horse for the fact that the cart is broken and needs to be fixed.
You need to keep that in mind.
Thomas: This is an interesting idea – the compatibility screen to evaluate the software’s compatibility with what’s already on the machine. Two questions. Does anyone already do this for other kinds of software? It would be hugely valuable to novices (a designation applicable to most of us who HAVE to make this stuff work but don’t have tech support people available) if there were screens like this for EVERY software install. Even the supposedly user-friendly Apple software has tons of little glitches that eat hours of time. (Genius Bar? I’m not sure that mastery of the arcane minutia of code makes one a genius, but. . . . ) Second, is there a way to do the task you’re describing? In the health care IT arena, so much software is customized and so little interoperability/compatibility testing is done that there must be some massive engineering challenge that precludes this kind of thing. I know several of the IT consulting firms in the health care space make gobs of money on these kinds of assessments – but my impression is that they are labor intensive (and require people with lots of hands on experiences – geniuses, in the vernacular of Apple).
Just a couple of thoughts. Thanks.
Scott
thanks to Ubuntu’s hardware support, every thing works…
In fact, thanks to Debian’s hardware support