Rory Cellan-Jones spends 24 hours with Ubuntu and does not like it.
His review upsets die-hard Ubuntu/Linux users:
Link: 24 hours with Ubuntu
I can see why he'd upset the Linux community! He's obviously an idiot. Installing Audacity? Just use the Sofware Centre. Wine too complicated? No way, it is now a simple click and install! He says "Canonical' is 'one of those companies', ignoring that they're the ones behind Ubuntu. He says he couldn't figure out how to organise photos? You can't get any more bleeding obvious than Ubuntu is already!
The guy couldn't be arsed to actually read the help files on how to use things, so says it isn't gonna go anywhere...
Seriously, if that's tech journalism for you, I'll stick to forums and using my own brain.
His views are based on one thing - that he is used to something and can't be bothered changing. Which, sure, a lot of people are - but there is a growing number of people who aren't.
Ubuntu may not make it as big as Windows, but it has brought Linux into the limelight and people are paying attention on a larger scale now.
Agreed, he's pretty much an idiot - but that's something I've come to expect from BBC tech journalism these days. They'll happily follow a trend but anything off what they think is the beaten track and they're in a muddle.
WTF !! The guy is clearly missing the point methinks. The fact that it's already built into the repositories.... nevermind, he probably couldn't install picasa either.But when I tried to install a free open-source audio editing program, Audacity, it appeared more complex to get hold of an Ubuntu version than the one I've used on a Mac.
Mattx beat me to it. A fair description of Cellan-Jones.
The BBC has a couple of journalists who know diddly-squat about IT - Cellan-Jones and Bill Thompson - an irritating pair of smug, over-paid, inane idiots.
Last edited by tech_guy; 26th October 2009 at 09:54 PM.
After using Fedora for a year and a half, I am finding that it is so much easier to install applications than Windows.
Over the summer I was setting up two dual booting Images with XP and Fedora. With Windows I had to download all the exe's and install them one at a time. With the majority of the apps for Fedora I used yum. Then while doing that I wrote a quick bash script to run all the commands I ran on the first machine to set it up and executed it on the second fedora machine. Whereas with the second Windows machine I had to go through each installation seperatly. Obviously thats abit past your basic user, but like mentioned above, there are package managers with a nice GUI on where you can just search for your apps, tick the onces you want, click install, go make yourself a tea/coffee, come back and they are done!
As for his comment about WINE, I'd of thought being a Tech Journalist he'd of actually tried it out to see how easy it was to use.
Also the more I use Linux the more I see where windows is lacking, especially in the administration of networks. Sometimes I just wish I could ssh into a windows machine while someone is using it and change some settings or install an app without having to wait for the user to finish with the machine or kick them off it!
bossman (27th October 2009)
Quite surprised a technology correspondent doesn't know how to defrag a hard disk. From his about page:
BBC - dot.life: About Rory Cellan-Jones
Not really surprising at all then that he didn't get on with Ubuntu. If installing Wine is too much like hard work then you're a complete non-starter with Linux. However on the flip side:So while I lack geeky credentials - as I keep telling my colleagues, I'm not the man to defrag your hard drive - I am excited by all the big technology questions. Who has built a really smart smartphone? Will Steve Jobs ever crack the video market? Who will win the battle to bring cheap computing to the developing world?
If it seemed more complex when they are easily available in the repos then could you argue the point that Ubuntu is less intuitive? I don't know, I'm playing devil's advocate a little. I disagree with the point about Spotify though; I think Linux is the best platform (I never hear any adverts when I use it with Linux!)But when I tried to install a free open-source audio editing program, Audacity, it appeared more complex to get hold of an Ubuntu version than the one I've used on a Mac.
Anyway I'm not sure why he would upset the Linux community. It's hardly a scathing review and from someone who admits he isn't the most technical. It's also presented exactly how it is - an opinion piece. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Never knew there was a popular version of linux - I thought each linux user had there own tastes / opinions / prefs on which to use for what or w/e, I mean what about open suse or other distros like knoppix etc ?On Wednesday morning I was on BBC Breakfast talking about Windows 7, and each time I was on air I mentioned Ubuntu, the most popular version of the Linux operating system.
With Windows, if you want to install an app, you go to its website, download it, double click it, job done and pretty much the same is true for the Mac.
With Linux that's not true; you've got to learn about package managers. Once you've done that once, of course, life's pretty easy (as long as what you want is available as a package). If you've never used a computer before then I'm sure Ubuntu's package management is no more or less difficult than anything else the first time you use it. If you're used to using computers but not Linux then it's very different.
Go to the Audacity web site - take a look at how hard it would be to install Audacity from that web site. the first thing it mentions under Unix/Linux is source code but there are other links - the Ubuntu one takes you to the Ubuntu web site and (provided you've twigged that Ubuntu 9.10 is also called Karmic) then you can get to a list of packages - but nothing at all to tell you what to do with it!!
It's worth reading the whole of his blog; he's not saying Ubuntu is rubbish but he is saying "it would not make my computing life any simpler and more pleasurable than it is now" and I think that's a pretty fair summary.
I occasionally tell my users. If you have used a computer before then using a different operating system is going to be harder than for someone who has never used a computer at all, because if you have used a computer before then you have to unlearn all of the crap (usually Windows) thats gets in the way of using the computer, to learn it all again but differently.
Rory also mentions that once he found that the ubuntu logo took him home it helped. Didn't Windows Vista change to a ball with their logo on? You know it might just the a similar job. Click on it and find out.... No wait! it's gonna blow....!
Its the same argument people use against the use of energy efficient lightbulbs, or using public transport - it isn't what they're used to, it isn't convenient. Completely ignoring the reasons for using them.
I dunno, but I expect more from tech journalists. I expect them to look at a subject from more angles than just their own petty existence.
If you use ubuntu on a network - how do you lock it down/control it - whats the equivalent of group policies etc and how easy it to do? - this is more of a stumbling block for schools.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)