Revisiting Linux Part 1: A Look at Ubuntu 8.04
by Ryan Smith on August 26, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Applications: CD Burning/Image Editing
Windows Default: Drag & Drop
What I use: Nero
Ubuntu Default: Drag & Drop / Brasero
One of my minor annoyances with Mac OS X and Windows is that their default disc burning abilities are insubstantial. Both offer drag-and-drop file burning, audio CD burning through their respective audio suites, and in Mac OS X’s case it offers ISO burning too, but that’s it. As a long-time Nero user, I would rather have the finer level of control a disc authoring suit such as Nero or Toast offer when it comes to building and burning discs.
As it turns out, this is something that Ubuntu gets right. Not only does it include drag-and-drop burning abilities like the other OSes, but it includes a disc authoring suit: Brasero. In a nutshell, Brasero is a clone of Nero Burning ROM, much like Rhythmbox is a clone of iTunes. It sports similar UI elements as Nero, including the handy disc capacity meter towards the bottom of the window. As such, for anyone used to Nero it’s an easy transition to make.
Where Nero users will feel left out is that it’s only a clone of Nero Burning ROM, and little else. It can burn audio CDs, data discs, ISOs, and copy whole discs, but that’s it. It doesn’t have any audio/video mastering abilities like Nero does. In fact there’s nothing on the default Ubuntu install like this – Windows Movie Maker and iMovie have no direct counterpart on Ubuntu. This makes Ubuntu more capable than Windows or Mac OS X for data CDs, but underpowered for most kinds of media disc creation. Depending on how you use Ubuntu, this may or may not be an issue.
Meanwhile for users accustomed to drag-and-drop burning, you’ll find the drag-and-drop CD/DVD Creator satisfactory. As CD/DVD Creator doesn’t support packet writing, you’re limited to traditional building & burning via the GUI. CD/DVD Creator doesn’t support writing multisession discs either, so it’s entirely a write-once operation. Whether this is a problem or not depends on if you use packet writing – a quick check around here didn’t turn up anyone that uses it, so I’m not sure there are all that many people that are going to miss it.
For power users there are other options. The Ubuntu repositories contain other disc authoring suites, and a cut-down version of Nero is available too. We haven’t had a chance to check out either of these, but it looks like neither option provides a solid audio/video authoring package. Anyone needing such abilities may need to look elsewhere. For daily use however, it has everything I need.
Final Verdict: Meets My Needs
Windows Default: Paint
What I use: Adobe Photoshop CS3
Ubuntu Default: GIMP
In doing research for this section of our look at Linux, one thing became abundantly clear: Image editors on Linux have the potential to be a holy war. For Windows and Mac OS X the gold standard for image editing programs is Adobe Photoshop, but as Adobe does not offer it for Linux it’s up to the Linux community to fend for itself. In doing so they came up with the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) which strives to match Photoshop’s abilities on *nix for free. What results is an interesting situation.
In spite of the fact that I can barely make sense of Photoshop, it’s clear that GIMP is not just a Photoshop clone, for better or for worse. For someone looking for what would amount to a Linux version of Photoshop, they’re clearly going to be disappointed, as GIMP is not Photoshop or even Photoshop-lite. It’s an advanced image editor that is in a class of its own.
As far as default programs are concerned, GIMP is clearly miles and miles ahead of Windows’ Paint, and Mac OS X’s complete lack of a freestyle image editor (iPhoto being the next-closest thing). Even if it’s not up to Photoshop’s level of abilities, it’s a very capable image editor that comes with Ubuntu, rather than needing to be a separate program download on Windows or Mac OS X. This leaves me in a somewhat odd position.
Paint is anything but powerful, but it’s also simple. GIMP and Photoshop have at least one thing in common: they’re both capable of being complex beasts. As such I’m not convinced that it’s a good thing that GIMP is the default image editor on Ubuntu. For a beginner, it may be too powerful for its own good. For those reasons while it’s the most powerful default image editor when compared to Windows or Mac OS X, I’m not sure it’s the “best” if we’re to consider what fits user needs.
At any rate, when it comes to my own uses, I’ve previously mentioned that I’m not particularly competent than Photoshop. For image preparation for our articles it does the job nicely, while it’s clearly overkill for the task. For what little I do with Photoshop, GIMP works quite well, giving it the distinction of being the only default image editor that does what I need. For these reasons while it’s not a perfect replacement for Photoshop overall, it more than meets my needs for day-to-day use.
Final Verdict: Meets My Needs
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
195 Comments
View All Comments
viciki123 - Monday, February 22, 2010 - link
I have a new website!wedding dresses uk:http://www.weddingdressonlineshop.co.uk">http://www.weddingdressonlineshop.co.ukJillian - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link
YOu are spamer .For this, you could pick up some popular open source and proprietary (or their free equivalents) application that can run both Linux and W7. and compare the price, time and power consumption for retrieving, saving, processing, compiling, encrypting,decrypting compacting, extracting, encoding, decoding, backup, restore, nº of frames,etc, with machines in a range of different CPU and memory capacities. http://www.idresses.co.ukzerobug - Monday, February 1, 2010 - link
Regarding benchmarks and Linux-focused hardware roundups, one thing worth of consideration is that while Microsoft places strong resources on O/S development to create features that will require the end users the need to get the latest and greatest powerful hardware, Linux places their efforts in order that the end user will still be able to use their old hardware and get the best user experience while running the latest and greatest software.So,the benchmarks could compare the user experience when running popular software on Microsoft and Linux O/S's, with different powerful machines.
For this, you could pick up some popular open source and proprietary (or their free equivalents) application that can run both Linux and W7. and compare the price, time and power consumption for retrieving, saving, processing, compiling, encrypting,decrypting compacting, extracting, encoding, decoding, backup, restore, nº of frames,etc, with machines in a range of different CPU and memory capacities.
MarcusAsleep - Thursday, December 17, 2009 - link
Quick Startup: OK, Windows is fast - at first, well let's say that is if you install it yourself without all the bloatware that come standard on Windows store-bought PS's (we bought a Toshiba laptop for work with Vista that took 12 minutes after boot-up for it to respond to a click on the start menu - even on the third time booting.)Windows startup is often burdened by auto-updates from Microsoft, anti-virus, Sun-Java, Acrobat Reader, etc. etc. that slow down the computer on boot-up to where your original idea of "hey I just want to start my computer and check my email for a minute before work" can take at least 5. I can do this reliably on Linux in 1. Yes, if you know a lot about Windows, you can stop all the auto-updates and maintain them yourself but 99% of Windows users don't have time/or know how to do this.
Trouble-free: E.G. I installed Linux on a computer for my wife's parents (Mepis Linux) 7 years ago for email, pictures, games, web, letter use and haven't had to touch it since then. This is typical.
For Windows, often I have done fresh installs on trojan/virus infected computers - installed working antivirus and all Windows Updates (not to mention this process takes about 2-4 hours of updates upon updates + downloads of the proper drives from the manufacturers websites vs about 1 hour for an Ubuntu install with all updates done including any extra work for codecs and graphic drivers) - only to have to come back a couple months later to a slow again computer from users installing adware, infected games, etc.
Free: Nearly every Windows reinstall I've had to do starts with a computer loaded with MS Office, games, etc. but upon reinstall nobody has the disks for these. There is a lot of "sharing" of computer programs in the Windows world that is not very honest
With Linux, you can have the operating system plus pretty much anything else you would need, without having to cheat.
Adaptable Performance: You can get a well-performing Linux installation (LXDE Desktop) on a PIII computer with 256MB of ram. The only thing that will seem slow to an average mom/pop user would be surfing on flash loaded web pages, but with adblock on Firefox, it's not too bad. With Vista loaded on this computer, it would be annoyingly slow. You can often continue to use/re-use computer hardware with Linux for years after it would be unsuitable for Windows.
I think these features are of high value to the average user -- maybe not the average Anandtech computer user -- but the average surf/email/do homework/look at photos/play solitaire/balance my checkbook user.
Cheers!
Mark.
SwedishPenguin - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Using SMB for network performance is extremely biased. It's a proprietary Microsoft protocol, of course Microsoft is going to win that one. Use NFS, HTTP, FTP, SSH or some other open protocol for network performance benchmarking. Alot of NASes do support these, as they are Linux-based.Furthermore, using a Windows server with SMB with the argument that most consumer NAS use SMB is pretty ridiculous, these NASes are most likely going to use Samba, not native SMB, the Samba which is implemented in GNU/Linux distributions and Mac OS X, not to mention that most of the NASes that I've seen offer at least one of these protocols as an alternative.
SwedishPenguin - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
The ISO thing is pretty ridiculous, creating a simple GUI in both GTK and Qt and integrating them into Gnome and KDE should be pretty damn easy, though I suppose integration with the respective virtual file systems would be in order, in which case it might get slightly more complex for those (like me) not familiar with the code. There's even a FUSE (userspace filesystem) module now, so you wouldn't even need to be root to mount it.About the command-line support, IMO that's a good thing. It's a lot easier both for the person helping and the guy needing help to write/copy-paste a few commands than it is to tell the person to click that button, then that one then another one, etc. It's also alot easier for the guy needing help to simply paste the result if it didn't help, and it makes it much easier to diagnose the problem than if the user would attempt to describe the output. And you usually get much more useful information from the command-line utilities than you do from GUIs, the GUI simplifies the information so anyone can understand it, but at the price of making debugging a hell of a lot more difficult.
nillbug - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
It must be said that Ubuntu and the major Linux distributors all have 64bit O/S versions since a long time. The reason behind is to allow users to benefit from memory (+4MB) and 64bit CPUs (almost all today) gaining a better computing experience.If this article was a private work of the author to provide him an answer on whether he may or may not move to Linux, people should advise him the above mentioned. As for an article intended to be read by thousands it must be pointed out that it's conclusion is a miss lead.
In face of today's reality (and not the author reality) why did he never mentioned the 64bit Ubuntu systems? I guess he's final thoughts then would've been much more in favor of Linux.
nillbug - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
It must be said that Ubuntu and the major Linux distributors all have 64bit O/S versions since a long time. The reason behind is to allow users to benefit from memory (+4MB) and 64bit CPUs (almost all today) gaining a better computing experience.If this article was a private work of the author to provide him an answer on whether he may or may not move to Linux, people should advise him the above mentioned. As for an article intended to be read by thousands it must be pointed out that it's conclusion is a miss lead.
In face of today's reality (and not the author reality) why did he never mentioned the 64bit Ubuntu systems? I guess he's final thoughts then would've been much more in favor of Linux.
seanlee - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - link
I have read all 17 pages of comments…a lot of Linux lovers out there… and they all purposely ignore few important things that make Windows successful, which in term, makes most Linux distribution marking failures, I have used Linux on my net book and my ps3, and I absolutely hate it.1. User friendly. No, CLI is not user friendly no matter what you say; no matter what excuse you use; no matter how blind you are. NOT ONE COMPANY dare to provide their mainstream products to be CLI only, from things as simply as ATM, ipod, to things as complicate as cellphone, cars, airplane. That ought to tell you something--- CLI is not intuitive, not intuitive=sucks, so CLI = sucks. You command line fan boys are more than welcome to program punched cards, expect no one use punched cards and machine language anymore because they are counter-intuitive. Having to do CLI is a pain for average user, and having to do CLI every time to install a new program/driver is a nightmare. GUI is a big selling point, and a gapless computer-human user experience is what every software company looking to achieve.
2. There is NOTHING a Linux can do that windows cannot. On the contrary, there are a lot of things windows can do that Linux cannot. I’d like to challenge any Linux user to find engineering software alternatives on Linux, like matlab, simulink, xilinx, orcad, labview, CAD… you cannot. For people who actually user their computer for productive means (not saying typing documents are not productive, but you can type document using type writer with no CPU required whatsoever), there is nothing, again, I repeat, NOTHING that Linux can offer me.
3. Security issues. I disagree with the security issues that windows has. I can set up a vista machines, turn it on, luck it into a cage, and it will be as security as any Linux machine out there. Hell. If I bought a piece of rock, pretend it was a computer and stare it all day, it would be the most secure system known to the man-kind. Linux’s security is largely due to one of the two reasons: 1. Not popular, not enough software to support and to play with. 2. Not popular, un user-friendly. Either of them is not a good title to have. It is like you are free from the increase of the tax not because you have your business set up to write off all your expense, but because you don’t make any money thus you don’t have to pay tax.
4. There is nothing revolutionary about Linux for an average user, other than it is free. If free is your biggest selling point, you are in serious trouble. Most people, if not all, would pay for quality product than a free stuff, unless it is just as good. Obviously Ubuntu is never going to be as good as windows because they don’t have the money that MS has. So what does Ubuntu have that really makes me want to switch and take few weeks of class to understand those commands?
Be honest, people. If you only have ONE O/S to use, most of you guys will chose windows.
kensolar - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
I hope you realize that your hated is showing so strongly that absolutely no one cares what you say.
That said, I don't know how to use a cli and have been successfully using Linux for 3 years. I found the article to be a fairly fair one even though the author is so unfamiliar with Linux/Ubuntu. As he does not use the default app's in windows, linux users don't use the defaults only in linux. K3B is far superior to Brassaro and so on. In addition, I don't think he let on very well as to the extent of the software available in the repositories (with addition repositories easy to add). Several hundred app's, 20,000 programs, even security app's and programs ranging from easy as pie to complicated. (for those of us how have a computer that is more than a rock) I personally do audio mixing, video transcoding, advanced printing....all with graphic interfaces.
BTW, I learned how to turn on a computer for the 1st time 3 1/2 years ago, I stopped using windows a little over 3 years ago and have no reason to go back. I find it too hard, limiting and frustrating to use. Plus, I can't live w/o multiple desktops, the author didn't get it yet, but once you get used to them you can't go back.
Well, I've said enough for now, can't wait for your next article.