What really, really, pisses me off is that the Windows version that they seem to ship a default installation which lacks some features (my netbook came with Windows Starter, which, I don't know, just sounds bad), and to upgrade costs serious money.
I would be much happier with MS if they would just release different versions for different needs and let me choose which version of the OS I needed and change it at will. The fact that I can do this with Linux is what made me switch in the first place.
And Ubuntu Netbook Remix blows the doors off of Windows 7 Starter for a netbook OS (I assume that this still applies now that they call it Netbook Edition, also).
That's a very legitimate gripe, not just when you're buying a netbook but a consumer PC in general. Chances are, unless you are very careful, you're going to get something you didn't quite want. My point was if the standard for comparison is 'properly configured Ubuntu' then its match is 'properly configured Windows'. I can't really see a glaring advantage of one over the other, both taking particular pride of being top of their specific vertical of unusability.
It's just too bad that so many netbooks come with poorly supported wireless options that one has to resort to using ndiswrapper (which doesn't always work either!).
The other day I bought an Asus Eee PC 1001P only to find that Ubuntu's netbook edition doesn't work out of the box -- I had to do a bunch of google searches, then compile my own wireless driver to make it work. It sucks that Linux still struggles on the basic stuff like driver support, but excels everywhere else. Ndiswrapper only worked half the time on the eeepc, but I managed to find an alpha version of a native atheros driver that made it work much better.
How many users have you seen saying "I need a better firewall, and upto date antivirus patches and I dont want drivers in my kernel taking my entire system down"?
But most of them expect a well functioning secure computer whose speed does not go down over time and one which doesnt crash often.
Users might not ask for package management but once they discover it they will appreciate "i dont have to go looking for software on twenty different websites and I dont have to bother to check websites for updates" - updates via windows update center for non microsoft software is an idea that should be much farther along than it is right now - have you ever been annoyed by flash, google products, adobe products, itune all having their own update listeners prompting you for updates all the time ? Well if package management and integrated updates were in place you would have just one update center.
Integrated updates are built into both Windows and OS X. Have been for a long time. Both of these rather popular consumer OS's surely have their problems. But the idea that a Linux desktop is somehow more user-friendly or accessible because it has 'package management' or an awesome terminal is absurd. I somewhat suspect that sort of dreadful idea is part of the reason why there is no competitive Linux-based consumer OS, to date.
The updates found in Ubuntu go well beyond what's seen with OS X and Windows. A huge number of apps get updates as well.
Also, adding software is much easier. It's more like having a built-in software store. Vast numbers of free apps can be browsed and installed without even needing to use the web browser. Having the software available in a repository is much safer than looking around the web. It's not uncommon for Windows users to be tricked into installing things that do more harm than good. As with the App store for the iPhone, a central distribution tested repository reduces the likelihood of problems.
I wouldn't make sweeping claims about Ubuntu based on a couple of characteristics but since you used the word "accessible" I'll go as far as to say that it certainly applies to Ubuntu apps and updates. The free software is enough to meet the needs of many (it goes way beyond what Windows comes with), and the freedom from the need of AV software help make things faster than Windows.
I love OS X, but also enjoy Ubuntu and have found that installing it has worked well when dealing with Windows friends hit with malware. Some keep Windows around to dual boot into for a few games, but all have been quite happy with all net time and most everything else being in Ubuntu.
Unlike OS X, Ubuntu comes with a pretty good assortment of games. That's one of the reasons I often install it even on Macs (in VirtualBox which is a free VM).
There's very little to configure and it certainly has no grief comparable to trying to strip the crapware out of many vendors default Windows installs.
Consumers buying generic PCs certainly should pressure their vendors to offer machines without Windows (and without charging them for it). And if they do want Windows, it shouldn't be loaded with crapware. On many machines that more than doubles the boot time.
There are plenty of fast-enough PCs that end up in recycle bins and at thrift stores because of malware. Instead of a new machine, many could do quite well with one of those running Ubuntu. It's free. Don't be shy, try it.
Ofcourse, those drivers are still curated by Apple. Back in 2004, Apple flirted with the idea of opening up Software Update for third parties, but has since decided against it.
"The computer company fears that third party developers could accidently release buggy or infected software updates, which would ultimately effect the Mac OS X operating system, causing customers to fault Apple."
Btw thanks for including links!
Maybe the feature could be added as an opt-in for the user. This is what ubuntu does - https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu#Adding... , works great.
Also the fact that random regular company can actually host their own apt repo and ask their users to add it to their apt configuration and then receive updates via the System Updater is kind of neat. There are several companies which do this - cloudera being among one of them, virtualbox being another.
That and a Linux terminal is much nicer to work with than Command Prompt.