Windows Anonymous

This one.

This one.

And this one.

And this one.

And this one too.

The above comparisons are all from one site (Phoronix), and all from just the first page. They're all comparing Ubuntu to...something; occasionally even itself. (Michael Larabel, the guy who runs Phoronix, even had the goofy idea to set up an Arch Linux install exactly the same way as an Ubuntu install--a concept which in itself defeats the purpose of even running Arch in the first place--and run benchmarks to test the theory that Arch is faster. Personal bias toward Arch aside, WTH?) Only Canonical cares about "4 Years of Ubuntu Benchmarks", mmmkay?

Okay, so maybe Larabel really likes his Phoronix Test Suite which, while he obviously put a lot of effort into it, doesn't really prove much since any Linux distro can be tweaked to be like any other Linux distro and negate any benchmarks. In effect it defeats the entire purpose of having different distros in the first place, but I digress; we've established that Larabel is all about the buntu. But then...

Ubuntu vs Vista vs Win 7;

this guy runs it against Win 7 and Mac OS X 10.6, which is a valid comparison except he comes up with such wishy-washy conclusions that it's hard to take him seriously (then again, he adamantly states that he doesn't like ponies, so he has that going for him I guess);

Bruce Byfield puts it up against its biggest apples-to-apples competitor, Fedora;

Someone at ZDNet still trying to answer the already-answered get-what-you-pay-for question;

This site actually does a relevant comparison with *Buntu 9.10 and Mint...

Anyway, the list goes on.

Sooo, here's my question: Do the bajillions of terminal-hating Ubuntu noobs really represent the Linux userbase? I don't think so. To paraphrase Anatole France, if a million Ubuntu users do something stupid, the fact that there's a million of them doesn't (and shouldn't) reflect on the other million who know what they're doing. I'm not saying all noobs are stupid (I've had a few of them write for this site in fact) but I know from personal experience that when I Google something Ubuntu-related, the first place I end up is a forum with a bunch of people trying to figure out why something isn't working.

The problem isn't (usually) the users; I think the problem is Canonical. They can loudly proclaim they're not Windows but in reality, whose userbase are they going after? Look at those links above; only one even invited Mac to the party and there are no other manifestations of BSD to be found. The message I'm taking away is "Linux is better than Windows and Ubuntu is the version which proves it". Well no, no it isn't. Ubuntu is fast becoming the Windows of the Linux world in its myriad attempts to be all things to all people and that's a flawed philosophy; the way for Linux to be truly an OS for the masses is to leave the choice in the hands of the user as opposed to holding the user's hand.

I go to help forums to do just what those forums are ostensibly for: Help the noob. Someone's gotta do it. Now, however, I'm seeing things like "I know this has probably been answered but I don't have the time/don't feel like looking for it"...okay, but you have time to sit and wait for days for a response? If you don't have time to look, I don't have time to respond. In 2001, you could be forgiven for not knowing how to configure a bootloader. Now you can't really install Linux without one, so you should probably look into it before posting on a forum hysterically asking for help. Think of it this way: If someone doesn't have the patience/knowledge to use the search function at a forum, what makes you think it'll get any easier for them? Furthermore, do we really want that person to be representative of Linux in the future?