I really appreciate Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise Pangolin, and have it running very well on a number of machines...actually most of the machines that my family uses on a daily basis. I think that Linux in Ubuntu has finally become a real contender as a consumer desktop OS. The setup is easy, hardware support is broad, the OS is very stable, and the bundled apps cover most average consumer use cases 'out of the box'.

But Ubuntu has image issue that it seems people are unwilling to acknowledge. If it is their intention to be a widely used desktop OS, then they need to simplify and clarify some things about the distribution. The version numbers (the YY.MM 'version numbers') and names (adjective animal) for the distribution do not make sense to normal people. XX.04 is to denote what appears to be Ubuntu's 'stable' release seems nonsensical. The 'LTS' release that is every second XX.04 release is also confusing. Mix in the October (XX.10) more unstable release...and it is just a bowl of confusion for the average consumer.

I think that Ubuntu needs to change this naming to have a simple name for only their 'LTS' releases, and just drop all the animal code-names...so Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise Pangolin should simply have been Ubuntu 12. If it is the 'flagship', then it should have a simple and concise name.

Then name the next releases 'developer previews' or 'betas' until the next 'flagship', 'long term support' type release. Perhaps this means they may need to change the nature of 'long term support' or add enhancements to their flagships interface more quickly. But businesses and most average consumers need a simple, stable, and functional OS...which seems to be where Ubuntu is going with LTS releases. Now they need to make it easier to understand the direction they are going with versions of their product. The Fedora Linux project learned this already, though they still hold on to even worse codenames than Ubuntu does (e.g. Beefy Miracle) and haven't made their 'desktop' easy for the average consumer.

I'm not the average consumer, so it is nothing for me to change and tweak a handful of different things to make Ubuntu (or Fedora, or whatever) look and feel exactly as I would like, or add all the apps and features I want. But the average consumer doesn't want to have to change a bunch of settings, and then run some command lines manually, and then install a bunch of extra stuff just to use Ubuntu (or Linux in general). But average people shouldn't need to think about any of this, which is a huge reason why Mac OS X and (increasingly so) Windows are more often the choices of average consumers.

I guess my point is that Ubuntu, and Linux in general, as well as other open-source applications, need to be named more clearly and simply...and easier to install and use....or even easier to choose in the first place....for the average consumer. I want more than just Ubuntu enthusiasts to choose and use Ubuntu, and Ubuntu needs to acknowledge that it isn't just about development, but also about the way the product is marketed and perceived.

Obviously I'm not tackling the complexity or effort required to make some of these changes, which I acknowledge as being pretty huge ones. Just entertaining one
possible course of action to address specific issues.

My wife recently went back to school at Missouri State University, and I was surprised at how specific all the the classes are as to what platform and formats they teach or use for classes. She is in the Masters of Education program.

Most of the primary schools in the Springfield area have Macs in computer labs and in the classrooms. But every class she has taken so far has been focused on Windows XP (sometimes Vista) with Microsoft Office 2007 for Windows specifically.

We have Macs primarily in our household, and use OpenOffice 3. However a great number of the PowerPoint 2007 files (pptx) would not display correctly in OpenOffice, so she was at a great disadvantage. We ended up having to get a copy of Office 2007 for our one old Windows XP machine.

It would be nice for education to advocate and use more open formats.

So...in 12 (TWELVE) years automakers will be required to raise fuel-economy by 7.5 MPG? Ridiculous.

Cars have been getting between 22 and 28 MPG for 30 years. Millions and millions are spent on automotive R&D every year, but fuel economy doesn't really change. In fact for my family's Honda Accords...fuel economy has actually decreased through the year's models since 1990. Make any sense?

Do we really think that there isn't some oil-company prompting to this particular feature of vehicles?