|
Installing desktop Linux - does it pass or should I?
 |
By: Jon Collins, Managing Director, Freeform Dynamics
Published: 28th March 2007
Copyright Freeform Dynamics © 2007
|
 |
It’s funny how you can find yourself transported back, when faced with a set of stimuli. Pick up and old book, listen to a piece of music or put on a jacket, and sometimes a wealth of memories and feelings can come rushing back. It can be slightly disorienting and it’s not always pleasant, but for me at least, it never ceases to marvel.
And so it was, as I was testing out the installations of a few desktop Linux products a few days ago. Before I go on, please note that this isn’t a feeble attempt to ingratiate myself with the Linux community – I was never that good a Linux hacker. I was around, however, for the first release of the Linux Journal and, as an indication of how sad I am, it is perhaps of note that I still have it, filed somewhere.
Where the “memory thing” is relevant is that I found myself transported from the relatively cushy pastures of Windows, back to the frontier lands of Linux. The software has clearly come a long way in terms of functionality, usability, ease of configuration and so on, and it is a different world to ten years ago (when beta really meant beta!). The cultural vestiges remain, though, and so does the fix-it mindset I found myself using.
By way of example, allow me to work through my own experiences—first with Gentoo, and then with PCLinuxOS. I confess the time spent with Gentoo didn’t last long—I installed it first as I knew it was the one Stephen O’Grady used the most. I was also swayed by its claims of “extreme performance and configurability.” What was there not to like?
Sadly, I stumbled almost as soon as the installation started to kick up a fuss. The Gentoo installation disks provided on this particular magazine (Linux Format) offered a number of pre-built configurations, none of which wanted to install cleanly—that is, to go straight through to the graphically enhanced front end without a fuss. Like an untrained, flaccid muscle, a small part of my brain was quietly mumbling, “that’s OK, just install a cut down kernel, look at the configuration tables and compile something that’s good enough for now, so you can build it up from there, benefitting from the extreme performance without compromising on features.” At least I think that’s what it was saying, but I had spent too long in end-user-land to listen. After a few attempts, I canned it and went for PCLinuxOS.
This was more successful, unsurprisingly as it is designed more for the novice (did I really once hack Xconfig files?), but it wasn’t without issue. There were a couple of problems that were fortunately within my “novice” reach—first, that the “wizard” that was used to set up disk partitions would quite jovially continue on its way, even if no disk had been selected. As would the entire installation in fact, and it was only following the final reboot at the end of the process, that the system confessed that no operating system had been installed. For any Linux newbie, this would be a complete showstopper.
Having worked past this hurdle (and feeling justly proud, dare I say), the entire installation was pretty seamless. I could set up a user, configure and run programs, and generally compute what needed to be computed. As a comment, from the novice perspective there were perhaps too many things that I could do—I was interested but a little surprised to find that the OS came with a complete set of developer tools, for example. To me, the conundrum is this: if I were a developer, the chances are I would already be in a position to install a more clever Linux distribution than this one; if I was not, such capabilities only serve to distract and would make me wonder what purpose they serve.
The only thing not present was an Internet connection. I rather foolishly (so I thought) assumed that, while I might try to get my Belkin PCI wireless card installed, the chances are I wouldn’t be able to find a Linux driver for it. I was both right, and wrong: a “wrapper” driver was supplied, within which I could install the Windows driver for the card. A bit of tweaking and I could see the network; a bit more time spent playing with routing tables, and I could access the Internet.
This last point is not a trivial one, and again it goes to the heart of the difference of approach between the two mindsets, Windows and Linux. In the Windows world, internet connectivity should just work—if it doesn’t, the user has every reason to feel a bit miffed and call in the heavy guns. In the Linux world however, there seems to be an assumption that whoever is in front of the computer will have both the desire and the wherewithall to open the bonnet, run up the command line and have a bit of a tinker. For me it was both a delight and a challenge—the former as I already knew the right commands, and the latter as I had absolutely no idea what the command line switches should be. However, all of this assumed that I even “got” certain principles like routing tables, default gateways and so on.
There is no right or wrong in all of this, but even as I browsed, impressed, through the available programs, I was left with the feeling that desktop Linux still displayed its heart just a little too clearly on its sleeve. I know, this is only one distribution among many—but this is also part of the problem, as a first-time user stands as much chance of being turned off from the whole desktop Linux concept, as being turned on to it. I’m not talking about wholesale adoption strategies by enterprise IT shops: as I understand it, the growth of Linux acceptance in particular, and open source software in general, is equally dependent on a viral adoption approach—in other words, through “novices” like me trying things out and making a decision, yay or nay.
I’m in no way downhearted—I remain impressed by the comprehensive set of facilities I now have on the computer sitting beside me. I shall continue to explore and test things out, for a start I want to have a go with a couple of other distributions (I have a SuSe DVD on my desk, for example; Ubuntu is the obvious other), and see what additional facilities Linux offers over and above what my office worker mindset is used to. Just for now I shall stick with running Windows on my main PC, but never say never!
We are no longer accepting comments against this item. We suggest contacting the author directly.
28th March 2007: 'Efraim' said:
Playing with Linux distros is fun.
Try Sabayon if you want to see the graphical bleeding edge (and if you like gentoo), or, as you anyway intend to, try rather Ubuntu and be ready to gasp in awe at a powerful debian that goes a looong way to convince any windows-conditioned user to switch over with gusto :-)
I still have the vista crapola on my new dual boot Ubuntu laptop, yet during the last month I have used windows maybe 15 minutes: I seriuously think I will soon eliminate it completely. Good riddance.
Reply to Efraim?
28th March 2007: 'Duncan' said:
I total agreement - next time start with Ubuntu and you will be pleasantly surprised.
Having installed, check out Automatix (www.getautomatix.com) to add those all importants apps like Flash, Adobe Reader, Google Earth, Picasa 2 etc. (you can even install 3rd party codecs - just be sure to read the terms).
Reply to Duncan?
28th March 2007: 'max' said:
For safety, get a copy of Parallels Workstation 2 and install multiple Linux OSes without having to re-install your laptop everytime. Okay you'll miss some of the tricks like Wi-Fi and laptop hardware detection - but it is a very safe and convenient platform for R&D.
For desktop linux look no further than Ubuntu (or if you have a beefy machine, check out the Kubuntu deriative which runs KDE instead of GNOME).
Ubuntu installs in minutes, then reboots and downloads all the available patches. Adding applications is easy using the apt-based synaptic package manager (far superior to YUM on RPM distros).
A lot of thought has been given to Ubuntu to refine those rough edges and provide a good user experience.
I also agree that the Automatix application will set the record straight.
Reply to max?
28th March 2007: 'Ian Hunter' said:
The only thing to be wary of with Ubuntu (and most Linux distros) is the 64 bit architecture (i.e. AMD chips). This really is the bleeding edge and is least stable. Plus many apps are only available for 32 bit and wont run in a true 64-bit environment. Settle for the i386 ISO images (freely downloadable) and let us know how you fare.
Reply to Ian Hunter?
28th March 2007: 'Matt Wallace' said:
As has already been said - Try Ubuntu.
I gave a copy of the live CD to my dad (who is not in any way a programmer, developer or systems administrator and "just wants things to work"), and he had the entire system up and running quicker than a windows install.
Linux is ready for the desktop, it's just a shame that so many people choose the wrong distro for an average end user.
I've used Gentoo for years on my servers, but as a desktop OS, it's a bit of a pain. I discovered Ubuntu six months ago and I'm installing it as a replacement for all versions of windows on every box that I can. If there's a specific app that prevents someone from making the switch, chances are it's supported under wine.
Reply to Matt Wallace?
28th March 2007: 'Don't You Believe It' said:
There must be a link from the Ubuntu community to this post. Don't believe the other readers - Ubuntu is not the be all end all of Linux Desktop. For a good, commercially viable OS, look no further than SUSE Enterprise Edition (SLED). The system is incredibly stable and the hardware recognition is second to none.
Reply to Don't You Believe It?
28th March 2007: 'Ralph' said:
You could scream UBUNTU from the rooftops, but trying to get an analyst on this website to take it into consideration is a waste of time. I have tried several times on other posts and it always falls on deaf ears.
Reply to Ralph?
19th April 2007: 'Jon Collins' (Author) said:
I spoke to Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu, a couple of days ago. Very interesting, and I will be following up.
Reply to Jon Collins?
28th March 2007: 'Jon Collins' (Author) said:
Thanks for the comments. The main reason I didn't try Ubuntu at the time, was that I had a disk with two different distro's on it - and like any other novice, I was in the dark about whether they were the better or worse options for running on my desktop PC. I have now tried OpenSuse in a virtual machine, which seems to work fine - but I do wonder whether the virtual environment is sufficiently rough-edged to offer a good comparison. I will also give Ubuntu a go, and other distributions that are suggested. The point remains however - if you are prepared to try a few things, "have a tinker", play with multiple distributions etc the chances are you'll find one that delivers for you. Its just that's not the way the majority of people want to do things - the expectation of the IT proletariat is that things will just work, with a minimum of intervention. It's a hurdle, whichever way you cut it.
Reply to Jon Collins?
28th March 2007: 'Greg' said:
Fair points, but a couple of thoughts...
When I first made the switch I Googled a bit and ended up with Fedora Core 3. I've never yet bought Linux Format (I only found out it existed a few months ago, and the cover price put me off big time!) so a cover disk wouldn't be an influence. Anyway, I started with FC3 and everything worked on my desktop machine. I switched to Ubuntu (yep, I'm another fanboy...) when FC4 sucked on my machine. Since then I've installed Ubuntu on my self-upgraded AMD box, a brand new Packard Bell desktop and a Dell Inspiron D820 laptop. Everything that I need Just Works.
I can't comment on wireless as I don't use it, but everything else is spot on. The only time I've had to go "under the hood" is when I wanted to try Compiz then later Beryl - and I'll take that for v0.2 software.
If someone Googles for Linux info chances are they'll end up with a link to Ubuntu (or as someone else has said SLED - which I haven't tried but have read good reports) and that to me is the most likely way people will find a distro. Certainly to me more likely than dropping roughly £7 on a magazine....
Reply to Greg?
28th March 2007: 'Bruce' said:
I recently tried the Ubuntu liveCD on my Dell Inspiron 6400 laptop and a full installation on an older desktop.
The good news. Both machines ran Ubuntu fine. The installation on the desktop worked Ok with relatively little input from myself. Both installations recognised and configured the sound hardware correctly - a first for me with a Linux distro.
Now the bad news. On the Dell I could not get the display to run at a resolution of 1680x1050 (the resolution of the laptop's display). Admittedly this was just from the LiveCD and not a full install so I am prepared to grant a little leeway. On the desktop, Ubuntu correctly identified the display hardware (NVidia) and set up the display correctly at 1280x1024. Unfortunately I have a dual-header display card and the second display is not driven out-of-the-box. Windows just works here and I can drive two monitors with no fiddling. Ubuntu expects me to open up the hood and start messing with drivers and XConfig to make this work. While I am capable of fixing this problem I don't want to have to do this and it's going to be beyond many users.
While Linux has come a long way there is still a gotcha that means it just doesn't cut it yet. The support for colour-management in Linux is woeful. There are some solutions but nowhere near the same level of support that Windows provides or Mac OS-X. Until this problem is solved then, for me at least, Linux is a non-starter.
Reply to Bruce?
29th March 2007: 'Duncan' said:
Check out the following link on BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6506027.stm
"Computer giant Dell will start to sell PCs preinstalled with open source Linux operating systems, the firm has said."
Reply to Duncan?
|
|
