Hey all, thought I try out a blog face-lift, because I can. I do this in Linux all the time. Linux desktop people all find out eventually they can morph their GUIs a little or a lot depending which one they are using. Again, I like Xfce desktop because the configuration settings are not buried deep in layered menus. And while I can't tweak everything, I can adjust it enough to get a satisfying look without much effort.
In my neck of the woods, things are a brewing. I stopped by my alma mater and discovered Ubuntu loaded on several computers in the computer lab. Perhaps I made an impression on the teachers while I was there. I think up and coming techies should know about Linux and have the opportunity to use it. Not only on the server but on the desktop as well.
Then, I am waiting for the official release of Ubuntu 8.04, known as "Hardy Heron". It is boasting a few improvements but what I want to explore is the virtual machine support built in. I want to install MS XP as a virtual machine so I don't have to dual-boot anymore. But to this end I might have to install more memory so that the virtual machine will run better. Ubuntu 8.04 will also have tools to shrink MS partitions and install Ubuntu while booted into MS Windows. Of course I will be loading Xubuntu 8.04 on my main machine. I am thinking about Ubuntu on my older machine. It is good to know a little about Gnome desktop, but I am a bit biased. KDE, well, it's like a window manager called Enlightenment in the way it has so many configuration settings. I just think it is too much and I wish people quit saying KDE is more like MS Windows. This is just not true. KDE, Gnome, and Xfce are all more adjustable than MS Windows. They may have similar elements but that is all.
I do have some secret wishes I would like to reveal. In Xfce, I would like to assign a different wallpaper to each virtual desktop and assign apps to open on the desktop I assign and save my settings. Then I would like to see better isolation of desktop GUIs when you have multiple desktop GUIs installed. If you have KDE, Gnome and Xfce on one computer for instance, functions are duplicated, menus are confused and clear control over the desktop is denied. On popular distros that feature one of the main desktops should feature also a leaner window manager like Fluxbox, Icewm as a users alternate choice.
I would also like to see a dual hard drive standard in computers. A smaller drive for the OS and applications and a big as you want drive for user files. It is kind of risky to put OS and user files on the same disk. So, if you must repair or upgrade or change your OS or the disk it's on, you don't have to touch your data. Solid state or flash drive cost are coming down, a 20-30 gig drive would be perfect for this. Lastly, at least for now, I would like to see a "Popular Linux Magazine" that targets typical average computer users rather than server techs, system admins and programmer/developers.
Showing posts with label linux users. Show all posts
Showing posts with label linux users. Show all posts
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Buried treasure in Linuxville
One day a few years back I was lurking around a store called "Half Priced Books" looking for Linux material. They were having a sale which meant books were even cheaper. I stumbled upon "Linux Journal" for the year 1999. I am not much of a magazine collector but I know treasure when I see it. I've bought a few more mags the years that followed, today it is all internet. There was though one mag called "Linux User and Developer" from the UK which had Fedora Core 2 in it. Anyway back to the Linux Journal of 1999, the whole Linux world was different. 95% of the articles and emphasis was on servers and server applications, peppered with workstation stuff. The desktop was not a big topic. Most users seemed to be destined for system admins or engineering workstation and coding work. I don't think anybody had a notion that Linux could be a popular desktop OS. The times have changed and now many of the Linux vets are having to figure how to deal with users who just use the GUI. These mouse jockeys and app mavens really don't want or need to know the depths of Linux. They just point and click just as they did in MS Windows or Mac OS. But looking back is so cool. You can see that even though coders and developers world wide put Linux together, Linux is well thought out and proven by the developers and the users.
Well, what's going to happen to Linuxville in the future is an on going thing. I think we will have to separate the server from the workstation at least in the way we teach Linux to new folks. This is because most desktop users will not be interested in server functions and applications. The desktop deserves it's own focus. I really see a need for users to write more how-to's for all those applications. And to put in one book the popular desktops and window managers. Hey, people still like books you know!
Well, what's going to happen to Linuxville in the future is an on going thing. I think we will have to separate the server from the workstation at least in the way we teach Linux to new folks. This is because most desktop users will not be interested in server functions and applications. The desktop deserves it's own focus. I really see a need for users to write more how-to's for all those applications. And to put in one book the popular desktops and window managers. Hey, people still like books you know!
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Making the Linux Choice
Trying to make sense out of choosing a Linux distribution is an art, or is it a science. I guess that too depends on what kind of person you are. Most likely you are looking for a desktop Linux to supplement (dual-boot with MS Windows) or to replace MS Windows altogether. Selecting a desktop version of Linux narrows down the field quite a bit. This eliminates the server editions and a lot of the special focus versions out there. I really wish there was a spreadsheet or database listing all the options in one place. Wikipedia has a chart under "Comparison of Linux Distributions" but I think it needs some refinement so that new folk can quickly grasp an over all view. With all Linux distros there are some elements that are alike and some that are standout and value added features. The whole idea is to pick one distro as a base and then add or delete stuff until it suits your needs. If you are a picky user, this can get quite involved. I am going to give you the big choices and point out some of the small ones you are likely to encounter.
1. Distro name - name recognition is strong indicator of what's behind it. Like Red Hat, Suse, Ubuntu. Would you like a company, a small group or a couple of people behind your distro. In any case you have to investigate and consider. If not, then look at what's popular and consider it a start, you are free to change your mind. Consider support and updates.
2. The desktop - KDE, Gnome, Xfce, Fluxbox, or whatever is right for you. You can go fat or lean, full featured or minimum. In theory, you can put your desktop preference on any distro you choose.
3. The package management system - RPM, Debian, Targz, or CNR. There are also programs that will convert one format into another. The question to ask is if this distro with this format has the software you need in its repository's, are they current, and can I install/delete them without a lot of hassle.
These to me are the biggies. Then there are small but important stuff that hit and run users don't usually haggle over, like administration tools and utilities that you tweak the system and desktop with.
Don't neglect to look at these as this is where the value added features come to play. Often these features define and make or break a distro. But, in theory, it doesn't matter which distro you start off with. You should be able to find the same stuff that is in other distros to put into your distro. I am saying there is only one Linux, it has many, many parts to choose from and that a distro is some pre-selected parts already grouped together for you.
If you are a wet finger in the wind kind of weatherperson, there are some web sites that have "distro chooser" programs. My favorites are www.linux.org/dist/ and www.polishlinux.org. You just answer the questions and they put you in the ballpark. Then with your choices in hand go to www.distrowatch.com or to www.livecdlinux.com to find info or download sites.
Do I have any recommendations? Yes and I have opinions too.
The full featured major distros are fine but I think it is fun to consider the smaller ones too. Ask yourself if it's easier to add or delete stuff. With the live-CD Linux you can try before you install, no harm done if you don't like it. If you like a particular desktop, that desktop will make different distros look and feel the same. In that case it's the added value features that matter. My choices are full featured but a little leaner desktop Xubuntu and for a smaller distro I like Wolvix. I like DreamLinux and Puppy also. There is nothing good or bad about other distros, taste, choice, fit, are all subjective things. If you are into performance or resource use or laptops, you can look into those things as well on user forums. Relax folks, Linux is fun and you can afford to be picky, it's OK because there is no one size that fits all.
1. Distro name - name recognition is strong indicator of what's behind it. Like Red Hat, Suse, Ubuntu. Would you like a company, a small group or a couple of people behind your distro. In any case you have to investigate and consider. If not, then look at what's popular and consider it a start, you are free to change your mind. Consider support and updates.
2. The desktop - KDE, Gnome, Xfce, Fluxbox, or whatever is right for you. You can go fat or lean, full featured or minimum. In theory, you can put your desktop preference on any distro you choose.
3. The package management system - RPM, Debian, Targz, or CNR. There are also programs that will convert one format into another. The question to ask is if this distro with this format has the software you need in its repository's, are they current, and can I install/delete them without a lot of hassle.
These to me are the biggies. Then there are small but important stuff that hit and run users don't usually haggle over, like administration tools and utilities that you tweak the system and desktop with.
Don't neglect to look at these as this is where the value added features come to play. Often these features define and make or break a distro. But, in theory, it doesn't matter which distro you start off with. You should be able to find the same stuff that is in other distros to put into your distro. I am saying there is only one Linux, it has many, many parts to choose from and that a distro is some pre-selected parts already grouped together for you.
If you are a wet finger in the wind kind of weatherperson, there are some web sites that have "distro chooser" programs. My favorites are www.linux.org/dist/ and www.polishlinux.org. You just answer the questions and they put you in the ballpark. Then with your choices in hand go to www.distrowatch.com or to www.livecdlinux.com to find info or download sites.
Do I have any recommendations? Yes and I have opinions too.
The full featured major distros are fine but I think it is fun to consider the smaller ones too. Ask yourself if it's easier to add or delete stuff. With the live-CD Linux you can try before you install, no harm done if you don't like it. If you like a particular desktop, that desktop will make different distros look and feel the same. In that case it's the added value features that matter. My choices are full featured but a little leaner desktop Xubuntu and for a smaller distro I like Wolvix. I like DreamLinux and Puppy also. There is nothing good or bad about other distros, taste, choice, fit, are all subjective things. If you are into performance or resource use or laptops, you can look into those things as well on user forums. Relax folks, Linux is fun and you can afford to be picky, it's OK because there is no one size that fits all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)