Hey, where'd he go??

It's October and I haven't posted in over a month. Been doing some non-computer stuff, interrogating the Holy Bible and looking into Black history. I plan to keep the focus on Linux and on digital art, but the background world view has changed a lot in the past few weeks.

During all this time I have had neither glitch, hiccup, crash, or shut-down. I did build a platform with small wooden wedges to lift the back edge of my laptop off the table. Now I can run it all day without overheating and I run it each and every day.

On October 10th a new Ubuntu, version 10.10 will be out. You can't get it in stores, but if you go to the www.Ubuntu.com web site it will be there for download or you can buy a CD, I think for the cost of shipping. I usually just download it. There are versions for server, desktop/laptop and netbook, 32 bit, 64 bit, etc.

There are several ways to use Linux. The live-CD is very cool as it runs directly off the CD without installing. When you remove the live-CD your computer is unchanged. What ever applications are on the CD can be used by you and you can save your work to a jump drive. You can install while running the live-CD or not. You choose to make a hard drive partition or use the whole hard drive. If you want to run both MS Windows and Linux, a program called Grub gives you a menu to choose at boot.

If you have MS Windows running when you put in the Ubuntu Linux CD a program called Wabi will let you install Ubuntu in a MS Windows folder so that it runs sort of like a Windows application. I call this a pseudo virtual machine.

For me if you want both MS Windows and Linux on the same machine, dual booting is best. That way the two different operating systems are separate, not needing extra resources. Be sure you install MS Windows first to minimise booting problems. You can select the default OS in the Grub OS selector afterwards.

Another option is virtual machines. You can run Linux as a virtual machine on a MS Windows system and vice-versa. VirtualBox is my favorite application for this. There is a MS version and a Linux version. Virtual machines is about sharing resources, so running two OSs needs more memory and some hard disk space. 

The last option is called Wine. Wine is a MS Windows compatibility layer which runs in Linux. Wine lets you, within limits, run MS Windows software on a Linux system. I can't run Photoshop Professional, but my Photoshop Lite runs fine. Can't tell you if MS Office will run, I use Open Office. But a special configuration of Wine called Crossover Office seems to handle MS Office products. I don't have experience with this.

The most cool thing is that you can slide the Linux live-CD into any MS compatible system, reboot and try out Linux. I recommend Ubuntu. If you have it installed or install it yourself, you gain access to the online repository of free installable applications. Some versions of Linux have live-DVDs so that the large selection of installable software is on the DVD. With my DSL internet it takes 1 hour to download the CD and 3 hours for the DVD. Once you have it, you own it, you can install it on as many machines as you want. You can copy it and give it to friends.
Now I will warn you, Linux is not as flashy as some like. This is so that it appeals to a broader swath of users and works on a broader swath of hardware configurations. You can tweak it up or dumb it down, that is what makes it what it is. So that's boom out the box but not flash-boom. You can add flash later.

padawan training - building a light saber

There are far too many ways to get Ubuntu on your PC.

1. the network install

2. the live-CD install over everything.

3. the live-CD run off the CD - take out when done - no install

4. Dual-boot two operating systems, same hard drive - two partitions

5. Dual-boot two operating systems, two hard drives

6. Linux on a flash drive

7. Linux as a guest operating system in a virtual machine

8. Used WUBI to install Ubuntu inside a XP folder.

WUBI is the official Ubuntu Windows Installer and It works!! Here's the story. My laptop a Gateway 4026 runs XP with all the stuff. I popped in a Ubuntu 9.10 live-CD and it runs but no sound. Then I boot-up XP and insert the Ubuntu disk to read it, behold, Wubi comes up and asks me if I want to install it into XP??????
This is not exactly a virtual machine but it makes a folder in the XP file system and formats that space to run Linux. So...........what I did was make a large windows partition and let Wubi put Ubuntu in it. Ubuntu installs just like normal and installs GRUB. I reboot, select XP or Ubuntu and have at it.

Ubuntu runs fine, no sound but fine. I went into Synaptic application loader, got the Alsa, universal linux sound architecture, hoping it would work. Then I ran the system testing stuff under System Admin. It found the sound chipset and now I got sound. I am so amazed it worked, old laptops are so proprietary.

There is something so magical about a laptop booting up to Linux. I keep saying the PC should be bigger. I keep looking behind the screen. Next I will look into the wireless connection, I've got a driver for that! 

"are we there yet?"

Have you ever seen that movie with the rapper "Icecube" called "Are we there yet!?!" It's got a Swedish handyman the likes of "Mr. Hanny" on "Green Acres". Being a Linuxville guide is like that. Just about everything in town, I can do, learn to do, or direct you to who can do, given enough notice. Hey, I've got the scars to prove it! Linuxville is a pretty diverse place, I live among the Ubuntu and am rather fond of XFCE as my desktop of choice (Xubuntu).

You want to know so much more than I can tell you, you want me to explain every reason and nuance and condense the whole of Linux into a few sound bytes...........impossible. Here is what I did. I read about Linux on various sites to get a handle (never quite clear!). Then I went to http://www.ubuntu.com and downloaded the appropriate .iso file, burned the CD. And just so I could have the official CD, I ordered the free CD too. AOL had free CD's also, if you remember, only when you ran them, you got stuff you didn't expect installed on your computer. Now with Linux (any flavor), you only get the software you asked for. Put the CD into your machine but instead of trying to run a file from MS Windows, restart or reboot your system, so that your computer boots from the CD instead of your hard drive with MS Windows on it. And then you will be asked to run it without installation or to install it. Linux will run off the CD, not install anything on your machine and when you shut it down will quit without a trace. While it is running, you can see what it comes with, how it works, what it looks like and if all your hardware responds. This answers all those questions you were going to pelt me with. Close your mouth before you ask, how they can offer this for free........ please. The catch, it's not a Mac, not MS, it's Linux!!

The live-CD of Ubuntu is wonderful, no time limit, no secret codes, no disabled features, what you see is what you get. The live-CD is the basic system, once you install it, you have access to change it, add to it, tweak it. And like I said, if you are not sure about installing, you now have a Linux live-CD you can play with anytime your curiosity gets stirred. If you want you could never install it yet use it and save files to your jump drive!! Now that's awesome!!

Aside from all the neat web sites you can google, there is one magazine you can download in .pdf format that is superb, Full Circle Magazine. The link is, http://www.fullcirclemagazine.org/ and of course, it is about Ubuntu. In the latest issue there is another interesting link for you social types, http://myubuntu.ning.com. This is on top of all the forums and news pages. If you got an inkling of the artist gene, check out http://www.linuxgraphicsusers.com. You will not be turned away. If you are a document maker Open Office is the name and for tips check out http://openoffice.blogs.com/openoffice/.

I felt much separation anxiety until I visited http://www.webi.org/ and http://www.schoolforge.net/ and said these run on Linux or MS. Then after a bout of "what about" I visited http://www.linuxalt.com/ and http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Linux_software_equivalent_to_Windows_software, to realize there is a chance I may not even need MS at all. The clincher was when I could output documents in MS file formats if I had to and I could read them and convert them, all without a single MS boot-up. My one MS machine probably gets turned on once every other week, if that.

I am completely happy in Linuxville except for the GUI unrest between the KDE and Gnome crews. XFCE uses the same libraries, tools as Gnome yet has managed to avoid headlines. If lower resource use is a must, XFCE is the way to go, but there are desktops that are even leaner if you need them. XFCE provides a good mix of functionality and lightness. My realization goes like this, an older machine is fine but the cost of adding memory to them has not gone down. If you have 512 MB Linux will not give any hesitation on the desktop. Less memory might require you seek lightness. I just ordered another 512 MB for my newer machine. That will give me 1 gig (1024 MB) of memory and a better performing machine. I could install KDE or Gnome, which do work in 512 MB, but I won't, XFCE works just fine. Yeah, I'm there!!!

cave of wonders, the catacombs

Underneath the town of Linuxville is not only the history of Unix but also room after room down a long corridor. The rooms, 400+ are distros, all similar to some degree but different. On a source code level, you could never get lost as long as you had your handy compiler. On the surface things are more defined for the type of user. Some rooms are so similar, closer inspection is the only way to see they are different. As you know, I am a Ubuntu kind of guy and have tried most of the Ubuntu flavors, but I started out with Slackware and Red Hat. Now Red Hat has the non-commercial focused Fedora distro. I have installed Fedora 9 on the same drive I have Ubuntu on. My Fedora uses the Gnome desktop. You can't tell if you are using Ubuntu or Fedora except for the little icon indicating where the menu is. Yeah, using the same desktop GUI does that. The desktop GUI is the same and under that both the Linux and the communities behind them are just a tad bit different. Ubuntu has Canonical, Fedora has Red Hat, Ubuntu is Debian (.deb), Fedora is Red Hat Packaging Manager (.rpm). You can argue all day about the advantages of each. I could recommend either, no sweat. So, with philosophical and minor technical differences you might find either will do what you need to do and still get support. My impression is that Ubuntu is a newer and global out reach, Fedora is an established, well known system, almost a standard worldwide for Linux. It is a good thing the pool of applications are the same for either system, albeit it is said that Debian based software repositories have more stuff. If you are looking for work here in the US like yours truly, the Red Hat brand is more familiar to server folks and engineering folks. Knowing Fedora ins and outs puts you in the ballpark for Admin work. You know, businesses like to channel you to a brand-named experience, do you know Red Hat, Suse or.........whatever. And alas, there are not enough Linux businesses or home users for a vibrant and profitable Linux based PC support person. Besides, from my experience so far, Linux runs great so there is less need for Linux support once it is setup. But users could still use the help and I could use the work.

lipstick on pigs and pitbulls, a true standard

Lipstick on a pig is a funny expression in America. Dressing up the same old thing as a new and exciting product is common practice. You already invested lots of resources, you believe so strongly in your product and you can't see anything wrong with it, yet people are complaining about it. So, you repackage it, describe it as something people want and hope they don't notice.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481288 This link is to an NPR story, a farmer who tried to actually put lipstick on a pig.

Let's look at the problems. Pigs aren't very attractive, pigs don't have lips, people tend to eat pigs, pitbulls might look better than pigs, don't have lips either, have potential to bite their masters and neighbors. Of course I am eluding to the upcoming election but the trend is a common practice. Microsoft is using the sitcom comedian Seinfeld as lipstick for his pig and the Big 3 American car makers are pushing gas burning new cars as "greener" (green lipstick, yuck!). There is quite a list on which people are smearing the lipstick these days. If you have that kind of mind, you might think lipstick is an improvement, but there is something deceiving here. In a country that boast in technical prowess, inventiveness and more educated people per square mile, we certainly have a lot of pig salesman and lipstick peddlers. Oh, and don't forget, visionary people who put the two together.

I talk about many things but Linux mainly. If some company were to advertise Linux, thus marketing Linux as a product, would it become the posterchild for the whole Linux world? Would it represent or define what Linux is in the minds of would be users? Would people have an expectation of what Linux should be because some brandname product has set the standard? Would ad folks find ways to say Linux is a pig or pitbull so they could put lipstick on it? Truth be told, Linux is just the kernel. You could possibly fit it on a floppy disk. Hey, you could embed the kernel in the flashROM on the motherboard!! No, motherboards would no longer be useful for any OS of your choice and if Linux were a brandname we'd probably have to ditch the word "distro".

A friend hip me to Artweaver, a MS windows only program. It has two main features, it's free and it looks like Photoshop. Some folks are applauding it, some are bashing GIMP instead. Looking like Photoshop and being free seems to be a winning combo, yet GIMPshop takes the hits because it's still GIMP, go figure. GIMPshop is GIMP with the tools arranged to look like Photoshop. In this case free and like Photoshop is not winning, hummmmm....... It's really too bad comedians can't screen their audiences. Ever wonder how they smuggle in a sack of tomatoes to throw. I think the solution is simple. Make the Photoshop style interface the standard then have a button you can push to switch to the traditional GIMP desktop, if you want it. As for Artweaver, sorry, it's not really free or close to being free until an open source Linux version comes out. Look at Xara Xtreme. You have to ask if you need a conversion program for files to work with the other programs you are using.

The Linux class is going great, exploring the live-CD OS is fun. It is cool to hear what others have discovered and get their spin on it. One person is looking at ReactOS, a couple more at Puppy, DSL and whatever. It is hard to get all the best or preferred stuff in one distro, we like to emphasize different things. So read the instructions that say your basic "kit" includes this, build and adjust to suit and don't forget mileage may vary. I did Dyne:bolic Linux last class, it was fun and it has features I wish were in Ubuntu.

I have this view of Linux. The kernel is the part that can be compiled to run on any machine and orchestrates the interaction between the other parts (also compiled to suit), the libraries and utilities and user interface and the applications. All the pieces and parts may run great in some situations or poorly thus distros have been devised of stuff that work great together. It may be cosmetic (different GUI), an arrangement set for a purpose (server/desktop) or a hardware requirement (32 bit Intel/64 bit AMD) or a language/cultural thing that sets a distro apart. You the user can start by selecting a distro that seems right for you and adjust it for a better fit. I also believe from a user's side certain things should be transparent to any OS. Common fonts and file formats should be released from the control of any computer OS platform company. My documents should look great in any application, on any platform and in any web browser, and I should be able to move data without application specific conversion, between similar programs. The SVG format and the FLI formats are examples, different apps have different implementations of the same standard, thus they are not really standards, right! Come on folks, it's what the user uses that should be a standard.

On the Ubuntu front, Mark Shuttleworth has put out the call to all developers to sell their lipstick stock and put real effort into making Ubuntu look as good if not better than Vista and Mac OS. I am glad they won't waste time trying to discover which new mascot looks good in lipstick or a grille of human dentures. I think integrating all the effects of compiz was fun as in graffiti, but polish is more a fine art. Let's see Suse's got green, Mandrivia's got yellow, Fedora's got blue, Ubuntu's got brown, hey isn't that like branding, having a signature desktop? The default desktop is big stuff, it makes the first impression and sets the tone. Brown needs lots of help.
Ubuntu users need to weigh in, not complain, but offer alternatives, solutions and ideas. That's the Linux way.

Another day with Ubuntu

You know, users have to have a strange mixture of quickness and patience. Like you got to hit the keys to get at the systems boot settings or wait for stuff to download and install. The skillful can do it without a hint of frustration. It is an acquired skill. Been looking for work lately, which requires much the same skill. In my virtual Linuxville abode, I've also been playing with Virtualbox. This is a great program. It allows you to run one operating system as the guest of another. This means that I am running say XP as if it were an application inside of Ubuntu Linux. I could have used an emulator, but they are limited compared to running the full OS. So, this morning I installed XP as a guest virtual machine in Virtualbox which runs on Ubuntu Linux. I actually installed it 3 times because I could not get the mouse to work correctly. It took 3 times before I realized it was not a problem with XP or with Virtualbox or with Ubuntu Linux. The problem was with the Desktop Effects that I had enabled. I saw this in one of the forums while googling for answers. I turned off the desktop effects (no more wobbly windows) and it all worked fine. I just can't wobble and go virtual at the same time, no big deal. Why do this? I no longer have to dual boot which means using one OS or the other. Virtual machines means both OS's running at the same time. Of course this also means sharing resources, if you have less than 512MB of memory things might be a tad bit slow or not run at all. But, having most of what I need in Linux there are only a few things I want that only run in XP. As much as I do not care for MS Internet Explorer, many government agencies have concluded that MS IE is the standard. These government web sites only work correctly with MS IE. Sorry Firefox fans, your gov does not care for security or your access ability. What's the upside to this? Running XP as a virtual machine means that MS does not dominate my computer, to see it in a small window makes me laugh and I can delete the installation with one click, no harm done. You can even fool your friends by running XP full screen, they won't even know Linux is there.
The other thing here is I got a DVD-rom drive. It doesn't burn but it reads so that is a big upgrade to my system. Ubuntu provides many DVD tools but codecs for reading commercial DVD's are found elsewhere on the internet. I'll leave it too you to haggle over legal or illegal. A number of Linux distributions come as a bootable DVD iso. They contain everything, OS, applications, everything. I will get a burner in the distant future. Why not empty your filling hard drive of vulnerable photo collections and music files onto DVD's for safe keeping.
I guess I got to get back to work looking for work, see ya!

can Ubuntu survive the desktop?

In the latest skirmish for the desktop at least on the Linux front, Ubuntu has the perceived lead. But there is trouble under the surface. Ubuntu which has the Gnome desktop has the continued backing of the Ubuntu designers while Kubuntu which has the KDE desktop is waning. Seems a little thing but KDE seems not able to keep up with the Ubuntu release schedule. KDE is pushing for version 4.0 to be ready for prime time but it is not soon enough for the next release of Ubuntu coming your way. It is not a good thing to have a large part of your user base cut off. I am so surprised at this situation, it begs for the obvious solution. The Ubuntu folks need to return to the Linux idea.
Return to the idea that any desktop or window manager can be used. The present trend toward integrating a particular desktop into Linux results in moving on to a different distribution by users who don't like the desktop. The desktop is not Linux, only the user interface. In the Ubuntu world it is so apparent that users like the whole Ubuntu scenario but want the desktop of their own choosing. If I were trying to insure the continued success of Ubuntu Linux I would pay attention to what users are demanding, GUI choice and a Linux that will run on anything. Personally I believe that both KDE and Gnome desktops are way too big and try to embrace everything all users want. So, what do I recommend? Make Linux better fit to use any desktop or window manager. You might have to sacrifice integration via libraries and devise a more transparent way for the desktop to access Linux. It is all so complicated because all the players are entrenched in their own development worlds. My final stroke has been to use Xfce desktop which is a little less than either KDE or Gnome but is more gratifying to deal with on a daily basis. Linux should not become like Apple or Microsoft, just a third choice of an homogenized product line. What makes Linux is its ability to be configured to the hardware and to the user. One size does not fit all. What direction will Linux makers and users go is so exciting and a work in progress. Computing is still pretty young as technologies go and it isn't the answer to all man's woes as some have hoped but you have to admit cool things are happening.

On the Desktop Again!!

As I wrote in my last blog, I pimped my XP desktop. It looks and acts pretty sweet compared to the stock xp desktop. The green and blue start bar is no more and the skin has an Apple flavor. And with RKLauncher, it is a efficient looking, yet very sporty desktop. My Ubuntu Linux desktop looks almost the same but is a little more polished. Microsoft doesn't like you messing with their software. So, without 3rd party add-on software you can't change it very much. Then there is the problem of 3rd party software not being compatible with the security updates, which is why I can't use FlyakiteOSX.

Got a chance to fuss with a laptop with Vista on it. I had to go hunting for all the functions that were up front in XP. I wasn't very comfortable using Vista. People will be glad when there is an arm load of programs to load on it to do regular stuff. My friend who had the laptop was saddled with MS Works for free. This is not even an Office compatible suite. You can change some files to Office file format but it can screw you up. But it beats the trial version of Office I got with my desktop. So I loaded Open Office 2 on the laptop until they could obtain a copy of MS Office. I myself will not buy MS Office for myself. I am very happy with Open Office. So my immediate advice to anyone getting Vista is to go to the library, get the books. Vista is different than XP by a long shot. It looks and feels different and things are in different places. I have witnessed the new boy gleam of a couple of new Vista users. I don't plan to be around them when the wants and needs kick in. The pre-installed OS always gives you a "I don't want anything else" sleep. It will be a while before there is a boatload of hardware drivers and utilities that are Vista compatible. And don't have a 64-bit processor, you will be waiting a long time for support.

Well, that was my small Vista adventure. Did discover Oxygen Office Premium. It is a version of Open Office that has extensions, clip-art, extras and I think Visual Basic programming. I got the MS Windows version running in XP and Vista, but I could not get the Linux version to run because it is 32-bit and I have a 64-bit processor. But I still have Open Office in 64-bit. Yes, there are 64-bit problems in Linux too. Also I discovered the famous Linux program Evolution, which is a email/calender/PIM program, has been ported over to MS Windows. The package installer works in XP and eariler only. So Vista users will have to deal with Outlook and security holes, I mean patches.

So, is there any big differences between MS XP/Vista and Linux that stick out? I know you can add a very slick, graphic intensive, 3d, moving display in Linux but Linux has always had a little program called a pager. It can be assigned any number of desktop spaces. You could open programs in one space, switch to another while the original program is still running. Plus you get a tiny graphic of each desktop in the task bar. It is very handy and practical. XP doesn't have this and Vista, if you get the higher priced fancier versions, has the 3d rotating stack of windows. Sorry, but it is not very much advanced over a non-rotating stack of over laying windows. In Linux you can move open windows between desktops. I just don't think MS has created something cool enough to warrant a new operating system. It may take a while for the tweak geeks to take Vista off-road. So, again, if you buy a new computer you most likely are saddled with Vista, good luck and have fun. I am still dual-booting XP and Ubuntu Linux. They are neck and neck in many aspects but I like and prefer the look and feel of Ubuntu Linux with the latest KDE desktop. MS XP is very workable in its older state, except for the security patches. Vista is too new to be practical yet.

MS vs Linux steps up a notch

Well, I got tired of bitching about how my Windows XP desktop was cluttered and unresponsive. So I put most of the desktop shortcut icons in a desktop folder, that way I could get at them when I needed them. They weren't being used regularly anyway. Then I installed something called RKLauncher (RKDock). This handy item places a few most accessed icons on the desktop for fast easy access. It looks just like the icon tool bar on the Mac. When you hover over the icon with your mouse, the icon magnifies.
I tried out a few other freebies but they were buggy because of all the security fixes to XP. The best one was called FlyakiteOSX. It looked very, very nice compared to what I could do to the standard XP desktop. It had a DLL relocation problem that I couldn't fix. I really liked the Mac look but would have settled just for the better functionality. All in all I like my XP desktop again. I think it is amazing that some inventive programmers have figured out how to change the look and feel of MS Windows by adding on some software.

My next major shakeup was what to do with the Linux desktop. I have been a Gnome desktop fan since I first installed Red Hat years ago. I didn't like KDE because it was complicated in its look and feel. The little dragon symbol I also thought was hoke. KDE users bragged about the ability to reconfigure the look and feel of the desktop. All I saw was menu after nested menu, especially in the control panel. Gnome was simple to set up, my grandmother could use it. I guess even Linus T. himself had something to say about the simplicity of Gnome. But he was questioning the attitude of its programmers. They were, according to him, underestimating the mental capacity of the users of their desktop. I thought simple was nice so I didn't have a problem. A funny thing happened to KDE, it was improved for the better. So I backed up my personal files and bookmarks, my address book. I installed Kubuntu (with KDE) over Ubuntu (with Gnome). I like what I see of KDE, the convoluted double nested menus are gone. It has a nicer look and feel. It is still tweakable. I am not head over heels satisfied yet, there are some differences to get used to. I want to say out loud that KDE is not like MS Windows and people who say that are smoking something. I thought Gnome was more like MS Windows but thats my opinion. So, I am tweaking my KDE desktop to get the best out of it. I miss the Synaptic Application Manager that was in Gnome, but the Apt-get interface works quite well. KDE seem to have a better variety of programs written for it that integrate well into it. I installed a little program called KoolDock. It again is like the Mac icon toolbar that sits at the bottom of the screen. It is very handy and works with KDE. Change is good and it all seems to get better.

The Latest Turn of Events

What's the latest preoccupation in my life. Well I have been messing around with Linux for some time now. I've played with Red Hat 5, Fedora 2, did a stint with Knoppix and a couple of other distributions. This last year I have been into Ubuntu Linux. I am so impressed with this version of Linux. It just worked with the hardware I had. Of course my computers are modest by most standards and I do not have any exotic video cards or a dial-up modem as I had in the past. The experience has been overall a good one and my computing needs have been met.
I dual-boot, which means I can start my computer in Windows XP or Ubuntu Linux. I am always comparing the two operating systems. Choice is sometimes a confusing thing, but it serves to keep the competitors awake to the demands of their market. If they want the bucks, they had better make the customer happy. What is interesting here is that this competition between the makers of MS Windows (Microsoft) and the makers of Linux (a community of programmers) have engaged the users in what amounts to a religious war. This is a war over what the user puts on his/her desktop and the underlying philosophy, support, goods and services behind that desktop. If you don't think there's a war, I'll explain. First on the users side, the attitude is and still is show me the product, if I like it, I will buy it and use it. Many OS's have come and gone. Today MS Windows is expected to be on the computer when you buy it, so it and its associated software are the defacto standard. Many, if not most users today have grown up with Windows products. Mean while, in the background another OS (Linux) is being developed and used. Linux steps into the light of user availability offering the user the chance to make a choice.
Users immediately go about making it work for them and compare it to what they have been used to with MS Windows. Opinions, rants, raves, people sharing their experiences trying to exclaim why their operating system, associated products and support is the best and the other is junk.
Now what about the hardware and software makers in this war. They have to satisfy the demand of a customer who can make a choice. When there was only one OS, the standard one (MS Windows), they could tailor a product to support it. Now that the demand for a choice has been made they must make a product that accommodates that ability to choose. Some have a hard time with this, others press on with new product opportunities.
What do I think? Choice is a good thing. It forces the product producers to keep me, the user, in view when they design this thing I will eventually claim as my own. I think that this war on many fronts is a healthy expression of the struggle to put a good product in the users hands.
So, what is the real deal? I use both MS Windows and Linux right now and I am in the mist of comparing the two. I can point out the problems I have had with either of them over the last few years. While either OS will suffice, that is, meet my computing needs, there remains a philosophy and a mental mindset that I enjoy with the Linux side of things. Others who ask can they do this or that with Linux are really asking can they run the software they are used to using in Windows on a Linux machine. We could go around all day explaining about emulators and virtual machines running Windows applications on a Linux machine. I think the operating system, its applications and associated products become such a part of a users world that to enact a change disrupts a users world view. Computing is so much a part of our lives (of those who depend on them).
So, what's so big about Linux that it warrants a fuss? It is basically free from a lot of things that MS Windows binds you into. I like the idea of a product that can cross boarders and cultures without criminal activity being the instigator. I like the fact that the growth and development of Linux continually allows me choice on a level I can deal with. I am not a programmer/developer, so I can't offer code fixes or new applications, yet as a user I can still find ways to participate in the community to share ideas, etc, to improve on what I have invested in. I think that if I have to steal to own or pirate a copy because the economics are too strong or my conscience is weak, (the opportunity is there) to keep current, I do damage to myself, I can not do things with clarity. Yes, I am a Christian after all.
Now, with all the above being said, I have chosen to keep up with Linux because it is improving. I have chosen Ubuntu Linux in particular because it works on my collection of hardware and introduces me to an expanding user experience. What does that mean? This means that I have not been crippled by cost or knowledge in order to get some usefulness out of this contraption called a computer.