Filed under: Features, Linux, Open Source, Analysis
Flipping the Linux switch: My OS is okay, your OS is okay
by Kristin Shoemaker May 13th 2008
Today we're committing blasphemy. Okay, technically we're not. We're not saying that any one system or way of doing things is the only right way. Face it, the only place there was only one right answer to a question was eighth grade math class.
So while it may seem like it's blasphemy for us to suggest that Linux may not be for you (or your girlfriend, or your boyfriend, or your uncle), it might be true. You might be better suited to a Mac way of life, or a Windows sort of environment at the moment. It doesn't mean it'll always be that way. It doesn't mean, if it is always that way, that you (or Linux) are not up to the task. You're just not right for each other.
All right, let's quit the touchy-feely psycho-babble talk. There is a lot written about choosing distributions, desktops, and other fun stuff that comes with Linux. But how do you really know if it's something you want to invest time in trying at all?
There are liveCDs that allow you try to out a number of different distributions, and they can give you a pretty good feel of how Linux looks, and feels, and to some degree, how it works. You can see how your hardware is supported, and experiment a bit with alternative applications. That's great, but the truth is, it doesn't always give the whole picture of what you might encounter using Linux.
We hate making generalizations, but sometimes we just gotta do it. We've found, for the most part (and yes, there are always exceptions) that two types of people do really well with Linux: those who have no computer experience, and those who have enough experience with a different operating system to be fairly comfortable with it, but not overly confident with it. This second group often has a different way of thinking about and approaching computers (not to be confused, ahem, with the ability to "Think Different").
So how do you know if Linux is something you should try? How do you know if you even fall into those two categories?
People with absolutely no computer experience are hard to come by. When we say "no experience" we don't mean people who pick up the mouse and try to use it like a TV remote. We are thinking along the lines of elementary school aged kids (seriously!) or more adventurous adults who haven't really become "familiar" with the computer much beyond what a keyboard or mouse does.
The uniting factor in this group seems to be that they don't have a lot of preconceptions of what an operating system "should look like." If they can't figure out how to fire up the internet on a computer, it's not because the "IE" icon is not on the desktop, but it's because "IE" and "web browser" really don't mean much to them. They're not interchangeable terms. They're barely even English terms.
We don't really advise, if you should fall into this category, that you do this whole Linux thing alone. There are a lot of great starter distributions out there that will not feel any more foreign to a new computer user than the first time one uses a Windows or Mac system. If the hardware suits your needs sufficiently, go ahead and get yourself (or your kid) an Eee PC (or any of the lower-cost systems that run Linux natively). They're extremely friendly to newer users, and most can be fiddled with as confidence grows. The software is pre-configured for the hardware as well, so there's less confusion than setting up a computer with an installed proprietary OS.
The idea we'd want most readers to walk away with: just because little Johnnie or Aunt Matilda have never really used or owned a computer before doesn't mean that Linux is out of the question. Basic computing skills learned here are transferable to a Windows or Mac environment, if they want (or need) to use those environments one day.
That brings us to our second group. The "I'm comfortable enough with my present operating system to handle most problems, but I have no formal training." It's a hard group to assess, and personality comes into play a lot here.
Please note we're not saying someone who is an MSCE can't or doesn't want to use Linux. It might be harder haul, though, because there are (sometimes very subtle) differences between the two systems that can cause frustration. We've lost count of the times we've been on a Windows Server machine and wished for a clean Linux script to perform a task. And yes, we've lost count of the times we've been on a Linux machine, and wondered why there wasn't a more obvious way to get from point A to point B.
We're thinking that most people reading Download Squad who are considering using Linux fall into this category. We fell into this category when we started out. On our Windows machines, we were relatively comfortable troubleshooting slightly more advanced problems. For instance, if you're someone who has little or no emotional scarring from following a Knowledge Base article on a support site about editing your registry, you're probably in this category.
If you have the general ability, then, it really comes down to what you want and need out of an operating system.
Linux takes patience. If you're not someone who wants (or is able) to search out an answer to an issue beyond going to the software/hardware producer's site and digging around their FAQs and Knowledge Base to find a solution, Linux might not be for you. The information to fix most issues is out there, but whether you can spare the time to find it is a personal decision.
We waver between being extremely patient with technology, to having a totally pig-headed obstinance that we are not going to be beaten by a bunch of 0s and 1s. We call that last condition "patience with expletives." It's not just that, it's also a desire to solve problems. If you're the type of person who likes to see a project completed and likes to understand, even in a limited way, why something works the way it does, Linux is very rewarding.
Most important, though, is the fact that any operating system needs to perform the tasks you need. There are many people who can be totally productive with an office suite, an internet connection, and a basic photo editor. Pretty much any operating system out there can do that. We also know from experience that doing any vaguely complicated video editing on Linux or Windows, while not impossible, is extremely annoying. There are some things Macs do better. If you need a particular application for your job, and it only runs on Windows, your hands are tied.
Linux does many things well. It's secure. It is great for public terminals. It is great for households with lots of people using a limited number of machines. It does everything an average computer user could ask of it. And yes, it is traditionally a server operating system.
We love Linux, and we love people to try it. It doesn't mean that just because it's for us, it's for everybody. A lot depends on what we require from our computers. It depends on our background with technology. If it isn't your cup of tea, does it mean the operating system has failed? Does it mean you have? No. Of course not. The idea that any one operating system (or car, or laundry detergent) is right for everyone is ridiculous, but alive and well.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Bufsabre said 2:45PM on 5-13-2008
first time my dad used a computer he seriously did try to use the mouse as a tv remote, then he spoke into the laser on it and said turn on, but that was about 3 years ago now, he uses linux and its just fine for him, i started him on windows xp but after having to field virii and the like, i move him to linux and no problems since, all he does is surf the internet play music and the ocasional word processor so it fits his needs just right
Reply
Kristin Shoemaker said 3:34PM on 5-13-2008
Most people don't believe the "mouse as remote" example, but when I was working in a public library setting, I swear upon all that is sacred that I saw it happen a few times. It was against policy, but I usually got the patrons doing this off the public computers and looked up and printed the information they needed for them.
Nothing frustrates the youngins waiting to get on myspace (I mean, do homework) so much as seeing a 70+ year old holding a mouse in the air and turning to the reference desk saying, "This is very different from a typewriter, isn't it?" (Alas, also a true quote).
It was the slightly more computer literate than the mouse as remote crowd that adjusted most quickly to the introduction of the Linux systems in this setting. They didn't care it wasn't Excel they were using to open their spreadsheets. They cared that now they actually could open spreadsheets on the computers (they never fully understood that licensing costs prohibited it before).
The rest were just head over heels in love with the LCD monitors.
DiRT said 3:07PM on 5-13-2008
If Linux could get a real art program (The Gimp doesn't cut it) and if more than 3 scanners were supported, I might finally jump over. But I find myself wondering more and more if I should boot into XP or Vista, whereas my Mandriva installation rarely gets used.
Reply
Bufsabre said 11:19PM on 5-13-2008
i never quite understand why people say the gimp doesnt cut it, i believe its what youre trained to use that you just flock to, i learned the gimp and im pretty well proficient with it. when i use photoshop i despise it, so i think its just a reluctance to learn something new
DiRT said 9:13AM on 5-14-2008
About 60% of what I do is print related. If your just wanting to update your homepage, then knock yourself out.
found in Google:
a classical example of GIMP's shortcomings is the "bit depth" (lack of bit depths higher than 8-bit). Altough you can use the free Gimp fork cinepaint, and notwithstanding the fact that Gimp itself is now catching up, fact is that there is (yet) no CMYK support in Gimp, only RGB.
In short, if we attempt a useless comparison: GIMP would win in web graphics, because it's born for the web: more effective compression, higher quality, more web related operations.
Photoshop would win in big pictures management: its algos are 10 times faster, as you notice when using -say- a 50,000*20,000 pixels image, and its CMYK support is intended for high end "gigantic" paper publishing.
whiskey said 4:51PM on 5-14-2008
It's fairly simple to get photoshop running on Linux under Wine... visit http://wine-review.blogspot.com and find there the instructions to get it running.
DiRT said 5:09PM on 5-14-2008
Great. Now make one of my 4 scanners work!
zeta said 7:12AM on 6-10-2008
@DiRT: Sorry to say this, but it is really tiring to hear the same old stories about "missing programs" and "needing to compile" on Linux. And I simply don't buy your claim that you "really, really" want to switch. If you were really that interested, you would know all the main Linux distributions come with an abundance of prebeuild programs. Installing one in Ubuntu is as easy as: Open Synaptics (the package-manager), search for your program, klick install - and you are done. Including all future updates.
I recently got me a new computer and installed XP Pro and Ubuntu 8.04 on it. It took me 1 1/2 days to get everything the way I wanted on the XP partitions, the rest of the day was needed to do the same with Ubuntu. And while the Ubuntu part works now as expected, Windows keeps bugging me with drivers that need to be updated, and patches, and virusscanner-updates and so on. It might be different for you, but for me Windows is for play - games still don't work very well with Linux - while Linux is my work environment.
All I am saying is: If you want to stick with Windows that is very fine with me. But please stop spreading rumours about an OS you obviously know very little about.
DiRT said 8:09AM on 6-10-2008
Sorry Zeta. You obviously are too sold on Linux in any flavor to really care what it's like for anyone else out there.
The point is that the pre-built programs available aren't the ones I want or need. I found Mandriva to be much more user friendly and supportive of my USB devices than Ubuntu but I can't find simple things like DC++ software, batch scanning software, or stable VNC software without having to grab the source myself and building it for my distro.
It may be "tiring to hear the same old stories about "missing programs" and "needing to compile" on Linux" but that doesn't make it less true.
You are complaining about self-updating drivers and virus definitions? How is that a pain? Again, it's a couple clicks and done.
Listen, I do want to switch, but not at the price of my sanity. It's very easy to think "Gee, I need a program that does X" and Google a freeware app for XP. If you are lucky, Adept, Synaptic, or whatever will have one for your distro. But if not, then you have to go look for the source to build your own version and that a confusing pain in the @$$. Linux needs a better system for that and until someone devises one, Linux will not be taking over.
Larry said 4:23PM on 5-13-2008
I have tried to use Linux distros such as Mandrake, Mandriva, Linspire, Knoppix, and now Kubuntu 8.04 (Ubuntu w/ KDE).
None of the distros I installed will recognize the wireless card in my desktop. I had to spend hours researching the problem in Linux FAQs and Forums until I came across a user with the same machine who solved the problem with a few superuser console commands, then applying NDISWrapper to the Windows driver so that the driver would be emulated by Linux.
If every user has to go through that mess to get an internet connection, then Linux still has a way to go, IMHO.
Reply
Kristin Shoemaker said 4:54PM on 5-13-2008
It is unfortunate, but wireless drivers are continually an iffy proposition in Linux. I have an internal card in a desktop that is supported natively, I have a USB adapter that that requires ndiswrapper and still can be touchy, and I have an Eee running Ubuntu using madwifi and some other magical incantations that works great.
The problem relates to the closed nature of the drivers (and I will admit a lot of this is way over my head, but it also relates to chipsets used on the wireless adapters. The same or nearly identical model adapters that might use the same driver in one OS, but use a different chipset, can require wildly different drivers elsewhere). What sucks is that it takes some time to reverse engineer these things to work... if it's even legal to reverse engineer parts of it.
As you've found, ndiswrapper can only take you so far. It's essentially the Windows driver running in emulation. Sometimes it works great. Other times it's spotty. And sometimes you're completely SOL.
Because of legalities, it could be a wireless driver can't be reworked and made to run on Linux by the community at large. It totally blows, honestly. Sometimes the best recourse (although completely unsatisfying) is to tell the manufacturer of the laptop or wireless card that Linux drivers are needed. Hopefully enough voices will get heard.
The support is getting better, but it's slow. Back in the day, internal dial up modems were as big a thorn in the side.
Larry said 5:37PM on 5-13-2008
Now I am running Kubuntu 8.04 with a wireless internet connection. The solution is simple :)
I have an old Belkin Wireless-G USB adapter that I used on a defunct Win 98SE machine. I disabled the Dell WLAN manually by pressing Fn+F2, then I plug the Belkin adapter into a USB port while the machine is restarting in Linux.
It turns out that the Belkin Wireless-G (Model 7050) USB adapter is recognized by most Linux distros natively.
HA!
If I had known this fact two days ago, I would not have bothered with ndiswrapper and cryptic console commands to get my built-in wireless working.
Now that Kubuntu is up and running on the internet, I am duly impressed with the result.
It is unfortunate that I must use an ancient USB wireless adapter to run Linux and get updates and packages.
Reply
Fevrin said 8:13PM on 5-16-2008
I'm in a similar situation. Last fall, I was given a wireless-n adapter that worked just fine in Windows, but no matter what I tried in Ubuntu, including ndiswrapper, I wasn't able to get connected to the Internet. Luckily, I had a spare wireless-g Ralink-based adapter that was recognized immediately. It's unfortunate, however, that I currently can't use my wireless-n adapter.
At the same time, I understand that the gatekeeper here isn't Linux, but the hardware manufacturer (Buffalo). I did the most I could by telling Buffalo that they should either provide a reliable Linux-compatible driver or allow others to make their existing drivers Linux-compatible (linuxwireless.org, linuxdriverproject.org, etc.).
I'm still kind of scared that my connection could go at any time, though, so I've been making good use of APtonCD, backing up all of the programs that I would otherwise have needed to download for any future fresh installs of Ubuntu. Of course, that still wouldn't fix the problem of being able to visit websites, but it's one step closer . . . .
Muffin_man said 9:39AM on 5-14-2008
I have honestly never heard of the advantages of switching so I won't. Why switch to an iffy OS when you can just use the standard?
At least with Windows I know what I am capable of doing with it with linux I could run into all sorts of problems and not know how to fix it.
Maybe it's just my ignorance talking bbut I honestly don't see the point. At all.
Reply
Jymbob said 1:17PM on 5-14-2008
First, you need to ask yourself why you consider Linux an 'iffy OS', and Windows the 'standard'.
Your second point is very well put: why switch when you're not sure you'll be able to do the same things, or fix any problems? However, I didn't find the learning curve too hard at all. Currently, I think a comparison can be drawn between learning how Vista does things and learning how e.g. Ubuntu does things when coming from a Windows XP background. I also can't think of anything off-hand I used to do on windows that I can't now do on Linux, and in an environment that's set up just how I like it.
I find Linux systems easier to work with, easier to set up how I want them to work (rather than the way Microsoft or Apple expect me to use them), and also I get to save money by not paying to upgrade every few years.
My main reasons to switch were: first, I needed more configurability in my desktop. I was sick of having to jump through hoops any time I wanted to do anything slightly unusual. Secondly, I was aware that I could only lay tenuous claim to a legal copy of Windows XP, and that was starting to get at me. Now I'm not running any illegal software, so my conscience is clearer too.
Oh, also, when Windows XP decides to break something, it _really_ goes to town. I find Linux breakages much easier to diagnose and repair.
whiskey said 4:58PM on 5-14-2008
One thing i love about ubuntu is the community support... you can just type the name of the problem followed by ubuntu in google and find an answer. And if not (a rare case), then just get to a site like ubuntuforums and ask your question.
I would like to invite you to try at least a live CD or DVD and try to see if there are tons of limitations (i mean, there could be hardware issues or so, in this case, try another distro or simply wait for an update and try again).
Think of it as switching to a Mac. This system would be so unfamiliar to someone using Windows that he/she would have to learn a bit to get things done. The main variation here is not having to pay to use it.
DiRT said 5:18PM on 5-14-2008
It's obvious why Windows is the standard - everyone (realistically) uses it. Like it or not, it is "computing" for the majority of people. You may like Linux more, you may think it's better, but that doesn't change the fact that if you go into a store to buy a computer, odds are you will be shown a Windows computer. When that changes, Windows won't be the standard any more.
And Linux is far from simple for the new user. Want to install a program? You can't simply click on a link at download.com and install it. You have to know your distro, sometimes compile it yourself. Yes, you can Google instructions but that's not user friendly either. When you have to open a console and type commands, you are leaving the realm of user friendliness. You might not think it's a big deal, but to people like my parents, they don't WANT to learn - they want their box to do what they feel it should as easily as putting a DVD in the set-top player or turning the knob on the stove.
Kristin Shoemaker said 5:46PM on 5-14-2008
@DiRT,
Agreed on the sale of computers with Windows... However...
New users, by definition, are inexperienced. Are they going to have an easier time with Windows than Linux? For instance, my mom has a Windows XP machine. She wanted to send an ecard to someone. She didn't realize that the fact that the ecard site made her download a codec and sound files was a big freakin' red flag that this probably *isn't* what she should be downloading.
She downloads it, and gets a hundred thousand pop ups. And calls me about getting rid of them. I imagine that she (and my dad) have collectively "just downloaded and installed" a lot of things, very easily. Most of which they either weren't truly aware of, or didn't need.
They're not computer experts, but they aren't idiots either. Lots of seemingly sane, rational people do this.
When I inevitably end up helping them clean up the machine, they usually say, "These are the programs I need. Get rid of everything else."
Most of the stuff they need they have on a disk.
Most of the stuff a new computer user who wants to try Linux will need... is in a repository. Fire up Synaptic, or YaST, or what have you, and pick your package.
If a computer is a fairly new concept to someone... it's not more of a stretch to look at the distro's repositories than it is to go to download.com. I think it might actually be easier, it's right there in the system menu...
If you're a new user who needs a certain app (like Photoshop, or Quark, or what have you...) then maybe it's not your cup of tea... But if a concept is new, can one concept be foreign than another?
DiRT said 10:14AM on 5-16-2008
@Kristen
"But if a concept is new, can one concept be foreign than another?"
I think you mean "more foreign" but still, obviously yes.
Click.
Click.
Done.
Click.
Google instructions.
Click.
Open console.
Type.
Type.
Type.
Click.
Click.
There's an obvious difference. Once again, you might not think it's a big deal but if you read a site like this you are way beyond a new or casual user. And just because your mom doesn't know any better, doesn't make Windows any less of the standard or any less user friendly.
Don't get me wrong, I WANT to switch to Linux. But time and time again, I find that I can't because I need something that's Windows only.
Chris said 8:27PM on 5-16-2008
Muffin_man, if you were to hate activation as much as I do, you'd take measures to avoid activation. I've ruled out going the illegal route, so I'm left with Linux. That's why I personally chose to use GNU/Linux; however, I've found many more things to like about Linux as I use it (some small, some big), making my decision to switch all the better.