Ubuntu: A nice holiday, but glad to be home
Summary: With 48 hours of open-source over, reflecting on the entire experience, how do I rate Linux from a Windows-only background? The results may suprise you;
This past 48 hours has been an eye opening time of which I plunged myself into an entirely open-source environment head first, with no prior experience.
Over the preceding weekend, I simply set up the machine and installed what I believe I needed. Ubuntu 9.10 was running in a VMWare Player virtual machine (790MB RAM) with VMWare Tools for Linux, running on top of my Windows 7 production machine (AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core, 4GB RAM).
The reason I chose a virtual machine were twofold: I needed my Windows machine to stay on as I run critical back-end services and processes in the background which are necessary for various reasons. Secondly I didn't have the knowledge or understanding to install a native Ubuntu installation properly on my laptop; I thought a nice, secure environment where nothing could go wrong would be best.
Many have criticised my methods. Many have said 48 hours isn't enough time, others have said I should have performed a native installation, which I ended up doing. One person seemed almost terrified that I was going to suddenly hate the overall experience as a result of a few minor glitches, resulting in what can only be described as a "panic metaphor". 48 hours was enough though, and was so for logistical reasons.
As the hours went on and my temptation to play with Compiz, the graphics accelerating program which manipulates windows and provides a far richer visual experience, overflowed and I installed it on my laptop. However, my issues (along with many others) in getting the graphics drivers for the ATI Radeon HD 3200 card stumped me and was unable to enable Compiz.
So, with this, how do you think I would rate my final experience?
On a very simple basis, my experience can be boiled down to a bunch of stars. Yes, Windows 7 in my opinion is pretty good, and Vista is poor in comparison, yet Ubuntu is far better and in between the two. Mac OS X doesn't strike well with me due to the limited number of applications available in comparison to both Windows and Linux.
The best analogy I could find to summate my experience is this. I had a lovely time on holiday, but equally glad to be back home again. You know that feeling when you go away somewhere beautiful and serene, you like being there but after a short while you do miss the smaller things in life which you had at home. But at the end of it, you still come away refreshed and happy with your time, and the want to continue exploring further and revisit that place.
Of course, I'm speaking in metaphors, but you get the picture.
There were two major issues I encountered: VPN and drivers. A vital part of the university experience is to access remote documents, file shares, research articles and databases and other networked resources. VPN software needs to be installed first off, unlike other editions which have it automatically bundled, and even after the configuration a mystery message just told me that the connection had failed. I gave up in the end.
Once I had installed native Ubuntu onto my laptop, the drivers for graphics and networking weren't exactly falling at my feet. I've realised that when (any) operating system needs drivers, try and let it pick them out for you. The vast majority of the time it gets them right. I should have done this initially after facing issues with the manual installation and nearly having to reinstall.
Linux doesn't have an issue with drivers; it's the hardware manufacturers who seem to have, almost rightfully, seconded drivers' priority to Windows, the more popular operating system. As there are still hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Linux users out there in the world, hardware vendors and driver writers should still at least attempt to support these systems. Yet with the open-source community as it is, they chip in where and when they can to write and maintain drivers they have written themselves, filling the gaps in most places.
But these two issues are minor in comparison to the wholly positive experience I have had. So to answer my question: How would an "ordinary" student cope using a non-Windows environment for 48 hours?
Granted, a lot of the time will be spent installing drivers and configuring the system for how you want it to be, and will probably take longer than those who have used nothing but Windows through their entire careers or lives. But once it's done, it's a brilliant operating system to use and massively powerful and open to pretty much anything. The applications and packages are endless and I can now see why people feel so passionately about open-source and free software.
Once you get into the flow of things, most of the concepts are similar to Windows. You can still install, uninstall, customise, browse, work and play games. Things do look a little different, but you can easily change the way things look, more so in Linux than you can do in Windows. Icons and windows are still there, and there's even a file structure - believe it or not - albeit it takes a while to reconfigure your own mind set into a different organisational file structure.
I will say this once again, dear readership. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which operating system you use. No operating system is perfect, and every manufacturer has its own following of people who engage within a certain subtype of culture. No one is better than the other, and it should always boil down to a personal preference and not to insults, criticisms and a childish disposition like many have done so.
While I was working away these 48 hours in Ubuntu using only open-source technology, the vast majority of you were fighting each other in the comments section. However, for those in the minority spurring me on, providing useful feedback, helping me out and generally keeping me going, I offer you my most sincere thanks.
You know what? I think tomorrow I'll boot back into Ubuntu and see if I can get Compiz to work.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
It's nice, but do we need it?
not seeing a big demand for alternative OSes.
Windows and MacOS are good enough for most people,
and they don't really see Linux as being much
better.
Yes, absolutely
even better. Without any competition an incumbent monopoly will have
no incentive to innovate (or nothing to copy) and every temptation to
keep raising the price as high as the market will bear.
So even those of you who continue to use Windows ([i]perhaps[/i]
because you don't know what you are missing) are very much in need of
Linux to be successful and keep MS on its toes.
Stick with Windows
Obviously I'm not a hater of Linux. I've used many flavors for many years, and I've turned on lots of friends to Linux. But I AM a realist. Windows is better for what I want to do.
I don't think Zack's characterization of Vista was fair at all. Vista was a great OS, despite the Apple propaganda. I still run Vista as my primary OS. Windows 7 is on another partition, Ubuntu, and OS X are all available on my home PC. But Vista is still the primary OS used by my family.
But compiz is cool. If Zack is having trouble with ATi drivers, which are probably the easiest proprietary drivers for Linux, then he has little hope for other more obscure proprietary hardware drivers.
ATI and compiz
Linux may be free, but my experimentation with buying hardware that has the path of least resistance sure isnt!
Keep going zack, compiz is worth drooling over once you get it working. Plus once you edit your own custom xorg.conf file, there's no stopping you.
A typical viewpoint
Some years ago a woman in our office had learnt the basics of Excel,
because she had to use it to create expense reports for her boss. Since
she didn't know how to use any other programs except email, she also
used Excel for word processing! (Yes, it was painful to watch.)
When I tried to show her that using MS Word (or even Notepad!) would
have been easier, she refused, saying "I know how to do it this way."
Like I said, "if you don't know what you are missing...."
Yes, yours is
If you could show me that, plus have it run all the other software, hardware and games that I have, I'd switch over to Linux exclusively. If you can't show me that, is it OK to say that Windows works better for what I want to do?
Linux distros that run...
Check out Cinelerra for video editing, this one snuck up on me recently and I was extremely impressed to find out it handles professional formats like HD 1920x1080 23.98sf, not just plain old HD 1920x1080i @30fps, and that it has been in development for nearly a decade now.
As far as your games go & the IR head tracking device, no chance. Now if you want to design games for a living and become an animator, or build your own infra red tracking camera, Linux is for you!
Thanks for the info
I have worked a fair amount with Linux, and in fact wrote that previous post from my Ubuntu box while ssh'd into it from my office PC.
I have no loyalty to Windows, and if Linux ever [i]could[/i] do all that, I'd be happy to switch over completely, but as it is, it just doesn't do all I need/want at this point, which I'm sure is the case for many people.
The problem is that many people won't try new stuff
but rather that it may well be a [b]good[/b] platform for many people
who will never try it because they don't know what they are missing.
I did try Ubuntu at the suggestion of a friend and am very happy that I
have spent the past five years more productively (no defrags, registry
cleaning, AV and malware downloads, or annual re-installations) with a
more responsive system and no upgrade expenses.
Bad analogy
Until Win7, I was simply waiting for WINE to mature a bit more before making the final switch. Now, not so much.
MS Excel... word processing...
written small programs for PC's, I use Windows,
Linux, and Unix (AIX and Solaris) on a daily
basis for several years now, and Mac OS
occasionally. I prefer Linux, but it never
works well with my hardware, I've been through 8
or 9 different machines in the last 12-15 years
(including laptops) and have only had 1 machine
that had no driver issues with linux. I am
partial to FreeBSD; however I frequently use
Kubuntu, Slax, Puppy Linux, and Fedora in order
to get down what I have to do (am actually
typing this from my Fedora install at this
time), but I always have to go back to windows
if I need "everything to just work"
ok, background info done, on to the point.
I use MS Excel (on my windows 7 install) for
word processing, specifically my resume. Excel
allows me to use the cells to line things up so
they are neat and straight without using a fixed
width font, allows me to easily re-arrange any
part of my resume in seconds, add new lines
without messing up the formatting, split things
into columns, resize the columns, move the
columns around, or remove the columns in less
than 3 seconds. MS Word (specifically) is not
that easy to manipulate the formatting of a
small section of text and takes a more in depth
knowledge of the software to complete the same
task.
Unfortunately for me, I spend so much time
bouncing around between different OS's and
different applications (yes my non-MS machines
have zero MS software on them) that I know
easily 10x-30x as much as most people I run into
in life (including the ones I work with);
however, because most people just use the same
thing all the time, every day, most people I run
into know something about at least 1 or 2 things
that I use, that I do not know. I don't think
of myself as an expert in anything, but if you
need something done, I can either figure it out,
look it up online, or call someone who does know
for assistance.
I think somewhere in there I made a point, but
not so sure anymore!!
fyi I have nothing against notepad, I use it
much more than Word, in fact I keep an empty
notepad doc on my windows desktop in case I need
to type something real quick, or copy and paste
something.
MS Excel vs OpenOffice Calc
" I know 10x-30x as much as most people" ... or not
That you have coerced Excel into formatting your text just the way you want does highlight the power of the tool, but just because you CAN format text in Excel doesn't mean you should. You CAN bang a screw into a wall with a hammer, but should you?
Formatting text in Excel
So then you should most definitely adjust those fonts any way you please, font size, italics, bold, undeline, type of font, go crazy, have a ball, why not.
Your analogy is terrible, a misuse of both the screw and the hammer. The end result is he's building a resume and can do it quicker with excel than word. Others would be quicker with word than excel. I'm really defending aiellenon because i want him to address my response first.
@klystron91311: Thanks for not contributing to the conversation
I am sure that one could construct a house using nothing but toilet paper, toothpicks and glue, but it'd be a pretty silly wasted of time to do so.
Just because he CAN create his resume in Excel does not mean that it's a worthwhile use of his time since Word has FAR better text formatting, layout and positioning capabilities than Excel which was created primarily as a numerical / statistical / mathematical tool.
Odd
work directly with either the Hardware Driver or
Envy configuration utilities. I've never seen
that.
his ATI card
Being as new to Linux as he is, this isn't something I'd recommend, no matter what his tech background is.
However, he was doing ok with the installation until someone recommended installing the driver provided by Ubuntu. Rather than getting rid of the old driver and then letting Ubuntu install the correct driver, it looked like he tried installing both, which ruined his resolution and even gave him a black screen (try installing two video drivers in Windows for the same hardware and see what happens as a comparison).
It's not that neither hardware driver worked, it's that both wouldn't work at the same time.
ATI cards
especially since they dropped the last group off
to no longer included in the driver updates.
devoid of knowledge
re: Stick with Windows
I don't know about that. I seem to bump up against Windows limitations a lot. I'm willing to admit here that it may be because I'm used to doing things in Linux and they are second nature. Kind of the same position the blog author is in. Certainly two days with Windows wouldn't change my views.
Plus, the general complaints about Linux are internally inconsistent. One complaint is "you have to use the CLI and edit files to configure it."
Well, you don't, but you *can*. And, generally, the ability to edit config files directly makes possible many more configuration options than are presented in a configuration GUI dialog box. So I don't buy the fewer options bit. Not my experience.
(One particularly benighted frequent poster repeatedly points out, in error of course, that you have to "continuously recompile the kernel." Again, you don't have to, and few people do, but you can do, and that's a feature that presents lots of options.)
Another inconsistent complaint is that Linux offers *too many* options! With all the distros and all the desktops, users are overwhelmed, the argument goes. There is a Talkback post under this blog bemoaning the quantity of email user agents available in Linux, for instance.
Well, all those different options come with a bunch of different features.
As far as complaints about Linux go, I tend to be more sympathetic to the one about too many options and features.
I understand different people can see it different ways, but Linux is what it is: a highly configurable, feature-rich operating system that presents many options.
:)