Why Windows is Free (and what it means for Linux)

Be honest. When's the last time you paid for computer software? For your operating system? Dave Gutteridge thinks the pervasiveness of piracy is keeping free software like Linux from breaking into Microsoft's market share.

His thesis is basically this:

• Windows costs around $200.
• Ubuntu Linux is free as in beer.
  
• The features of the two systems are nearly equivalent.

So why isn't Linux gaining market share? Because most people don't pay for software in Windows, making the switch seem much less convenient than saving $200.

So here's your chance interact with Moldy! Answer the poll to your right about your computer operating system. Did you pay for it? Really?

Is Ubuntu Linux for you?

Fresh off my post on whether Ubuntu can replace Windows, the folks at Wired have posted a nice assessment on whether Ubuntu will work for you.

Here's a synopsis:

1. You'll be able to do most things you do now. Ubuntu comes with software for office documents, web browsing, email/calendar, music playing, etc.
2. You can use a digital camera or iPod with Ubuntu
3. It takes some hoop-jumping (and some Terminal commands) to set up playback of proprietary audio/video formats such as AAC, MP3, DVD, etc.
   

Perhaps the most important question is this:

Can Ubuntu completely replace Windows or Mac OS X?
Probably not. Even after you get it working pretty smoothly with your peripherals, you may miss industry-standard professional programs, such as Adobe Photoshop and InDesign, or entertainment software such as iTunes and video games. The best strategy for most people is to run Ubuntu on the side as a hobby, gradually learning its intricacies.

I used Ubuntu on an extra computer for a bit and found it really easy, especially compared to my other aborted Linux experience (Slackware). I still found it frustrating, however, to have to resort to online forums and Google searches to learn commands for simple things like setting my screen resolution to anything greater than 1024x768. Your mileage may vary.

Is Ubuntu Linux ready to replace Windows?

Four years ago she went on the Clueless Newbie Linux Odyssey to see if Linux was ready for prime time and concluded that there was much work to be done. On the news that Dell is prepared to sell laptops with Ubuntu Linux pre-installed, she decided to revisit the most user friendly flavor of Linux.

My non-negotiable requirements for a new operating system center on simplicity for me:
1. It must have a GUI interface for installing and configuring the system.
2. Existing hardware must remain usable and the new operating system must make it "just work" without my having to edit text-based configuration files.
3. Existing software must remain usable unless the new operating system has equivalent features to the ones I use, and I can switch without losing data or doing much work.
4. Because I need to use software that has no Linux substitute, the Linux distribution must make it easy to create a dual-boot system. It has to recognize and preserve the existing operating system and its data during installation, and give me access to the data on the Windows drives after installation.

She walked through the installation process and was pleased to see that it was extremely user friendly. However, the second odyssey wasn't without hiccups.

Problem 1: The NVIDIA graphics card needs non-Linux drivers to get full benefit of the card's features. The Ubuntu help on their website explained how to install what they call "restricted drivers". Their solution was clear, easy to understand, and best of all, it worked. This is definitely an improvement.

Problem 2: Even after installing the correct drivers and rebooting, my 1280x1024 monitor could only be set to 1024x768 pixels. The answer is in the Ubuntu "community documents" area, and it works. It involved opening a terminal and using the command line (I cheat, I cut and paste instead of typing), but it also worked.

Problem 3: Although CDs played immediately, to play DVDs I had to locate and install some files that bypass content protection coding. The website I acquired them from, www.getautomatix.com , warned me that I might be installing something illegal, but I said, "Yarrr, matey", and clicked the install button. Automatix installed itself, then I selected what I needed. More files were downloaded and installed ... really automagically! After that DVDs worked. I have no clue what it did, and that's the way I like it.

Problem 4: The Linux Flash players did not work with YouTube, and Adobe's Flash video player was extremely difficult to install. I have a 64-bit microprocessor, and installed 64-bit Ubuntu. Although 64-bit Linux has been available for more than five years, Adobe hasn't bothered to develop 64-bit version of Flash for Linux yet. My live-in geek tracked the problem down for me, and Adobe is reportedly working on 64-bit software.

Problem 5: Google's Picasa does not work. Every time I launch Picasa it locks up my computer and sends the CPU utilization to 100%. The problem is Google, not Ubuntu. Instead of writing real Linux software, all Google did was take their Windows version and wrap it in WINE (fake Windows) to make it work in Linux. I expected Google to do better than that.

Note: My wife would second the criticism of Picasa, having had the program import the last batch of pictures from our camera to the "Exported Pictures" section. What?

I'd say that several of these issues are non-trivial. Problem #2 involves the terminal, which is verboten according to her own rules. I encountered the same problem when I installed Ubuntu and that immediately flunks easy user configuration. Problem #3 is also non-trivial, since it shouldn't require a hack to view a DVD on your computer. Finally, while the Picasa failing isn't a deal-killer (she's still got a Windows partition), the Flash bug is a problem. Increasingly, flash is the internet. You need a native solution. Adobe's to blame, but it doesn't make a difference to the Ubuntu user.

Verdict: You're probably more secure from malware, viruses and rootkits running Ubuntu, but if you can't view YouTube, will you care?

Many Linux users are wankers

I tried to install Linux a few weeks ago. I thought it'd be nice to completely cut the tether to commercial software and see what would happen. The answer? A whole lotta of command prompts and time wasted.

I tried to install Slackware, a form of Linux that's supposedly fairly compatible with games and the like. In particular, I wanted to set the system up to emulate SNES and NES games. But there's very little that's intuitive about switching from Windows to Linux. All the terminology is different. There are "kernels," which you can compile yourself. The graphical user interface (GUI) is independent of the operating system (think Windows 3.1 and DOS). The most annoying this is that configuring system settings seems to be done almost entirely at the command prompt. Hey, I used to use DOS, but this is 2006 and I like my control panel. So to configure my video card, I had to go online and look for the command that I could type in to load drivers. Same for my NIC card. I had to know my monitor's horizontal and vertical sync rates, for Pete's sake!

Yeah, I know that Linux users hold people like me in complete scorn - you n00b! Go back to your Micro$oft products! You expect everything to just work like Windows! Here's a sample from a comment thread about Linux v. Windows:

I did an "experiment" over the weekend and asked a friend to launch Firefox from Gnome.

He blankly looked at the screen as said: "Where the hell is the Start button?"...completely neglecting the fact that it clearly says "Applications" up top.

He'll probably be the same person to flame Linux on a comment thread because he can't figure out how to perform a simple function.

But if free software wants to provide a viable alternative to the default option for the general population, it has to be easy. Think Tmobile to your Sprint, Firefox to your Internet Explorer, or AVG FREE Antivirus to your Norton Antivirus. The learning curves are shallow, making switching easy. The general interface is pretty much identical.

Instead, switching from Windows to Linux is like switching from English to Spanish. GUIs become command prompts. Start menus become something else. Double clicks become single clicks. And a lot of Linux users not only expect me to want to learn Spanish, but teach it to myself?

Maybe I picked the wrong Linux package and I should try Redhat, which I've heard is much easier to install. Or I could pick up a library book about Linux to at least get a handle on the commands. And I'll probably try, because - if nothing else - I'd like to avoid a $100 Windows upgrade fee. But until there's a way to install a Linux OS and GUI by primarily clicking "I agree" and "next" - or an English-Spanish interpreter provided for every user - it's going to be a Micro$soft's world.

Update 2/28/07: As I commented below, I've successfully installed Ubuntu Linux on the computer I was working on two months ago and it was an entirely different experience. As the Anonymous (and blessed) commenter noted, Ubuntu is the user-friendly way to go. I've been helped along a lot by Lifehacker's regular updates on how to improve Ubuntu.

Disclaimer: there are many, many lovely Linux users out there who have spent countless hours creating FAQs and online guides for people like me. You're great and I'm sorry you're in such shitty company.