Posted on 04/09/2014 7:48:00 AM PDT by ShadowAce
It’s been my experience that, despite any progress, Ubuntu and distros like it have made in gaining new users, those in the tech media continue to get it wrong. In this article, I’ll examine how the tech media continues to spread misinformation about Linux on the desktop, why it happens and what we as users can do about it.
Years ago, merely installing and configuring Linux for the desktop could be extremely difficult. And while recent technologies such as UEFI have added some extra hurdles for distribution developers, the end user is able to install Linux relatively easily nowadays.
Realizing this, one must ask themselves -- why are so many tech writers claiming Linux is too difficult for the average user? The first stop in this view is that you need a geek to install a distribution like Ubuntu. Here’s a reality check -- most people don’t install their own operating system. And yet every time I read an article about how “hard" Linux is to use, this is the first complaint on the author’s list.
What’s actually happening is that many folks are trying to install Linux onto systems in a dual-boot environment. This alone adds a new challenge when dealing with the bootloader, as Windows doesn’t always cooperate as it should.
Another challenge Windows users face when trying to install Linux is that some components aren’t supported that well under Linux. Technologies such as certain wireless chips and GPU switching are still touchy on the Linux desktop. So when a Windows user discovers these challenges on a new Linux installation, they immediately assume it must be Linux that is at fault. In reality, this couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Linux has far greater desktop hardware compatibility than most people realize. But the problem many people run into is trying to install Linux onto a computer with a "Made for Windows" sticker on it.
Under most circumstances, installing Linux onto a Windows based PC shouldn’t be too eventful. But there are times where certain components aren’t as Linux compatible as others. What might surprise most people is that this isn’t a Linux shortcoming, rather, this is a limitation of what the individual PC was built for -- Windows.
Since most hardware works out of the box, I think Linux newbies tend to take hardware incompatibility for granted. See, when installing Windows you can always download a missing driver easily enough. With Linux, usually you’re relying on the distribution to handle the hardware compatibility. So if something isn’t working, you’re generally left trying to find a work-a-round.
When a technology writer review's a Linux distribution, they have the belief that their PC’s hardware should work out of the box, no excuses. Unfortunately with some notebook hardware, sound or video can be flaky...the same with wireless networking. As mentioned above, this is rare, but it happens. And it’s at this point, the writer will report back that a distro isn’t compatible and therefore, isn’t ready for the masses. They miss the point that if had they used a "Made for Linux" notebook (they do exist), their experience would be completely different.
Another common complaint I hear from technology writers is that there isn’t any good software for Linux. Personally, I think this is a matter of perspective. While I would agree that there are some areas where legacy software titles are missing on Linux, there are some great applications available. Software like Skype, Firefox, LibreOffice and so on are all available for most Linux distributions. As a matter of fact, the software most people use is readily available on Linux.
Regardless, the absence of being able to use some Windows software titles (without WINE) seems to be enough to turn off tech gurus completely. Apparently lacking Adobe titles is enough to sour the experience for some folks. Now to be fair, yes, I agree that it’d be nice to be able to render cool effects or edit photos using Adobe titles. I can even understand the benefits of relying on Microsoft Office in some instances. But the idea that the lack of this software makes using Linux intolerable seems a bit over the top.
With more applications becoming available as web based titles each day, I think the above issue will eventually resolve itself. In the meantime, I’m generally satisfied with what’s available for the Linux desktop with regard to software.
Now that we’ve addressed the areas that technology writers and gurus think Linux is failing, let’s look at some solutions to address these issues.
Installation -- If at all possible, try out Linux on a machine designed to run it. Obviously this isn’t always possible, but judging hardware compatibility by trying out a distro on incompatible hardware hardly seems fair. At the very least, consider researching hardware compatibility lists before jumping to conclusions.
Software -- Unless you’re tied to specific legacy software for work purposes, there isn’t really anything you’re not able to do with the Linux desktop. Using tools like "AlternativeTo" can provide good open source software alternatives to most legacy software applications that keep one tied to a Windows mindset.
Will these solutions work for all those naysayers in the tech media? Probably not, because the real problem isn’t Linux or a preference for other operating systems. The bigger issue comes down to drive-by reviews. These are reviews where someone creates the idea that they know what they’re talking about, when in fact they don’t actually run Linux on the desktop, full time.
My suggestion to those who read or watch media where "drive-by reviews" take place is to call them out on these practices. Unless the review or opinion is given by someone who "lives and breathes" the Linux desktop, realize that you're only getting part of the story. Until we stop giving credit to people who don’t even run Linux full time, nothing is going to change and FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) will continue to flourish.
On the flip side, I hope that those who pump out these drive-by reviews will look at my suggestions, reach out to companies who provide a Linux installed computer out of the box and actually take Linux on the desktop a whole lot more seriously. Until this happens, it’s going to be up to us to read Linux reviews with a heavily critical eye.
I didn't say it was Windows' fault--notice I even said that drivers are NOT written by Microsoft.
That’s an artifact of market power.
Correct.
No, you didn’t say it was Windows’ fault—but the writer did.
OK, so you're a windows user, and someone says the above to you. How do you do it? You can't unless you've already installed a separate program (putty or something to even be able to ssh to another box). If you don't have it, then it's off to google to find a program to provide ssh capabilities. Then you have to download it, install it, and figure out how to use it. With linux it would be really unusual not to have the ssh command already installed. Either way, however you get there, you'll be sitting at a command prompt on the remote box, and you'd have to know how to do what it is you've been asked to do.
Another scenerio... You need to copy a file from your home directory on box Able to the box you're on. From windows, you're going to have to know how to map directories, and a whole lot of other stuff. In linux, you can do it with a simple command "scp able:file.txt .". Even better, let's say you need to move a file from Able to Baker, but you're on Charlie. How would you do that with windows? It's not something that grandma would be able to do on windows, yet it is somehow supposed to be so magically easy that gramma can do it with Linux. (from Charlie, depending upon your version of ssh, you should be able to "scp able:file.txt baker:."
I’ll stick to my C64 thank you very much.
While I agree about tech writers getting Linux wrong, I don’t disagree that it’s not entirely suited for everyone’s needs.
I love Linux. I have been an IT professional for the past 18 years. I have used Linux and Unix since the days of Windows 3.1. My home computer is a dual-boot Win7 and Linux Mint machine that these days, almost never boots into Linux for the following reasons:
1. Handling of large music libraries. I have over 2TB of music files, spread across 5 hard drives, and I have yet to find a Linux music app that doesn’t crash when trying to index these sources. That said, only Foobar2000 on Windows does a good job with all this, but it does work flawlessly. I also run my weekly public radio show off of a Windows laptop running Foobar2000, and it works all the time.
2. Photography. I taught myself photo processing in Photoshop many years ago, and despite knowing my way around Gimp, I can process photos in Photoshop and process RAW files in Canon’s Digital Photo Pro without much thought. There is finally a version of DPP for Linux, but even then, print support for my large-format printer is just not there.
3. Netflix. I haven’t looked into it lately, but last time I looked, there was no support for Netflix on Linux.
For me, it turns out that my more intensive use of the computer makes Windows a better bet for me.
When I first started using unix, way back in the dark ages, it was on DEC's version, called Ultrix. We actually had bound copies of the printed man pages. The problem was, in order to find out how to use the command, you had to know what it was first! It was quite a while before I found the apropos command. I remember doing a little dance in the office when I discovered it.
“which distribution would you recommend for a Linux beginner?”
My 1st & 2nd recommendations for a beginner are Mint, then Ubuntu. They are the easiest to install (easier than Windows!) and the most likely to work. You might have to try several brands to find which ones are most compatible with your computer. Mint is sometimes fussier about video cards, in own my experience. There are several desktop flavors of each brand. Visit those websites, download some of the various versions, and burn bootable DVD’s from them on your Windows machine. Then boot from the DVD’s and test drive them.
Years ago I had tried several other brands of Linux (Mepis, Puppy, Knoppix) with general success, except I could not get them print after manually installing the drivers. When I tried Ubuntu for the first time, it automatically detected the right printer and installed the driver without asking. And it printed fine. I was an instant convert.
Actually, for reading, text is inferior to even basic HTML markup.
However, for writing computer code, text is fine (as long as you have a decent editor). From time to time, someone comes along with an idea for a graphical programming language, where you create algorithms visually, but these never seem to amount to anything. To be sure, there are fancy IDEs, such as Xcode, which are geared to producing GUI apps. These can help out by generating boiler-plate code, maintaining the project build script, and doing certain refactorings. But, ultimately, you are still left dealing with textual source code, be it Objective C, Java, C#, whatever.
Text is also quite robust for data storage and transmission, e.g., CSV, XML, YAML, JSON. However, binary formats will outperform text, at the cost of some increase in fragility.
And? I don't see a problem with having some functionality in other programs/packages.
Granted, you can go overboard and ship out a really bare-bones OS.
Another scenerio... You need to copy a file from your home directory on box Able to the box you're on. From windows, you're going to have to know how to map directories, and a whole lot of other stuff.
Mapping directories is fairly easy in Windows… I haven't had to use it in a few years though.
In linux, you can do it with a simple command "scp able:file.txt .". Even better, let's say you need to move a file from Able to Baker, but you're on Charlie. How would you do that with windows? It's not something that grandma would be able to do on windows, yet it is somehow supposed to be so magically easy that gramma can do it with Linux. (from Charlie, depending upon your version of ssh, you should be able to "scp able:file.txt baker:."
Depends on your set-up w/ Windows; I used to have several desktops LANed together — doing the operation above is easy: open the folder on Able, open a folder on Baker, drag what you want from Able's folder to Bakers. Done.
Not really — perhaps for navigation or simplistic formatting. (Both of those are not strictly-speaking "reading".)
However, for writing computer code, text is fine (as long as you have a decent editor). From time to time, someone comes along with an idea for a graphical programming language, where you create algorithms visually, but these never seem to amount to anything.
I think you misunderstand: I'm not saying that the language should be atextual, but that text is unsuitable for storing programs.
As I said before: there is no way to guarantee a textfile is a valid program; on the other hand, a structured data-format can.
To be sure, there are fancy IDEs, such as Xcode, which are geared to producing GUI apps. These can help out by generating boiler-plate code, maintaining the project build script, and doing certain refactorings. But, ultimately, you are still left dealing with textual source code, be it Objective C, Java, C#, whatever.
Yes — and there's a major failing in that they view programs as text.
Text is also quite robust for data storage and transmission, e.g., CSV, XML, YAML, JSON. However, binary formats will outperform text, at the cost of some increase in fragility.
Right.
What I meant to say was that even basic HTML markup improves the readability of text.
E.g., in your #11, you used <ol>, <tt>, <i>, <sup>. These and other simple elements of HTML markup made your post easier to read than it would have been, had you been restricted to writing pure tty-compatible ASCII.
Netflix can run under Ubuntu and other distros. The issue revolves around DRM and Silverlight. The studios demand DRM.
Do a google search on Pipelight. It is a nice, straightforward solution that is available.
The markup [proper] certainly hinders readibilty, only the rendering of the formatting is what aids readability.
E.g., in your #11, you used <ol>, <tt>, <i>, <sup>. These and other simple elements of HTML markup made your post easier to read than it would have been, had you been restricted to writing pure tty-compatible ASCII.
Granted, though there's a surprising amount that you can do without markup:
As an example, I am using Notepad to make a chunk of 'formatted' plain-text -- as you can see, tabs can perform indenting which is still something that HTML lacks. As for ordered-lists, the following is common enough: 1) Element one. 2) Element two. 3) Element three. x) Element X. In addition to that we can do the same with unorderd lists using '-', '+', '*', '•', '—', 'º', or '›'. |
I’ve had very good experiences with both Ubuntu and xubuntu Linux.
I’m running xubuntu on 3 older laptops. Definitely worth a shot!
Both of these are working against the design-goals of the underlying technology: in the case of sate HTTP is stateless (so all the Web 2.0 / AJAX crap is, essentially, trying to bolt on state[-management]) and, in the case of formatting, HTML was speciffically designed sso that the viewer [browser] could render the page appropriately… imagine, if you will, an audio-based browser for the visually impaired <Strong>some text</Strong> could be rendered [via text-to-speech] into James Earl Jones while being displayed in mere bold font for those of us normal people.
* You can tell by how difficult it is to manage layout (as opposed to formatting) such as centering both horizontally and vertically contents in a container which is itself dependent upon other containers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.