Slashdot Mirror
Making the 'Best' Desktop Linux System
NorhLoudspeaker writes "Michael C. Barnes gives DesktopLinux.com readers an in-depth analysis of the technologies that make open source a great alternative to proprietary operating systems. Examining the various components that constitute a complete system, Barnes provides practical advice and instruction on how to improve your desktop experience and productivity with freely available software. He reviews desktop environments, communications using voice-over-IP, common applications, and more."
Wow! I've been using Linux for 9 years now and I've only had a few driver issues (most of which I was able to work around). Of course, one of the main things that I recognized about Linux is that it is best suited for small servers (using modest, common hardware). Once you get to the uncommon, high end hardware you are going to have problems with most operating systems (as the hardware developers narrow their audience). This hardly makes Linux inferior. The developers of Linux can hardly be expected to write drivers for every piece of hardware ever designed. When you want to go high-end with Linux the key is: RESEARCH! The fact that Mac hardware works with Mac OS X should not be bragging rights. Thats the design audience (and it would be insane if it didn't work).
If you use Linux for small servers with modest, slightly older hardware, you will rarely have a problem.
If you use Linux for high-end servers and research before you install, you will rarely have a problem.
If you have uncommon high-end hardware and install Linux there very well may be a problem. But its not Linux's.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
YES! Same here, so let's expand on this more; I think it's important to recognize exactly what it is that turns off people who actually make an effort to switch to Linux but get repelled.
On paper/in writing, Linux is great. People say lots of good things about it, it has ideological advantages, installation and hardware support have improved by leaps and bounds, etc. So what's the problem?
It's not easy for geeks to understand; it still isn't easy for me to understand, even though I was the one going through it. In the end, I did emerge triumphant from the guts of my computer, and said, "See? I did it! What's so hard about that?" Then I thought to myself, "Hey, waitaminnit, I just spent seven $#*$#ing days trying to install something that should only take 30 minutes. How can I say that it was easy?"
In fact, it was so hard for me to answer such a simple question that I started keeping a diary while I was installing. (It's in bits and pieces on various Linux forums; someday I'll post it in one big piece.) The answer is this:
When installation/use of Linux goes well, it goes very well. When something goes wrong, everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
Example: I install a Linux distro; it autodetects my monitor hardware and sets the resolution. It's wrong. After installation, I boot up and the monitor is wonky --I can't see anything.
What I should have done: press Ctrl-Alt-Plus or Minus to step to the next monitor resolution to get the screen to appear, and then I can use the GUI to permanently set the resolution to the correct value. Or press Ctrl-Alt-F1 to get to a text screen, and then manually set the XF86config file.
What the newbie would do: nothing. What can a newbie do? Call his friend over and get him to reinstall Windows. What else can you do when the screen is wonky?
But notice what I, as a geek but Linux newcomer, will do. I search the Internet from my other computer, find the solution, and correct it. I realize: "Ah! I clicked the wrong choice when I installed Linux --I thought they meant 'desired resolution' when they really meant 'maximum supported resolution'." If appropriate, I reinstall, this time clicking the correct option, and everything goes well.
And I discount the problem that I just encountered.
"It was my fault," I say to myself. "My mistake caused this installation problem with Linux. See, the second time I chose the correct option, and everything went well! Linux is so easy to install!" And besides, those people at Mandrake/ Fedora/ SuSE/ LibraNet/ MEPIS put so much work into making this a nice-looking distribution. "It would be a pity to just ignore the excellent interface and all that F/OSS on the desktop just because I couldn't install it properly! Let's mark it down: this is a nice distribution."
But you know what? If the newbie encounters a problem, it's a showstopper. If you can't see the monitor, who cares if Firefox has tabbed browsing or OpenOffice.org can export MS Word documents to PDF?
This, I think, accounts for the wide discrepancies between people's experience with Linux. Even in the comments for this very Slashdot article, we have people saying, "I had big problems with Linux!" "What are you talking about? I had zero problems!" It's because, when there *is* a problem everything comes to a grinding halt.
We Linux supporters have to work on this: make sure problems are not showstoppers for newbies. When there is an error message, tell the newbie where to go next. Make it work in degraded mode instead of not working at all. Make it easy to recover. Example: I can't write to my addressbook in KMail. The problem? "Can't write to addressbook" is the message. Like, thanks a lot, KDE! Can you be a little more obvious? Example: in Ogle, it can't identify the sound device
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]