Do we really care?
I debated about whether I would write this post or not, and in the end, decided that it was worth the initiative. Lately there have been some “high profile” Mac users who have switched to Linux, notably, Ubuntu Linux. Most recently, it was Bryan O’Bryan, who has taken over as one of ResExcellence’s keepers. Like the other switchers, Bryan has a long list of reasons why he made the switch. Unlike the other switchers, Bryan’s reasons are a bit more superficial. Whatever. They are still his reasons, and they are valid to him.
Before I go any further, let me preface my comments with a few statements about Ubuntu and Linux in general. First, I like Linux. Or rather, I like the promise of Linux. For serving files and web technologies, I believe Linux is the best choice. Second, I’ve used a number of Linux distributions (Red Hat/Fedora, Gentoo, SuSE, Kororaa, to name a few), and Ubuntu is definitely one of the best. Ubuntu succeeds where many distros fail. It pays attention to the details. For instance, I recently tried the new SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop from Novell (SLED 10), and was amazed at how bad the installer was. I had become accustomed to the install process for Ubuntu, where you load up your live CD that lets you fully try out the OS first, and install while you surf or play with the Live CD. Ubuntu asks all it’s questions up front, and then goes about installing the OS. This means you can define all your installation parameters (partitioning, passwords, time zone, etc) at the start of the installation, and walk away from the computer while the install takes place. SLED, on the hand, asks a few questions up front, goes through the install (spread out over 5 CD’s), and then asks more questions at the end of the process. Very unintuitive. Ubuntu takes this attention to detail and makes Linux as user friendly as its ever been.
But it’s still Linux, and it is not user friendly by nature.
Case in point. I wanted to install/enable/configure XGL on my Linux box. I tried first with Ubuntu. I followed the directions, and time and time again, I would get to the login screen, and the X server would presumably fail, with a black screen forcing a reboot. The only way I could revive my system was to boot in to recovery mode, and restore a back up of my xorg.conf file. Fun.
I asked for help on the Ubuntu Forums, which are generally a great place to get assistance. The general consensus was that my driver for my nVidia GeForce FX 5200 was incompatible with the version of the Linux kernel used in Ubuntu 6.06. Okay. So how do I fix it? Well, I could revert to an older version of the kernel (way beyond my level of Linux expertise), or I could wait until nVidia released updated drivers that actually worked. As a Mac user, I’m used to having to find work arounds for certain things from time to time. But come on – this is ridiculous.
I needed a new graphics card anyway, so I tried an ATI Radeon 9550. Same story. X crashes and the only way to fix is to boot in via recovery mode, store the backed up xorg.conf and reboot.
Next up, I tried the ultra hyper SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 from Novell. In many ways (apart from the install process), this distribution is much more user friendly than Ubuntu. Gnome is configured with a super friendly panel that makes it very easy to get to your applications. However, the community behind SuSE isn’t as strong as Ubuntu, and it shows in the repository. I tried to install Apache, PHP and MySQL using the SuSE “Install Software” tool. No dice. I searched for Wine in the same tool. Nada.
What I’m getting at is that Linux – any Linux at this point in time – is not ready for the desktop. I’m heartened that many in the community finally realize this, and appear to be making steps in the right direction. SuSE and Ubuntu are proof of that hard work. But there are huge issues to be addressed that fall way outside the one I described above. These issues aren’t sexy, but they culminate in creating a user friendly desktop experience. Here’s the short list.
Installers: Different distros use different methods to install software. The chances that I can download an application from the web, decompress it, and either drag it to my applications folder or double click on it to install itself are very slim. Most installs still require the command line. The frickin’ command line. Hello? Is it 2006? There are two competing package formats – .deb for Debian distros and .rpm for Red Hat distros. There needs to be one unified package format that when double clicked on installs the files and makes them ready to be used. Period.
Fonts: Fonts are still a pain in the neck for Linux. Installation is completely dependent upon your distribution. Can we get a unified system for adding/removing fonts? This is a core OS function, is it not?
Commercial Applications: Sorry folks, GiMP is not a replacement for Photoshop. If you need to run Photoshop under Linux, you could run version 7 under Wine, or run Windows in virtualization, and run Photoshop that way. Not exactly the way I’d want to work. Free software alternatives are good alternatives only when they are quality pieces of software. For example, there is an iPhoto like app for Linux called F-Spot. It sucks. It sucks badly. Open Source Software produces some quality products (Firefox, Thunderbird, Gnome, Open Office, Blender), but it also produces some real pieces of crap. If your time isn’t worth anything, then making due with a free alternative may be just fine for you. But if you don’t want to spend a good bit of time fighting with the GiMP, that Photoshop investment may be the wiser choice.
In summation, I believe those who have switched from OS X to Linux have traded in elegance and beauty for freedom and opportunity. If it works for them, I say “Good for you”, and hope they are happy with their choice. I’ll continue to use the OS with the best mix of an elegant interface, stability, quality free and commercial software on the planet. That OS is Mac OS X.
Category: News
