Linux bukan OS Alternatif

Nggak tahu deh kenapa linux jadi OS no 2 di dunia ini?
Padahalkan windows itu ga ada apa apanya dibanding LINUX bagaikan langit dan bumi lah
Dari fiturnya aja vista itu masa lalunya linux
hanya karena monopolinya windows pemahaman madusia didunia tertuju pada satu kiblat yaitu Microsoft Windows????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Why Windows wins and Linux loses

Jan. 03, 2007
Opinion -- Today, you can do everything you want with a Linux desktop, except play the latest games. Even there, Linux is catching up. So, why do only a handful of people run Linux instead of Windows? Here are my top-four reasons why Windows wins and Linux loses.

Before I start, though, let me say -- because people always assume I'm anti-Linux when I write pieces like this -- that I use Linux desktops every day. I'm writing this on a SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 10 system, I run MEPIS 6.01 and Xandros Professional Desktop 4.1 on my laptops, and on my other desktops that I use at least weekly, you'll find Freespire 1.0, Fedora Core 6, and openSUSE 10.2. In short, I use Linux. I love Linux. But, that doesn't mean I'm blind to business reality, Windows virtues, or Linux flaws.
So, without further ado, the number-one reason why Linux trails in the desktop races...

#1: The installed base
There are, what, hundreds of millions of Windows XP and 2000 systems still out there and working? That's a lot of systems. That's a lot of people who know nothing but Windows.

Canonical CEO Mark Shuttleworth claims that there are at least 8 million Ubuntu Linux desktops alone out there. I wish I could believe that number, but I don't.

I could believe that there are 8-million total Linux desktops out there. If we accept that there are 8 million Linux desktops out there, based on IDC market-share Linux marketshare estimates that would mean we're talking over a billion Windows desktops out there. Ouch.

The installed base, however, may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the Linux desktop. That's because the analysts think that Vista is going to have real trouble pulling users away from older versions of Windows.

Al Gillen, vice president of research at IDC, recently told eWEEK that one of the biggest threats facing Microsoft in 2007 is its own installed base. Even Rob Enderle, principal analyst at The Enderle Group and a consultant to Microsoft, said he doesn't see much demand for Vista both because of its abysmally late launch and users who will stick with their legacy systems.

In addition, Gillen thinks that Microsoft's focus on reducing piracy with its invasive authentication systems, "may accidentally accelerate the option of Linux as a client operating system. Microsoft's client operating system anti-piracy efforts may well backfire and that very anti-piracy campaign could drive customers toward Linux."

So, maybe this will be the year that the Linux desktop market doubles, or even triples, in size. That will mean great business for Novell, Red Hat, and Ubuntu, but that will still leave Linux hundreds of millions of users running Windows.

#2: PC vendor support

If you want to buy a Windows system, go anywhere and you can pick up one. If you want to buy a Mac, you'll need to do a little looking, but your local yellow pages should point you to a dealer in your area without much fuss. If you want to buy a Linux desktop... well, prepare for a long hunt.

Yes, they're out there. Linspire, in particular, does a good job of partnering with smaller PC manufacturers and distributors. For example, Koolbox's Mini koolbox line of Mac Mini-style PCs are fine low-end computers for a decent price.

But, you do have to actively look for a Linux-powered PC. It also doesn't help any that even the big-time vendors that offer Linux desktops, like Dell and Lenovo, make it darn hard to buy them.

This isn't going to change anytime soon. I've been talking to a lot of vendors lately, and it's really very simple why we're not going to see many more pre-loaded Linux desktop PCs anytime soon: there's almost no demand for them.

If you want to see more Linux PCs, you're going to need to ask for them; again, and again, and again, because the big vendors aren't hearing a peep. What demand there is for Linux PCs is coming not from consumers but from enterprise customers. So while I think we may see an HP or Dell come out with a low-priced business desktop line this year, you can pretty much give up on the fantasy that CompUSA will have half-a-dozen Linux-powered PCs in its aisles come Christmas 2007.

#3: Hardware vendor support
One of the things that everyone complains about in Linux is that it doesn't have enough hardware equipment support -- WiFi cards, iPods, high-end graphic cards, scanners, whatever. You know what? They're right.

It's not Linux's fault, but, repeat after me: users don't care. All they know is that they can't connect to their WiFi access point, or that their all-in-one scanner/printer/fax machine can only print.

Yes, with Linux, 99 percent of all hardware works with 95 percent of its functionality. Again, users don't care. All, they know is that their WiFi card doesn't work, therefore Linux is trash.

This is not, however, a problem just for Linux. Windows users, who have become accustomed to the idea that everything always works with their systems, are in for a rude awakening when they start upgrading to Vista. Then, they're going to find more hardware trouble than Linux users have had in years.

But, just because Vista users are going to be in the same boat, won't help the Linux desktop much. Linux companies have to do whatever it takes to work with proprietary hardware. In this regard, Linspire, with its wiliness to include proprietary hardware drivers, has taken a leading position. Other distributions, like Ubuntu, are still fighting over these issues.

From where I sit, it's really pretty simple. You can be ideologically pure and only use open-source software and have distributions that won't work well for many people, or you can include some proprietary drivers and firmware and produce distributions that will work better for most users.

Another idea that could help, which was kicked around at the last Portland desktop meeting, is to set up a program through which vendors could get their hardware certified to work with Linux. Think "Works with Linux," instead of "Works with Windows," as a branding campaign, and you have the idea.

I, for one, would certainly appreciate being able to look at an ad, or at the packaging, and know at a glance whether the goodies inside will work with Linux. This kind of hardware certification sounds a lot easier than it is to actually do, but I think it would go a long way toward making Linux more popular with casual users.

There's also a related problem, but here Linux could gain a permanent advantage over Windows. As open source leader Eric S. Raymond said at last August's LinuxWorld in San Francisco, as PCs make the jump from 32-bits to 64-bits Linux has a chance to become the number-one operating system.

To do that, however, Linux needs to have a lot more 64-bit drivers, and applications that work in 64-bits. One of the biggest problems is that most Linux distributions and the LSB (Linux Standard Base) maintain separate library repositories for 32-bit and 64-bit applications.

What that means, in practice, is that you can't run 32-bit and 64-bit programs together. For instance, if you use 64-bit Firefox, you can't use 32-bit Macromedia Flash or Adobe Acrobat. Can you say annoying?

In this area, Windows is actually in worse shape than Linux. Running 64-bit Windows is much more of a pain than Linux. Now, if Linux can move forward in the 64-bit agenda, we could have an operating system that -- even to the most naive eye -- performs better than Windows.

#4: Software support
Yes, I can run anything I want on Linux today, but then I'm an expert. Most users will do well with Firefox for browsing, GAIM for IM, OpenOffice for office work, and Thunderbird or Evolution for email. But, once you move beyond the basics, though, it gets more complicated.

Part of the problem is that there's no single easy way to install software on Linux. On Windows, you click on the installer, and, wham, bang, you're in business. Vista is going to change that for the worse, but that's not our problem.

Our problem is that we have half-a-dozen very different "easy" ways to install programs, like apt, YaST, and yum. We also have some software that will only install if you know exactly what you're doing with rpmbuild, make, and directory permissions.

Now, the LSB and friends are working on solving the installation problem. Better still, their approach of creating a common, high-level API (application programming interface) sounds very workable. With some work, by this time next year, installing applications may be just as mindless for most Linux users as installing programs on Windows currently is for XP users.

Another sore point is that Linux is still struggling to find common ground for desktop developers. Thanks to the Portland Project, Linux is now well on the way toward making it possible for ISVs (independent software vendors) to build an application one time for any mainstream distribution without needing to worry about whether the desktop environment is KDE or GNOME. For users, this means that they can just get an application simply run it on their distribution, without fussing or fiddling.

Linux is also catching up with Windows software development because it finally has an answer to the outstanding MSDN (Microsoft Software Developers Network): the LSB Developer Network. With these resources, programmers will be able to write Linux software almost as easily as their Windows developer friends.

This is all good news... for software developers. For end-users, having a wide variety of software choices that are easy to use on any distribution is still a ways off. At least, however, Linux is finally on its way toward applications for ordinary, rather than only expert, users.

Giving Windows a run for its money
If Linux can improve in all these areas, and Vista stumbles, as I expect it will, we may finally see Linux giving Windows a run for its money in the marketplace. I certainly hope that will be the case. I already know Linux makes a great desktop operating system -- I'd like the rest of the world to be able to join me on it.
-- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

A System For Aunt Maude?

Years ago, Bill Gates announced that he would create an operating system that was so easy to use, his dear mum would have no trouble with it. He could have expected this from his mother. For that matter, my own mother can plod along just fine in Windows.

But I certainly wouldn't have expected this of my late Great Aunt Maude, who was barely capable of changing television channels without serious injury. Maude's technical skills were limited to using an old ringer-dial telephone and making fruitcakes that were bioweapons.

It was the latter that endeared her to most people; certainly no one enjoyed getting a call from her. She was a harridan with a voice like a garbage disposal. The cakes, on the other hand, were trussed with so much rum that they could anesthetize an elephant. They were especially popular with the kids.

Hold that thought.

---

So, is everyone ready for Linux?

Folks, let's put this in perspective, OK? Some people aren't ready for Windows.

The truth is, some people aren't ready for pocket calculators.

Some folks have this fantasy that computers are for everyone; that all God's Chillin's should be browsin' the Web, enjoying their daily ration of Spam in the inbox and chatting inconsequentials with people all over the world.

Great Aunt Maude, may she rest in peace, was barely ready for light switches and running water. If she were alive today, the very thought of giving her a computer, Linux-based or otherwise, would have made me itch.

(Shoot, some people shouldn't even be allowed to buy paint without close supervision, if the caution-light yellow, pinkish-purple and turd brown house that I pass every morning is any indication.

(But that's an aside.)

Who Am I?

It's considered obligatory in a screed such as this to state one's experience. OK, I have been working with computers and microprocessors since 2048 bytes of RAM was quite expensive and cassette tape backup was bleeding-edge.

My job as Chief Engineer for several radio stations in the Birmingham, AL market requires me to be the prototypical jack of all trades. Today I might set up a new workstation for the network; tomorrow, I might write a program to do something at one of our stations. The day after, I might repair some lightning damage to an antenna tuning unit or build a microphone preamplifier. You just never know.

When I started in the business, I certainly never expected to become a programmer or system administrator. While broadcasters have been using computers for decades and I met them early in my career, they were either big, expensive mainframes or little peg-programmed jokes that (barely) managed to play a few songs in the correct order.

Nowadays, of course, computers and related technologies are everywhere in a large market station. We use digital editing software for the audio, big file servers to store it, and NT-based workstations to play it over the air. We transmit audio and control signals entirely in the digital domain over ISDN, T1 and microwave. The transmitters are almost completely controlled by computers now.

---

The biggest difference between me and the hard-core OSS/FSF/GNU/Linux types is that I didn't come up in a Unix environment. My first personal computer was a Timex/Sinclair 1000. I graduated from that to a Heath Z80-based computer, and from that to a PC. When I got the latter, the first things I did were (in no particular order) (a), take the cover off and peer inside and (b), obtain copies of Intel's 80x86 Programmer's Reference and Microsoft's Macro Assembler (MASM). I began tracing through the DOS kernel. I began writing my own hardware drivers, usually to do things that neither Microsoft nor IBM had ever anticipated.

Later, I moved to Windows and began doing unprintable things to that kernel, writing my own VxDs and causing more Blue Screens of Death in a single evening than most users might see in a month.

(To establish my geek bonafides: back in the early 1990's, I made a little extra money repairing a transmitter that had been badly damaged by lightning. I decided to treat myself to a new computer. I passed on a PC loaded with DRDOS and Win3.1 solely because I didn't like DRDOS's version of DEBUG!)

Ah, those were the days, and ah, the stories I could tell.

But let's stay focused here. The purpose of this screed is to inform you that I have switched from Windows to Linux, and to tell you why. In the process, I will try to help my fellow Windows lovers to see whether they should make the switch. I'm going to give you the bottom line, politically-incorrect, religiously-neutral skinny on Linux here.

Disclaimer For People Who Already Use Linux: In case you missed that, the following is specifically for Windows users who are contemplating the Big Switch. I am sidestepping the religious arguments about "pure" open source, KDE vs. Gnome, etc., ad nauseum. I have a specific audience in mind and I shall give them specific recommendations based on my experience ... which includes introducing Linux to many different Windows users, both friends and co-workers, and carefully watching how they respond and closely listening to what they think. A true OSS geek, especially one who has grown up with Linux since its inception, will be completely comfortable with compiling her own software. She'll be used to editing configuration files and piecing together a Linux system that does precisely what she wants. If she uses a GUI, she may prefer a "lighter" one such as IceWM, as opposed to the "heavier" (but more Windows-like) KDE or Gnome. A Windows user will not; she'll want something that pretty much runs out of the box with minimal fuss. The Windows user will be looking for something familiar, something that she can use from day one to keep browsing, writing and working, without a steep learning curve. In plain Ingles: she's not going to go without email for a week while she learns how to use Mutt! Please keep this in mind. I have specifically targeted the Windows user here. You have been warned, and your mileage may vary (that's "YMMV," if you're a geek).

Exactly What Is Linux?

Even though I'm using the term "Linux" generically to save time and space, if we're splitting hairs, that's actually misleading. Linux is nothing but the operating system kernel. On top of that, you need at least a command environment (such as the BASH shell), and/or a GUI such as KDE or Gnome, to get a usable system.

If you want a crude analogy ("crude" because GNU/Linux is considerably more advanced), we can look at the old MSDOS/Windows 3.xx model. In this analogy, Linux is the operating system (the "DOS"), BASH provides the command prompt (same as COMMAND.COM did for DOS) and KDE or Gnome provides the windowed, graphical desktop. But just as complete WinTel systems are usually referred to as simply, "Windows," so will I use the term "Linux" here. You have been warned. (Again.)

Far more confusing to the average Windows user is the fact that there are so many different distributions (versions) of Linux. In the Windows world, there are different versions, each (allegedly) better than the last -- Win98, Windows NT, XP, etc. -- but they're all "Windows" from Microsoft in Redmond, WA.

Not so in the GNU/Linux world! Some releases are designed for and by hackers; others are for enterprise servers and still others come with graphical environments that are pure eye candy. Some standardize on Gnome, others on KDE. Some have wizards and widgets that make Linux a breeze to set up; others require a PhD in Chaos Theory just to get a command prompt.

(There are also the BSDs, such as FreeBSD, which are separate Unix-type projects. To keep this simple, I'll ignore these, with apologies to their adherents.)

---

What's In A Distribution?

In the early days, if you wanted to use Linux, you'd download the kernel and compile it. Then you'd download some GNU utilities and a shell and compile those; after assembling everything, you'd get a working GNU/Linux system. Not everyone likes compiling their own software or scouring the Web for each little package, though; to address this need, many vendors have pre-compiled and collected everything that you'll need in a single package called a distribution.

Distributions come in all sizes, from tiny versions that will fit on a pair of floppies to full-blown distros with hundreds of software packages. You're going to want the latter, so that's what I'll focus on here.

If you're brand new to Linux, let me clue you in now on a very pleasant surprise that awaits: a typical full-blown distro includes TONS of software. Gobs and gobs of stuff, from editors to games to Web browsers to file and Web servers to (Microsoft-compatible!) office packages. The most amazing thing of all is that you can download complete Linux distributions for nothing! That's right, a complete operating environment with everything you need for free!

(To put this in perspective, suppose you could download a complete Windows XP system with Office, Mozilla, and tons of other stuff -- for free. Well, you can download the equivalent with Linux!)

Having said that, though, I'll make another recommendation: you should buy a boxed set, for two reasons: (1), you're supporting the distribution and (2), you have the CDs with all needed libraries and packages. More on this in a moment; right now, you're probably intrigued and are wondering ...

---

Will I Have What I Need For My Office?

A good Linux distribution will satisfy many businesses, especially small/home offices that are looking for enterprise-level goodies on a budget. IBM, Hewlett Packard and a number of other vendors have recently jumped on the Linux bandwagon because it represents such a great bang-for-the-buck for people with shrinking IT budgets. Here's a quick lookie:

• Servers - this is where Linux is making the biggest splash at present, because it can do just about anything that you want here. A good distribution will include standard file servers, the Apache Web server, email servers, you name it -- for free. You can even create a Samba (SMB) server that will work with Windows machines.


• Word processing, spreadsheets - KOffice (free), OpenOffice.org (free) and commercial products such as Hancom Office and Star Office will satisfy most business users. These packages can read and write most Microsoft Office file formats -- particularly Word and Excel, with limited support for the others.


• Communication - several good Web browsers, from Mozilla to Konqueror, the browser built in to KDE. KDE also includes built-in calendar and email stuff, but I prefer (and suspect you will, too) Ximian Evolution, a free Outlook-style info manager. Also included: stuff for Internet chat, Netmeeting clones, etc., etc. (Considering that Linux was developed on the Web ny programmers from around the world who needed to stay in constant touch, this is no surprise!)


• Printing - most standard laser printers, particularly those from big names like HP, are well-supported. The better inkjet types are also supported, as are most dot-matrix types (for those of you who still use multi-part forms). Some low-end inkjet types aren't supported, but I doubt if you'd want to use a $50 printer in an office, anyway; you'd spend three times that per month on ink!


• Development - no question, Linux wins, hands down. To start with, Linux (and most of the included software) is "open source" -- you get the actual source code. No more guessing! It only gets better, too, if you're a programmer. You will go insane playing with all of the goodies included with a good Linux distribution, from complete Visual Studio-like environments like KDevelop to command line tools for Perl, Python, Pascal, you name it. I could literally write a complete Web site just describing all of the stuff that you get.


• The Really Important Stuff - dozens of games and timewasters, including Solitaire (of course) and plenty of simple board games. There's even a built-in "boss key" thingie: you can set the games up on a separate desktop and switch to it when she isn't looking!

---

Will Linux Have What I Need (Or Want) For Home Use?

Of course, with home offices becoming so common nowadays, much of what I just said applies here. But if you're a casual home user, there's no easy answer.

Home users tend to use the PC for entertainment, and Windows clearly has the edge here. Linux will play most of the standard file formats, but I have to be honest: the media players included with Linux at present are clunky. They're weird-looking and weird-acting. The MIDI support stinks. Linux is also weak in the high-powered 3D game department.

I am satisfied with Linux, but I'm a pretty ordinary guy. I don't do the mega-game thing; I don't even do Internet chat (though Linux supports that, with several chat programs, in case you were wondering). I can't say whether you'll be satisfied; all you can do is try it.

The nice thing is, you can set up Linux to dual boot -- i.e., assuming you have a large hard drive, you can still have Windows on the same machine. When you start the computer, you'll get a prompt asking whether you want to boot into Windows or Linux. This way, you get the best of both worlds.

(Here's a suggestion: Linux is far more secure than Windows, especially the older versions such as 98 and ME. Why not use Linux for browsing the Web, and use Windows for the games and multimedia stuff?)

Personally, I rarely boot into Windows nowadays. I can burn my own CDs, I can write reports and spreadsheets for work, and just about everything else I want to do. The Gimp, a graphics program, is almost as powerful as Photoshop, and it's free. I love it (in fact, I used it to reduce the size of the image at the top of this page -- the original image was a huge background wallpaper included with the Mandrake distribution).

OK? You're intrigued, but you're still wondering ...

---

Am I Ready For Linux? Is Linux Ready For ME?

Now, Linux, KDE and Gnome improve all the time. A "minor" revision number change from X.6 to X.8 might represent a huge difference in usability. For all I know, the very next distribution from Mandrake or Red Hat or SuSE might be the golden child that rules the desktop.

But based on current (June, 2003) experience, I can give you some general guidelines that apply as of this writing:

• If you're familiar with Unix -- maybe you learned and used it in college -- then Linux (or one of the BSDs) will fit you like a glove. (In fact, you're probably using it already.)


• If you're a long time PC/DOS/Windows hacker (this is where I'd fit, by the way) -- you started out in DOS and moved to Windows, you've built your own systems from scratch, you've written software for Windows and have played with the (maggot-gagging) registry, etc., etc. -- you'll have a learning curve, but no major problems. You're definitely ready for Linux.


• If you're an experienced Windows user, particularly if you're the gal whom everyone calls when they're having trouble, your learning curve will be steeper, but you should still be ready. Give it a try. You can dual-boot between Windows and Linux while you learn.


• At the opposite end of the spectrum, if your Windows experience has been limited to clicking the pretty icon-thingies, and particularly if you view the DOS prompt as something from a demonic realm, you are most emphatically not ready for Linux.

These are rough guidelines only; you'll have to decide where you fit. Now: Drum roll, please!

---

There Is A HUGE Difference In Distributions!

It's time to cut to the chase.

The most popular, as of this writing, is Red Hat's. It's everywhere. In my never-humble opinion, this is unfortunate, because it is not the best choice for a long time Windows user who is used to doing everything in a point-and-click environment.

Let me say that again: Red Hat is not the best choice for the Windows user who wants to make the Switch! It irritates me that most of the books, articles and "how-tos" are based on Red Hat, too.

In particular, I believe that many people have been turned from Linux by buying a book with included Red Hat CDs. I cannot think of a less suitable way for a long-time Windows user to 'learn' Linux. If you want to buy a book or two, fine. But buy an easier Linux distribution to go along with the books!

(Again, I'm speaking from hard-won experience.)

Which one should you buy?

I've tried several different distributions, from Knoppix to Red Hat; by far, the easiest for a long-time Windows user is Mandrake Linux.

The Mandrake distribution isn't flawless; you'll run across the occasional bug that is downright perplexing. But its installer is second to none and its configuration tools blow away everything else I've tried. You can grow with it, too; Mandrake is somewhat unique in that it's easy enough for the newbie, but has all of the advanced stuff for more experienced users. You can set up a simple desktop system or a complete Web server, all in a point-and-click interface.

Let's make it official; another drum roll and a fanfare, please!

---

The Winner For Windows Users Is Mandrake Linux

Whenever someone makes a list like this, the "other" distribution's adherents will flame you. They'll inevitably screech, "whaddya mean you couldn't get Re-entrant Netfiling to work? All y' had to do was add the line, 'dinkey=woowoo' in yer 'etc/doodeloo' file ..."

(We'll ignore the irony that they're basically admitting that the "automated" installer or config tool failed, or you wouldn't need their "easy" workaround in the first place!)

Remember, I'm speaking to long time Windows users who are considering The Switch. I know what they (we!) want, and it's from that viewpoint that I make the following comparisons between Red Hat 8.0 and Mandrake 9.0, which were released at about the same time.

• Basic installation: I'll give just one example of many: as already mentioned, you will doubtless want to dual-boot between Windows and Linux while you learn. Both Red Hat and Mandrake can resize your Windows partition to make room for Linux. Mandrake's resizer is automated and very easy to use; Red Hat's requires user input that may confuse (or even terrify) less-technical types.


• Desktop environment: Both distributions include KDE and Gnome, but Red Hat defaults to Gnome and Mandrake to KDE. I personally feel that the latter is clearly superior for someone who's switching from Windows. Gnome has a lot of irritations that are going to frustrate a Windows user (more on this in a moment).


• Configuration: Red Hat includes a fairly complete set of tools; you can do maybe 80% of your configuration with their wizards, but the remaining 20% require that you edit configuration files manually. The ratio with Mandrake is more like 95% (or better). You can do virtually all configuration in an intuitive, point-and-click interface.


• User experience: Mandrake is just easier to use. Red Hat requires the root password for PPP (Linux's version of "Dial Up Networking"); Mandrake doesn't. Mandrake automatically mounts and sets up your Windows partition during installation, which you will certainly want, so that you can access all of your old Windows files! Red Hat makes you configure this separately later. In general, you'll find yourself referring to "how to's" and documentation far more often with Red Hat.

Again: I'm not saying that Mandrake is flawless or that Red Hat is bad. But speaking from hard-won experience, if you're a Windows user, you will much prefer Mandrake. In particular, setting up the server(s) for your network is almost a no-brainer; their Wizards are unbelievably easy.

---

What About My Hardware? Will Linux Work With It?

First, the general requirements.

Linux is a high-performance system, designed by long-haired, Jolt cola-guzzlin' Ubergeeks who think in binary. Regardless of what might be stated on the software box, if you plan to use Linux with a desktop environment such as KDE (and you will), don't even think about running it with less than 128 Meg of RAM. 256 Meg is much better. You should also have a fast Pentium-class processor and a hard drive with at least 2-4 gig of free space, too.

If at all possible, buy a new hard drive and leave Windows intact on the old one. Mandrake's installer will sort it out. At the least, you'll want a hard drive with tons of free space.

Having a large drive (or drives) will let you move to Advanced Level Two, once you've become familiar with Linux's view of the system ("hda1" instead of "Drive C:," for example). This is where you copy the CDs to the Windows partition and install from that. It's faster, and should you need to reinstall -- which you will, because you're going to screw things up as you learn! -- it's a lot easier. Mandrake includes instructions for this in the "readme" file on CD #1.

You'll want a large monitor and a video system with plenty of resolution as well. One of my biggest complaints, in fact, is that many of the dialogs and windows under Linux assume that you have 1024x768 resolution. Even worse, they can't be resized! The eyeballs in my old Mark I head won't support that; I use 800x600, which means that some windows run off the edge of the screen. (Don't even try 640x480.)

Here's a workaround/tip: you can hold the ALT key and the left mouse button and use the mouse pointer to drag the entire window around so that you can get to the buttons. I was a miserable man until I found out about that one!

---

As for peripherals -- scanners, cameras, mice, etc. -- here's another major difference between the WinTel world and Linux. You can generally buy a goodie at the local clone shop and expect it to work under Windows. That is not always the case with Linux!

As a general rule, hardware that uses standard interfaces and/or which is self-contained will give little trouble. Hardware that requires special drivers, on the other hand, is much more of a problem. Winmodems are the classic example; most of these will not work under Linux, because the modem stuff is actually done in a special Windows driver. External modems, on the other hand, which are self-contained, usually work fine.

Because of its heritage, you can expect great support for hard drives, RAID controllers, SCSI, and things like that. Most of you will be using standard ATA IDE drives; I have yet to meet one (including CD-R and CD-RW types) that Linux couldn't handle. Mice and keyboards are so standardized now, it's hard to imagine one of these that wouldn't work, too (again, I've yet to see one).

But all is not roses. You may find that some stuff works, but with limited function. For example, my Soundblaster PCI card can play back WAVs and MP3's, but not MIDI files; the MIDI support requires a special driver, available only for Windows. Mandrake includes some tools, such as the Timidity synth, that will supposedly take care of this, but they sound like crap (when they work at all).

As a general rule, laptops are more trouble than desktop systems. On my Toshiba Satellite, for example, I had to recompile the PCMCIA driver stuff before it would recognize my network card; for some reason, the driver included with Mandrake would hang the computer during boot.

---

In the video arena, the results are a bit more mixed. In my own experience, Matrox and Cirrus have given very little trouble. Some NVidia cards will want a downloaded driver (not recommended for the newbie) for maximum performance, and S3 has been just a pain in the butt. The ProSavage DDR on my new motherboard, for example, required a good bit of work. In another case, I could only get an older S3 card to work at 256 colors (it was TrueColor under Windows).

Bottom line: be prepared to tinker with the video. Mandrake makes this easy, because you can test the configuration before committing to it (always do that!). If the chosen setup doesn't work, the screen will go blank; you simply wait several seconds for it to time out and try something else. If you're having trouble, try lower resolutions on both the video card and the monitor. You may have to experiment to get a troublesome card to work, but you should be able to find some combination that will give you a usable screen.

In all cases, you can refer to The Mandrake Linux Hardware Database or Red Hat's Hardware Compatibility List, but here's an (emphatic) caveat: those lists are misleading. For example, both sites state that my Soundblaster card will work, but omit the fact that MIDI isn't natively supported. Likewise with the video: you might see a certain NVidia card listed as "OK," but as already mentioned, you may have to download a driver and install it yourself.

The good news is, a great deal of stuff does work with Linux now. I don't want to scare you off; Mandrake will probably sort out most of your hardware, certainly enough for you to use it. The really good news is that the equipment manufacturers are becoming more "Linux aware;" the network card that I recently bought specifically stated that it supported Linux on the box.

This will still be a problem for some of you, though, and there's not one single good answer. If it's a $20 purchase, maybe you're willing to gamble. On a high-dollar item, you should ask in one of the on-line forums -- Mandrake Club has a few free forums that you can try -- or do a Web search, before you plink down your hard-earned change.

---

Daily Use: Be Prepared For Some Drastic Differences

Windows users will notice many similarities, particularly if you take my recommendation and use KDE as opposed to Gnome. But Linux comes from a completely different architecture and philosophy. Free software is mostly written by Ubergeek volunteers who are creating what they would like to use. Most of them work at a command prompt, and it shows.

The Unix heritage shows throughout -- in increased security, endless configurability -- even in the fact that the simplest command (such as "ls," or "list files" -- the Unix version of the DOS "DIR" command) can have dozens and dozens of options, many of which you may not even understand.

Unix started out in enterprise environments for multiple users and was scaled down to fit PCs. DOS/Windows started out on personal computers with single users and were scaled UP to fit the enterprise. This has implications that may not become clear until you make The Big Switch, too.

Take, for example, that infamous "mount" thingie. To "mount" a drive simply means to make it available for use. DOS and Windows have automatically mounted local drives from the beginning; historically, Unix hasn't. You had to specifically mount a diskette, for example, before you could read it.

The latest versions of Linux feature programs like Automount, which are supposed to make this more transparent to the user. Unfortunately, they don't always work as you expect. Some have outright bugs. For example, my CDROM sometimes stops being readable after a few minutes, and you can't eject it unless you log in as the root "superuser" and enter some geek stuff at a command prompt. (In Mandrake 8.2, I finally disabled Automount altogether and just manually mounted my diskettes and CDs whenever I needed them.)

Little things like this aren't show-stoppers; they're annoyances. But they do underscore the fact that, at present, Linux isn't quite ready for all Windows users. It's improving all the time, but be prepared to fiddle and faddle with it now and again -- as in this example.

---

Linux also seems to make huge use of "wrapper" (or "front end") programs. To give you an idea of what these are, suppose someone writes a very good DOS program, but their clients want a Windows version. Where I come from, one typically writes a completely new Windows program for them. In the Linux world, the response is often to write a GUI "wrapper" for that command-line program.

All of the CD-burning utilities for KDE and Gnome, for example, use a command-line tool named "cdrecord" to do the actual burning. When you run X-CD-Roast under KDE, it simply translates your mouse clicks into command-line arguments. Likewise, many of Mandrake's configuration tools are "wrappers" around command-line programs and shell scripts.

This approach normally works OK, but I hope that it's just an interim solution. I sincerely hope that one day, most of these tools will be rewritten as 100% native KDE or Gnome applications. Besides being slower, wrappers can have really strange bugs, if they don't recognize what the command-line program is saying!

OK, enough technogeek stuff. But this command-line/text-based heritage has another (unintended) consequence for Windows users, and this is a big negative:

---

The Help System Needs ... Help

KDE is a bit better than Gnome here (another reason why I recommend it); many dialogs have the familiar "?" icon in the upper right corner and you can sometimes get context-sensitive, pop-up help with that. But believe me, if you're a Windows user, this will be the #1 thing that you miss: hitting F1 and getting specific help, or searching Windows Help with generic terms like, "floppy" and "dial up" and getting several topics, all cross-referenced and cross-linked.

Most of the documentation included with a Linux distribution is in the form of text, "how-tos" and the like. Some of it is out of date, but in general, it's very comprehensive -- which strength is also a weakness: you'll typically have to wade through a mountain of stuff just to find the info that you need on a single, simple command. And boy, will there be info: Unix commands are far more powerful than their DOS counterparts, so they have many more options!

At a command prompt, you can enter "man [command_name]" or "info [command_name]" and get tons of information, but you have to know the name of the command that you want to use!

This is being improved all the time (an included package called "yelp" is a step in the right direction, for example), but be aware of this. Again, Mandrake includes stuff to help you do most routine tasks, so you may not need much help at first. But be warned: if you want to do more advanced things with Linux (or even just things that Mandrake didn't anticipate that you might want to do!), be prepared to read a ton of material.

---

General Observation: Why I Wrote This

I wrote this (lengthy, verbose, opinionated) screed for a reason. I read reviews myself and have found many of them unhelpful. Pro-Linux reviews are generally written by people who love Linux and are willing to overlook its flaws. Anti-Linux reviews are written either by Windows adherents or those who've tried the wrong distribution, or who aren't willing to face the learning curve required to get a usable system. (Even with Mandrake Linux; you have been warned.)

(Quite often, the review will basically boil down to how much trouble the reviewer had on his/her own hardware. If that reviewer has never tried Linux before, and happened to choose a "difficult" distribution for a machine with weird video and sound cards, you'll get a Very Bad Review.)

As an aside: if you frequent online fora such as Slashdot and OSNews, you'll see that some people complain when reviewers focus on the installers for free/open software. My response? Whaddya expect? For most of its existence, free software has been Freddy Krueger's own nightmare to install! Reviewers should describe the installation and first-use experience to people like me, because I'm not going to buy or use software that won't at least work out of the box.

Hey, I'm perfectly willing to RTM (that's "read the manual," in case you didn't know) and tinker to make that software do what I want (hey, I do that all the time now). But I still need to know, up front, how much RTM'ing I'm going to have to do just to get the stuff to work in the first place! If it's too much, I won't use the software.

My experience with Mandrake Linux is precisely why I recommend their distribution.

---

Why I Changed To Linux

Three reasons, roughly in order.

First, Windows 98 -- by far my favorite of the various incarnations from Redmond -- was getting long in the tooth. It was great in its day and I loved it; but it was time to move on. I hated Windows ME, didn't like Windows 2000 and refused to try XP ... and that brings me to the second reason.

I am inalterably opposed to the idea that software must be "activated" prior to use. Key codes are bad enough (have you ever misplaced the sleeve for a CD?), but having to dial up before I can use software that I've paid for? No, thank you.

As Elder Bush might have said, "not gonna do it."

I do not abuse copyright laws. I realize that some people think that there's nothing wrong with making copies of every CD in their library and sharing them with every friend on the block; I'm not one of them. My disagreement with on-line activation doesn't stem from any desire to break the law, but from inherent libertarianism: I don't think anyone has a right to snoop in my computer, or even to know when I decide to junk an old computer and move my software to a new machine. It's none of their business. Period.

Third, there's another ominous trend in proprietary software: closed data formats. I like Open Source and open standards. The data on my computer is MINE. I own it. I created it. When I write a letter to a friend, I have a right to know how that letter is encoded. When I email that letter, I have a right to know how it's transmitted.

Microsoft (and most proprietary vendors) think that these things should be hidden from varlets and plebeians like yours truly. I disagree, so I use Linux, even though it's really not as easy as Windows at the present time. With Linux, not only are the data formats well published on the Web, I can get the source code for the software that works with it.

---

My General Impressions After A Year And A Half

The system is incredibly stable compared to Windows. I am told that 2000 and XP are more rugged than the old Windows 95/98 (Windows ME, having been stillborn at release, doesn't count), so perhaps I'm being unfair with this comparison, but it is breathtaking to be able to leave Linux running for weeks on end without trouble. When I want to kill an application or shut down, it happens; I don't have to wade through endless "this program is not responding" boxes. When I make changes to my networking or install or remove a program, I don't have to reboot. It happens on the fly.

(In fact, I routinely use Linux at work now to test network connections. I can use the "ifconfig" program to change, on the fly, my IP addresses to match whatever the server wants.)

The amount of software included in a typical distribution is nothing short of amazing. I have seen reviews that complain about this; why so many editors, why so many email clients? Not me! Not a day passes that I don't discover something new under Linux. I am intelligent enough to select one terminal out of four, or to try several different editors to find my favorite (which is GEdit, for those who care; it's what I'm using to write this).

Those who say this usually have my very audience in mind: those who want to switch from Windows. I've got news for them: the lack of online, context-sensitive, cross-referenced and hyperlinked help, just to name one, is a far more serious stumbling block, trust me.

Don't believe me? Have a look sometime at a friend's Windows system. If it has been used for a year or two, there will be icons everywhere: on the desktop, on the taskbar, in the Start menu, in the kitchen and in the bathroom. Zillions of icons. It will be LOADED with junk, some of which the user won't even recognize or remember! This is a non-issue; focus on the stuff that matters!

---

Beware The Free Software Purists

You've never experienced these in Windows, but you'll run across (stumble over) (constantly dodge) them all the time with Linux. When you least expect it, a guy named Richard Stallman may parachute into your home and begin lecturing you (at length) (endlessly) (make coffee, he'll be there a while) about why you should use Free Software, and only Free Software.

(That's "free as in speech, not free beer.")

I absolutely love KDE for any number of reasons. Gnome itself looks good -- some would argue that it's prettier than KDE, at first glance -- but (just to name one) its dialogs are ugly and clunky. KDE's dialogs are eye candy, with folder icons that make it easy to navigate through your file system. (In my opinion, they're actually better than the dialogs in my beloved Windows 98.) Some Free Software Purists have scolded me for saying this. "You should support and use Gnome, because it's 100% Free software!" (Even though KDE for Linux is free, it's based on a toolkit from Trolltech, a commercial company.)

Likewise, the Purist will scowl at you for using Acrobat Reader (Adobe is a commercial company, but the Reader for Linux is available for free). "It's commercial software! You should use xpdf or ghostview!"

Bullcrap. Acrobat Reader is just plain better. My technical manuals come in PDF form, and I need the ability to search through these files and navigate with a table of contents. Xpdf has a (very) rudimentary search feature, but that's about it. Ghostview doesn't even have that, and the way that it scrolls through pages gives me whiplash.

(I'll charitably ignore the fact that xpdf is hideously ugly to boot; let's stay focused here.)

I am not going to limit myself just to maintain the Purity Of The Revolution, and you shouldn't either. You, dear reader, should use what works and don't let anyone bother you about it.

---

Dependency Hell?

There's a reason why I told you to buy the CDs, rather than download Linux and try to install it that way.

Most large programs nowadays require various software libraries (in Windows they're called "DLLs") to work. Windows applications usually come with everything you'll need. The Linux world is different, probably because of its hacker heritage. (They just assume that you'll have these libraries on your computer; after all, don't they? Doesn't everyone?!?)

When you download a Linux package, you'll sometimes get errors about "dependencies:" libraries needed by the program, but which aren't installed on your system. Whence the term "dependency hell:" you'll try to install a package and it'll ask for one library. You'll find and install that library, which then asks for another, and so on down the line.

You know what? This has never been a problem for me. Why? Because I paid for a boxed set!

Everything I want or need is already included in the Mandrake Power Pack. On those few occasions when I have downloaded packages, they have generally installed with little trouble. Once or twice they didn't work; I simply blew off the bad package and tried a different one. No big deal.

Finally, I recommend that you buy the Mandrake Power Pack (instead of base "Standard Edition") because it includes tons of additional software -- and libraries. Most of you will find everything that you could ever want or need on those CDs. At about $80 US, it's a bargain, too (cheaper than Windows!).

---

Other Annoyances

There are other annoyances, especially for a long-time lover of Windows 98 like yours truly.

For one, Unix has supported long file names since Moby Dick was a minnow, and yet, most programs are given short, cryptic, non-descriptive names like "glame" and "gimp." There seems to be a competition to come up with the most clever contraction -- "'glump' is 'GNU's Little Underwear Management Program!'" -- which strikes me as silly and unhelpful.

(If you come up with a recursive acronym -- "GNU's Not Unix" is the classic example -- you get extra credit and instant membership in the Ubergeek Society.)

I don't mind short names, but could they at least make them vaguely suggestive of what the software actually does? How in the world am I supposed to know that "gimp" means "graphics manipulation software?"

There are other annoyances with the documentation that I didn't discuss above. Many of the How-Tos haven't been updated in ages, and some of the README docs say little more than, "if you've ever played Blitzmewhack, this is just like it!" or "M'GINK is just like CLINK but with better gnarlie-widgels!"

Wuh. OK ... what about those of us who've never played Blitzmewhack or used CLINK?

(Typical example: Mandrake 9.0 includes a cute little game called Frozen Bubble. The README file is basically a chronicle of the programmer's experience writing the thing in Perl! There is absolutely no info on how to actually play the thing!)

---

Summary: Final Thoughts

Is Linux ready for the desktop? Depends on what you want to do. Mandrake Linux is ready for the office (home or enterprise) now. You may find that it meets your needs as a home user, too; the only way to know for sure is to try it.

Finally, I want to be fair to other distributions which claim to be "user friendly." I didn't even discuss SuSE here, for example, solely because I hadn't tried it at the time I wrote this. (07-08-2003 - I have now! Click here for my impressions.) Lycoris and Lindows are two others that I haven't tried, but which are supposed to be easy to use. Wal-Mart even sells machines with Lindows preloaded (by mail order only at present, but there are rumors that they may start stocking them at the stores in the future).

From what I've read and seen online, though, Mandrake remains my recommendation. Those who want to argue with me need only browse over to CNet's Download.com and check the user ratings on the various distributions. Mandrake consistently scores between 85% and 95% "thumbs up," considerably higher than other distributions (including Red Hat).

The below-the-bottom line is this: if you're an experienced Windows user who wants to make the switch, get the Mandrake Power Pack and go for it. Set up a dual boot system that will let you switch between Windows and Linux as you learn how it works.

I hardly ever boot into Windows anymore. On those occasions when I have no choice (some of the software that I use at work is written for Windows, for example), I feel ... limited. I've been spoiled by KDE and miss it when I can't use it!

Proof that I'm a True Convert(tm) and that Aunt Maude's fruitcake didn't ruin me after all!

Note: the trademarks used here, including Microsoft, Windows, Office, IBM, Hewlett Packard/HP, Ximian, Mandrake, and others, are the properties of their respective owners.

A look at VMware Fusion

By Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier on September 06, 2007 (9:00:00 PM)

If you're a Linux user who's just been issued an Apple computer, you might want to look into a virtualization solution for Mac OS X. VMware's Fusion, which was officially released from beta at the beginning of the month, works well for running Linux (or other x86/AMD64 OSes) on the Mac desktop, and provides a great solution for multi-OS users who need simultaneous access to all their operating systems on the same machine.

Unlike the multi-step process for installing VMware products on Linux, the Mac installer is a simple package file that walks through the process quickly and painlessly. I didn't time it, but on a MacBook Pro with 2GB of RAM and a 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU, I was using Fusion in less than 10 minutes. If you miss the gazillion-and-one questions asked by VMware's Linux installer, you'll be pleased to know that the VMware Tools package provided with Fusion for Linux guest OSes still requires the same kind of interaction.

Installing and running VMs in Fusion

After installing Fusion I did a regular install of Ubuntu Feisty using the standard Feisty install ISO. Ubuntu installed without a hitch, and I was using Feisty under Fusion in less than 30 minutes.

I also tried a couple of "appliances," which are available from VMware's Web site, as well as virtual machines I'd created with VMware Workstation and VMware Server on Linux. As far as I could tell, Fusion looks to be completely compatible the virtual machine format used by other versions of VMware.

The only difference is that virtual machines created on other versions of VMware are stored in regular directories, whereas Fusion stores its new virtual machines in a directory that looks like a self-contained application -- much like applications on Mac OS X. While you see a directory at the shell, in the Finder, you'll just see a single icon that represents the virtual machine. If you have a virtual machine created on another platform, you can load it by opening the directory and clicking on the .vmx file for the virtual machine. It will also then be registered in Fusion's Virtual Machine Library (which is just a list of virtual machines that VMware Fusion knows about).

One thing to beware of -- when you insert CD-ROMs or DVDs, Fusion grabs the media by default for the virtual machine, even when it's not in the foreground. This behavior snagged me a few times while I was running a virtual machine in the background and was waiting for the optical media to show up in Mac OS X's desktop.

I also tried, in vain, to boot Mac OS X's install disk under VMware to create a Mac OS X virtual machine. According to VMware Fusion, though, the Mac OS X installer disk was not a bootable disk. This may be more of an issue with Apple's efforts to prevent users from running OS X on non-Apple hardware than it is with VMware, though.

Also note that VMware Fusion is limited to giving virtual machines access to two virtual cores or CPUs, which means that users with some of the latest Macs with four or more Intel CPU cores will not be able to give virtual machines access to all of their CPU power.

Overall, performance in the VMs and on the Mac desktop was good, though I did notice if I was doing anything that caused a lot of disk activity in the guest OS -- like untarring a large tarball -- it would cause some sluggishness for the host OS as well.

Seamless display of Windows apps (almost)

One of the most interesting features of VMware Fusion is Unity, which allows you to display Windows apps on your Mac desktop without seeing the entire Windows desktop. For instance, if you want to run Internet Explorer to see how a Web site you're designing displays in IE, you can use Unity to run IE without having to move in and out of the Windows virtual machine.

Even more useful, you can keep a program's icon in the Mac OS X dock to allow you to launch programs normally, without mucking with the launch window provided by Fusion. This even works when the virtual machine is shut down. If you have an application docked and run it while the virtual machine is shut down, it will start the virtual machine and launch the application.

This worked well for apps like Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer, SWsoft's Virtuozzo management tools, and Solitaire. However, it fell down a bit when I tried launching the Pinball game that ships with Windows XP. The game played OK in regular mode, but if I tried to put it into full screen mode, it freaked out a bit, reset Windows to 8-bit color, and brought up the full XP window.

Fusion also glitches a bit when you send some applications to the dock, then resume them. When I'd relaunch Word from the dock, I'd see brief flashes of the Windows desktop as it resized Word.

If you're not already aware of it, you'll also discover just how "rude" Windows really is, thanks to Fusion. If you start Word while the XP virtual machine is shut down, Unity will start everything up just fine -- but for some reason, it also passes all the crufty pop-up windows that you're typically assaulted with when Windows starts up. For instance, even though Unity is supposed to display only the Word windows, I'd also see the annoying security balloons displayed by XP in the corner of my screen, as well as a pop-up window telling me I need to update Flash to the latest version -- even though I hadn't launched anything that uses Flash.

Overall, though, Unity works pretty well, and will be extremely useful for Mac users who need to run a couple of Windows apps but have no need to deal with the entire Windows desktop.

It's all well and good that you can use Unity to run Windows apps as if they were native OS X apps, but where's the same feature for Linux?

Once again, Linux users are treated as second-class citizens. Linux runs just fine under VMware Fusion -- but you're stuck with switching between the Mac desktop and the Linux desktop, unless you install Apple's X11 packages and export applications onto your Mac desktop that way -- which isn't as seamless or useful as Unity. This is a shame, because a lot of Linux users also have Mac laptops, and lack of this feature makes it a pain to access Linux desktop apps that Linux users come to depend on.

How Fusion measures up

In some ways, Fusion outshines its Windows- and Linux-based cousins. Unity is a must-have feature for running Windows apps on Mac OS X, and none of VMware's apps for Windows or Linux has a similar feature. Fusion is also ahead of VMware's other products when it comes to DirectX support, for gamer-types who want to run their 3-D games on their shiny Mac OS X machines.

But Mac users lack a free option like VMware Player or VMware Server, and Fusion lacks some of the advanced features in Workstation, such as VMware's API for interacting with virtual machines and the VNC functionality in VMware Workstation.

VMware Fusion compares favorably to Parallels Desktop for the Mac, with a similar feature set (Parallels' Coherence is similar to Fusion's Unity feature, and both have limited support for 3-D Windows games) and price point (both are priced at about $80). Parallels has the lead on the Mac side, so it will be interesting to see if Parallels' longevity beats out VMware's name recognition when it comes to capturing market share on the Mac desktop.

If you are a Mac user, I'd recommend looking at Fusion if you need to run Linux or Windows, or other x86/AMD64 OSes, on the Mac. Aside from a few small glitches with Unity, Fusion worked flawlessly and was easy to use. It's not cheap, but it's a lot less expensive than Workstation, and will probably meet the needs of most Mac users.