Anybody use a Linux machine as their main desktop machine?

[QuadSix50]

A few years ago, I tried out the fglrx module on my Slackware box. It seemed to compile just fine, but it did give me problems. At that point, it was frustrating, yes. But fglrx was still in its infancy and at the time ATI wasn't even bothering to help out the community. Lately with AMD in control, they've been loosening the grip but peolpe have still claimed that the support in GNU/Linux is not as great as it is for the NVIDIA module. As a matter of fact, many people using GNU/Linux have made the choice to purchase NVIDIA cards because of the poor support for ATI cards from ATI on GNU/Linux.

I have an old Sapphire Tech 9600XT video card on my Slackware PC, and to date the open source ATI driver has kept me quite happy. Sure, it's not quite as fast as the proprietary driver, but I would rather deal with a little slower performance for an actual working driver than trying to get a proprietary driver to work properly just for the extra performance. In the end, I just want to get things done, hence my choice to go with the open source driver. BTW, I'm still using the stock kernel used in Slackware 12.1. The following particular site helped me include the right settings in xorg.conf so that I could get 3D working (which I couldn't do before this):

http://www.free3d.org

I also used the open source ATI driver on my previous work laptop which used the RADEON IGP 345 chipset. This was on Ubuntu and everything work right out of the box. The only change I made to the xorg.conf file was changing "ati" to "radeon".

As for the reasoning made by the gcc developers, can you blame them? Proprietary software developers do this all of the time to the open source developers that ask for help. Go back to my Broadcom example for proof. So why should said proprietary developers feel that they should get a return for something that free software developers got working on their own if they didn't help out initially? Experience would dictate that if the FLOSS developers would respond generously, said proprietary developers would just fail to give back as they've always done. If you're going to be tight-lipped and restrictive through a license to those asking for help, expect the same in an inverse way from the open source developers that would make you require to share the source through a license as well.

 

[chris]

I like Linux and in the interest of not getting into a flamewar I'm not going to comment about some of the issues raised, but II2II's story amazes me.

Why in all hell would the devs make it not compile because it had a BAD LICENSE AGREEMENT? I mean really, this is the kind of thing that not even Microsoft does!

I only really use .debs anymore to install what Ubuntu calls 'restricted drivers' (and IMO Ubuntu has made a lot of progress on that issue - if you have a mainstream graphics card the process of installing drivers for it is easier than on Windows) so I haven't run into this issue before, and it almost seems like you're playing some kind of nasty prank to make all of the Linux zealots go "OMGWTF THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT!!!!"

Are you? I realize that it's 90% probable you're telling the truth, but my brain is having trouble coping with the mindnumbing stupidity necessary to add in a "feature" like that one.

 

[QuadSix50]

BTW, it's much easier now to configure any of the proprietary video modules provided by ATI and NVIDIA using Envy. I used it a few months ago at an installfest where Ubuntu Hardy Heron was installed on a Mac Pro.

http://albertomilone.com/nvidia_scripts1.html

I can't take the credit for this one, though. A friend of mine at the installfest that I turned on to GNU/Linux introduced me to this and I was quite impressed.

 

[register]

I set up a PB G4 with Yellow Dog Linux (YDL), because this is a distribution the company uses which still sells PPC workstations. I made use of the opportunity for a new partition scheme when I installed a new harddisk, so I could set up the machine to a triple boot option easily. Installation was easy after reading a short HowTo. Graphical installer

After booting to YDL the computer found its way to the internet automatically. YDL comes with "Enlightenment" desktop and OpenOffice and a lot of other software. The machine is immediately usable for office purposes and performs very well. Few things had to be tweaked after the installation process, as the driver for the grahics circuitry. I might use this for my working environment not exclusively, as I like Mac OS. But if it not enlightens me, at least I will gain some experience to decide under what circumstances to use a Linux OS. This post comes from Firefox running under YDL 6.

edit: added link

 

[II2II]

Yeah. That's what I had to go through last night to get the ATI drivers to work with 3D acceleration for a couple of minutes, before it took down the system.

I even went through a couple of Linux distributions before meeting with that little success. Ubuntu, for example, did not use the proprietary drivers even when I followed the instructions to a tee. When I followed an unmentioned step, I found out that it did not configure the refresh rate of my screen properly -- so I was left with either an error about the refresh rate presented to me by the monitor itself, or running through the video settings program that pops up if it detects that X hasn't started after several attempts. When I finally got my hands dirty and edited the xorg.conf file, it only left me with a blank screen.

Which is when I tried Zenwalk (Slackware based). At least the system layout is simple enough that I can figure out stuff through my (admittedly dated) understanding of Linux. I had to jump through other loops while configuring Zenwalk, like doing that xorg.conf stuff. But that stuff is nothing to me. It's technical knowledge that you should have if you want to do lower level stuff with your system. But jumping through hoops because of ideology drives me up the wall.

QuadSix50, usually I would just use the open source drivers. The drivers are quite good for 2D stuff. From what I've heard, they're even better than the proprietary drivers in that respect. Then again, the purported speed of the open source 2D drivers may just be in the twisted minds of open source zealots. They have about much of a grasp on objectivity as a Mac evangelist or Windows fanboy.

As for blaming the GCC developers, you bet I do. Just because I use the GCC doesn't mean that they should own my or anyone else's source code. Unless, of course, I'm modifying the source code of the GCC and building a product around that. For the same reason, the Linux kernel developers should not own anything that I type out on my computer, just because the keyboard I/O is grabbed and interpreted by the Linux kernel. Of course, if I modify the keyboard drivers and distribute those modifications they are perfectly justified in asking for that contribution. And, from my reading, that is what the GPL is all about. Granted, the GPL is associated with Stallman. And, well, everyone knows what his attitude is like.

 

[Temetka]

Hey!

I love open source software. The more the better. Programmers are creative, let it flow!

I hate the constant fragmentation in the linux community. Gnome vs. KDE, Fedora vs. Suse, Gentoo vs. Slackware and so on. If that energy were channeled creatively, the platform would be more evolved than where it is now.

Don't get me wrong, Linux has improved by leaps and bounds over the years. The problem is that it will always be playing catch up unless more energies are diverted into core development and less in distro fragmentation.

There's an army of dev's out there (i'm one of 'em). Like sheep, we need a leader. A project to rally under. So far no one distro has evoked that feeling from devs where everyone flocks to it because it's just that damned good. I look forward to the day when the mythical distro hits a bittorrent tracker near me, until then I shall be happy with my tinkerings in Solaris and hopefully soon OS/2.

Go open source!

 

[porter]

I hate the constant fragmentation in the linux community. Gnome vs. KDE, Fedora vs. Suse, Gentoo vs. Slackware and so on.

It doesn't worry me that there are many distributions, why would we want one person telling us what to run, where is the freedom in that?

If you have one distribution and one interface standard you can guarantee there will be situations where it is a poor choice, a POS terminal, a cash dispenser, a PC, a handheld, a server all have different requirements.

With the mythical one distribution and user interface, do we also have one graphics card, network card and CPU?

 

[II2II]

I hate the constant fragmentation in the linux community. (...) Fedora vs. Suse, Gentoo vs. Slackware and so on.

It doesn't worry me that there are many distributions, why would we want one person telling us what to run, where is the freedom in that?

Exactly, though I do have one caveat.

I like Temetka's list because most of the distributions selected are well differentiated. I like Slackware because it has a fairly straight forward to understand what's going on under the hood, and fix problems when the arise. Some people would much prefer Fedora because a lot of system management functions are done automatically, and the manual stuff can be taken care of through the control panel. As a source based distribution, it would have a following because it's possible to use processor specific optimizations, managed dependencies, or work with the original program's source.

My caveat comes in the desktop space, which is probably the most popular type of Linux distribution. Simply put, there are too many distributions with too little differentiation between them. And I think that it's the lack of differentiation that hurts the perception of Linux by making it look like a big confused mess.

 

[porter]

Simply put, there are too many distributions with too little differentiation between them. And I think that it's the lack of differentiation that hurts the perception of Linux by making it look like a big confused mess.

In the commercial world that would be called healthy competition.

If I'm a plumber, I should be somebody who fixes drains, not somebody who "differentiates himself from other plumbers".

 

[QuadSix50]

Hey!
I love open source software. The more the better. Programmers are creative, let it flow!

I hate the constant fragmentation in the linux community. Gnome vs. KDE, Fedora vs. Suse, Gentoo vs. Slackware and so on. If that energy were channeled creatively, the platform would be more evolved than where it is now.

Don't get me wrong, Linux has improved by leaps and bounds over the years. The problem is that it will always be playing catch up unless more energies are diverted into core development and less in distro fragmentation.

There's an army of dev's out there (i'm one of 'em). Like sheep, we need a leader. A project to rally under. So far no one distro has evoked that feeling from devs where everyone flocks to it because it's just that damned good. I look forward to the day when the mythical distro hits a bittorrent tracker near me, until then I shall be happy with my tinkerings in Solaris and hopefully soon OS/2.

Go open source!

I don't know that I would call it fragmentation. You can still compile stuff if you need to across distributions. Commercial Unix back in the day was REALLY fragmented. The fact that you couldn't compile one source package across other types of Unix operating systems was REALLY bad. This is not the case in GNU/Linux distributions. The foundations are all the same. Same Linux kernel, same GNU utilities, same hierarchy of the files and folders (with a few exceptions like GoboLinux). Where they start to differ a bit is in how they deal with packages, and I think that's the main problem that should be addressed across the board. They don't all have to look and feel the same and don't have to function the same either (I would hate to see Slackware turn into an Ubuntu, personally). this was somewhat addressed last year (link) but certain things were still unaddressed. I remember there also being another meeting this year about it but I can't seem to find the link to that. At the very least, I do hope that installation procedures can be standardized across the board, just as the kernel and GNU utilities on top of it are. I'm sure that would DEFINITELY help increase penetration of the market.

But for now, the APT system suits me just fine.

 

[II2II]

In the commercial world that would be called healthy competition.
If I'm a plumber, I should be somebody who fixes drains, not somebody who "differentiates himself from other plumbers".

Unfortunately, operating systems are not plumbers.

Plumbers are limited by the laws of supply and demand. If you don't have enough plumbers to supply for the current demand, more people are free to get training as plumbers and become plumbers. If plumber A is identical to plumber B in every respect (skill, honesty, rates, promptness), then it doesn't much matter who you choose. If plumber A is slightly less prompt than plumber B, then some may argue that plumber B is better. Others would say it doesn't matter if a plumber is 15 minutes late and claim that it doesn't matter. But at the end of the day, both could find enough work to survive because neither plumber can be in two places at once.

Operating systems are essentially infinite on the supply side, which means that they are quite different from plumbers. If a chap named Shuttleworth decides to introduce a new OS that is quite similar to another OS, then he can do it. Maybe they will like the slightly more up to date packages in his distribution or the predictable release cycle. Maybe Mr. Shuttleworth will be successful. (As, indeed, he was.) But we run into a couple of problems here.

The first is that new users are confused. They've heard of Debian, they've heard of Ubuntu, they've heard of Suse, they've heard of Mandriva. But they don't have a clue where to start. Some will just pick a random distribution. Some will pick the most popular looking distribution. Some will say fsck it, I'm going to the Walmart of operating systems because at least I know my software will work with it. But let's ignore those dorks. Let's look at someone who picks up a distribution and they like what they see.

Only it won't work properly with their video card, or they want to play MP3s. Or whatever. They find out that their video card drivers aren't included because of licensing issues. Okay, they can see that because Windows didn't include those drivers out of the box either. They find out that MP3 support isn't included because of patent licensing agreements. They can understand that, leave the illicit stuff to the end user so that the company itself is safe. It's not as though they care as a user anyway, since half of their Windows applications were pirated to start with. This is our ideal Linux newbie: in for a nickle, in for a dime.

Then they try to install the stuff, and this is where the problem of "competition" rears its head again. When they look for instructions, they find out that there are as many ways to do it as there are Linux distributions. What a mess! Fine, they will choose instructions specific to their distribution. For whatever reason, those do not work so they have to try something else. But what? It's just too much of a mess to sort through. At least there was a good chance that the instructions would work if someone told you how to do it under Windows. That's because there is a distinct lack of choice in that world.

Finally, we find out that this user is an incredibly lucky chap because he has Linux wizard as a friend. That wizard gets the MP3 codecs working, then does what I did (and a heck of a lot more) to try getting the video drivers working. No luck there. All of his experience with his favourite distro (Slackware, which he was using since 1996) doesn't mesh in with Ubuntu. Now both users are the victim of choice.

And, believe it or not, that lack of choice is what drives the Wintel market. Businesses love it because it makes technical support easier. That's also why a business will often use the same vendor to buy their machines, and will replace all of the machines on a regular support cycle. Consistency, not diversity, reduces cost. If that consistency meets your needs, all the better. After all, we aren't living in the 1980s any more. Almost any old computer can be used to do pretty much any old task. You can use Word or OpenOffice because it can do almost everything. It's not like you have to shop for a word processor that supports tables, or supports an outliner, like you did in the bad old days. Using the same word processor as everyone else also ensures the easy exchange of data. So not only are support costs lower, but it is easier to deal with customers.

Now I like choice, and I like Linux because of that. But I also firmly believe that the options offered to the user should be meaningful. Meaningful choice allows me to run a lean Fedora distribution on my XO, and a developer friendly Slackware based distribution on my PC. But OpenSUSE vs. Ubuntu vs. Fedora does not (in my opinion) offer meaningful choice. It merely allows me to select a vendor. Vendors, if they wanted, could base their services upon the same Linux distribution and tweaks their support options to the market. That's pretty much what happens in the Windows world too (you buy the same product as everyone else, but you can contract your support out to whoever).

Meaningful choice is important. Meaningless choice is detrimental.

 

[QuadSix50]

Yes, each distro might have a different way of installing packages. But, each of them make installing packages for their system very easy. It's almost foolproof in Ubuntu, even when you download a .deb for Ubuntu outside of the repositories. Once you've made a decision on a distribution, all you need to learn is how to install on that particular distribution. You're not going to care how to install it on Fedora, Slackware, whathaveyou. That's the issue. People keep focusing on the fact that there are so many distributions out there that they don't bother to think that all they need to do is find one that suits their needs (of the most popular ones, of course) and just learn what that system requires.

That being said, I do agree that standardizing on one particular installer/uninstaller would be very beneficial. Considering that the Linux kernel, GNU applications, Xorg, and desktop environments are pretty much the same across the board, I don't see how it should be any different for an installation/uninstallation system. A few years ago, I wouldn't have even considered this. But today, it's obvious that for GNU/Linux to penetrate more of the market, this issue needs to be addressed and a solution provided that is standard across the board.

 

[porter]

Meaningful choice is important. Meaningless choice is detrimental.

You are missing the free part of "Free Software". If I want to package a distribution I don't have to ask anyone, I can do it. Whether it's meaningless or not to somebody else is irrelevent if it's what I want to do and its meaning ful to me because I think what I have done is worthwhile.

Free open software is like not having to ask your parents in order to drive your own car.

 

[ealex79]

Yes, each distro might have a different way of installing packages. But, each of them make installing packages for their system very easy. It's almost foolproof in Ubuntu, even when you download a .deb for Ubuntu outside of the repositories. Once you've made a decision on a distribution, all you need to learn is how to install on that particular distribution. You're not going to care how to install it on Fedora, Slackware, whathaveyou. That's the issue. People keep focusing on the fact that there are so many distributions out there that they don't bother to think that all they need to do is find one that suits their needs (of the most popular ones, of course) and just learn what that system requires.
That being said, I do agree that standardizing on one particular installer/uninstaller would be very beneficial. Considering that the Linux kernel, GNU applications, Xorg, and desktop environments are pretty much the same across the board, I don't see how it should be any different for an installation/uninstallation system. A few years ago, I wouldn't have even considered this. But today, it's obvious that for GNU/Linux to penetrate more of the market, this issue needs to be addressed and a solution provided that is standard across the board.

Such thing exists! It's called RPM.

 

[II2II]

You're missing the point porter. I'm not suggesting that there should be any central control to open source software.

It's like freedom in society: even though you are given the freedom to do many things, you don't always exercise that freedom. You sometimes do something that is responsible. You act responsibly because it benefits everyone else, rather than your own peculiar interests.

As for the driving analogy, I've only driving once. I didn't ask my parents, because I wasn't of legal driving age. Come to think of it, I wasn't of legal kindergarten age either. I took advantage of the freedoms that my parents offered me at that young age (i.e. to act without direct adult supervision), but I did not exercise that freedom responsibly (i.e. I swiped the car keys and released the parking break and who knows whatelse). That abuse of my freedom implied consequences (i.e. I wouldn't be able to do as much without direct adult supervision).

The same goes for Linux. If you want to use that freedom irresponsibly to make your own Linux distribution, just so that you can have your own Linux distribution in your own name (and with your own logo and a couple of minor tweaks), then there are consequences. One of those consequences is that people will become confused and disenchanted by the mess that the Linux community has become.

 

[porter]

One of those consequences is that people will become confused and disenchanted by the mess that the Linux community has become.

Then don't use open source if it's too difficult to understand the freedoms.

You are free to not use it.

 

[II2II]

If you are seriously cannot handle criticism of your ideology or OS, I suggest you read the following:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9370

In summary, criticism is not always meant to destroy. It can be used to adapt and thrive.

Then don't use open source if it's too difficult to understand the freedoms.

Ah yes, the typical Linux user. "If you don't agree with what I believe, you simply aren't sophisticated enough to understand, so fsck off." Get a life. There are plenty of people who like Unix, love Linux, and want to enjoy its freedom. But, unfortunately, a love of Linux and freedom appears to mean toeing the party line and not enjoying any freedom of speech or freedom of thought outside of that party line. If you do try to exercise either, you are labelled an outcast and may even be verbally abused. At a minimum, cries of "you don't understand Linux/freedom/whatever" come forth in order to maintain the status-quo. To maintain an elitist environment, where the elite can hardly think for themselves -- nevermind about the future.

There is a reason why Unix nearly died before Linux became its second birth. It was because Unix was unchanging, in its culture, design, and distribution model. Linux freed Unix from all of those. But it appears that a new posse is forming to maintain the new status quo. Get over your attitude. It's not redeeming. That type of attitude is why the BSDs are dying while Linux is thriving. I certainly wouldn't want to see Linux to meet the same fate a few years down the road.

 

[porter]

So I'm an elitist because I tell people they don't have to use Linux?

 

[II2II]

So I'm an elitist because I tell people they don't have to use Linux?

Please don't confuse "elitist" with "elite". }

Sarcasm aside, there are many reasons why people use Linux aside from freedom or choice. Or if they do use it for freedom or choice, they may have different opinions on what that entails. For example, many in the BSD camp claim that their license are more free than the GPL (and they are). On the other hand, the GPL camp has their own reasons for placing those restrictions on their software use. I would say that the BSD camp is more noble, but the GPU camp is more practical. Likewise, I would argue that saying what you can and cannot use a compiler for is the exact opposite of freedom. And while using proprietary drivers means losing some freedoms, forbidding (or at least making it difficult) to use proprietary drivers also means losing freedom.

All of this disagreement means that people who say "if you do not agree with it, you should not use it" come off sounding elitist. Or maybe arrogant. But arrogant is a nastier word.

 

[chris]

Then don't use open source if it's too difficult to understand the freedoms.

Ah yes, the typical Linux user.

Hey. Hey. I'm insulted. I don't say things like that, and I don't think the 'typical' user does... but the ones who do are the most vocal.