Linux’s Free System Is Now Easier to Use, But Not for Everyone [Ubuntu Review]

This column is written for mainstream, nontechie users of digital technology. These folks aren’t necessarily novices, and they aren’t afraid of computers. They also aren’t stupid. They simply want their digital products to operate as promised, with as little maintenance and hassle as possible.

So, I have steered away from recommending Linux, the free computer operating system that is the darling of many techies and IT managers, and a challenger to Microsoft’s dominant Windows and Apple’s resurgent Macintosh operating system, OS X. Linux, which runs on the same hardware as Windows, has always required much more technical expertise and a yen for tinkering than average users possess.

I build PCs. I've built and configured literally HUNDREDS of them. I've been doing it since MS-DOS 3.3. I've installed nearly every PC O/S there is, at one time or another. (MS-DOS, PC-DOS, OS/2, SCO-UNIX, differen distros of Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, NetWare... those are the ones I can think of at the moment)

I have a similar experience level. I've built computers from the mid-80s on and installed just about everything, various Unix distros, Linux distros, Banyan vines, Novell 2.2 on up, just about every Dos version, warp, etc. I personally ran a RH5 then 6.xx server for NAT before you could buy a router for $50 bucks(it ultimately got rooted and started hacking into financial institutions)

I have an Xubunto dual boot drive on one of my personal machines and frankly, I rarely boot it up except for some excellent network diagnostic tools.

If I could get a solid DirectX implimentation on a solid linux distro, I'd move mostly into the Linux world for my personal business(I'm a gamer). At work however, I manage hundreds of PCs worldwide that run front-end apps that drive manufacturing equipment. The HW vendors provide "interface" control apps that are generally a hardware interface the vendor provides with their equipment and I have to interface with that. Almost exclusively, they are VC++/VB/C# apps or ActiveX controls. Yes, I know there are cross platform ways of dealing with that stuff. It's easier however to fire up VC++ or VB in XP, write a few API Call, parse some data and be done with it.

I personally think Vista is a pig, it's MEII(Mistake Edition II). If the next MS OS is built on the invasiveness/DRM and annoyances of Vista, MS is done for in OS design and Linux is going to eat their lunch. Today, 7/2007, Linux just isn't there yet. It's getting there.

I do have to say that installing FreeBSD on a Dell server with hardware RAID was surprisingly easy.

My all time favorite installer is NetBSDs. Quick, easy, and gets you a base system in no time.

I would have fallen head over heels for Kubuntu on my notebook, except for the stinking wireless.

ndiswrapper? Seriously, all you're doing is installing a stinking driver. That shouldn't be a difficult concept.

That's apples to oranges.

Er, no it's not. The registry is the central configuration "hive" for Windows; conf files are the distributed configuration "hive" for Linux/BSD/UNIX. They fill equivalent functions on different systems. I would argue, as I already did, that conf files are less opaque than the registry and far more hardy (I can't think of any conf file that, if deleted, would render the system inoperable aside from a reinstall; the closest might by /etc/fstab, but you can still boot and fix that one).

On the other hand, modifying config files is often the standard way of doing things in Linux.

For what? Configuring Apache? If you want a system that has a pretty GUI, openSUSE's yast covers just about everything, including printer management (i.e. cups).

I'm not talking out my butt. Windows is easier to install across a broader range of hardware than any Linux distribution I have ever tried.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that you're not speaking from inertia or preference.

And recompiling the kernel and/or driver source to make something work is just unacceptable to the majority of computer users. Whatever you may personally think of that statement, it's true.

I agree. I've only compiled a kernel on two distros (Slackware and Gentoo) and it was only necessary on one (Gentoo; I wanted a 2.6 kernel on Slackware). Precisely how long has it been since you actually tried a Linux distro? You say you used FC 3,4,5 and Kubuntu FF; I can't imagine that you had to compile a kernel with any of them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.