Is there life after Windows?
Linux is free, easy-to-use and is shedding its geeky image, thanks to fans who prefer it to Microsoft's mighty operating systems. But is it for everyone? Jamie Merrill asks four rookies to put it to the test
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Teri Pengilley
Feel the rhythm? Music technician Tony Messenger couldn't get Ubuntu to run music and video files
enlarge
Once it was fair to say that Linux was the preserve of small coterie of computer nerds typing away in their parents' basements and spare rooms. This is no longer so, however, as the free and easy-to-use operating system with a reputation for rock-solid reliability is coming out of the shadows. It's shaking off its geeky reputation by getting some computing street cred as a fast web browsing and music platform.
Andrew Miller, technology journalist and founder of thinkabouttech.com is a self-avowed Linux devotee and typical of its supporters. "For 97 per cent of computer users, Linux is perfect. Nowadays pretty much everyone is living in the cloud – with all of our data storage based online – and Linux offers you absolutely everything you need. For work, you have OpenOffice, for music you have Spotify and for instant messaging you have Pigeon. So it's not just a case of it being as good as Windows, because for a large majority of things Linux is actually better," he says.
"If you talk to a lot of Windows users and ask them what they use, they say, 'I'm using Firefox and OpenOffice,' and if you boot up, say, Linux Ubuntu, a community-developed, Linux-based operating system created for laptops, desktops and servers, both those tools are there, so it's familiar territory, totally safe and free. So the question should 'why not use Linux?'".
Miller isn't alone in his enthusiasm. A recent survey of IT professionals showed that in the midst of recession, free open-source software such as Linux is gaining in popularity, especially with small business users. And while still dwarfed by Microsoft, Linux is holding its own in the netbook stakes, with some estimates suggesting that the system is running on more than 10 per cent of all models.
Linux's popularity isn't confined to bloggers, netbook users and software aficionados. In the past few years Ubuntu – one of Linux's most popular versions – has been adopted as the operating system of choice by institutions as varied as Google, Amazon, the French National Assembly and paramilitary police force, the entire South Korean government, DreamWorks film studio and the government of Mexico City. Later this year, the Vietnamese government will be the latest to ditch Microsoft in favour of a Linux-based operating system for all its computers
The battle between Linux and Windows has been raging for almost as long as there have been motherboards and wysiwig monitors, and even now, Linux is still light years away from even beginning to challenge Microsoft's software hegemony. But some computer experts are starting to suggest Linux has reached a "critical mass" and that its day has come.
So tech-savvy bloggers and IT professionals may be increasingly convinced of the virtues of Linux, but what about the average Windows user? To put Linux to the test, we set up four novices – from computer whizzes to self-confessed Luddities – with a new Toshiba netbook running the latest version of Linux Ubuntu to find out what they thought.
Merryl Lawrenson, 56
Community nurse from Ashford, Kent
I wouldn't say that I'm a big computer user as I generally only use them for work. However, I do some quite complicated tasks at work like writing on patients' records, so reliability is important to me.
The word processor and spreadsheet were all very similar to what I've used before as our home laptop runs the same version of OpenOffice. Menus were straightforward and the icons were very clear and easy to use. The layout was also very clear, so perhaps Ubuntu is a little easier for somebody like me when compared with a machine running hundreds of programs on Windows.
One gripe was that the red cross to close pages and programs was stuck away in a corner, but on the whole it all worked quite intuitively. Especially as it's free, I'd give serious thought to adopting Ubuntu if I were in the market to buy a new computer.
Tony Messenger, 55
Music technician from Farningham, Kent
I'm a music technician, so should know my stuff, but to be honest I really struggled with all the multimedia software that came as standard with Ubuntu. For the life of me, I couldn't get any of the sound or video elements to work online. I couldn't get it to play WAV files, I couldn't get it to play MP3s and it wouldn't play animated GIFs. I can only assume you have to download all the individual codecs [A computer program that lets you stream multimedia content] for each sound or video you want to run, which is a real pain. Nowadays, you need a good half a dozen or so codecs just to browse the internet and it didn't seem to come with any of these as standard.
This defeats the whole point of using Ubuntu as a fast web browser if you have to spend ages setting it up and finding all the codecs, and would almost certainly pose problems for a computer novice. Don't get me wrong; I'm not a Windows devotee and the rest of the built-in software and menu systems seemed fine, but once you've worked on a system, any rival has to excel to be worth switching over to. Ubuntu and Linux generally seem to be the domain of the real computer geeks out there. Everyone that I know who uses Linux tends to be a computer nerd or work in the industry. They enjoy playing around with the system and I don't know if they actually do any work – whereas I'm interested in actually getting things done.
Tim Blake, 23
Teaching assistant from Codicote, Hertfordshire
I'm a pretty dedicated Windows user so I wasn't necessarily expecting great things from Linux, but my first impressions were very good. I expected to struggle navigating the menu system, but found it pretty functional and easy to use. All the information and programs were easy to access and the layout was fairly intuitive. It also seemed fairly robust when it comes to viruses and surfing the web. Internet safety is always a concern, so that's certainly a good feature.
Personally, I'd prefer something a little more complex which allows me a greater choice of software. It might be great for an older generation of computer users who just want to browse the web easily and safely.
I'm training to be a teacher and am on a tight budget at the moment, so free software should be really attractive to me, but I'm just too heavily reliant on Microsoft Office and Windows to consider switching operating systems. I use Word and PowerPoint on a regular basis, both on my laptop and on machines at school, so it doesn't make any sense to switch to a system which won't run those programs. So I don't think Bill Gates and co need to worry about losing my custom just yet.
Androulla Polydorou, 26
Sales manager from Greenwich, London
The first thing that struck me about Ubuntu was the interface. It's just so bright, breezy and user-friendly. Everyone who's seen me using it has been very impressed and has wanted to have a go. I had a few problems at first, such as finding the right icon to turn up the volume. I think perhaps I'm so used to Windows that I'm not used to searching around for icons.
I don't have wireless internet and while I'm OK with computers I had to give in and ask my computer whizz partner for help after 40 minutes of trying to get a connection. That could have been more straightforward.
Overall, I found Ubuntu pretty simple to use and a nice change from Windows. It booted up very quickly and was speedy online. It had versions of all the basic programs, such as a word processor, as well as a really good selection of games. The Toshiba I tested it on had an inbuilt camera, so I played around with the photo-editing software, which was impressive. Being able to alter colour and lighting and move things about and erase things was really cool for someone like me who has no experience of photo editing but wants to have fun with their pictures
I wouldn't necessarily trust Ubuntu for work, as I wouldn't want to find I couldn't do everything I wanted to do. But as another system on my laptop to browse and listen to music I'd think about adopting it.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I can't remember the package to install off the top of my head, but there is one package to install that gets you all the major codecs you could need in Ubuntu.
The reason I don't remember is that I use the "Crunchbang Linux" Distribution.
Developed here in the UK, it is based on Ubuntu, but is much more lightweight (it runs well on any computer that is at least 1GHz, and is fantastic on more powerful hardware.) The reason why this means I don't know about codecs is because, as well as including "GIMP", the GNU Image Manipulation Program, a Photoshop rival, it also includes all the needed codecs for web-browsing and listening to music out of the box.
I'm happy to see Linux getting such good press in the UK press.
-- Michael Douglas
http://mehall.co.cc - Site
http://blog.mehall.co.cc - Blog
It pretty much shows you how to enable all the codecs and media stuff. :)
The codecs can be downloaded and installed through the package manager in about 2-3 minutes since there are meta-packages of codecs available to the user. The meta-package is called "ubuntu-restricted-extras."
I'm going to submit a wish-list request, suggesting that, on first login, there is a prompt asking the user if they want to install that package. I think that would do a lot to help Ubuntu with it's "Linux for Human Beings" motto.
I noticed that a lot of comments from those 4 users are FUD based. It's something that Linux should fight. The codec thing for instance or the 'I wouldn't necessarily trust Ubuntu for work' are things that need to be addressed but more on a marketing level; while some features are not quite there yet, Ubuntu has most of the needed features ready -> It's just a matter of building critical mass and awareness.
OpenOffice, the remplacement of MS Office, is ready, and not only for casual use.
Codecs support is (mostly) ready. (I am not 100% sure but I personnally never had any problem with that).
Hardware support is also ready for the most part.
Wireless support is ready.
...
The list can go on.
I have been building my own PC's since 1995 and to this day all I can do with Linux is to install the distributions and use the software bundled with it. That's usually Konqueror, Firefox, Open Office, etc. I've had no luck at all installing things as trivial as a graphics driver (nvidia) or a game (second life) both written specifically for Linux. In spite of what the Linux fanbois say, Linux is a momentuously user-unfriendly operating system. Once trivial tasks such as installing software, drivers, etc., becomes a straightforward no-brainer as it is with Windoze, then Linux will have a fighting chance to take on the world.
checkit out
I could be tempted to try Linux, but all this chitchat about codecs (which are what? - something without which the programs won't work but which for unknown reasons don't come with the OS or programs?) is a straight turn-off for novices like me. If an OS does not come with everything that it needs to work, forget it. I simply don't have the time or inclination to go look for whatever it is.
Very unsatisfactory article, and one which is no help at all to Mac users.
The talk about codecs is nonsense. A codec is kind of the "driver" you need for your computer to understand how to play stuff like MP3 and various video formats. On your Mac it all comes bundled with Quicktime. On Windows you can either use the VLC MediaPlayer or hunt every codec down yourself. On Linux you just try to open a file, get a message that you need special restricted software to play it, click install and everything works. Or you can also get VLC.
Regards,
Jahid
You have to download codecs for windows, it certainly won't play DIVX straight out of the box, and you'll also need to download flashplayer, acrobat reader etc.
I recently did a full installation of Ubuntu in less time than it took me just to update my firewall, antivirus and spyware in Windows
Microsoft depends on an unofficial support culture. Everyone knows someone who will come over and fix windows when something goes wrong, ironically microsoft would probably be brought to it's knees without these unpaid helpers.
Linux has an on-line culture of enthusiastic and professionals who will often happy to help solve problems. It's not perfect but it's better than relying on your mate who works in IT.
Oh yes...and many of the anti-malware programs require non-trivial annual subscription fees, too.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Restr
and here:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Medib
Essentially, you just have to type in one command to get most of the extra codecs (which are restricted because of the outrageous intellectual property laws):
sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted-extras
To get the best player you install VLC (which you kind of need to do in Windows as well, unless you want to hang out in Media Player):
sudo apt-get install vlc
Pretty much anyone who can read and type should be able to do that - and it makes no sense to blame the Free Software community for the very restrictive laws that they so relentlessly oppose and work to obliterate. Once you have that installed you have more codec than you have in a Windows default setup and all your programmes and operating system gets updated automagically - it makes Windows look like a silly toy in comparison to a scientific tool.
If typing the commands is too much for you, then you simply use the graphical tool called Synaptic Package Manager (via System / Administration) and search for the programmes that tickles your fancy - and there are hundreds of them, all free and most Free.
For music technicians it might be worth taking a look at Ubuntu Studio:
http://ubuntustudio.org/
1. The package managers are second to none and simply blow Windows out of the water, whether you use Synaptec or apt-get. Whatever I have wanted, it has been supported and is totally free.
2. Performance. Last I checked there were about 65,000 viruses out there of which about 4 were for Linux, of those 4, I don't think any were malicious. The upshot of this is that you do not need an Anti-Virus suite installing on Linux so you don't get nasty, threatening messages every 10 minutes telling you that if you don't give us 50 quid NOW, your computer will kill you. No AV required also means my computers don't grind to a halt on a regular basis while Windows decides it's time my PC scanned itself.
3. Control. Every had that, "You Must Restart Your Computer Now!" message in Windows? You know, you're desperately try working a document for an important meeting and your computer silently establishes a connection with M$, makes a pile of modifications to "your" computer and then decides you MUST reboot NOW? Guess what, Linux doesn't do that, Linux developers tend to remember who actually owns "your" computer.
4. Anyone who claims that Linux is inaccessible should speak to my neighbour, a 68 year old who has been using Windows for 2 years, but who recently found out that M$ had decided to make his graphics card obsolete and so he was unable to get true colour from it. I took one look at his Windows box and it was just a total mess so I stuck Ubuntu on and he loves it.
Linux is superior to Windows in just about every way I can think of including morality - M$'s desperate actions in Africa have been utterly disgusting and often verging on illegal. Now merely happy to dictate how your computer works, MS are patenting biometric systems so that your employer can monitor your physiology whilst you're in the office so that they can also dictate how your body works: I can hear the words now, "Your heart rate is up again this morning, have you been seeing that girl again? We've told you before that this is affecting your productivity at work and if it continues we may have to review your contract"
And for the author of the main article: "I wouldn't necessarily trust Ubuntu for work, as I wouldn't want to find I couldn't do everything I wanted to do". Really? You mean it would not play Call of Duty? It's funny how the experts in the industry use it for work, isn't it? It's funny how the Internet runs on a mash of Nix and IOS, Google still preferring Linux (Apache) based webservers to Windows crappy IIS ones. I work for an ISP and the only people who prefer Windows are those who work in supporting Windows. In fact we recently discovered a Linux fileserver in the server room which everyone had forgotten about - it had been happily churning away serving files so well for the past 6 years that it had become invisible. That's six years without a reboot - try that with a Doze box.
I really would suggest you use something for more than 10 mins before judging it, of course you are going to find it uncomfortable at first because you're used to Windows, you're used to My Computer icons, you're used to IE, viruses and malware, it takes a week or two to get used to any other system.
I can see you quickly went to try Instant Messenger for example - if you had looked closely you would have noticed it's "Pidgin" not "Pigeon".
I will never go back to using Windows and for all of my planned upcoming projects in Africa, I would not dream of exposing these people to Microsoft. To show the difference in outlook between the corporate world and the Open Source world, read this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundatio
And compare it with Microsoft Windows EULA.
Much as I like Linux I still find it too glitchy to recommend to people who are not very comfortable with computers - and that is a large proportion of the population. Just getting sound drivers to work or wireless internet up and running can be a real hassle, particularly if you are not in any way interested in the technology. Don't get me wrong, I know Windows is a pain at times and I refuse to go to Vista but I have spent far too long trying to find various esoteric problems on Linux which could have been resolved easily with a bit more thought by the original developers.
The other point is that the various Linux help forums online tend to be inhabited by people who assume a lot of knowledge whereas the Windows forums tend to be more 'user friendly' - and yes I do know it is about scale. But that would be no good when I am trying to help my Mum at 10pm to get back online.
An example on the comments here is the idea that installing codecs is trivial because there are meta packages of codecs available in "ubuntu-restricted-extras". That may be easy to mistermeister and to me, but it isn't to the general populace.
Still prefer Linux though...
Let's see which is easier:
In Ubuntu:
1) Open the package manager in Ubuntu
2) Enter your password
3) Scroll down the list till you find "ubuntu-restricted-extras"
4) Tick the box
5) Press the "install" button
In Windows:
1) Open you browser and search in Google for"codec pack"
2) Choose one from the search finding (Google hits were 6,530,000)
3) Download the codec pack
4) Virus scan the codec pack since the installer is not digitally signed (Ubuntu packages are)
5) Double click on the installer
6) Read and accept any EULA
5) Install the codec package
Please explain to me how installing software from the package manager is not trivial, but somehow Windows is so much more "intuitive".
So, news about Linux-based operating systems is spreading to non-computer specialists, however slowly and awkwardly!
I'm still supporting two Windows XP users among my relations and friends, which is a continuing hassle. The others have switched to Apple Macs or Linux, leaving most of their computer problems behind.
I had to buy a Vista laptop last weekend. Due to Vista's (lack of) support for DHCP the WI-Fi won't run automatically. To cap it all we have now have a virus. I do not see any of the problems. Tim Blake must have spent less than 5 minutes in reviewing Linux. OpenOffice supports MS Office 2007 files, and in a robust environment. So why use Doze?
This seems to be the opposite of what everyone else is saying. Was Tim Blake using a different version?
I bought my daughter one of the Asus EEEPC range with Linux. After 2 days she was bored with the basic linux (Ice), when I changed it to the the advanced Slackware version she loved it and it goes everywhere with her.
If people were introduced to Linux first instead of Windows, no-one would ever contemplate paying for a product that is so troublesome. Until Linux is taken on board by the educators in schools Linux will always be playing catch-up.
Robert Barnes
You can install the apps to a virtual drive C, and many run flawlessly, including some games. I have Half Life 2 and other games running in Steam under WINE in Ubuntu. The penguin makes a great deal of sense today. There is a media edition of Ubuntu that has media creation software, and the Audacity sound editing package runs native in Linux.
everytimeref & whiterabbi7 I would endorse everything you say. If we had all grown up with Linux and someone introduced Windows they would get laughed off the face of the planet.
I've been running Ubuntu for a few months now on an old laptop, I still need Windows for Dreamweaver Premiere and Photoshop as I work as part of a team which uses these, but I've got into the habit of running the laptop at the same time as my XP box and I use it for my personal stuff.
I don't understand why some people get the problems reported here - connecting with the internet was a breeze, both wired & wifi. Similarly getting codecs was much easier than Windows. No need for antivirus software is another plus.
I do think that a few wizards might not be a bad idea to get new users into the swing of things, and audio and video editing apps do not seem to be up to what is available on Windows, but other than that from my experience Linux is a far superior operating system and well worth the time spent getting to know it. Which is nothing like as long as the time I have spent negotiating the horrors of Windows.
XP on the other hand takes an age to start, constantly slows or freezes for no apparent reason, and have you ever tried asking Microsoft for help or advice?
If you ask me, somebody has been selling the Emperor some new clothes again.
Try Ubuntu, you'll never look back..
Phil Edwards
.
However if you install Linux and find that something isn't working, such as your wireless network, you are in for a total nightmare time trying to fix it. Behind the scenes it is fiendishly confusing and like a return to the days of CPM or DOS with folders named 'dev' etc. and you'll have no idea where anything is unless you're a professional systems administrator.
If you use Dreamweaver for web design you will that there is nothing similar for Linux. The enthusiasts will point you in the direction of NVU or other HTML editors but really they have no understanding of what Dreamweaver does (NVU has no site manager for example, dopesn't handle server side includes and doesn't recognise links that are relative to the root of the site). Also the web browsers in Linux display text slightly differently, so you won't be unable to judge exactly how your pages will look for the majority of people who use Windows and Internet Explorer.
Similarly, if you need to edit video edit, the Linux devotees will suggest Cinelerra and others. But you'll soon realise that they have never used Sony Vegas Video or Adobe Premiere in Windows and that the Linux packages aren't a patch on those.
Trust me, no one would like to ditch Windows and use Linux more than I would. I have tried it several times, but in the end have always been relieved to get back to Windows. The last time I installed Linux as a dual boot and after a few days ended up with a black screen on boot up with the message: 'SYSLINUX 3.71 2008-07-31 EBIOS Load error - Boot error'. I had to reinstall Windows.
I am no computer novice either. I have been using them since 1988 and have used PCs with Windows since 1996.
click on the ubuntu menu,scroll to add/remove. With me so far ?
In the programs search box type wine and then tick the selection box when the search finds it.
Click on install.
After click on the ubuntu menu again and scroll to the wine menu. Select the option to add a new program. Browse to your dreamweaver install file or installation cd.
Follow the usual 'windows' setup routine.
run the program from the menu. You will most likely even have an icon on the desktop. as well as having it added to the menu.
So far apart from adding wine ever so easily first dreamweaver setup is the same.
Oh by the way, it runs fine.
Windows has the exact SAME issues with multimedia codecs. I am constantly noting that codecs are being updated in Windows, and there are times when I have to manually find and install the right updated codec for online browsing and using various multimedia applications.
A huge difference between Windows and Linux is that in Windows, I have to go through a very messy "authorization" process in order to change ANY system coding/programs. Linux is straight-forward in that regard.
My opinion is that Mr. Messenger is deliberately trashing the Ubuntu OS by trying to use a "technical" issue to confuse non-technical users. In other words, he appears to be a Windows fan-boy.
BTW, I'm 54 so might be assumed to suffer from the same degree of intransigence...but somehow, I don't.
The main issues I have with Windows are:
1) WAY WAY WAY over-priced
2) WGA authorized user process over-burdensome and intrusive.
3) Third party program installation under Vista is over-burdensome (XP process was fine)
4) Installs a lot of performance-robbing background running processes that are neither needed nor wanted by most users.
5) IMO because of closed/proprietary coding, potential continually exists for Microsoft to abuse privacy rights of users without user knowledge. Could be slipped in with any update. Open source software such as Linux is continually vetted by user and developer community.
6) IMO Microsoft's position on "Fair-Use" law and rights of users is aggressively anti-user. In some cases, Microsoft appears to act contrary to user rights in "pre-emptive" denials of action (for example, including programming that supports prohibiting backing-up certain material, even when "Fair-Use" law allows a back-up, or limited use for educational purposes, parody, etc.).
7) Microsoft Office Suite is not included with price of OS and is also way over-priced. If Vista Ultimate and Microsoft Office were both offered together for the current typical price of Vista Home Basic I might reconsider my opinion on the price of Windows Vista.
8) Every computer sold should include an FULL installation package of Windows CDs/DVDs for "Recovery" purposes. Current OEM computers often reduce cost a very small amount by having Microsoft strip and customize the OS for that specific computer which makes future hardware upgrades (motherboard, etc.) IMPOSSIBLE. This is not only bad for the user, it is VERY BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT...as instead of upgrading a component, the user is forced to purchase an entire new computer. From what I've seen, the old one is usually just tossed in the bin.
It also makes it virtually impossible to create a "slip-streamed" recovery installation disk-set in case of future system failure. Microsoft should eliminate this stripped-down "Recovery" OS contract option in deals with OEMs. This can mean the difference between requiring the user to spend hours or multiple days to restore the computer's software and data environment in the event of a system failure.
> match up to stuff that Adobe have sunk zillions into
But unfortunately in the real world fiddling around with a sluggish video editing package that has almost no functionality isn't an option, no matter how free it is.
Can somebody explain this geekish 'free like beer' expression because I haven't got a clue what it means!
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.h
So to me this phrase sums up part of the wider problem with Linux. Using an obscure reference that most people probably don't understand is not the best way to explain the way in which Linux is free.
It's like when you have some problem and someone tells you to 'just run it from the commandline' or 'a terminal window' blah blah.
But basically...
Free Beer: Costs you no money
Free: Free and open (e.g. Open source) - the code isn't owned by anyone, anyone can view or alter it. Microsoft code by comparison is not free - is guarded jealously, and corporately owned.