Linux
Linux is a unix like operating system which has a strong following among technologically sophisticated computer users (a.k.a. geeks). I had played with it a few years ago, and was looking for a chance to do so again. Here's my experience:
I downloaded the Redhat Linux 9 iso images from the web. Even with DSL, this took more than 3 hours. With a modem it would have taken more than 3 days! However, that's merely a reflection of the sophistication of a modern operating system. There were 2 sets of 3 disks available for download, with no indication of which was which. I took a guess and downloaded the 386 disks instead of the RPMS(?) disks. In fact it turns out I made the correct choice. These were the binaries, and the other disks were the source code. Now giving this choice to geeks makes sense, but the average person who wants a desktop OS shouldn't have to face this choice.
So now I have the iso images downloaded. But what do I do with them? The answer is, "Let them sit on my hard drive for a week or so while I contemplate what to do." Thankfully I have a Unix System Administrator working for me. He sets me straight - use one of the various freeware or shareware CD burning tools, and it will uncompress the iso image onto the disk while it's burning. So I downloaded a program, burned the disks, and now I'm in business! Sort of.
My parents had an old PC which was giving them some problems. I had worked on it, reinstalled Windows, etc., but I couldn't get it going. So they left it here and bought themselves a brand new Dell computer (which is 4 times faster than my current PC). So I cleaned up the disk on the old PC, including removing the partitions using fdisk, and reformating the hard drive.
The Red Hat installation CD should allow you to boot from CD, but when I try it the computer tells me "Non system disk error." So I booted from the Windows 98 rescue disks and had a look around on the Linux install CD. Finally, I figured out to use the /dosutils/rawrite program to write the /images/bootdisk.img file out to a floppy, which gave me a floppy I could boot the installer from.
The installer ran very smoothly, except for one problem partitioning the hard drive. There were 3 options. Two of them gave me errors, and the third didn't, so I went with the third. I have no idea what I did, but it didn't give me any errors. The installer is very nice, even though it asks you a lot of questions.
Linux installed without any problems, and I picked the packages I wanted. It also booted fine. Visually the desktop is very attractive. In fact, even with a 2 Meg video card, the icons are very nice. One of my standing criticisms of the freeware movement is that their user interfaces looks like they were designed by a hacker as a sleep deprived after-thought at the end of project. Not so with Red Hat Linux.
My basis of comparison was the old "Slackware" distribution of Linux. Red Hat 9 has come a long way in sophistication, ease of use and visual appeal. But in my opinion, there is a very good reason why Windows owns the desktop (besides the number of Windows applications). For ease of use, Windows wins hands down. The Linux install is way too complicated in comparison to Windows. Yes, I know partitioning the hard drive gives one a sophisticated level of control over the OS, which has important performance implications. But does anyone thing the average desktop user wants to be bothered with these details? Microsoft conducts extensive usability studies, and watches newbies as they try to install the product. All of this pays off. The Linux approach reminds me of the "fun" I had programming in PL/1 on an IBM 3090 mainframe. With the 3090, you have to specify ahead of time how much disk space your program will need. If you need more, you need to reserve another block of disk and copy your program into it. Efficient? Yes from a disk management point of view. User friendly? No way!
A couple of other points. Many of the applications that come with Red Hat Linux 9 have version numbers like 1.29. This does not inspire confidence. If it is bundled with Red Hat, you can be reasonably sure the software is stable, but version numbers like 1.29 tell me that the designers are making this up as they go along, rather than planning out a major release with a full test cycle.
Also, on this old PC, Linux runs really slow. Yes, with 80 MB of RAM, this is too be expected. But Windows 98 ran with acceptable performance. Maybe Red Hat 9 is a much more sophisticated OS?
I like the fact that I can install packages for software development. All the major programming languages are available, free of charge, as well as source code respositories, debuggers and other important tools.
So where does that leave us? Linux advocates think Linux is going to take over the world and boot Microsoft Windows into the trash can. This is nonsense. Linux will continue to have a strong following among hobbiests and also in the business world on the server side. However, it's not going to take over the desktop. I few weeks ago I was talking to a sales rep for one of the big Unix vendors, and he was saying their new Java desktop was Microsoft's biggest worry. Statements like this cause a major drop in credibility. The desktop war is over and Microsoft won. Linux is fun, and Linux is a credible tool for businesses. But most home users will be happy to stick with Microsoft.
I downloaded the Redhat Linux 9 iso images from the web. Even with DSL, this took more than 3 hours. With a modem it would have taken more than 3 days! However, that's merely a reflection of the sophistication of a modern operating system. There were 2 sets of 3 disks available for download, with no indication of which was which. I took a guess and downloaded the 386 disks instead of the RPMS(?) disks. In fact it turns out I made the correct choice. These were the binaries, and the other disks were the source code. Now giving this choice to geeks makes sense, but the average person who wants a desktop OS shouldn't have to face this choice.
So now I have the iso images downloaded. But what do I do with them? The answer is, "Let them sit on my hard drive for a week or so while I contemplate what to do." Thankfully I have a Unix System Administrator working for me. He sets me straight - use one of the various freeware or shareware CD burning tools, and it will uncompress the iso image onto the disk while it's burning. So I downloaded a program, burned the disks, and now I'm in business! Sort of.
My parents had an old PC which was giving them some problems. I had worked on it, reinstalled Windows, etc., but I couldn't get it going. So they left it here and bought themselves a brand new Dell computer (which is 4 times faster than my current PC). So I cleaned up the disk on the old PC, including removing the partitions using fdisk, and reformating the hard drive.
The Red Hat installation CD should allow you to boot from CD, but when I try it the computer tells me "Non system disk error." So I booted from the Windows 98 rescue disks and had a look around on the Linux install CD. Finally, I figured out to use the /dosutils/rawrite program to write the /images/bootdisk.img file out to a floppy, which gave me a floppy I could boot the installer from.
The installer ran very smoothly, except for one problem partitioning the hard drive. There were 3 options. Two of them gave me errors, and the third didn't, so I went with the third. I have no idea what I did, but it didn't give me any errors. The installer is very nice, even though it asks you a lot of questions.
Linux installed without any problems, and I picked the packages I wanted. It also booted fine. Visually the desktop is very attractive. In fact, even with a 2 Meg video card, the icons are very nice. One of my standing criticisms of the freeware movement is that their user interfaces looks like they were designed by a hacker as a sleep deprived after-thought at the end of project. Not so with Red Hat Linux.
My basis of comparison was the old "Slackware" distribution of Linux. Red Hat 9 has come a long way in sophistication, ease of use and visual appeal. But in my opinion, there is a very good reason why Windows owns the desktop (besides the number of Windows applications). For ease of use, Windows wins hands down. The Linux install is way too complicated in comparison to Windows. Yes, I know partitioning the hard drive gives one a sophisticated level of control over the OS, which has important performance implications. But does anyone thing the average desktop user wants to be bothered with these details? Microsoft conducts extensive usability studies, and watches newbies as they try to install the product. All of this pays off. The Linux approach reminds me of the "fun" I had programming in PL/1 on an IBM 3090 mainframe. With the 3090, you have to specify ahead of time how much disk space your program will need. If you need more, you need to reserve another block of disk and copy your program into it. Efficient? Yes from a disk management point of view. User friendly? No way!
A couple of other points. Many of the applications that come with Red Hat Linux 9 have version numbers like 1.29. This does not inspire confidence. If it is bundled with Red Hat, you can be reasonably sure the software is stable, but version numbers like 1.29 tell me that the designers are making this up as they go along, rather than planning out a major release with a full test cycle.
Also, on this old PC, Linux runs really slow. Yes, with 80 MB of RAM, this is too be expected. But Windows 98 ran with acceptable performance. Maybe Red Hat 9 is a much more sophisticated OS?
I like the fact that I can install packages for software development. All the major programming languages are available, free of charge, as well as source code respositories, debuggers and other important tools.
So where does that leave us? Linux advocates think Linux is going to take over the world and boot Microsoft Windows into the trash can. This is nonsense. Linux will continue to have a strong following among hobbiests and also in the business world on the server side. However, it's not going to take over the desktop. I few weeks ago I was talking to a sales rep for one of the big Unix vendors, and he was saying their new Java desktop was Microsoft's biggest worry. Statements like this cause a major drop in credibility. The desktop war is over and Microsoft won. Linux is fun, and Linux is a credible tool for businesses. But most home users will be happy to stick with Microsoft.
posted by Shawn Abigail at 5:56 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home