MX Linux, Day 2 Observations

OK, I've had a full day plus since install to put MX Linux through its paces, meaning I've been able to do pretty much all the things I do on a computer with this operating system. Still liking it. I've only really got two observations, one very positive and one very mildly negative.

Positive Observation: This morning, the little task bar icon that means "it's time for updates/upgrades" turned green. I pressed it. A window opened and showed me a list of OS and app updates/upgrades available. I pressed the OK button, entered my password ... and 20 seconds later (by my count) it informed me that it was done downloading and installing them. Since I did a full update/upgrade on install, there wasn't a lot for it to do. I'll expect downloads to take longer when there's a full new browser version or whatever. But it was easy, and the post-download installation/check was very fast.

Negative Observation: Several times, my task bar has just ... disappeared. It seems to have something to do with power management. It happens when the screen goes dark from inactivity. It's easy to get the thing back (about 10 seconds in settings -- I put the particular function on the desktop after the second or third time it happened), and I expect there's a permanent fix for it that I'll research, find, and implement, but if you try MX out, let me know if it happens to you too.

Other than that, it seems at least as stable, reliable, and easy to install, use, and maintain, as Linux Mint and other good distributions. Which means it's a lot more stable, reliable, and easy to install, use, and maintain than Windoze.

And The Winning Candidate Distro Is ...

MX Linux.

After messing around with Devuan as a live USB, I did the same with MX Linux, and I just like it better. 

The install to hard drive is as easy as it should be (as easy as Ubuntu or Mint, much easier than Windows), it has a nice intuitive app installer, and so far everything I've mess with has worked easily (for example, setting up Dropbox).

All of this was by way of moving to a non-systemd Linux distribution (MX gives you the choice between systemd and sysvinit), but I was also looking for something "Linux Newbie Friendly," and MX qualifies:

1. Download the iso you want (I chose the one with the XFCE desktop/GUI, but you can also go with KDE or Fluxbox);
2. Burn the iso to a thumb drive;
3. Boot your computer from the thumb drive;
4. Mess around with MX a little and see if you like it;
5. Click the "Install" icon on the desktop and follow the easy instructions;
6. Enjoy!

I considered installing MX next to Mint and Windows, but then I had a better idea: I had it nuke the whole hard drive and just completely take over.

Why? Since I've had this computer, I've used Windows two or three times ... to play Starcraft. If I really want to play Starcraft, I'll do the Wine or virtual machine thing. I'm tired of wasting hard drive space on Windows and after logging into it this morning to grab the product key just in case, I hope it's the last time I ever do that.

Another Recommendation for Prospective Linux Converters

It's one I knew about but hadn't noticed or thought about in a long time, because when I want to install Linux on a computer, I:

1. Look into various distributions online for the features I want;
2. Download a disk image of the distribution I choose;
3. Burn that image to a USB flash drive;
4. Boot my machine from that USB flash drive;
5. Check out the distribution and, if I like it, use the "install" option to permanently install Linux on my hard drive.

I had basically forgotten that there's a cheap (and less time-consuming) way to shorten the process:

1. Look online for a USB flash drive that already has Linux on it (they generally run $15-$25);
2. Order it and wait for it to arrive;
3. Go to step 4 in the previous sequence.

Since I haven't used the one I'm about to discuss myself I can't necessarily recommend it, but in terms of bang for buck:

I see that Amazon offers a 64 Gb USB flash drive with 17 different operating systems -- Windows 11 and 16 Linux distributions -- on it, and supposedly that flash drive boots into a menu that lets you choose whatever one you want to run direct from the USB to audition and maybe install.

It's $21 (not an affiliate link).

You can try out all of those Linux distributions right from the USB (they will probably run a little slower from USB than they would if installed to your regular hard drive) without affecting your computer's permanent setup. That way you get to know for sure you like one before you commit.

And when you do commit, you can either keep that flash drive in the ol' drawer in case you ever want to change or need to reinstall, or just format it and have an extra 64Gb flash drive for other uses. It looks like empty flash drives of that size cost nearly as much, so the whole thing seems like a no-way-to-lose proposiation.

Preemptive note to pseudonymous trolls who pretend they don't use Chinese stuff: According to Amazon's AI, "the specific country of manufacture isn't listed on the product page." My guess would be that the drive itself is Chinese; where the people who put the distros on it and resell it are located is anyone's guess.

Non-systemd Linux -- First Success Post

I've had nothing but trouble trying to install a non-systemd Linux distribution (see here for why) on my Raspberry Pi 5.

No need to belabor the details -- some things just don't work, and others require a bunch of command line messing around to make work, and my whole approach as a Linux evangelist is "make this easier than Windoze for people." For the Pi, it's simply not easier than Windoze (or easier than Raspberry Pi OS, which is easy as, well, pie).

On my x86 PC, however, it took me about 10 minutes to get Devuan Linux up and running, and nine of those minutes were downloading the disk image and burning it to a USB drive. Once I'd done that, all I had to do was reboot my machine to boot from the USB. Loaded right up, and once I logged into a wifi network I was ready to do things.

The first thing I did was move the task bar from the top to the bottom because that's how I like it.

The second thing I did (after taking the screenshot above) was open up Firefox (which comes preinstalled) so that I could write this post.

As I'm writing the post, I'm also installing some stuff on the live CD version to test out -- I want to know certain things work and that I like the feel before doing a full hard drive install and replacing Linux Mint on my main machine. I expect that the full install will take a little longer than a live CD run, but not much -- basically just telling it I prefer the US keyboard layout and US Eastern time zone, that kind of thing.

So far, so good.  Once I've had some time to mess around with Devuan, I suspect I'll be able to honestly recommend it at least to those who want to avoid systemd, and possibly just overall as a good Linux distro for people who want to get away from Windoze but don't want the getaway plan to be complicated.

Devuan Linux VERY First Impression

I'm auditioning non-systemd Linux distributions (per this previous post), and the first candidate is Devuan Linux.

My very, very, very early impression is three words long:

Not for beginners.

Here's why:

These days, most Linux distributions are at least as easy as, usually easier than, Microsoft Windoze to install and configure.

Devuan clearly isn't.

The first part is: Get an installation medium with the operating system's image on it, and boot from that medium. I did that by grabbing the Devuan package for my CPU (the Raspberry Pi 5's Arm 64-bit chip), burning it to an SD card, putting the SD card in the Pi (and removing the USB SSD that I normally run the Pi off of), and turning the Pi on.

At the second part, it goes sideways from a novice's point of view, though.

With most Linux distributions, that first boot shows some text scrolling along as the OS does things, then a lovely welcome/configure screen opens up and you do a few simple things like telling it what time zone you're in, what wifi or ethernet network to connect to, etc. Boom -- a graphical user interface opens up and you're off and running.

The first thing Devuan does is ask you for your login and password. And of course, having never used this OS before, you don't have a login or password. Looked that one up -- the default login is "devuan" and the default password is "devuan."

And then you're just at a Linux command line after a prompt letting you know you'll need to run menu-config to get any further.

At which point you discover things like:

1.  That it expects an ethernet, not wifi, connection, and that you're going to have to do some command line stuff outside of menu-config to change that.
2. That you have to install your graphical user interface of choice (I recommend XFCE, as do others),  which you must have said Internet connection to do.

That's as far as I've gone, because I have some other stuff to do this morning. I may get the installation, up to and through getting an Internet connection, installing a GUI, installing my browser of preference, etc. this weekend. Whenever that gets done, I'll up date you.

None of this is intended as a slam on Devuan -- just as notice that if you are brand new to Linux you may find the installation process intimidating. Variants like Ubuntu and Mint are akin to falling off a log in complexity, so unless you've got a specific reason to be looking at Devuan (such as the systemd thing), I wouldn't recommend Devuan as your first foray.

Side note: All this may be unique to the Raspberry Pi/Arm-64 version. I haven't yet looked at Devuan on an x86 machine; perhaps it has the warm and fuzzy install process!

Linux Bleg

Instead of getting overly technical, in this post, I'll just point you to Sk's explanation at OSTechNix of what all the systemd merge of Pull Request #40954 -- adding a "birthdate" field to userdb JSON records --  entails and why some people find it concerning.

I'm one of those people. Specifically, I consider the "slippery slope" argument compelling. Yes, the field is "voluntary" for now ... BUT!

1. It's being done specifically to facilitate "compliance" with surveillance state laws; and
2. Having that "compliance" hook installed at all will just encourage more such laws and eventually some kind of process that switches the field from "voluntary" to "mandatory" and comes with some kind of intrusive method for ensuring the supposed accuracy of the information in it; and
3. The birthdate field is NOT encrypted, so any attack that grabs data from JSON records will reveal that personal info to the attacker.

IMO, that's bad from two standpoints. First, it's a surrender to / empowerment of the surveillance state apparatus; second, the "mandatory" and "verification" elements, when they arrive, will mean more bloat and less efficiency in systemd itself.

The two main OSes I use -- Linux Mint and Raspberry Pi OS -- have systemd as their system/service manager (ChromeOS, on my laptops, uses Upstart).

So -- does anyone reading this post happen to use a Linux OS that doesn't incorporate systemd? And if so, what you think of it? I prefer a Debian fork to more ... sui generis ... distros, but I'm willing to consider the latter.

About Time

Per The Verge:

You can download Chrome for Linux, and you can download Chrome for Arm devices — but if you’ve got a computer running Linux on Arm, not so much! Now, Google says it’s finally bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux machines in Q2 2026, following Chrome for Arm Macs in 2020 and Chrome for Windows on Arm in 2024.

I'm not going to try to sell you on Chrome.

I happen to prefer Chromium -- which Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Opera, Brave, and Vivaldi are (or in some versions have been) based on.

Chromium is more naturally private (it doesn't send analytics data to Google), and it's open source for those who want to customize.

On the other hand, Chromium can be a little more work -- it doesn't come with some media codecs, etc. pre-configured and the updates are manual rather than automatic.

There are also, I understand, some browser extensions that demand Chrome rather than Chromium to work, but the reverse is also true -- Chrome does the "walled-garden" thing to keep you from running extensions Google hasn't approved.

The reason I say "about time" is a market thing. Low-end Arm Linux may not be a huge market segment, but its occupants are people who tend to throw money at offerings within the segment. They're always buying special add-ons, accessories, etc. that will work with their machines where generic stuff from Best Buy might not. Why would Google leave money on the table by making it harder to identify and reach those users more directly through its proprietary browser?

I guess there are counter-arguments to be made. Is someone whose "daily driver" PC is a Raspberry Pi really that likely to want Chrome? In this day and age, running a low-end Linux PC is kind of an attitude indicator, and that attitude problably correlates strongly with anti-Google sentiments. Those machines, in addition to Chromium, can also run Brave, Vivaldi, Firefox, etc. So maybe it really is an afterthought kind of thing.

A Periodic Reminder: For Most Users, Linux IS Ready for Prime Time

I suppose it's one of those algorithm-driven things, but over the last couple of days I've seen a lot of social media posts bemoaning the "fact" that Linux is still just too hard for regular people to use, and wondering when that will change.

It changed a long time ago.

Back in 2002, I tried to get Red Hat Fedora running on a PC and gave up. The following year, my Windows 98 "daily driver" computer got a persistent boot sector virus and, in desperation, I installed Mandrake Linux from CDs a friend had sent me. It took me several hours to get things figured out, but I didn't miss a day of work (just a night of sleep).

Since then, while I've occasionally used MacOS or ChromeOS for periods of time, Linux has remained my go-to, and I have never been tempted to return to Windows.

What has happened is that I've bought PCs with Windows reinstalled, and gone ahead and set those Windows installations up before installing Linux as my default boot option. I've done this as recently as this year, which means I've had to mess with Windows Vista, 8, 10, and 11.

Here's the cold, hard truth:

• Most Linux distributions, especially Ubuntu and Mint, are easier to install and set up than Windows. You're asked a few questions, you click a few buttons, and boom, you're up and running. The last time I did a PC set-up, it took about ten minutes to get Linux installed, updated, and running, and about 90 minutes to get Windows -- which was already installed -- updated and running.
• Most Linux distributions update quickly, easily, and optionally. You see a little alert button letting you know that updates are available for Linux (and for the apps you've got installed on your machine). You click that alert at your leisure, decide whether you want what's being offered, tell it to update, and it does so -- in the background, in seconds or single-digit minutes, while you're still using your computer. Windows always wants to spend three hours updating, either when you start the machine or try to shut down the machine, and doesn't want to let you say "no, I'll do that some other time."
• Unless you're running very specialized proprietary software (including the newest games), Linux has the apps you use. Some of them are the same as on your Windows PC (for example, you can run Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Opera, and other browsers), some of them are basically as good (e.g. LibreOffice is a decent replacement for Microsoft Office; GimP is a decent alternative to Photoshop), and almost all of them are completely free (I've never "bought" a Linux app other than in the form of making an optional donation to the developers).

From what I hear, Windoze just keeps getting worse (apparently 11 is now implementing non-optional screen advertising).

Linux got better than Windoze at least a decade ago and has just kept getting better yet. Even Raspberry Pi OS on an ARM CPU is simpler, faster, etc. than any Windoze machine I've had the misfortune to use. The only time I boot into Windoze is if I have the urge to play an old DOS or Windoze game (I don't like Linux's emulation/virtual machine stuff), and that's usually once or twice a year because I know it will be forever before the damn updates finish and I can actually do what I went there to do.

One of those social media posts cited the archetypal "granny" and how she's just scared to leave Windoze because it's easy and Linux sounds hard.

If your granny is getting a new computer, get her to let you install Linux Mint on it. It will be easier on you than getting her Windoze set up, and it will be easier on her when she wants to browse the web, check her email, play solitaire, etc. instead of sitting there wondering why the machine has been "updating" for six hours. The screen setup will be very familiar to her from the beginning. Unless your granny does CAD work for a government contractor, she will likely never miss Windoze even for a minute. And you won't get as many phone calls asking you to go un-fuck her computer.

You're welcome.

Quick Note For The Linux-Curious / Linux Hesitant

There's a nice piece at ZDNet today on "The 4 easiest ways to test Linux on your old PC before Windows 10 support runs out."

When I encourage Windoze-using friends to migrate to Linux -- and any friend of mine will tell you I'm always encouraging my Windoze-using friends to migrate to Linux -- I usually emphasize how easy the installation process is (easier than any version of Windoze since after, say, 98), how there are so many flavors out there that it's easy to find a comfortable one if you like Windoze or Mac user interfaces, and how Linux is at least as good as (often better than) than Windoze for everything except specialized/proprietary software only available for Windoze.

One thing I usually forget to mention is the "live instance" option that tops the ZDNet list.

It's simple: You download an ISO of the Linux distribution you're interested in, burn it to a thumb drive, then boot your computer from the thumb drive. Voila, you're running Linux.  You're running a little slower than if it was installed on your hard drive, and configuration settings and such don't get saved for future boots, but it's great for figuring out whether you'd like to take the next step and install it, either wiping out your old Windoze distribution or making the machine "dual boot" between Windoze and Linux. If you decide against, you just reboot the machine without the thumb drive and you're back to Windoze.

Another way of fiddling with Linux to figure out whether you'll like it or not is one I hadn't noticed before the ZDNet article: DistroSea. It lets you run various versions of Linux right in your web browser, with no impact on whatever OS you're running on your computer. At least some of these distros seem to go to command line rather than GUI, and while running an instance of my own OS (Linux Mint with xfce desktop) Firefox (yes, Firefox, inside an online instance of Linux, inside Microsoft Edge inside my own desktop machine's instance of Linux) didn't seem to be able to actually browse, but it will give you an idea of what the OS looks like and how it acts.

I don't really recommend the other two options in the ZDNet article -- virtual machines (because I generally don't like them) and installing on an older spare computer to try out (because if I'm installing on any computer I plan for it to be for keeps, and why temporarily ruin an old machine when you can just use a live instance on your current machine and know whether you like it or not?).

Go "live instance" to try out Linux. If you like it, install it -- and if you're not really, really, really sure about it (or maybe have some PC games or proprietary CAD software or whatever that you want to keep), just tell the installer to keep Windoze, install Linux beside it, and ask you which one you want whenever you reboot your computer.

For most applications, I expect you'll find Linux at least as functional and easy to use as Windoze, maybe better. And when it comes to the recent Windoze phenomenon of spending six hours installing updates every time you enter or exit, it's vastly superior (Linux installs updates when YOU TELL IT TO, not when it decides to).

Raspberry Pi Travails Part N: Try, Try Again

So, after three attempts to get the 64-bit Raspberry Pi OS to work on my, um, Raspberry Pi (4, with 8Gb of RAM) without going into permanent freeze at random times, I'm going in another direction.

I've installed Manjaro Linux (a fork of Arch Linux) on an SD card. I chose the version with the KDE Plasma desktop, since that's what I'm comfortable with. I've also removed Firefox and installed Chromium and Vivaldi. While I don't think Vivaldi was the problem on the previous OS (it froze even when that application wasn't running), I'll probably stick with Chromium for at least a little bit.

So far, so good, but I've only been running it for half an hour or so.

Update, 20 hours or so later: Still so far, so good. I went ahead and got Vivaldi set up and am running that now. If I start getting system freezes again, I'll pretty much know it's involved. But I've been messing with it for an hour or so with no problems. Manjaro doesn't feel quite as fast/smooth as the 64-bit Raspberry Pi OS, but faster/smoother than the 32-bit version. And it seems to actually work reliably. Fingers crossed.

The Dark Side of Chrome

Yes, I am a Chrome and ChromeOS cheerleader. Maybe even a bit of an evangelist. You hardly ever see me complaining about any aspect of the browser or the OS framework. But all is not well in Chromeland. Here are two complaints -- one minor in immediate effect, but both major in long-term implication:

1. In the beginning, when you opened a new tab in Chrome, it was beautiful -- you could do anything you wanted in the new tab, but by way of assistance you saw some tiles representing frequently opened sites, and at the bottom drop-down lists of "recently closed tabs" and other things. Marvelous. Worked like a charm. Absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever to complain about. Then Google yanked that format and made the new tab much less useful ... but with just a tiny bit of work, you could revert to the better setup. And apparently lots of people did. So last week, Google made it impossible to do that, forcing all users to move to the much uglier, much less useful new setup. You can partially undo the damage by adding some extensions, but it's just not the same.
2. Now I'm hearing that the new Chrome beta (which I haven't seen yet -- I'm on the stable build channel, and apparently this is Windows-only at the moment anyway) restricts users to apps available from the Chrome store.

The first item is an annoyance, but points to Google having a penchant for exerting undue control over the user experience.

The second item puts Google in the same league as Apple with its "walled garden" approach of trying to tell users, in very fine-grained detail, what they can and can't do with their machines.

I was kind of amped up for the new Asus Chromebox coming out this month. Now I think I'm going to wait on that, because if things keep going in the direction they appear to be going, I'll be abandoning Chrome. And while I can certainly root my Chromebox and Chromebook and turn them into (fairly light) Linux boxes, my next piece of hardware won't be one of those kinds of units.

More on Where Windows Needs to Go

Last month, I opined that if Microsoft wants to remain competitive it's going to need to give up on the idea of selling operating systems. That era is over. Well, they seem to be getting with the program in a minor sort of way:

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) is cutting the price of Windows 8.1 by 70 percent for makers of low-cost computers and tablets as they try to fend off cheaper rivals like Google Inc. (GOOG)'s Chromebooks, people familiar with the program said.

Manufacturers will be charged $15 to license Windows 8.1 and preinstall it on devices that retail for less than $250, instead of the usual fee of $50, said the people, who asked not to be named because the details aren’t public.

It's definitely too little. Whether or not it's too late, only time will tell.

At first blush, this looks like a considerable discount. But at $15,  the price of Windows would still represent 6% or more of retail price on its face ... and in fact, considerably more.

Why?

Because Windows is a fat, bloated, slug of an operating system that requires a more expensive hardware build to run on than does ChromeOS or a reasonably light Linux distribution.

Windows needs more RAM. Windows requires a more robust CPU. Windows has to have more local storage for its OS files.

So if I'm building a laptop for the average user -- who browses the web, sends and receives email, streams some media and not much else -- Microsoft is asking me to spend $15 more on the OS than I need to and spend more building the device itself in order to offer that user stuff he or she will seldom if ever use and almost certainly won't consider a high priority when choosing a laptop.

Microsoft needs to rethink its OS. If they're smart, "Windows 9" will be called ExploreOS. It will consist of a re-modeled, de-crufted Internet Explorer browser, the files necessary to boot that browser and initiate an Internet connection ... and that's about it.

Yes, that means the revenue model will have to change. The OS itself is no longer going to be a profit center. The profit centers will be "enterprise-level" web apps, cloud storage and tech support, increased monetization of the Bing search engine (and possibly of the browser itself a la Firefox), etc.

The era of selling operating systems is over. Period. The sooner Microsoft realizes this, the less likely it is to go down as the next FW Woolworth.

The Big Question is "Will it be Free?"

The tech media are abuzz with rumors of Windows 9. Most of the coverage relates to a perceived need on Microsoft's part to undo the infinite suckage of Windows 8. But in my opinion, Microsoft's real challenge is competing with the free operating systems: ChromeOS, Android, increasingly user-friendly versions of Linux and now even MacOS.

As I wrote in a recent piece at the Center for a Stateless Society:

Microsoft finds itself at a critical juncture and is reacting -- not just with the "Scroogled" propaganda, but with consideration of making some versions of the Windows operating system free to device manufacturers to combat Google's other free OS, Android.

The era of paying cash for operating systems (and most applications) is over. The era of free operating systems -- and networked/cloud-based computing -- is here.

Microsoft is going to have to find new ways of making money. Selling operating systems isn't going to be their bread and butter any more. The more quickly they realize this, the better their chances of remaining a big player in the PC market.

If I was designing an OS marketing future for Microsoft, I think I'd go with something along these lines:

• Make bare-bones Windows 9 free for both OEM use and end user download;
• Make after-market money by selling applications, support packages and maybe even making the free version OS into "adware" -- run Bing-powered ads on the desktop or whatever;
• Offer an "enterprise edition" of the OS that comes bundled with some key apps (e.g. Office) and extended support for businesses; and
• Get serious about competing in the hardware market, especially the business sector. Microsoft has proven it can do hardware with Xbox (and with the Surface tablet -- even if it didn't fly, they got it into production, didn't they?). A line of Microsoft-branded desktops and laptops, loaded with the "enterprise edition" of Windows 9, key apps, a support/warranty package ... these could be moneymakers on their own, and through extensions of the warranty/support stuff as time goes on. Lots of businesses would rather just pay up front to Microsoft for the perceived "stand behind our stuff" factor than go the cheap route and get nickeled and dimed after.

The "free" and "enterprise" editions would reinforce each other. The guy who uses Windows 9 "enterprise" all day at work will be comfortable with it and want it at home. The guy who uses Windows 9 "free/adware" at home will look favorably on the "enterprise" edition when making purchasing decisions for the office he runs.

What isn't going to work is expecting the average user to keep paying two- and three-figure prices for an OS. The only thing that's saved that approach so far is gaming, and  now that market is going to go soft as Steam's boxes and OS establish a beachhead.

Karen de Coster and Linux

Please note up front that I didn't name this article "Karen de Coster versus Linux." There's a reason for that. Following the arc of the thing from her article on PC versus Mac to her Open Letter to Linux Geeks to Jim Davidson's Facebook Note in response to that letter, I don't see that there's really a fight to be picked here.

I do think that she has a view of Linux which I've seen elsewhere. It's a view I had myself for a few years after trying to get Red Hat 7 up and running on an old box and finally throwing up my hands back in, oh, 2003 or so. Back then, Linux was still not ready for "everyday computer user prime time." It was a pain in the ass to install, you had to be ready to leap into the command line interface to tweak it and push it around, the choice of apps was much more limited, and if it got messed up you either figured it out yourself or trolled discussion forums looking for a clue (if you could get online, that is). I resolved to avoid Linux at all costs, and would have stuck to that resolution if a virus hadn't eaten my machine alive at a point in time when I desperately needed a working machine right now and happened to have Mandrake Linux install CDs lying around.

As I've said many times since, things have changed. I've installed every version of Windows up through Vista on PCs over the years. The newer distributions of Linux are easier to install and configure than any Windows version since at least as far back as Windows 98 and possibly Windows 95. They're very stable and there's a very good chance you'll never have to leave the GUI and start messing around with command line stuff in the console. The GUIs I've been using (KDE, JWM, IceWM) are at least as intuitive, as attractive and as functional as Windows or Mac OS. There are multiple decent offerings in every broad applications category, and if you really must have a particular Windows app there's a good chance that you can run it in Linux using Wine. Oh, also: Linux doesn't crash as often, and it's free, and frankly the available user support for it is, in my opinion, very competitive with what's out there for Windows.

BUT!

That doesn't mean you're a snob if you don't run Linux.

Karen de Coster runs a business, invests a lot of time and effort in writing, and likes to ride (and, if I recall correctly, tinker with) big-ass motorcycles. She's willing to pay a premium, and can afford to pay that premium, for a computer and an operating system that do what she needs them to do without a steep learning curve and/or investment of a lot of time learning their ropes. She wants to run her business, write her essays, and ride her motorcycles, not mess around with her computer.

While I think she's over-estimating the complexity factor with respect to Linux these days, I also think that if I had her priorities and was in her situation, I'd do exactly what she did: Plunk down good money for a Mac and go about my business in the comfortable knowledge that the thing will work and that if it stops working there's a kick-ass support system standing behind it to get it working most ricky-tick and without a bunch of guff.

Over the years I've had to become a very minor league Linux geek -- new Macs are expensive! -- and if Linux distros hadn't improved so rapidly and remarkably, I'd probably have been forced back into Windows hell. Karen de Coster isn't in that position, so the choice she's made is completely understandable (and, of course her choice to make in any case).

As I've mentioned here at KN@PPSTER, I recently had the opportunity to get back into a (used but reasonably modern) Mac myself, and I have to say it's like moving from a decent hotel (indoor pool, continental breakfast) to one of those places with a hot tub in every room and champagne breakfast in bed on demand.

They still don't get it

Rob Hof writes at BusinessWeek:

First of all, let's put to rest the notion that Google expects to replace Windows, at least anytime soon. ... I'm not sure why Chrome OS couldn't be a second operating system on the same machine. After all, it's free, and both disk and flash-memory storage is pretty cheap, so I'm not sure I see much downside in installing both on a machine.

Don't see the downside? Here's the downside: $119.99 for the home edition upgrade to Windows 7. That's the low end of purchasing Windows 7 outright, and probably not much more than the cost of getting it pre-installed on a new machine.

With Google's announcement (obviously timed to prang Microsoft's rollout of a new, expensive product), The Era of Paying for Operating Systems is officially over.

That era could have, maybe should have, been over with the introduction of Linux, but there were some rough patches to get past.

To the general public, Linux and the open source movement looked like a bunch of hippies pushing flower power; Microsoft looked like the safe, solid choice.

Linux also looked complicated at first, and most people still don't seem to have noticed that, these days, most Linux distributions are now at least as easy to install and configure as any recent Windows version.

And, of course, there was that huge library of applications that one would have to give up to make the change (because configuring WINE to run them sounded complicated and scary).

What's changed? Everything!

Google is now perceived by most people as a "safe, solid choice" just -- like Microsoft. It ain't no gang of hippies pushing this new OS, it's one of the biggest players in the industry.

The new OS is going to come pre-loaded on new machines from major manufacturers, just like Windows used to ... and those new machines won't cost as much as their twins which come with Windows 7. If you want to install it on an existing machine, it will be free to download and damn near free to buy on CD-ROM.

Finally, applications are moving into the "cloud." Doesn't matter what OS you're running. As long as you're running a browser (and perhaps a plug-in, which the app manufacturer will certainly make available for all major browsers), you're good to go. Even Microsoft realizes this and is busily moving its own major applications online. Within a couple of years, that old Windows apps library (excluding some games) will be as obsolete, and of interest to as few people, as WordPerfect for DOS is now.

Look at it from the perspective of a business which currently runs hard-drive-based applications and maintains an IT staff to constantly maintain and update them. Soon, those applications are going to be accessed via the web instead of at the machine level, and the maintenance and updating is going to be done from the vendor side. Even if the licenses just cost as much (unlikely), the customer's overhead is going to go way down.

With the mere announcement of the new OS, Google has effectively destroyed one of Microsoft's two major profit centers (operating systems) and made a major dent in the second (applications). Google has a fighting chance at dominance of the "cloud" apps battlefield, and a dominating position on the one remaining battlefield, search.

WANT!

Google is entering the OS market -- code available later this year, appearing on a new netbook near you next year. For obvious reasons, the news puts me in a state somewhat short of orgasm but definitely beyond mere arousal.

I've been keeping one lazy eye on development of the Crunchpad, a piece of on-the-way hardware.

The Crunchpad is a touchscreen machine -- light, thin and inexpensive (it's supposed to sell for less than $300). Its default is a "virtual" onscreen keyboard, but it will supposedly be able to accommodate the real thing via USB. That's a personal hard line for me -- I can live with no mouse if necessary and the virtual keyboard sounds nice for being out and about, but I'm gonna need physical keys for everyday home use. I type a lot.

Forget installing apps to a hard drive; the Crunchpad is designed for people whose computer activity is 100% web-focused. If you want apps, you'll have to find them in the cloud (and for the most part, they're there to find). I believe it has a small built-in flash drive for caching and data storage, a la a netbook. Originally, the idea was that it would boot directly into Firefox (and perhaps include Skype), running over a Linux kernel ... and that would be it.

Now things seem to have shifted: "This is a Linux based operating system and a Webkit based browser." Firefox uses the Gecko layout engine. Chrome uses Webkit. Do I hear wedding bells?

I've been looking to move into a new machine for awhile now, but not out of necessity: I'm able to do everything I really need to do on my "obsolete" machine. Running a very light OS (Puppy Linux) even lets me do it fast. I'm not sure I'll fall for the Crunchpad, but something like it sounds about right and I'm willing to wait for the right combination of low price, portability and an OS that doesn't hog all the machine's resources for no good reason.

Update, 07/08/09: Dvorak thinks that Google is bluffing and that the whole point is to discommode Microsoft. He thinks that Android will be the "real" Google OS. He bases this conjecture mainly on the fact that Google usually doesn't "announce early."

I think he's wrong. This isn't about kicking Windows 7 in the shins to hold some prospective market share for Android. It's about convincing people that the Era of the Everything + Kitchen Sink OS is over, that both Linux and "the cloud" are ready for prime time (hey, Google says so!), and that consumers should kick back for a few months, save their money instead of giving it to Bill Gates, and await Something Shiny Coming Real Soon Now For FREE FREE FREE. Remember, Google is talking about the new OS being available pre-loaded on new machines next year ... they're releasing the code into the wild later this year. "Early adopters" will hopefully be running it (and raving about it) by Christmas.

Update, 07/10/09: Becky C. doesn't trust Google. I'm pretty sure this means she also hates America and likes to spend her evenings kidnapping puppies, stuffing them in sacks and drowning them. Or something like that.

[follow this topic at memeorandum]

W00T! (No, really!)

Last December, The Creator Susan Hogarth bestowed upon me a dandy gift: A ShuttleX PC with brushed aluminum casing, 1.4GHz Athlon processor, 256K (more or less) RAM, etc. For whatever reason, she didn't need it any more and it was (and is) more than robust enough for my needs. I remain intensely grateful.

Unfortunately, the old Linux distro on it was broken and I couldn't get any of the ones I tried to install to play nice with my ISP, even after some standup help detecting the modem, etc..

So, I've spent the last six-odd months in Windoze XP hell -- I do most of what I do on the 'net, so there was just no reason to muck around in a non-connected Linux installation. It's amazing how quickly one becomes inured to the horrors of Micro$haft's plug'n'pray "operating" systems. I had forgotten how easy, even fun, working on a desktop PC could be.

Anyway, the other day, I switched ISPs, and my first thought was "I wonder ..."

Yep! I'm posting this via Firefox (2.0.0.6 -- gotta upgrade ASAP), running in KDE under OpenSuse 10.3. I'll be moving all my work stuff over to this partition ASAP.

Quick review: As I'm becoming accustomed to with the newer Linux distros, OpenSuse installs easily and runs, so far as I can tell, flawlessly (goodbye, BSOD!). It's fast, it's friendly ... it's home.

I downloaded and installed a couple of games just so I could report to you on ease of use -- and I'm happy to report that OpenSuse's download and installation scheme is fantastic. It's easy to locate, access and get software from numerous repositories in a manner that I've previously associated with more overtly proprietary distros like Xandros.

Not to be overly evangelistic, but if you're still futzing with Windoze, do yourself a favor and make the move to Linux. The time is now. Any good Linux distribution is available on CD or DVD for a tiny fraction of the price of the latest Redmond Wreck. It will be easier to install than any version of Windoze since at least 98 and probably 95. It will come bundled with software for everyday computing -- word processing, web surfing, etc. -- that's as good or better than what you're used to using. You'll be amazed at how much easier life becomes with Linux.