Linux as a Desktop has been a work in progress for years now. After being flamed for complaining about it’s weaknesses, I decided to give it another chance to be fair. Most of my complaints have been about not being able to work with multimedia well so I decided to try out the newly released Linux Mint 7. That distribution is based on Ubuntu and comes with the more questionable media codecs and libraries pre installed. I have always preferered Fedora because it is more cutting edge, but it requires research an trial and error just to get it to play a DVD. Once Mint was installed, I popped in a DVD just to test it out and it started right up. I wasn’t able to play around with any mp3s as I was unable to network with my Windows machine, but I’ll get back to that later.
I was a bit skeptical of people’s comments that you no longer need to use the Command Line Interface (CLI), to install all your software, or really do anything. I set out trying to set everything up manually like I always had to do in Fedora, but I couldn’t get anything to work. Ubuntu’s use of apt instead of yum baffled me. I couldn’t find my favorite apps. Then I decided to see how the graphical installer thing worked and voila, the heavens opened up and my apps installed themselves automatically.
The software anager was pretty good at finding every program I could think of that I normally install, and once checked off, you just tell it to install and wait. Still not too sure about the package management delivery system though. But that’s a small issue. I’m just skeptical about cloud computing taking away my ability to customize the OS with new or cutting edge apps. But I’m sure that’s covered by a repository.
Other wrinkles I was surprised about were the new way to graphically manage grub as the boot loader, and the new simpler way to make programs run at start. To do so you just right click the program icon and select start at boot. The one wrinkle that I didn’t like so much was the customized start menu rather than the default Gnome one. I guess I’m old fashioned so that’s my problem. I also had a problem with a kernel update not going smoothly and a few other random occurences that happen and have to be fixed with any operating system. In the end the benefits seem to outnumber the shortcomings now. If I was setting up a system for someone who is just using their computer for the first time and has little knowledge of computers, as long as their printer was supported, I’d set them up with Linux. It would be a little more difficult for them to break the OS with simple actions like turning the power off instead of shutting down with the bullet proof file system, and I could keep them from downloading porn and toolbars because the windows apps simply wouldn’t run unless I gave them Wine.
I did have one annoyance that was not the fault of anyone. I was unable to network with my Windows computer which acts as a file server, with its shared folders. Unfortunately because I’m using a new, beta Windows 7 OS, the networking has been upgraded in Windows to the easier to use and more secure Homegroups. Because this technology is so new, the Mint community just hasn’t had time to adapt support for it. That will surely be fixed when Windows 7 goes public.
In the end, I think the one thing needed to start a Linux explosion is for a company like Google to get involved and create a system where hardware vendors and software developers can make money. It could be like the Android Market. You build the payed apps into the software manager and link it to a credit card to buy apps. So you could have say Photoshop instead of the Gimp, or Dreamweaver, or other payed apps. In order to get big Linux will need support beyond the excellent free and open source community. There needs to be a way to make money off of Linux to make it business worthy and get those boxes into Wal-Mart or Best Buy. It will happen one day, in the mean time, the community will continue smoothing over things until Linux is better than anything else. It’s close, but without the software and vendor support, it’s just not quite there yet. Although the free apps are good, they just aren’t the same quality as paid versions.
Windows users, flame me here. I do love Windows 7, however.
11 Comments to 'Linux Getting Closer to Being Ready for the Desktop'
August 8, 2009
Congratulations on your success with Mint. I’ve been using Mint for about a year and a half now… it has been great! I have to agree Mint Menu can be annoying.
A big shout to the 757 I used to be station there before I got out of the navy.
August 8, 2009
Oh dear, I hope this new windows networking is documented. If it isn’t, reverse engineering it will be a pain…
August 8, 2009
It might be. Its supposed to be similar to the zero configuration in macos x. To put it in perspective, there is no workgroup name to configure just a homegroup password to set and then anyone who connects with that password is connected to the network.
August 9, 2009
As far as I am concerned, Linux is “ready for the desktop” since 2007. Not before, but it’s already two years ago.
August 9, 2009
Nice review, but I sort of disagree about the vendor/software support. Linux is marketed big time as a business desktop and of course on the backend, where its only competition is traditional Unix. As for paid apps, I strongly suppose most users will prefer what they can get for free and with less clicks.
Linux has been ready for the desktop for years, it’s just that nobody cared because of the constant Windows hype and (***edited) marketing.
August 9, 2009
Even if you had been able to connect to your windows server, the networking is still only half-assed.
Example: I expect to be able to click on a video file on my server and have it open and play across the network in whatever media player that I want to use. Works fine in Windows, but in Linux you have to download the file to your PC and then play it, as it will not stream.
Linux is ready for the desktop only if you are willing to compromise ease and functionality. At this point in my life I am no longer willing to work for my computer, rather than with it.
August 9, 2009
Good points. They have come a long way with usability though. I agree with the working part somewhat. It does tend to take longer to look up and fix a Linux problem than a Windows problem, but mainly because there are so many linux distros and versions you have to weed through bad search results to find info, versus only a few versions of windows being used. But really, streaming video isn’t much of a usability problem. You could install whatever media server software comes with Linux to do the same, the Linux people just assumed you wouldn’t want to do as such I supposed. They seem to be polishing things up pretty fast though.
August 9, 2009
That’s the point of being ready for the desktop though. Most people who pose that question aren’t taking about a generic, work focused installation. We’re talking about home consumer use. I think the free apps are cool because they are free “impersonations” of Windows software, but then when you use the real version the free software pales in comparison. We’re all entitled opinions though, maybe Google will convert the world to cloud computing with their OS and we’ll all jump ship. That would be fine with me as long as with a free OS, the computer doesn’t still cost the same as it does with the Windows license.
August 9, 2009
I dunno. I’ve played around with it on and off pretty much at least once a year. I have been pretty underwhelmed until Mint came out. But then I’ve been told I’m not an average consumer user, so the things I need a computer to do that Linux wouldn’t do aren’t typical pc user things. For instance, I have a multiple monitor setup with a widescreen hdtv as one, so rather than buying a separate tv, I just got a a tuner card and I dvr a lot. On the other hand, I use built in apps over third party (ie IE8 vs firefox), and open source but I always find one annoying thing that my hardware just won’t do. Which is where the payed software comes in. With payed software, vendors would start supporting Linux on their hardware for the money they get from OEM agreements and the like.
August 10, 2009
> Although the free apps are good, they just aren’t the
> same quality as paid versions.
Not the same quality, no; they’re usually better than the for-pay software titles.
August 10, 2009
@lefty.crupps: Well, that can be argued about to no end, but the mature mainstream open source apps are definitely good enough for everyday use unless you need to do something special that is only offered by a specific proprietary application. Once you get used to Gimp, for example, you could do just about everything, you would just do it differently than in Photoshop.
@Mr O: Linux is an excellent, if not the best, OS for heavy duty networking. The problem you are speaking about is that Windows strictly refuses to talk to anything than itself over a LAN. But that’s not Linux’ fault
Leave a comment