I have been on holiday and am back to the computer after two months of sun and frolic. What follows is a continuation of themes previously explored and represents my current state of mind and Linux philosophy.

What works for me may not work for you. That’s the great thing about Linux. We have choice. There are well over 300 distributions and many different possible desktops to multiply the choice several fold.

As with many people, my Linux starting point is Ubuntu. I always install the 64 bit version of the latest release. I prefer to start with a fresh installation every six months. People complain about this, but I actually look forward to a new release each April and October. I not only do not mind re-installing this often and actually will do it in mid-release just for the fun of it. I don’t need to re-install; I do it as an exercise. I have a system that makes it a piece of cake.

I chose Ubuntu for many reasons. I like a distribution that is aggressive, always pushing the envelope, with a fixed release schedule. I have not had a significant problem with any Ubuntu release from Feisty on. I cannot say that about any other distribution.

I also choose Ubuntu because of the number of packages available to it. There isn’t anything that I cannot do in Ubuntu and I hate restrictions. My final and most important reason is people. Love them or hate them, Ubuntu has the most users and the largest and most dynamic community. Unlike many communities they do not have an axe to grind. It is open and friendly and that is what I like. It has the most podcasts, the most RSS feeds and the most forums devoted to it.

Things that I initially hated about Ubuntu, such as sudo and the Ubiquity installer, I now see as strong points. Funny the way things change as you get used to them. I have tried other installers, in fact most of them, but Ubuntu’s is the best to my way of thinking. It allows me to choose everything up front before it installs anything. Once installation begins I can walk away for fifteen or twenty minutes until it is complete with no more questions asked. Then after I re-boot I can tailor it to suit my own purposes.

My problems with Ubuntu are two-fold. I don’t like GNOME as my first choice and I do not use Mono. I get around this by installing Kubuntu afterwards. This might seem odd that I don’t start with Kubuntu, but I like some features of GNOME and will boot into it every once in a while. I install Kubuntu second because it replaces the things that I don’t like about GNOME such as GDM and the logon screens. My improvement on this is to install Xubuntu after KDE because I like its logon screen better and I use XFCE now and again.

I like multiple desktop environments for several reasons. I have had desktop environments lose some functionality from time to time as one package or another ceases to work. Most of the time it is not an important package and the problem is unnoticeable. However, there have been occasions where both KDE and GNOME have acted up. Most recently it was when I first moved to KDE 4.3. For awhile KDE would not load, so I switched to GNOME and did and apt-get upgrade and KDE worked once again. Sometimes I switch environments for a day or two or even a week at a time for variety.

The first thing that I install is the restricted extras. At the same time I remove Mono and install gtk-qt-engine so that GNOME applications don’t look so ugly. My obvious bias is that QT4 looks much better than GTK. GNOME looks every bit as dated as it is. It is sadly in need of a face lift. Add to this the fact that Ubuntu’s take on GNOME is particularly ugly and you can see why pretty it up as much as possible. I am not a fan of the human theme.

In both GNOME and KDE, I use Compiz for desktop effects and add the Avant Window Navigator at the bottom. Which might cause you to wonder where my panel is. In both GNOME and KDE, I use one panel at the top. I also use single click instead of double click in both desktop environments.

To simplify matters, I use one home partition for everything and have my list of programmes saved to a text file so that I can reinstall them easily. It is really quite straight forward and automatic. Generally speaking, after the initial installation and re-booting I can have apt go to work installing my list of programmes from the text file and I am back in business within an hour or two without so much as a hiccough.

I have tried Fedora, Debian, Mandriva, OpenSuSE and all of the rest. What I do cannot be done with other distributions. Most of them do not even have all of the applications that I use. The exception to this would be Debian. It is a worthy distribution in every sense of the word. However, the Debian community is not user friendly and I need something that is edgier in terms of its production schedule. If there was no Ubuntu, I would likely use Sidux. For now, even with its imperfections, I continue to use Ubuntu or at least my own take on it which is XKUbuntu.

Each distribution has its strengths and weaknesses. Ubuntu’s strength is in sheer numbers. It has the deepest and most up to date repositories. It has the largest community. These appeal to me because I use lots of applications and like to assist others. However, another person may dislike Ubuntu for precisely these reasons. They may feel overwhelmed by choice and want a small community or ever prefer to be a lone ranger.

That’s what you have to love about Linux. (Sorry GNU/Linux folks. It just does not sound right.) There is room enough for all and a place for everyone. The problem is in finding what works best for you and sticking with it. It seems that I have found a winning formula that works for me.

For anyone still trying to find their place, Ubuntu is an excellent place to start. If you want an even easier distribution there is Linux Mint or SimplyMEPIS. If you don’t mind RPM (and I do) then you could try PCLinuxOS or Mandriva. They have smaller repositories so your needs must be modest in this respect. My problem with PCLOS and SimplyMEPIS is their position with respect to KDE. KDE 4.3 is so much better than KDE 3.5. Sticking with KDE 3.5 is a loser’s game. You might as well switch to GNOME. At least, it has a future.

Once you know your way around Linux you could move to a more advanced distribution such as Debian, Fedora or OpenSuSE. If you want even more challenges you could try Arch, Slackware, Sabayon or Gentoo. We have still only scratched the surface. You could probably try a new distro each day of the year and not run out!

Ubuntu however can be as easy as you want and you can still build to your heart’s content. It has a range that is broader than most. That is why I stick with it. While a simple distribution has trouble keeping users once they have mastered the basics, Ubuntu grows with you. A complex distro keeps users at arms’ length until their skills develop and drains your time and energy once you take it on. You don’t have any choice once you go down that road but to devote time and energy because it does not offer an easy path.

I recommend Ubuntu most often because it offers users the most choice. Debian has as many packages and supports more architectures, but Ubuntu is a close second. But Ubuntu goes way beyond Debian in other respects. It offers the most desktop environments, with Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and more. It offers more installation possibilities with Wubi, the regular installation disk, a custom installation disk and server disks.

As I said previously. It is a good starting point, but the journey does not end there.

I have used Ubuntu exclusively since Feisty and have tested each new release from alpha on. I have always been a big booster of Ubuntu and am active on several help forums. Yet, despite all of this history together I am thinking seriously of leaving Planet Ubuntu. Here’s why Ubuntu is driving me away.

If there is anything that I feel is more important than any individual distribution, it is software freedom. It is what brought me to Linux in the first place. Ubuntu has managed to straddle a line that allows me to use what I want, putting the user in full command. In other words, I have had to add things to break with FOSS ideals, the so-called restricted extras. Except that is now a lie and I am really struggling with it.

You see, each time I install Ubuntu I have to strip out some things that I do not agree with and that should not be the case. If Canonical is to be consistent, I should not have to a a hypocrite about some things and not others. It is this inconsistency that is causing me to re-think Ubuntu.

The bone of contention for me is Mono. I remove it. I don’t like it. I refuse to use it. It rubs me the wrong way. Anything that starts with Microsoft and goes via the sellout, Novell, cannot be good.

I know that Microsoft is opposed to the existence of Linux. That have said so, often and stridently. I know that Novell caved in and did not stand up for FOSS when they had the chance. They have since apologized, sort of, but the damage is done. Other companies did not follow suit, including Red Hat and Canonical. I respect them for this as much as I detest Novell for selling us down the drain.

Mono is not only a reminder of that sellout, but its legal status is far from settled. Novell and Microsoft can’t agree on who can distribute it. Microsoft takes the position that their agreement only covers Novell and not other distributions. Novell thinks otherwise. I do not care. Nothing that comes from Microsoft can be for our good and benefit. They are dedicated to our destruction and downfall.

Mono has infected Gnome. Ubuntu uses Gnome. I switched to Kubuntu and am happy with it. Now Moonlight is infecting Linux. Canonical is compromising its principles in the use of them and in my using their products I am forced to compromise my own values.

Yes, I can strip out Mono. In fact, doing so gives me a thrill. But should I have to? If Canonical is to be consistent they should have Mono as an option, as they do with the restricted extras. I should not have to feel sullied after installing Ubuntu.

I can continue to use Kubuntu, but I am not sure where Canonical is taking me with that. Will Mono infect KDE or will Moonlight become a future issue that I will have to deal with? At this point, I have no confidence that they will continue to take a principled decision in supporting FOSS. That is the question that I keep running over in my mind.

The question for me is where to go? Fedora is dumping Mono. Debian is too. Kudos for them.

I am not keen on Fedora as a distribution. I have used it since Core 2 and have issues with it. It is hard for me to like. RPM is not for me, either. I have used it since Mandrake 7 and it has always let me down. It is just a question of when it breaks. Besides Fedora and every other RPM distro does not have the package selection that comes with Debian-based distros.

My problem with Debian is more complex. It will never become popular due to its philosophy and approach which is exclusive rather than inclusive. I have frequented their forums and I don’t like their take it or leave it attitude. It hardly encourages newcomers. It is too fascist for my taste. No flexiblity at all.

I do not like the rolling release model, either. Rolling releases mean that when you install you are installing knowing that it is already stale on the installation medium. You will have to do massive updates, post installation. You could do a net installation, but that isn’t good for newbies. The installer alone is daunting for a newbie. That means that I will have to give up much of what I do in help forums. I use Ubuntu because it is popular not for myself, but for others, so that I can help people get a start in Linux.

My third issue with Debian is that I have long held the view that “stable is for sissies”. I love trying the newest and the latest of everything. I don’t mind troubleshooting problems and doing a full re-installation if necessary. However, I don’t much like the idea of starting from scratch and doing tons of updates each time. With Ubuntu I have a new disk each six months to work from. Updating is modest since I am working from a new system that is at worst six months old. I could change to Sid and that is an option, if I can get past my other objections. I have used Sidux and that is an option, as is SimplyMEPIS.

At this point I would like to have Canonical see the light and distance itself from Mono and Moonlight. I don’t see that happening and time is running out for me. I will stick with Ubuntu or Kubuntu through Karmic Koala, but I don’t see much hope as things stand. Right now Canonical and Novell are too close to each other philosophically for my comfort. Gnome is a lost cause, IMO.

There are many alternatives to Mono. There is absolutely no need to use it. There are alternatives to every Mono application that for the most part are better. There are alternative programming environments as well. Most applications are written without resorting to .Net or Mono. It is sheer laziness, IMO. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if Mono did not exist then there would still be plenty of open source programmes. We have never needed short cuts before nor help from Microsoft.

I will never use Mono, just as I would never use Windows. Why use anything that is tainted when I can use something that is not? Mono and Novell are tainted and will be forever in my eyes. They are reminders that I don’t need on my computer that Microsoft is opposed to me and my way of thinking. They have never cared about me. They never will. I don’t want to entertain for a microsecond the idea that they do. If you do then you are only fooling yourself and Canonical is too if they do not see such an obvious threat to open source.  Microsoft always acts out of self interest and nothing they do should be taken at face value.

… and You Can Make It Happen

I use Ubuntu. So do many other users. I don’t use it for that reason. I use it mainly because it works for me and my particular hardware best and because I like the community. I came to my decision by exclusion. I have used just about everything out there. So why would an Ubuntu user want other distros to have a higher profile?

I like choice. It is the strength of Linux. I don’t want everybody to use the same distribution. I started with Ubuntu years ago when it was a relative small player and am not about to switch because others have jumped on the bandwagon. But as other distros grow in strength, so will Ubuntu. Fedora challenges Ubuntu to do better and Ubuntu’s success drives Fedora in the same way. It is good to have a spirit of fair and friendly competition. I am sure that Canonical has noticed the success of Mint which is based on Ubuntu. This causes them to keep their mission statement fresh and to re-visit every so often.

I don’t think that Canonical resents the success of Mint in the same way that Debian users resent the success of Ubuntu. If they do, they don’t let it show. To do so, weakens you. It causes you to lose your focus and depletes your energy on something that is out of your control. Instead they focus on producing a better user experience.

I am an Ubuntu user today, but that may not always be the case. It isn’t that I am worried about Canonical or Ubuntu, but like all users I have changing needs and hardware. So, I like to keep an open mind and to be aware of what other distributions are doing. It gives me a broader appreciation of what Linux has to offer. I am an Ubuntu user, but I am first and foremost a Linux advocate.

I said that my decision to use Ubuntu was by exclusion. I started with Mandrake (now Mandriva) and moved to Fedora. I finally settled on MEPIS which I used for a couple of years before switching to Ubuntu. I have used Lindows, Linspire and have seen many distros come and go. I have tried for months at a time Xandros and SUSE. I multi-boot and frequently run several distros at once. I am always open to a better experience. I use little known distros and all of the main ones. It makes no difference to me.

At first I did not like Ubuntu, but it grew on me and it got better along the way. All distros have their weaknesses. I am too impatient to use Gentoo. Fedora is distinct, but I find it difficult to like. I find PCLinuxOS, too limiting. I find SUSE to be too unstable on my hardware. I find Debian to be too old fashioned. I like Mandriva, but it does not work well with my equipment. I find MEPIS to be closest to Ubuntu. I have tried Mint, but don’t like it.

There is something that I like about them all, too. I like that Gentoo allows me to tailor things to suit my needs. I like Fedora because it is great looking and it challenges the way I use Linux. I like PCLinuxOS because it works so well. I like the look and feel of SUSE. I like that Debian champions free software. I like Mandriva because it has great tools and is kept up to date. I like MEPIS for its simplicity and well roundedness. I like Mint because it adds functionality to Ubuntu’s solid base.

There is a distro for just about every type of user. Ubuntu has broad appeal for many reasons, but chiefly because it has the largest community. It has the most help. Even if you don’t use Ubuntu you can often find online help in their forums that will help you to solve your problem.

This brings me to my point about other distros developing a higher profile. If they want to compete and attract new users, and most do, then they will have to increase their presence. I think that too often the users of other distros get side tracked by Ubuntu’s looming presence and they think that the way to attract users is to strike back against the Borg. I get that. The problem is that it does not work. Their writing negative articles against Ubuntu only increases Ubuntu’s presence.

I also think that new users get sucked into the vortex simply because Ubuntu has such a large presence. They may not know much about other distros, but they know that Ubuntu is the biggest name in desktop Linux. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. It only needs to be perceived that way to make it real and most newcomers hear about Ubuntu because it is the first distro that comes up when you Google anything to do with Linux.

Every distro needs to develop its own base on its own terms. Since each distro has its own niche and philosophy that is the beginning and you grow out from there. I personally would love to write articles on various distros. But I am an outsider and it just does not feel real. You need to understand the community and ethos to write the kind of things that I would like to write. This is also why most critics of Ubuntu fail to score points. They do not understand the Ubuntu community and just don’t get what Canonical is trying to achieve.

If you are a user of PCLinuxOS, then need you to write and share why and how you use it. You don’t have to be an expert. Some of the best articles that I have read have told simple truths from a newbie’s perspective. Some of the worst have been people trying to do more than they are capable of. It shows. There is a lack of realism and genuineness. Some people can write great technical articles. I can’t. I have some technical ability, but it does not feel right for me. I am an educator by training so I try to cut through jargon and to break things down simply.

Maybe you use Fedora, but don’t feel comfortable writing articles. Then you can read the blogs of others and respond to what others write, giving encouragement and helpful criticism, always remembering that you represent your community. You want to raise the profile and the interest in Fedora, so the key is to keep it positive and real. You want others to think after reading what you wrote, that Fedora is worth exploring because its advocates are interesting and positive. You want to keep your favourite distro in the news any way that you can.

I have been an outspoken critic of the Debian community in the past. I find much negativity in their forums and I don’t like their love it or leave it attitude. If you use Debian, then perhaps there is a place for you to be a positive force and to polish their image. It is simple things such as putting yourself in the place of the other person. It takes courage to ask for help. Dealing with newbies takes patience and understanding. If you want them to adopt your philosophy then you need to educate, not lecture. Debian has much potential. It can be a real bright spot for the GNU/Linux world.

Mandriva has an inferiority complex. It wants to run with the big boys, but has not quite made the transition from a commercial distribution in the way that Novell has with SUSE. It lacks the server and enterprise base and has found making money from desktop Linux to be a challenge. They feel that they have a great product, and they do, but that it does not get the recognition that it deserves. It doesn’t. The solution is to develop community the way that Canonical has.

This was Canonical’s starting point and that is why it has exploded. Mandriva in contrast is doing it after the fact. Desktop Linux has no retail presence. It spreads by word of mouth. Once you have a large user base then you have more options. You can then explore your commercial side because you can point to your success.

MEPIS and Mint are smaller distributions. Both have opportunities to grow by exploiting apparent weaknesses in their parent distribution. For MEPIS this means Debian and for Mint it means Ubuntu. By offering more functionality and by adding restricted drivers and codecs, they are making it easier for newbies to adopt Linux. This is something that Debian and Ubuntu could do, but have chosen not to, for philosophical reasons. There are many other distributions who have a similar approach and have developed a solid following. What these distributions need is for satisfied users to speak up. Mention your success and praise your distribution. Keep it positive and your distribution will grow.

Critics of Ubuntu, accuse it of raiding the user base of other distributions. This has never been their intention. I think that these distributions have let their users drift away by neglecting their own responsibilities. It is easier to blame Ubuntu than to accept that you are making yourself irrelevant. What Ubuntu has succeeded in doing is to make the whole pie larger. Many of their new users are Linux converts. The Linux pie is growing modestly and Ubuntu is getting more than its share due to its online presence and support.

The challenge for other distros is to attract new users to your distribution. If you focus on Ubuntu and taking away from them then you face a more difficult challenge as momentum is with them. They have an established base and it is growing exponentially. As more is written about Ubuntu and its kin whether it is for or against them, then it gives them an even bigger presence.

I hope that other distributions learn from what Canonical has done. They need to develop the community first and to pay attention to the needs of users. You can be true to your principles and attract new users. In fact, I would think that a distribution such as Debian has more to gain than to lose. People want to hear about free software. It is the notion of freedom that draws people in. They won’t necessarily buy into the whole package right away, but they will be attracted to you. You can be your own worst enemy by prostheletizing. You need to integrate and educate instead.

I am convinced that there is enough room for growth that we don’t need to raid each other’s base and engage in FUD against our own kind. I think that the place to start is with improving the image of the distribution that you use by ceaselessly promoting it in whatever way that you can. This can only benefit Linux at large and make us all stronger in the end.

I read a lot of news feeds. Sometimes too many. I admit it. About 10% of what I read is new. Most of it is just regurgitated material and recycled themes. The most tiresome ones have to be the my-distro-is-better-than-yours. Only slightly less tiresome are the Linux vs. Windows ones. Both lines of discussion are low on entertainment value and offer little information.

Let’s face it. Most of these distro bashing pieces are politically motivated and have very little to say. The person has an axe to grind or feels that their distro does not get enough attention so they write a thinly veiled attack piece that poses as a review of the competing distro.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a best distro. Of course you use the distro because it works best for you, but that does not make it the best. Also when a distro does not work for you, it does not mean that it won’t work well for others. It may mean that your hardware is not suited for some reason or that you may not be as proficient as you think that you are. Writing a high profile attack piece may just be a way of advertising your own ineptitude or stupidity.

You have a problem with distro A so you assume that everybody has the same problem or that we all want to know about your problems. We don’t. Most of us are too busy enjoying ourselves with our own favourite distro and many users are using the distro that you are trashing and we are probably having more success than you, which defeats your whole argument and makes us smarter than you. Your hard luck story just does not interest us, so keep it to yourself. Please!

If something does not work, don’t complain. Use something else or if you want to complain do it in a constructive manner by going to the developers rather going public with it. Except that is not your game, is it?

You do not want to really improve the product. Your goal is to make it appear to be problematic so others will not use it. That’s what I mean when with being political. Your goal is to influence others to move away from one product and toward the one that you use. You have not revealed a bad product. You have revealed a bad attitude. Namely, yours.

We don’t need users like you.  We need people to test distros and provide feedback for the developers. Each distro has its way to do that. Going public with problems does not help them and it does not help us either. Nobody likes to listen to complaints. It has no entertainment value. When was the last time anybody went to a movie or watched a show that features a list of complaints. Why would anyone care to read that you have a problem? That’s what help forums are for. Ever heard of them?

A good review features the strengths and weaknesses in an unbiased way. You will never be able to pull this off so try to be what you are, a propagandist. However, a good propagandist knows how to frame things so the the reader will form the opinion that you want. You don’t have to give it to them. So once again you reveal your deficiencies. You aren’t even a good propagandist.

So what are you? You are a hack and a whiner. Admit it and you will feel better. Then perhaps you will find something useful to do, such as write pieces that extol the virtues of the distro that you want us to use. Attack campaigns don’t work, especially on the internet where there is a wealth of content and much of it is entertaining and informative. So, don’t add to the drivel; it wastes bandwidth and time.

All of this whining and complaining serves to undermine Linux in general. It creates division. It promotes the idea that we can’t get along. It gives the wrong idea of the Linux community. You see, most people who come to Linux actually do find help and are grateful to the very community that you are trying to undermine. I see it every day in the help forums that I frequent.

Finally, you are giving ammunition to those who do not want Linux to succeed. Your petty goal of trying to direct us has the opposite effect. It drives people away. People avoid conflict. It will either send them back to where they came from or scare the heck out of them. Most of them are uncomfortable and vulnerable to begin with and you, unnecessarily, cause them to wonder what they are getting into.

Whenever you put down another distro you are working on behalf of the competition. Not just another distro, but another operating system. They would pay you to do what you are willing to do for free. You might as well be in their employ. Then we would all be able to call you a sell out as well.

The way to strengthen Linux is to work for the developers of the distro that you like, to strengthen the community and to help others. The way to strengthen the position of your favourite distribution is to promote it with good public relations and to advertise its merits. Stay positive and we all get better.

If you genuinely aspire to being a reviewer, then you need to sharpen your skills. You need to be willing to use the distribution for a time and to get to know its strengths and weaknesses and you need to review both. Any criticism should bear in mind that many people use what what you may be condemning and that many developers work for the project. When you dump on a distro then you are in the end dumping on people. If that makes you feel good, then see a doctor.

We have all seen Ubuntu emerge as the top distribution. You can argue the figures if you like, but by any standard that I have seen it is far and away the most popular distribution. This does not factor in the fact that Ubuntu’s user base is fragmented with its own distributions, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, Mythbuntu and Ubuntu Studio. While this naming was once cute, it has lost its appeal for many people and it is further confused by people like me who use more than one and switch between the desktop environments as I feel like it. Am I an Ubuntu user or not? I am writing this on Kubuntu 9.04 but yesterday I was working on Ubuntu 8.10.

The biggest problem however is not the Canonical Ubuntu derivatives but the growing number of non-Canonical ones. It is time for all of this confusion to end. Canonical can help itself by establishing one brand name, Ubuntu, and anything but Ubuntu would then be a non-Canonical derivative. It is time that Kubuntu became Ubuntu KDE, Xubuntu became Ubuntu XFCE, Edubuntu became Ubuntu Education, Mythbuntu became Ubuntu Myth, and Ubuntu became Ubuntu Gnome. Ubuntu Studio does not need to change. Better still let them all be known as Ubuntu.

Then when I saw the name Fluxbuntu, I would know that it is not from Canonical. What of distributions that have Ubuntu in the name, such as Ubuntu Ultimate Edition or Super Ubuntu? They should not be using the name Ubuntu. Ubuntu Ultimate Edition can be called Ultimate Edition and Super Ubuntu can become Superbuntu. I would prefer that any non-Canonical reference to Ubuntu be removed altogether. It is time for Canonical to enforce its trademark in order to distinguish itself from the plethora of pretenders.

Linux is confusing enough with all of the choice. I don’t think that it needs to be more complicated than it already is. Users would benefit from companies such as Canonical enforcing their brand name and strengthening their identity. Especially when there are so many copycat distributions that could give Ubuntu a bad name if it poorly implements what Canonical has worked so hard to build. Canonical is taking a risk every time a new distribution comes out that uses the Ubuntu name.

Another benefit of rolling them into one name is that figures for Ubuntu usage would become more in line with reality. People would see that Ubuntu is even more popular than it appears. For example, if one takes Distrowatch page ranking as an indicator (no, it is not scientific), Ubuntu is number one, just ahead of openSUSE. However, this figure does not include the other Canonical offerings which appear separately. This makes both Ubuntu and Kubuntu which is much farther down the list appear more anemic than they need to be. The sum of the parts makes the lead look even greater and it gives a more accurate picture. Ubuntu users themselves don’t make this distinction. If you ask in a room of users who uses Ubuntu, the Kubuntu people will usually raise their hands too.

To further muddy the waters, if I install Ubuntu and then install LXDE and remove Gnome, am I using Ubuntu? I would say of course. This shows how crazy the naming of Ubuntu is. There are choices that are not even covered with Ubuntu’s own naming scheme.

What I would like to see is Ubuntu released on a DVD with the choice of desktops at the time of installation.  This would also facilitate the addition of material that would otherwise be stripped away in order to fit on a CD. Other than the desktop environment and the associated packages for each, Ubuntu is the same as Kubuntu. The installer is the same.

The differences between the variants focus on the user experience. Ubuntu is different from Kubuntu because Gnome is different from KDE. So why not play on that and make the installer the determining point rather than at the time of downloading. By including all of the desktops on the DVD the user could try each out without the necessity of downloading the separate versions. Each time you do this you are downloading the kernel plus all of the file system and libraries several times. I don’t even bother downloading different versions any more. I just install either Ubuntu or Kubuntu and install the other desktops. It is so arbitrary for me that I no longer care which one I download.

So you might complain that you know that you like Gnome so why should you have to download KDE? Perhaps the network installer could be improved so that those who know what they want can have more control and tailor make Ubuntu with whatever they want. I could see that  some people would like a hybridized version with the best of KDE and the best of Gnome, as much as wanting all of one and none of the other. Most Ubuntu users do this anyway, running at least K3b or Amarok.

Another way to handle this could be to have the distribution use a simpler desktop such as Open Box  and run it from the Live CD and then allow the installer to download the various other desktops and components as needed.

It is time for Canonical to re-visit the way it names its distributions and how it delivers them to end users. They and the users can benefit from simplifying things, allowing the users to have more choice while at the same time keeping the integrity of the name, no matter what their choice.

Who stands to lose? First to lose would be the derivatives who are trying to fly on the coattails of Canonical. Second to lose would be Gnome. There is no doubt in my mind that if the two desktops are put side by side most users would opt for KDE. It just looks better and performs better, in my opinion. Gnome is looking dated. That would only be in the short term however. Gnome is being forced to play catch up and is due for an overhaul anyway. When Gnome gets a face lift then perhaps the reverse could be said. The third to lose would be people who don’t want choice. They don’t like making the kinds of decisions that might need to be made. However, at least their decision can be informed because they could try different environments before installing.

I am advocating more change than is necessary. It does not need to go this far. The change could be as simple as just changing the name. That could be done quite simply. A side benfit would be one logo and Ubuntu could dispense with the depressing brown and orange theme that most users dislike. The distinguishing feature would not be the theme, but the desktop itself.

This alone would give some critics less ammunition and it would bring Mark Shuttleworth’s statements of wanting an improved look and feel closer to Mac OS/X more of a reality. There is no reason why GTK and QT4 can’t use the same theme to create a common Ubuntu look that he wants so badly. It would certainly engender brand loyalty instead of creating division in one’s own house. Then there truly would be one Ubuntu to rule them all.

I have a strange mind. I read quickly and extract information that sometimes others miss. Images jump out at me, almost off the page. This is true for novels or weblogs. Afterwards, I think about it and it is the images that spring to mind. I can’t even remember a joke verbatim. It is just the way my mind works.

So when I think of Linux, I think of community. There is lots more to Linux, but it is community that springs to my mind. That is probably because it is like a Second Life for me. I spend much time out there, in the Linux community. But when I think of community, I think of only one thing, Ubuntu.

Now, Ubuntu did not invent community. What they have succeeded to do is to perfect it.  It starts with their philosophy of humanity towards others, but extends outwards from there, empowering people to go out into the world, spreading this message of acceptance and inclusion. And it has paid big dividends.

Ubuntu is the number one distribution. It does some things better than other distros, but it may not be the best. In fact, it does not have to be the best, because they just get it. They know that people are social animals and live in herds. And so, they develop the community better than anyone else.

I don’t know how many times that I have read a great how-to article which usually begins with “guess what you can do with Ubuntu” or “this is what I learned to do with Ubuntu”. It usually has the word Ubuntu in the headline along with what you can do. I am sure that you have seen them too. Now, I told you that my mind is strange. I never accept things at face value. So, I begin to think, “Could this be done only in Ubuntu?” And usually the answer is “No.” Most things can be done in most other distros. But, and this is important, Ubuntu gets the credit. Why?

Ubuntu has empowered the user. The user is grateful and wants to share. That is part of the herd mentality fostered by Ubuntu. The user feels not only an obligation to the herd, but he or she is genuine in his or her expression of gratitude. For people outside of the Ubuntu community, this is a turn off. They do not get it because they are not part of the herd. They sometimes respond in ways that are unfavourable or sometimes meekly proclaim that they can do that in their distro, too.

But sometimes we hear such things, often written in caps, as: UBUNTU IS NOT LINUX or the reverse statement. Maybe you have seen that one, also. This is, of course, true. There are many distributions; some are great. But they are not getting the credit that they deserve. It isn’t Ubuntu’s fault. It comes down to community.

The Ubuntu community has grown to the size that it dwarfs every other one. That is a testimony to the power of community. People seek comfort in the shelter of the herd. They feel that people in the herd can identify with them. They feel that they can express themselves freely and they will be heard and understood. Outside of the herd they are not so sure. They know that there are some down right unfriendly types out there. So when critics of Ubuntu get angry this only drives people more towards Ubuntu. It has the opposite effect to what they are trying to do. Outside of the community, if you say you use Ubuntu, you almost feel apologetic, but inside the community it is different. You are a part of what is happening and you know that it is not just big, but it is huge.

I get why others like to take shots at Ubuntu. They are looking at it from a different perspective. They are looking at it as a detached person would or sometimes even as a critic would. They are looking for flaws and because no distro is perfect they find them. They like to trumpet these successes, in the vain hope that they will some how stem the tide. They won’t. Their voice is wasted because people don’t want to hear about problems. They want solutions. People listen to their own kind, more than they do outsiders, so no points are scored when they criticise. Mention the same concerns inside the community and scores of people all of a sudden are listening and people spring into action. Well, almost.

Their intentions are good for the most part. These people believe in their distro to the same degree that Ubuntu people do. But they need to learn that the way to develop a distro is to foster community. You don’t have to be the best. You just have to be perceived to be where people congregate and feel welcome. You see, people are social animals and people want to belong and be part of something bigger than they are. Ubuntu understands this and plays this card better than anyone else.

As I write this people are congregating in Washington for the inauguration. The worlds’ collective eyes are focussed on Washington and people, not only in the United States want to be part of it. They have flooded into D.C. to be part of history. People have gathered in their living rooms with T.V. sets turned on. They know that tomorrow it is back to work and the job will be monumental. But all of that does not matter, because they are part of something that is, for at least this moment, significant.

If you tally up all of the people who say they were at Woodstock they would greatly exceed the actual numbers. It was a watershed moment and people want to be part of it, even if it is just in their consciousness. It is intrinsic in our nature to want tobe part of something.

Ideology comes first. It must speak to people and their needs. As they said in Field of Dreams, “Build it and they will come”.  The product takes second place and the ideology will only attract users to the degree that it includes them. Ubuntu’s Humanity to Others is significant because we are all part of others. It is about moving from being an outsider and being accepted by the community. When you cross that line, you don’t have to prove yourself worthy. You just are. It is not this way in all communities. That is where Ubuntu stands out from the rest of the Linux or GNU pack.

I don’t know if you could re-create Ubuntu’s success, but you could try. There can’t be another Woodstock, because there was only one moment in time like that. Ubuntu was there with the right recipe at the right time. Others tried to duplicate Woodstock and it ended up looking like Altamont. The Altamont promoters thought that it was about giving a free concert, but they missed the mark. Woodstock was more. It was about spontaneous sharing, caring and community. It was an original and there can never be another like it. Success is hard to duplicate, but if you want to try remember that it is all about community.

I don’t know about you, but I am already tired of the incessant columns about how Windows 7 is going to kill Linux and the responses that Linux cannot be killed or even will kill Windows 7. Even more troubling to me, personally, are the my-distro-is-better-than-yours columns. Like, who cares?

It is time to grow up and stop acting like children comparing the size of your privates.  Are you happy with what you have, or aren’t you? If you are happy, then stop writing about what the other guy has. If you aren’t happy, then do something about it. Get a decent OS. What we don’t need is a blow by blow account of what amounts to a p*ssing contest.

I am sure that Microsoft has opened the stable doors and given its teams of paid bloggers and columnists license to dis Linux in general. This is to be expected, but do we have to play into their hands? They want publicity for their moribund operating systems and will do anything to get attention. Vista has been deep-sixed so they need to have something to write about. Wouldn’t it be nice to prolong their agony and ignore them just a bit longer? What if Windows 7 came out and nobody cared? Don’t wait until it comes out. Stop caring now.

For all of you who manage feeds, give us a break and don’t post nonsense. This is just sensationalism. You are feeding the trolls. The more you post these articles the more you get more of the same. People want to get published and will give you more of what gets forwarded. They are counting on you to advertise for them.

I can’t remember the number of articles that I have read that proclaim Ubuntu, either something for it or against it, in the headline, usually sensationally worded, only to find that it isn’t about Ubuntu at all. Some guy took a double dose of his grumpy pills and is complaining about something or other not working to his satisfaction, often times, having nothing to do with said distro.

As of now, I will not read another article about Windows 7 or ones that unfairly characterize a distro in the headline or try to gain unfair advantage at another’s expense. If a feed persists in posting them then I will unsubscribe. I don’t have time to read stories about Windows 7, an OS that is not even released and has nothing to do with Linux, or GNU/Linux, if you prefer. I use what interests me and what works best for me. I am one happy camper. I don’t need to buy into someone else’s aggravation or to give them opportunities to rattle my chain.

So if you are like me and live in a state of eternal Linux (or GNU/Linux) bliss, then you should tell all the whiners, complainers and would-be doom and gloomers to take a hike. We don’t need to hear about it. Life is good. If you shut out all of the external noise, you can almost get some work done.

Disclaimer: Written while in a grumpy mood.

Linux: From Freedom to Fascism

It is Debian GNU/Linux, but it is Linux Mint and just plain old Ubuntu. But Canonical says Ubuntu is a Linux-based distro, not a GNU/Linux based distro. It is also PCLinuxOS and not PCGNU/LinuxOS. Redhat calls it Redhat Linux and the list goes on. So what is it GNU/Linux or Linux?

I have been criticised for using Linux by itself and have seen others being chastised for it elsewhere. You write a long article and the only comment from some people is that you failed to call it GNU/Linux. They are showing disdain for you and are telling you that they will not read what you write until you follow their terminology. I get it, but don’t like the bad attitude. Their cause suffers as a result of their rudeness and quite frankly I don’t care that they choose not to read what I write. I actually believe in freedom.

To be fair some people do call it GNU/Linux in preference to Linux, but is this accurate or even desirable? There is a GNU operating system and some of their work is used in today’s Linux-based operating systems. However, they did not complete their kernel. In fairness they deserve credit, but this does not automatically mean that they deserve to have it as part of the name. The name GNU/Linux assumes that they deserve equal billing and one would have to make a case for that before doing so. Once that was done we would have decide whether it was a desirable name. I will skip to this last point and deal with the other one later.

My first problem with GNU/Linux is that it is a dumb name, at least the GNU part. A name should have meaning that is recognisable and does not require explanation. It is like a joke. If you have to explain its meaning, then it is not a good joke. GNU means something to some people, but like all acronyms it is jargon and it means nothing to most people. By the way, it means GNU’s Not Unix. Get it? It is recursive. It is like an inside joke and not even a good one at that. It is a geek’s idea of what is a good name. It is not marketable. It is not memorable and it needs explanation. Many people wouldn’t even know how to pronounce it.

So to me, it can’t be GNU/Linux. It is not out of disrespect for the GNU folks or anyone else who has contributed to what we all use. It is out of common sense. GNU is a name for a loser of an operating system. Linux is hard enough to pronounce for people unfamiliar with it, without adding GNU to it. If the folks at GNU had come up with a better name then they might have won the name derby. They didn’t and in my mind they lost.

It is plain Linux to most people. It can be GNU/Linux to those who are determined to use it, but don’t expect it to catch on. It is your idea of a good name, not mine. Don’t believe me? Google “Linux” and count the number of times that you find GNU used before it and the number of times that you find Linux alone. Check out the over 300 distributions and see how many of them use GNU in the name. Face it. GNU/Linux is in the vast minority. Misguided though we may be, to the rest of the world it is Linux, not GNU/Linux. There is a reason for that. Linux is catchy and shows its Unix roots, without being wordy. I could find four or five distributions that use GNU in the name and the other roughly three hundred use just Linux.  If that is not convincing enough, remember that most developers are geeks. So it seems that even geeks recognise that GNU is an impediment to the adoption of their distribution.

Linux, strictly speaking, is the kernel. There is the Linux Foundation which is developing the kernel on an ongoing basis. There is also a GNU organisation who gave us the GPL and a Free Software Foundation. Check the GNU.org website and it says that GNU OS started in 1983 and “GNU’s kernel isn’t finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux.” You can check their site and get a full list of their contributions and they are substantial.

Most these contributions, the average person will never use themselves, but the coders use them and the coders give us Linux and the open source programmes that we like. Most of their programmes run from the terminal. I checked my installation and some are installed, but the vast majority are not and I have many more programmes installed than the average user. Everybody has the kernel installed. It is central to any operating system and even the GNU operating system claims to use the Linux kernel.

So what is the GNU operating system? Go to their site and find out. I guarantee that almost none would want to use it. Try to download it and there is no ISO, just a bunch of files that most of you have never heard of. If they produce something that we wouldn’t use why would we want to name it after GNU? This addresses the equal billing argument.

For me it is a no brainer. GNU lost the race for the kernel. Their work is rolled in with the Linux kernel, so they want some respect. I say give it to them, but because they chose a dumb name then they don’t deserve to have that as part of the name for the operating system. End of story for me.

This debate will continue because there is some bad blood. Richard Stallman has urged people not to follow Linus Torvalds and Torvalds has fired a few salvos in Stallman’s direction. People take sides and it gets emotional. I get that. It does not mean that Stallman or Torvalds is automatically correct. The truth can be somewhere in between. They are only people and fallible at that. I refuse to vilify or lionise anyone, even iconic figures like these, on the opinion of someone else.

Emotion can be an impediment to common sense. We should not base the name on something that is irrational or arbitrary. A name should be chosen carefully and with intent. It should not be the accidental result of merging two projects with dissimilar names. And why stop there? We should use the names of everybody who has ever contributed to produce Linux, if your goal is pay homage. However, if you want the name to catch on, then you need to have different mindset.

I have been told that because I believe in the right of someone to produce software and impose restrictions on the user, that I don’t believe in freedom. I don’t buy that either. People can produce what they like. It is a free world. People produce many products that I don’t use or even agree with.

I believe in free software as in free speech. That does not mean that there is no place for proprietary software. If I believe that others have the right to develop software that is proprietary, it does not mean that I believe less in software freedom. If you give rights to yourself, but exclude others from using those rights in their own way, then you do not believe in freedom. You believe in restriction.

Freedom of choice is also the freedom to choose wrongly or make decisions that we don’t agree with. If I can do it, then so should others be able to. That is the ethic that I live by in all things. A right is not a right unless it is universal. I believe in free speech. I do not agree with the way everyone uses that freedom, but recognise their right to say things that I disagree with. My freedom is also to not believe the things that people say. Similarly, you don’t have to use proprietary software, but can still extend them the freedom to produce it. That’s what choice is all about. Let the user decide.

That is where I disagree with the direction of some people in the GNU camp. They think that they should be able to act freely, but others should not. They want to dictate terms to others and that is precisely what people are doing when they insist that we all call it GNU/Linux. That is dictatorship. Any dictatorship, even a benevolent one, is contrary to the ideal of freedom. Imposing freedom just does not work. When you impose your will on another person, you don’t add to their choice, but you remove it.

So, now we come to my most important reason for my not calling it GNU/Linux. Some GNU people come across as fascists and I don’t think that this is what the free software movement is all about. The vision of these Linux fascists is narrow and their aspirations are wrong headed. They see things from top down. They have come up with the vision and they expect others to buy into it. I don’t accept that because of the way it is being presented.

The Debian social contract for example is fine in principle. However, social implies people and that implies democracy and the social contract is far from democratic. It is something dreamed up in isolation of the end users, on an organisational level. The principle is more important than the people for whom it supposedly exists. That is the essence of fascism. It is like saying, “We believe in freedom and to make sure that you are free we will force this document one you and if you don’t like it, then you can leave.”  Mussolini referred to fascism as Corporatism. It is where the corporate body or organisation takes precedence over individual rights.

If I am going to be part of anything, it has to be consensual. I have to feel a part of it. My voice has to count and that means that yours does as well. This is where I have a problem with GNU, the Free Software Foundation and  users who try to impose their views on others. Even if the things they espouse are desirable, it loses any value because it is being imposed.

I want people to think about what freedom means. Then if they say they believe in it then they should actually live by it. Allow people to act freely, exercising their freedom of choice, even if it is in ways that you don’t agree with. If you use the term GNU/Linux then don’t expect others to do so simply because you choose to. If you want to educate them then that is your business, but realise that in the end you may have to agree to disagree.

As for me, I will call it Linux or just plain Ubuntu, Fedora or whatever. I think that GNU/Linux will in the end be counter-productive and turn users off. Allow me this freedom and I will allow you to call it whatever you want.

By the way, the don’t like it when we call it open source. Their lexicon uses free software. Whatever. Ditto for that.

Note: Most people who call it Linux do not care and do not condemn people for calling it GNU/Linux. As such it is a one way street. Hence, my condemnation is directed one way.

I find that Ubuntu and most other distributions welcome diverse opinions and new users. They are accepting of others and do not make judgements based on words that we use. They could not care less what we call it, so long as we use it and it meets our needs. Does this mean that they believe less in software freedom? I think not. As such, these distributions are growing. It is not so much that they have something that is better, but that the community is more in tune with a multi-cultural world. Different is good and a difference in opinion is healthy.

In contrast some distributions are struggling and are losing users. They tend to be autocratic and the attitude seems to be, this it what we are, love it or leave it. Not surprisingly, that is a turn off and people are leaving. You can have a superior product, but if you don’t market it properly, then it will fold. I know; I once owned a Betamax. It is a tough lesson to learn, but history bears this out. Walk the walk and talk the talk.

I have tried to be fair, but opinions seldom are as they are value-laden in the end. Please remember, that this is not expressed as fact, but as one person’s opinion.

Ten Reasons Not to Like Linux (with rebuttals inline)

1. It’s not like Windows

This is a no brainer. Linux is not like Windows because it is meant to be an alternative. You don’t use an alternative and expect it to be not an alternative in the same way you don’t buy a Toyota and complain that it isn’t an Oldsmobile. If you want Windows, use Windows. If you want an alternative get used to it as an alternative.

In many ways Linux is like Windows. It has a graphical user interface that has a Desktop, icons, menus, toolbars, windows, etc. Superficially it can be made to look and work like Windows. Some distros have tried this. Look  into Xandros or Freespire if you want a distro that looks like Windows. You can also pimp any distro so that it looks more like Windows, if that is your intention.

The differences stop there. Linux offers choice. There are over 300 distributions. On top of that you have a choice of  desktops, desktop managers, window managers and decorations.  There are dozens of window managers alone. There are thousands of permutations and combinations.

So, the next time you find yourself thinking that Linux is not like Windows, celebrate that it is not Windows. Embrace the differences and make them your own.

2. It uses the commandline.

Many Linux users shun the commandline and never use it. The problem is that many power users like the commandline and when you ask for help they will give you a solution to your problem that involves using the commandline. If you are phobic of typing commands into a terminal window then make that clear in your request for help.

There are many good reasons to use the commandline. When you use a GUI, it is made to work graphically with the user interface standing between you and the commands that the mouse click elicits. In other words, when you use the commandline you are closer to the action since the computer understands at a much more basic level than even the commandline. It can be faster and more powerful, if you know what you are doing. If you don’t, you can mess your computer up in a hurry.

There are many good reasons to avoid the commandline. If you don’t understand what you are doing, it is a sure sign that you are out of your element. If you can’t remember commands and syntax because you rarely use the commandline then perhaps you should either commit them to memory or find a GUI that does the same thing. If you are a poor typist then using the commandline may not be for you.

The bottom line is that the commandline is a tool, a powerful one at that, but it is not the only tool in the toolbox.

3. Linux is for geeks.

This is true. However, there are Windows geeks and Mac geeks. Geekdom knows no bounds. Linux has its share of geeks, but there are many non-geeks in the community. The key is that there is a large community and it has many users just like you, no matter your level or interest.

The Linux community is not perfect, but it is very good. Most users go out of their way to encourage and help. The problem is that not everybody has good advice because the community is open. There is somebody who has the same problem and they can usually help, but others will lead you astray with good intentions, but little skill. You need to be wary and cross check advice. Make sure that the information is up-to-date.

Compared to Windows where users are frequently on their own, it is a big improvement. The problem is that you are in a vulnerable position when you have experienced a problem and are in a new operating system. You want a quick resolution. This can lead to impatience and impulsive action that you may later regret.

4. I used it once but had problems and went back to my old operating system.

Linux is evolving. Nothing is static. The kernel is being constantly developed. Distributions have aggressive release schedules, often with new versions every six months. This means that what you once tried is no longer what you can expect today.

It is no secret that Linux has matured. It is ready for most but not all users. If you need Windows programmes, then you may want to consider dual booting or running them using a Windows compatibility layer called Wine. Or you could investigate using Windows on a virtual machine using a programme such as VM Server or VirtualBox.

Gamers will find that many of their Windows games do not work in Linux. Dual boot is your best solution. There are quite a few Linux games. Some are actually quite good. You could also look into Cedega from Transgaming or Crossover from Codeweavers, the makers of Wine, for some game support in Linux.

5. My equipment is not supported.

If you have really new or really rare hardware, you may find some things will not work in Linux. This is because Linux is just starting to forge ties with OEMs and many things are reverse engineered to work in Linux. That’s the bad news. You can expect a bit of a delay and in rare cases things won’t work at all. But, this is true in Windows, too. Vista users have found that some equipment will not work and cannot be made to work.

The good news is that if it works, you won’t need a driver disk. Linux detects the hardware and installs the driver seamlessly. Once Linux is installed you don’t have to feed your computer with disks for an hour or more afterwards. You are done.

6. Linux is hard to use.

Hard is a relative term. Anything new is harder to use at first because you need to become familiar with it. You need to separate the unfamiliarity and then see what remains hard before you use this excuse.

Linux is modular. It is built differently. It loads differently. It is structured differently. Different does not mean bad. Linux is hierarchical. It has protected areas. These things exist for your protection and to make it work better.

One example of this is that Windows has a central registry. It is unprotected. If it becomes corrupted then you must repair it or re-install Windows. It can become large and fragmented, slowing your computer down. Linux has no central registry. It keeps its configuration files in individual text files in a protected area of the computer. If one becomes corrupted it would be rare since access is controlled and password protected. However, if it is damaged it would not affect the system, only one programme that can be removed and re-installed simply. It never becomes fragmented or slows your computer down.

Once you understand the underlying logic then what seemed hard to understand becomes logical and even advantageous. Don’t change your operating system back to Windows, just change your thinking. It is no longer hard, but stronger.

7. My Windows programmes won’t work in Linux.

Some will. Some will not. This was partially dealt with above when we discussed Wine and virtual machines. There are a few things to add here.

Linux is based on FOSS. Linux is really just the kernel. It also has much added to it to make it an operating system. There are many libraries and modules from the GNU Project. Then developers add their own things such as desktops, window managers and more to make a combination of things that make it unique. This is referred to as a distribution or distro for short. When you install a distribution such as Ubuntu, you are benefitting from the work of many people such as kernel developers, Gnome developers, and Canonical developers. In addition there are many people working on all of the libraries and programmes, maintaining repositories and overseeing the community.  It is a monumental effort.

Software is built in when you install a distribution. You get a web browser, an email client, a graphics editor, and an office suite with any distribution. You can add to the pre-installed programmes from the repositories which are part of most, but not all, distributions. These are collections for programmes and libraries that allow you to work more efficiently. They are centralized and managed for your convenience. All are virus free and you can install them in confidence. Almost all are free under the GPL or similar free licence. Most welcome your donations, but none require you to give anything. None is crippled, expires and few require you to agree to a EULA.

Free software does not mean bad. Many are superior to programmes that you might pay big money for. They are the work of some of the same people who programme for money by day. They are their pet projects and reflect their own interests and as such are a labour of love. A programme such as Cinelerra for example is used professionally and commercially to edit videos. There are many such programmes available to you for free. Many like Cinelerra have no Windows equivalent or equal.

Instead of looking back on what you don’t have open your eyes to a new world of free software. You don’t have to search for them or to compile them. All of the work is done for you by the maintainers of the distribution’s repositories.

Linux is a team effort and when you use Linux you become part of the team. Consider beta testing new versions and help out the projects by reporting bugs. You are not only an integral part, but you are the focus of each project as the work is done with users in mind, not profits.

8. I paid for Windows, so I might as well use it.

Most new computers come with Windows. Yes, you paid for it. In the future, consider that you may not have to pay for Windows at all. When you buy a new computer, you can ask the OEM for a refund as long as you do not open your Windows disks and reject the EULA that pops up when you turn on Windows for the first time. It is right there in the words that most people click through.

Reasons not to accept the agreement are many. It is your computer. You paid for it. You need to consent to what goes on it. The agreement that most people don’t read takes away some of your rights. Microsoft and other vendors have the right to snoop on you under the guise of protecting their interests. Microsoft has been known to install things on your computer without your knowledge or permission. Some users have had WGA pop up and annoy them constantly or in rare cases effectively disabled their computers.

Putting your own operating system on is a way of establishing your own boundaries. From that moment on you have full ownership and control. You don’t have to worry about DRM or WGA or many other things that plague Windows users. There is no re-booting, no nags, few EULAs to read and no updates without approval. In addition, maintenance is a breeze. You never need to defragment. You have no viruses or trojans to worry about. You can download and read email in confidence.

In addition, you are freed from guilt associated with software piracy. Everything is free so you don’t need to steal.  It is indeed a brave new world (in the Shakespearean sense, not Huxley).

9. Microsoft has been good to me.

Microsoft is a corporation and has had a virtual monopoly for over a decade. They have been the chief beneficiaries of their actions. Bill Gates got rich for a reason.

Microsoft also has not been a sterling corporate citizen. They have been convicted of breaking the law on several occasions and have not paid all of their fines and they still maintain their innocence despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Let’s face it. Microsoft is in it for themselves and not for you.

Microsoft treats users like lemmings. They lead and your duty is to follow. It is top down and centralized. Nothing is done with you in mind. It is all about how to maximize profits. I am not saying profits are wrong. I am saying don’t give them credit for things that aren’t true.

If it was about the user, then you would have a choice. Everything would be done to protect you and to make things more convenient. Windows offers little choice. It is wide open with no built in protection. It has frequently been rushed to market full of known security holes and exploits that will be later patched, making your computer an unstable patchwork, rather than a strong bedrock OS that it should be. Given their resources you would think that they could get it right just once, but they never have. You have to ask yourself why. The answer is that they want to get it out fast to make as much money as possible and to meet deadlines reached at some corporate level, probably determined by the marketing people instead of the software engineers closest to the action.

Microsoft has championed such causes as Trusted Computing which they allege is for the benefit of the user, but really is about giving hardware and software companies control over you and your computer that they do not have now. If implemented it would  allow them to impose restrictions on the user and even disable computers. Does this sound user centred?

This is the lamest of all excuses.

10. I have nobody to help me if things go wrong.

You are assuming the worst. Things can go wrong with any installation of any OS. It happens with Windows, OS/X and Linux. That does not mean that they will. Most of the time, installation is quick and flawless.

First off, Linux makes it easy to try before you buy into it. Most distributions run off  a Live CD or DVD, that will run from the disk just like it was installed on the hard drive, albeit slower. You can install programmes and make changes, but nothing will be saved since the disk is read only.

Ubuntu allows you to install Linux from inside Windows using WUBI. Just insert the Ubuntu disk in the drive while in Windows and it will reserve space on your C drive and install it as one big Windows file which will be mounted when you re-boot as a loopback device and operate just as if it was a separate partition. Canonical the company that makes Ubuntu will even pay the shipping costs of sending you a free disk. Windows will be the default OS when it re-boots and you can later remove Ubuntu from the Windows control panel, if that is your choice. You can also download WUBI as a small exe file and choose from Ubuntu or other Canonical distributions such as Kubuntu which is Ubuntu with KDE for a desktop instead of Gnome.

You can also install Linux to run inside Windows or do the reverse, install Windows to run inside Linux. You could use CoLinux or andLinux which install similar to WUBI, but you never leave Windows to use it. You could also use a virtual machine in either Windows or Linux to run the opposite OS.

The problem is that when you run Linux inside Windows you do not gain much because you still have the problems associated with Windows, such as BSODs, file corruption and disk fragmentation. When you run Windows inside Linux you get no fragmentation and Windows problems will never crash the Linux host.

The point here is that you can step into Linux gradually easing into it at first, but knowing that the sky is the limit as your knowledge and comfort level increase. Before you start you might want to look at some of the resources available to you on the internet and to see some potential problems and test them for yourself on the Live CD. Just use your favourite search engine and include Ubuntu or any other distribution in your query.

It is all about you and what works best for you. Windows is a choice. You don’t have to use it, just because that is what you have on your computer. You can choose an alternative or stick with Windows or OS/X. The decision should not be made lightly. You need to know what you are leaving behind and getting into. You can go part way or all of the way.

It is your computer and it is all about taking ownership and responsibility for it. Microsoft’s vision is that you own the computer, but they control it or should. That does not need to be the case. In Apple’s case this is even more extreme. They want to dictate terms and control hardware and software.

I am biased in favour of Linux, but I am also very competent in Windows, having used it extensively since it first came out. Before that I was a DOS user. Microsoft and I go back a long way. Ours was once a love hate relationship, now it isn’t even that. I neither love nor hate Microsoft or Windows. In fact, I seldom think about it until it crops up in my writing or when a Windows user asks for help. Lately, I find myself dreading using it for even an instant. My Windows friends and family members know that it is an imposition to ask for help. My distaste is obvious.

There is nothing that I miss about Windows. I am not a gamer and everything that I want to do, I can do in Linux or in a VirtualBox VM running Windows XP seamlessly in Kubuntu with KDE 4.2. Now that is cool! I get a shared desktop with a Windows bar on the bottom with full access to Windows programmes and a KDE panel at the top with full access to Linux applications. I can share devices, drag and drop and cut and paste.  I can even use all of the eye candy that I like such as Compiz-Fusion. The only problem is that I seldom use Windows at all so my VM sits idle for months at a time.

I can dual boot, but it is such a pain that I have to summon the courage to do it. It can take several re-boots and a good ten or more lost minutes before I can start to work due to months of updates.

If you use Windows and like it, that is good. Users should like what they feel comfortable with and use. If want something new then consider exploring the almost endless possibilities with free open source software.

Yes, this was a shameless attempt to promote Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular. I don’t care what you use, but I want you to be happy. Don’t settle for second best!

Ubuntu is the little distro that could. Now it is phenomenally successful so it is hard to see it as a little distro, but this wasn’t always the case. It started as an idea that grew into a philosophy that has shaped the distribution and the rest is history as they say.

Let me start with how I came to use Ubuntu. Several years ago I was using MEPIS. I was very happy with it and I still like it. If there was no Ubuntu, I would be using MEPIS.  In 2004, I was shown a brand new Linux distro called Ubuntu. I installed it and dabbled in it for awhile, but I saw nothing that would pull me away from MEPIS which I had been using since its inception the year before.  Previously I had used Fedora with Gnome and Mandrake with KDE.

I had used Gnome and I was not fond of it. This may partly account for my early dislike of Fedora and certainly did nothing to warm me to Ubuntu. Ubuntu also used sudo and I was unsure if I could get used to that. It had a plain look to it, with lots of earthy tones. It was appealing, but it soon became tiring. I stayed in MEPIS, but continued to use Ubuntu on the side.

What won me over in the end, was not Gnome or the look, but the philosophy. I was pulled into the idea that Linux could be made simpler. That there could be an operating system for humans struck a chord with me. You see, the computer is a piece of hardware. It is not overly friendly by itself. In fact it can be cold and mechanical. On one end is me, a human. The interface on the other end has to relate to me or I lose interest. It has to be warm, welcoming and friendly. This is something that Ubuntu has been able to capture that no other one has been able to do.

I have used every version of Ubuntu, but I only began to take it seriously with Feisty. Since that time, it has stayed on my computer. I have run all of the alphas and betas of every version. I have run both 64 bit and 32 bit with every possible desktop. I have used WUBI, the Live disk and the alternate disk. The only thing that I have not tried is the server version and that I don’t have need for. What all of these have in common is unique. I feel that Ubuntu is not just an operating system and that I am not simply a user.

Whenever I install Ubuntu, I connect with it in a way that is difficult to explain. It is familiar like old friends, but it always offers something new and exciting. The familiarity that it builds on is comforting and makes me feel at home. The new things they add every six months are exciting. Even when they do not work as well as I hope, I can forgive them because you don’t criticise family. You make helpful suggestions and encourage, instead.

I install many distros. I have twelve partitions for Linux distributions on my desktop computer and more on my eeePC. Nothing comes close to that feeling I get with Ubuntu. When I recently installed SimplyMEPIS 8, I loved the new look and I was excited for Warren Woodford that he had taken MEPIS back to where it belonged. However, it did not feel like home to me, even though I had used MEPIS daily for two years. When I installed Fedora 10, I loved the new look. The detail and the graphics were beyond compare. It was fast and had many new features, but it left me cold. It was clinical and sterile. It felt like engineers had made it. To me Fedora is a GM car, but Ubuntu is a foreign import. It is very functional, but has traces of the exotic. That is what I like, something very practical but with some allure and mystery. Many distros can capture the practical, but miss out on the part that gives it impact.

What is more important is that Ubuntu is like me. It is not perfect. It is enigmatic and even contradictory at times. It is driven to perfection and whether or not it gets there is secondary. It is the journey that is important. For Ubuntu, the journey is not something you do alone. It is about enabling me, involving me and empowering me. I feel part of the Ubuntu community and would feel that way even if I did not take an active part. The fact that I use Ubuntu and am active in forums and blog about it gives me an investment in seeing that Ubuntu works. I feel a sense of ownership that causes me to become a better member in that community and of the larger Linux community. That is why I test Ubuntu and run all of their alphas and betas. I want for it to succeed.

I don’t know if I will always use Ubuntu, but it will always have a special place in me.  It isn’t that I am fickle. I just use what must feel like a pair of comfortable shoes. There may come a day when I will change or Ubuntu will change and that will no longer be the case that we will mesh so completely. I hope that this is not the case.

I am aware that many people use Ubuntu. Its popularity is a non-issue with me. I tend to shun trends, so it isn’t about using what everyone else is. I like to think that I got on early enough that I am not seen as jumping on the bandwagon.  The size of the community is a big issue for me. I like people. I like diversity. I like the idea that people are all different and that so many users can find something that appeals to them in one distribution. I also like the idea that Ubuntu is diverse. It has many different versions based on architecture and desktop. It is an attempt to offer a little of something to everybody. I like that Canonical is reaching out and is not excluding anyone.

I am a heavy user. I have everything possible installed. To me Linux is to be enjoyed to the max. I don’t believe in limits or half measures. Ubuntu has so many programmes in its repositories that I can explore to my heart’s content. I have yet to find anything that I can’t install easily. Yes, I could use (and have used) Gentoo and compile my own, but that takes time, time when I could be exploring.

Ubuntu is not for everybody. Some of you will be sure to tell me why you don’t use Ubuntu. I have no doubt of that. Please feel free. I am telling why I use it. That makes it a personal statement. Experience of one user cannot be transferred to another or to another computer even. Experience is as unique as is each individual. Which in itself makes another statement about Ubuntu. It is different things to different people.

Despite the criticism that comes with being number one, it is still attracting many new users. It is always under the microscope of public scrutiny and as such it draws its share (more than its share sometimes) of criticism. Some of it is fair and some of it is not. Many people like to sensationalize their blogs and columns by putting Ubuntu in the title, even if the article could apply to any distro or if it just touches on Ubuntu. Using Ubuntu in the title draws attention, so they do it knowing that it will get more exposure. As they do this Ubuntu gets even more publicity and people want to know what Ubuntu is. Detractors forget that any publicity is good and when you criticize based on weak evidence you are actually doing Ubuntu a favour.

So Ubuntu has become the little distro that could. What started with an idea has grown into a movement. Ubuntu may be part hype, but that won’t do anything if you can’t deliver. That initial idea and the philosophy that grew out of it filled a void and scratched an itch with enough people that it is what it is today. That alone is a testimony to what people want in a distribution which is to say most people aren’t static and they don’t expect their operating system to be.

There are other communities out there scratching different itches. Any one of them could have had the same success. Some did not want it. Some did not see the opportunity. Some simply are happy where they are. That is all well and good as long as they do not act out of jealousy and criticise for the sake of it.

The important thing for all users is to find a place where you feel comfortable. For me, it has to be more than just having a good operating system. As I said, I am prepared to live with faults as long as I can feel that I am part of a wider consensus.

Linux is evolving. It isn’t anyone thing that can be easily defined. Ubuntu is evolving as well. I like that it isn’t about the end product, but about the process. Some people have a fixed idea of what Linux is and their choice of distro reflects that. This is fine for them, but it isn’t for me. Linux is not rigid, but fluid in nature. Likewise it is not static. It is always changing just as the times are.

When people criticise they are often coming from a different perspective. Their worldview is foreign to me. They have a rigidity and hardness that I cannot relate to. Their outlook is hardline and so is their distro of choice. There is only one way for them. Everyone else is wrong. To disagree with them is to be told you are ignorant or worse. Their outlook is black and white. There are several black and white distros in my opinion, but Ubuntu is not one of them. It is full of colour and shades of grey.

Ubuntu is not perfect and in its imperfection it becomes special. It stands out from the pack. That is why people are attracted to it. It is malleable and willing to compromise. That is why I have great hope for Ubuntu and a small concern. My hope is that it always stays true to its principles and my fear is that someone will try to push it in another direction and that it will become a wannabe distro like so many others.

Background to this article:

In his recent blog Jono Bacon challenged us all to write what Ubuntu means to us. I take this to heart, not out of duty, but out of respect for what Ubuntu has accomplished and how it has enabled me, an ordinary user.

I use Ubuntu, but I should qualify that. I don’t always use Gnome. Right now, I am in KDE 4.2, so I am using Kubuntu. However, my eeePC has Ubuntu 8.10 installed and that is turned on. You get the idea. I use multiple computers with multiple desktops, all from Canonical. In this they share a common philosophy.

My philosophy:

Don’t bother commenting if you use offensive language as I won’t post it. Feel free to disagee. I make no pretensions of being correct. I am expressing my opinion and my feelings only. Expressing them does make them right.

Everything is what it is. Some people try to make things into things they are not or never intended to be. This is the source of most of life’s disagreements. In the final analysis few of the things we believe are facts. There is absolute truth, but we don’t have all of the information so can’t know it. All of us live with delusions, some are of our own making and some are imposed upon us. I am happy in my delusions and hope that you are too.

When criticising, please put some thought into it, rather than calling me names or making obvious observations such as I am wordy. That goes without saying. Read the About comment. I am not paid for my rants. I do it strictly for my own enjoyment or as a form of self-expression. You could do the same, so if you feel a rant of your own coming on, feel free to write it elsewhere and link to it here.