Switching to Slackware

I've had my Dell Inspiron since 2004, and it's worked very, very well for me (it's still going strong), but I can't deny that it's too slow and old for many modern operating systems. I've been running Kubuntu Hardy on it for a while as that was the last version which shipped with KDE3.x but I was feeling the pain of running an older release, so I started hunting around for a replacement. KDE4 is just too heavy for this computer, so that wasn't an option.

I've tried a number of Ubuntu derivatives, including CrunchBang Linux and Xubuntu, but Xubuntu was too slow and I didn't really get on too well with CrunchBang (too basic for my liking). What I really wanted was a fairly default XFCE desktop (I really like the base XFCE desktop and it's not as bloated as Gnome or KDE).

Unable to find an Ubuntu derivative that really met my requirements, I decided to look elsewhere. I was considering Debian with XFCE as I have had a lot of good experiences with Debian-based distros outside Ubuntu, including sidux and SimplyMEPIS, but I felt like a little distro-hopping as I haven't done that for a while (since my trusty Philips X58 died at Christmas time I've only had one Linux machine, that being the old Dell, so I've relied on my MacBook a lot). I've always been interested in the sound of Slackware, and I had a copy of Slackware 13 that came with Linux Magazine, so I thought I'd give that a go. I'm familiar with the installer so the only issues I was likely to have were with configuring my wireless network. Fortunately, Slackware nowadays ships with wicd included on the disc, and I'm familiar with this. Once I'd finished the install (not hard by any means, just more involved than, for example, Ubuntu's installer), I booted it up and installed wicd from the DVD, and it worked straight away.

I've heard that Slackware has a lot less bloat than most other Linux distros, and my experience certainly bears that out. Compared to Xubuntu, my new Slackware install with XFCE is lightning-fast. As of right now I'm running slackpkg to update my system and while it may not be as flexible and powerful as apt, and not have a nice graphical front-end, it's perfectly usable
and I'm happy with it. I'm used to sudo from both Ubuntu and OS X so I've set that up, and all in all I'm very pleased with my new system.

I'll let you know how I get on with it over time, but for now I think Slackware is a great distro for what I want on this machine, and one that'll help me learn more about Linux. Don't get me wrong, I still love Ubuntu, but Slack has its place too, and I have my own reasons for liking both.

INX

I stumbled across an incredibly useful tool the other day, which I thought I'd share with you. INX is a custom Ubuntu respin that lacks an X window server. In other words, it's a command line only system.
Now, this may at first make you think "meh, what can that do?", but INX sets out to prove you wrong by letting you do virtually everything you can do from a GUI! Including browse the web graphically, read email, listen to internet radio even watch videos!
INX is two things: First of all, it's a great demonstration of just how much you can actually do from the command line. Second, it's a great learning aid. It includes loads of tutorials on how to use the command line. I learned a load of things from one go, including how to use GNU Screen.
If you're even remotely serious about learning to use Linux properly, I highly recommend grabbing a copy from the link above!

Ubuntu causes girl to drop out of college? Errr...

I expect by now most of you will have seen this article, about a young woman who bought a new Dell laptop, but for some reason got it with Ubuntu preinstalled, and was complaining that it had forced her to drop out of college.

My first thought was how? Dell's website doesn't exactly make show Ubuntu prominently, you really have to go searching round for it to find it. Also, it has a pretty big disclaimer saying that if you buy one of these computers, you won't be getting it with Windows. Dell certainly don't sneak it onto your computer.

Second, it's certainly not Ubuntu's or Dell's fault. If she'd bought a Mac, for example, the Verizon setup CD probably wouldn't work on that either - even now Macs aren't always well supported.

I don't really blame the girl, although she REALLY should have asked for help earlier, and not gone to the TV station! If she'd logged into the Ubuntu Forums plenty of people would have been willing to help. Hell, I would have been willing to help someone in that position myself, it's certainly not a terribly hard issue!

That girl represents the overwhelming majority of people who use computers for just surfing the net, emailing and writing a few documents. Ubuntu can perform very well in that role, however most Internet Service Providers are still very Windows-centric. I'm sure many Mac users experience these kinds of issues too. So getting broadband working using ISP-provided hardware and software in anything other than Windows can be an uphill struggle.

I guess the issue really here is more about ISP's than end users or operating systems. I truly despise the setup CD's used by most ISP's. Why install software you don't need to use? It's not hard to configure a broadband connection if someone just gives you the information you need.
Here's what I think ISP's need to do:

1. Ditch those stupid USB DSL modems most ISP's use. On Windows you normally need to install a driver to use them, whereas Linux and Macs will generally either work straight away with them or won't work. A much better option is something that connects via Ethernet. As a general rule, it won't require any drivers to work on any OS you wish. More and more broadband packages include a wireless router, so just make this a decent Ethernet one rather than a USB one. If they don't need to install a driver, that's a whole step in the process gone, like that! Could cut down on tech support calls in one stroke.
   
2. Ditch the automated configuration software and use a web interface. These are generally just as user-friendly, but don't require you to install anything. My D-Link wireless router has a web interface and I can configure it on my MacBook, or one of my Linux machines if I wish. If the ISP provides the router, make it one with a web interface, and have the setup instructions concentrate on that router, but provide information that's sufficient to cover any router. Also, what if people are going to be using the connection primarily with something other than a computer, such as a PlayStation 3? This way, no matter whether they use Windows, a Mac, Ubuntu, Slackware, Solaris, FreeBSD or a PS3, they can get online.
   
3. Get rid of automated setup CD's for Internet connections. Every remotely user-friendly OS, Ubuntu included, has its own wizard for setting up an Internet connection. Give people the information they need to do it, and let them do it. I really think one of the reasons people have problems with computers is over-zealous hardware and software suppliers trying their best to hide every last little detail, even filling in a few numbers and ticking a few boxes.
   

I'm all for making things easy to use, but end users should not be spoon-fed. It makes more sense to me to give people the information they need and let them get on with it. Configuring a router via a web interface if you have all the information you need on a sheet of paper is no harder than filling in a form online, which anyone with half a brain can do. If you can join Facebook, you can configure your router if someone gives you the information you need.

Instead people get told to put in the CD, run it and attach the modem. They expect it to work straight away, and if it doesn't are lost, because every last detail has been hidden from them so they don't know where to turn next. If they have input those details themselves, they can go back and see if they have entered something wrongly.

I appreciate there are many people who don't want to learn the technical details. Fine, I don't want to force them to learn. But we should be trusting people to input a few details on their own, rather than pushing everything out of sight.

A new distro for my Asus Eee PC

For a while now, I've been dissatisfied with the Xandros installed on my Asus Eee PC. It's quite easy to use, but for an intermediate Linux user such as myself who's a bit more comfortable with getting my hands on the command line, it's a bit frustrating. It's slow and unwieldy, lacks many of the development tools I wanted such as gcc, and just doesn't meet my needs, so I was considering alternatives. Unfortunately, I went for the cheapskate's 2GB version, so my options for a replacement were severely limited. This is too small to run Ubuntu, which would be my first choice, so I had been tinkering with Minibuntu, customising it to add everything I want, but it was difficult to get it installed on the Eee without a USB CD drive.
I'd been tinkering with Sidux, a live CD based on Debian Sid. Being Debian-based, it's quite accessible to someone familiar with Ubuntu, and it also has great hardware detection thanks to the great fw-detect utility. It also has easy installation of the Madwifi drivers for the Atheros wireless card (as used in the Eee). While the regular KDE version of Sidux was too big, it also offers an Xfce version that clocks in at around 450MB on the disc, which when installed comes to around 1.3GB, which is enough to fit on the Eee 2G AND leave around 512MB for a swap partition. Also, it has an easy-to-use USB installer, so there was an easy way to install it on an Eee. So for a while I was considering putting it on the Eee.
This morning I finally decided to bite the bullet and install it. First of all, I used the dd command to image the Eee's flash drive and save a copy of the image to my 4GB SD card so I can restore it if necessary. Then I plugged in my USB pendrive with Sidux Xfce installed on it, and ran the installer.
Once it was installed it booted fine, and I connected it to my wireless router via Ethernet, then ran fw-detect, which told me to run the m-a a-i madwifi command as root to install the Madwifi driver. I then rebooted it and used the Ceni tool to get my wireless connection working. And that was it - it's now working flawlessly, and starts the wireless connection every time it boots up!
Sidux Xfce works great - Iceweasel is a lot faster than Firefox 2 in the default Xandros install, which is the main reason I wanted to switch. I'm very happy with Sidux Xfce, and it makes my Eee a lot more responsive and powerful, it's just a great distro for the Eee. I just wish I'd done this ages ago rather than struggling with Xandros for so long.
Has anyone else got a distro they've been using on the Eee that they want to recommend?

Could Linux be a better gaming OS than Windows?

Linux and Mac users alike will both know that Windows has by far the lion's share of the computer gaming market. Now, you could buy a console, but there are certain types of games (mainly RTS and things like that) which don't often seem to appear on consoles, and are limited to Windows, so by and large if you want to play these types of games you're limited to using Windows. So Windows is currently the only reasonable choice for if you want to play this type of game, as well as many others. A colleague of mine who is a hardcore PC gamer has also told me that FPS games are better suited to the PC.

However, I believe that from an architectural point of view, Windows is not the best platform for gaming. I know that many devoted PC gamers will spend a lot of time, money and effort building a PC designed to get the absolute best performance out of the components. To me, it then seems an incredible waste to then install Windows (especially Vista) on it. Even with several different versions available, it's not possible to optimise Vista to get the absolute best out of it.

Consider this: Sim City Societies requires 512MB RAM for XP, and 1GB for Vista! Processor-wise, it needs 1.7 GHZ for XP and 2.4GHz for Vista! That's a staggering difference, and can easily make the difference between someone being able to run a game on existing hardware, and needing something new.

The point is, Vista, even with several different versions, is essentially a one-size-fits-all operating system. It's not designed to get the best out of your hardware. A lot of components can't be removed (IE, Windows Media Player etc) and replaced with something lighter.

I therefore believe that if it were better supported with native games, Linux has the potential to be a far better operating system for gaming, especially for hardcore gamers. Here's my reasoning:

1. Lighter footprint: Pretty much any Linux distro is lighter in terms of system resources than Windows XP or Vista. You'd very likely get better performance out of a fairly mainstream distro like Ubuntu or Fedora than even XP, let alone Vista. And there are plenty of distros a lot lighter than these.
2. Customisability: Many Windows applications can't be removed, as stated above. Pretty much anything in Linux can be removed, so desktop-wise you could drop Gnome or KDE in favour of IceWM or Fluxbox, remove Compiz etc to get more performance out of it - after all, the desktop doesn't matter when you're playing Crysis. And that's just with mainstream distros as mentioned above - something like Arch Linux enables you to go a lot further.
3. Freedom to compile system components yourself: If you take the time to compile applications specifically for your hardware, you can get a much faster system. I've never tried Gentoo, but I'm aware that it basically compiles every last component for you from scratch, letting you optimise it for every piece of hardware (for instance, you can choose to optimise the kernel for your processor, rather than using one compiled to work on any x86 or amd64 processor), and giving a truly staggering speed boost. Well, isn't that exactly what gamers want? And if they're willing to spend so much time and effort on building it, isn't it worthwhile to take a bit more time to compile everything in order to get the most out of it?

At present, I still think Linux lacks somewhat as a gaming platform, despite the presence of things like Wine, Cedega and Crossover. Many of these things involve some system overhead, making games slower than they would be running native games.

Of course, there's one massive barrier to the production of native Linux games: DirectX. This is a big barrier. What might happen to change that:

1. OpenGL: OK, it doesn't provide as much functionality, but I've got to mention it.
2. Developers abandoning DirectX: Might happen, but doubtful. Can't see any reason why this might happen.
   
3. The creation of an open source implementation of DirectX: I believe Wine goes some way to doing this, but it's not exact. I'm thinking something that is to DirectX what Mono is to .NET.
4. An alternative: Who knows?

I admit I don't know much about DirectX, so much of what I've just written is pure speculation. However, I remain convinced that, at least for hardcore PC gamers, Linux has the potential to be a better operating system than Windows if it were better supported.

What do you think? Am I right or wrong? Are you a PC gamer who'd love to be able to use Linux, or do you think it'd be awful for gaming, even if it was better supported?

Ubuntu is easier to use than a Mac - discuss!

Ever since I bought my MacBook nearly two weeks ago, I've found it a bit of a struggle to get used to. I've used Windows XP and Vista, as well as MANY Linux distros and a few other Unix-like OS's using many different desktops - Gnome, KDE, Xfce, Icewm, E17 and Fluxbox, among others, and the OS X desktop is the hardest one I've ever had to get used to.
Add to that the fact that I've found it a pain to get used to the method of installing things, and I've come to the following conclusion:
A modern beginner-oriented Linux distribution such as Ubuntu is considerably easier to use than a Mac.
Now, hear me out. These are the points I've found where Linux is easier to use:

1. The desktop. Ubuntu, for instance, has Applications, Places and Systems on the top panel by default, and the Application menu is broken down into categories so it's always easy to track down what you want, and other desktops such as KDE and Xfce are similarly easy to navigate. If you want a launcher, you can install Gnome Do as it's available in Hardy. By comparison, a Mac has no equivalent menu for launching applications. OK, the Dock is pretty prevalent, but it only shows a subset of applications, and if you aren't familiar with them then the only way that you can find out what does what is by trying it. And yes, you can open them in Finder, but that means opening one application to open another, which is a bit of a waste of time. Spotlight is OK, but it takes a bit of getting used to - it's not as good as either Katapult in KDE or Gnome Do in Gnome. Also, it's tiny and hidden away in a corner, while both Katapult and Gnome Do are big, friendly launchers that appear dead in the centre of the screen. To get something comparable on a Mac, you need Quicksilver.
   
2. Installing new software. In Ubuntu, you can open Add/Remove Applications, pick out what you want and install it, or you can use Synaptic to get a list of everything you can install, and again can just pick out what you want, and with a few clicks whatever you want will be installed. By comparison, on a Mac you have to go to the web page, download whatever it is you want, then mess around dragging it into a folder, then you have to delete the dmg file from your desktop.
3. Compiling from source. It's rare to have to compile from source these days, and with Ubuntu you're more likely to see new versions available in the repositories, so you probably have to do so less than on a Mac. And if you do, it's made easier to remove it later by installing the checkinstall package. By using checkinstall instead of make install, you create a deb package which can be easily removed using the package manager if necessary. As far as I can see, there's no equivalent to this on a Mac.
4. Out of the box functionality. A Mac does "just work" quite well. But so does Ubuntu. I've only EVER had two problems in using Ubuntu or Kubuntu - one was the fact that my wireless card had a driver which didn't support WPA, so I had to use Ndiswrapper to get it working with the Windows drivers. The other was a DNS problem which was to do with my router. I've never had to mess around with my X.org or recompile my kernel, or install any other drivers. And this is on an OS that didn't come preinstalled! To be a truly fair comparison you'd have to compare both preinstalled and installing it yourself on your own machine, as only a "like-to-like" comparison is really fair. A machine that comes with Ubuntu preinstalled "just works" as much as a Mac does, whereas building a hackintosh is MUCH harder than getting Ubuntu working on another machine, and not many non-Apple machines will work at all with OS X, whereas most will work with Ubuntu.
5. Greater range of preinstalled applications. OK, apps like iMovie, PhotoBooth and Garageband are fun to mess around with, but they are the ONLY ones that don't have equivalents preinstalled in Ubuntu. Ubuntu has more useful things, such as the OpenOffice suite, Evolution (which includes a calendar), the Pidgin IM client (which supports more different protocols than iChat does), The GIMP etc. And it's better supplied with games - there's about five or six, whereas a Mac has chess only!
   
6. Better support for third-party media players. iPods are pretty well supported out of the box in Ubuntu or Kubuntu, as are many other music players, as both Rhythmbox and Amarok have wide-ranging support for third party devices. By comparison, trying to get a third-party device working in OS X is likely to involve having to install new software, if it will work at all.

These are the ones I can think of - no doubt plenty of people will be able to suggest other reasons. What do you think? Am I right? As always, please keep it civil, and don't spout advertising slogans. Seriously, I've had enough of "A Mac just works!", it's not a convincing argument!
And if you're a Mac fan - this is not an attack on OS X, having used it I do think it's a good OS, and constructive criticsm benefits Apple because it shows them where they could improve.

Wubi

Today I decided to try out Wubi on my Windows Vista machine. For the uninitiated, it's a great new way of installing Ubuntu from within Windows. You just boot up as usual, then run umenu.exe from the disc and go through the menu options to install it. If you then reboot your system, you'll be able to choose between Windows and Ubuntu. If you select Ubuntu, it will be installed for you and you can then boot straight into it. While it's not quite the same as a normal install, it's a lot more convenient as you can later uninstall it from within Windows. I've tried dual-booting in the past but found it a pain - this is a lot more straightforward.

I installed Xubuntu, and I was impressed with how well it worked. Then, on a whim I decided to skin it to look like a Mac, using Mac4Lin. I had a lot of trouble with this, so I decided to switch it to Ubuntu instead by uninstalling the Xubuntu desktop and installing the Ubuntu desktop in its place. After a couple of hours work I had pretty much nailed it.

I'm very impressed with the end result. It's not exactly the same, but it is pretty close - see what you think:


I think I'm going to keep this Ubuntu install on here as I have in the past been using VirtualBox as a test bed for messing around with Linux, but that's somewhat limited. I think this will be better for tinkering, and also so I have a Gnome-based install to play with - KDE is great, but it will no doubt do me good to check out what Gnome offers as well. Also, that's the computer that my music is on so I've installed Amarok and set Ubuntu up to mount my Vista partition automatically so I can listen to music in Linux.

All in all, Wubi is very impressive. Only problem I've had is when I installed Gnome Do - it seems to be a real memory hog, worse than Firefox ever was. Anyone else had this problem?

5 Linux distributions that rival OS X for looks

Mac OS X has a reputation as the most visually pleasing operating system around today. Fans often decry other operating systems as looking pathetic by comparison. Well, I beg to differ. Many of these people's only other experience of using computers is with Windows, which has never been strong in terms of appearance. Linux has come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years, and many distributions now offer an extremely visually pleasing desktop, one that (dare I say it) approaches and possibly even exceeds OS X in terms of looks.

Linux has also had several different desktops available, which I think helps as there's a degree of competition between them. Also, it's highly configurable - don't like something, you can change it! Even a distribution like Ubuntu, which has a relatively tame desktop by default, needs only a little configuration to transform it into a real looker.

So, to perhaps open a few people's eyes, I've done a round-up of five of the most impressive Linux desktops available today. I've deliberately stuck to distributions which can be booted in LiveCD mode, so that if you're curious, you can try them out without needing to be installed. I've also avoided all distributions that aren't free to download, which unfortunately does leave out some great ones like Elive.

Some of you may find that these desktops are a lot better than you might have thought. If you're a Mac user, you may want to give some of these a try to see how they stack up against OS X. While I'm not looking to necessarily convert anyone, there is a tendency for Mac users to dismiss anything else as looking rubbish by comparison, which is often just a knee-jerk reaction. By writing this post, I'm hoping that perhaps a few people will see their preconceptions challenged.

So, without further ado, here's my round up of five Linux desktops that give OS X a run for its money:

PCLinuxOS

PCLinuxOS has a well-deserved reputation as a good distribution for beginners, because it includes many of the multimedia codecs that other distributions can't for legal reasons. It has a great range of applications, with plenty more available from the repositories.

It's also got a strikingly beautiful desktop:



Also, like most modern Linux distributions, it includes Compiz:



There's many good reasons for PCLinuxOS's popularity with Linux newbies, and this desktop is clearly one of them! It also includes a great "Copy2ram" feature when booting from the disc that allows you to load the whole OS into memory if you have 1GB or more of RAM, providing an incredibly fast system.

gOS Space

This distribution is another good newbies distro, being based on the extremely newbie-friendly Ubuntu distro. Of all these desktops, gOS Space is the one that owes the most to OS X, but the philosophy behind it is different, with its emphasis on web apps instead of the desktop.

Again, Compiz is included for desktop effects.

gOS Space is a distribution that's easy to use and beautiful to look at. Its use in the MyMiniPC will no doubt expose it to people who wouldn't otherwise consider Linux as an option.

OpenGEU

One relatively obscure, but extremely beautiful Linux desktop is Enlightenment, version 17 of which has been in development for many years. While it's not yet been officially released, it's still complete enough that it's used in several distros. Probably the most striking of these is OpenGEU, formerly known as Geubuntu. Like gOS Space, it's based on Ubuntu, but it uses elements of the Gnome and Xfce desktops to fill in the gaps in Enlightenment. And it looks awesome, with animated wallpapers and bling aplenty. Check out the default theme, Sunshine:

It also comes with a second theme, which I prefer, namely Moonlight:


This desktop has to be seen to be believed - it's truly astounding!

Dreamlinux

Dreamlinux is a distribution that hails from Brazil. Like gOS, the layout takes a degree of inspiration from OS X, but the overall look is distinctively its own:



It has a choice of desktops available - either Gnome or the lightweight Xfce, yet maintains a consistent look between the two and manages to squeeze both onto one CD. It also includes a very handy utility to install it to a USB flash drive, so you can carry it anywhere!

It includes Compiz, and the Emerald theme manager, so it's very easy to customise it to get a distinctive look in a matter of minutes:



It also has Avant Window Navigator, an excellent dock bar. This includes the DCP Control Panel, where you can easily adjust the settings for Compiz, Emerald and AWN to get your desktop looking the way you want it.

Linux Mint

This distribution is based on Ubuntu, but is made even more user-friendly thanks to the fact that, like PCLinuxOS, it includes multimedia codecs by default. The desktop isn't glitzy like some of the other distros I've mentioned, but has an understated elegance of its own:


It also includes Compiz out of the box, so you can easily get the cube effect going in no time! Linux Mint is a tremendous distribution for those who don't want to get bogged down in the technical details but like an attractive desktop that's easy to use. It's always my first choice for a recommendation to Linux newbies.

I'm also going to make special mention of the KDE4 desktop. At the moment, only one distribution (Kubuntu Hardy) offers a KDE4 desktop, and it's not very mature at the moment, as many of the applications for KDE have not yet been ported to KDE4. But it shows a lot of promise:

All of these distributions are freely available, so if you like the look of one, then just click on the link to take you to the website, where you can download an ISO image and burn it to disc to try. I know that some Mac users hate having to use Windows if they're at a friend or relative's house, so if you like the look of one of these, you may want to keep a copy handy to use as an alternative under those circumstances. Also, Linux has the same kind of resistance to viruses and malware as OS X, so you have those advantages as well - always worth having if you're going to use a computer that could have all kinds of junk on it! Live CD's can also be handy if your computer won't boot due to problems and you need to use it in a hurry.

By reading this article and perhaps trying one or two of these, I hope you'll find that Linux has a lot more going for it on the desktop than perhaps you realised!

Linux Stickers

I forgot to mention this earlier, but back at the end of February I sent the following email to Linux Format (a UK magazine for Linux users, and far and away the best of the lot if you ask me):

I've been using Kubuntu for nearly a year now, and Linux Format has been an invaluable resource to me for that time. Thanks for a great mag!
I recently took the "Designed for Windows XP" sticker off my Dell Inspiron, as it seemed silly to have it on there when I haven't had Windows on there for so long, and I found myself thinking about how nice it would be to have a Kubuntu or Ubuntu sticker instead, or even just a Linux one. I expect they are probably given away at conferences, but I've not been to one, nor I suspect have many Linux users. Have you thought about giving away a sheet of stickers for various distros free with one issue so we can show off our distro of choice to all and sundry?

Imagine my surprise when it was actually printed in the May issue! What's more, I got the June issue today and there are three other letters adding their vote to it! Not to mention a thread on their forums about it. Guess a lot of people would like to be able to get rid of the "Designed for Windows XP" stickers!

Linux From Scratch

I first started experimenting with Linux in February 2007, and tried loads of distros before eventually settling on Kubuntu. Although I was using Kubuntu Edgy for about a month, I wasn't able to connect to the Internet, either wirelessly or by Ethernet until I switched to Feisty the day that was released, so I take the launch date of Feisty as the date I started using Linux as my main operating system.

So, now that I've switched to Hardy, I've been using Linux for a little over a year now. In that time, I've learned a lot. Thanks to my experimentation with VirtualBox, I've been able to try more distros than I care to name, and I'm confident that I could easily use a more complex distro such as Debian, having tried Etch in VirtualBox and liked it. I have tried Gentoo, but that won't boot in VirtualBox for some reason - anyone know why? Slackware was good as well, but I struggled a little with it.

But for a while I've had a hankering to try something else:Linux From Scratch. For the uninitiated, LFS is essentially a project that describes how to build your own custom GNU/Linux system from scratch. It can be done from an existing system, the Linux From Scratch live CD (which includes the software and manuals you need), or another live CD such as Knoppix. It sounds pretty cool, and I've heard that you can learn an awful lot from making your own custom install.

Has anyone else done this before? Was it hard? And do you think that after 1 year, it's likely that I've got enough Linux experience to do it? I'd love to hear from you if you have created your own custom system in this fashion.

The desktop - where do we go from here?

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the future of the desktop operating system. As a Linux user and a vocal advocate of Linux and free software in general, this is something I think about anyway. I find myself a little frustrated that people waste money on expensive proprietary software when they could be using free software instead (in both the free speech and free beer sense). In particular, I have something of a bee in my bonnet about schools using this - why should my taxes, or Tesco vouchers for schools, go to pay Microsoft when they could be using Edubuntu instead? OpenOffice is a more than adequate replacement for MS Office (and don't give me that about "they need to learn the industry standard", it's just a word processor, I used other ones when I was a kid and I can use MS Office just fine).

I do think there is a change coming. Having been using Linux for a year now, I know very well that distros like Ubuntu are more than ready for the average Joe. Anyone who thinks that Ubuntu is hard to install must have not installed Windows XP (which is a lot harder to install than Ubuntu). It's just the fact that you have to install it at all that fazes some people, and the fact there are differences between that and Windows. If you were buying your first computer and you got it with Ubuntu preinstalled, it wouldn't be any harder to learn to use it than Windows - in fact it's easier in many ways.

I know several people who don't consider themselves Linux users, but own an Eee PC, and use it without any problems at all. This device, in particular, has made it clear that a well thought out Linux distribution can work for non-technical users.

Add to the fact that Windows Vista is getting a reaction somewhere between lukewarm and outright hostile, depending on who you ask, and it makes me feel that a shakeup on the desktop is imminent. Microsoft are pressing ahead with plans to withdraw XP from sale, but vendors such as Dell and HP are exploiting loopholes to keep selling it.

I do keep hearing rumours that Windows 7 will see major changes to Windows, similar to what Apple did when they moved to a Unix base. There are suggestions that the whole OS might be rewritten from the ground up, getting rid of much of the bloatware. It's difficult to tell what impact this might have. On the one hand, these changes could save Windows, fixing major problems with the operating system and improving performance no end. On the other, changes of this magnitude would very likely break compatibility with previous versions of Windows, so people couldn't use their old software, although I can see how they could include some kind of virtualization software to get round this. Also, people don't generally like the changes in Windows Vista, so more radical changes might go down like a ton of bricks.

Apple, of course, will remain a part of the desktop computing scene, but the fact is OS X is not going to grab a majority market share any time soon. The only way this would happen is if Apple were to license OS X to other hardware manufacturers, which I can't see them doing any time soon. Also, if Apple did somehow wind up pushing every other hardware manufacturer out of the market it would be worse than Microsoft's current near-monopoly - they'd control both the hardware and software markets, which is worse than Microsoft controlling just the software. Sorry Mac fans, but never going to happen, not while there are industry regulators around! Apple's market share may well increase, but they aren't going to take over the world, fact.

If other OEM's start losing significant market share to Apple because Windows became a liability, you can bet your life that they will start looking around for an alternative, and Linux is the most likely choice (but not the only one - it's possible that other desktop operating systems such as FreeBSD might also benefit).

One thing to note is that if something like this happens, growth in Linux adoption is likely to be exponential. For instance, greater numbers of Linux users means that more hardware and software manufacturers will support it, reducing the problems people have when switching so that more use it, creating a reinforcing loop. While I don't think Linux is likely to wipe out Windows any time soon, if at all, it could easily become much more significant than it is now in a very short space of time.

I actually think that if it was better supported by games manufacturers, Linux would be a better choice of operating system for hardcore gamers. These are the people who will spend lots of time and money building a custom gaming rig that's designed to get the absolute best performance possible out of their computer. To me, it seems a bit of a waste to then have a bog-standard Windows install on it. I'm sure many of these people would really appreciate being able to use a distribution like Gentoo to compile the whole installation from scratch and customise it to get the very best from their computer. For people like this, the desktop of choice may be much less important, so they could use a window manager like IceWM or Fluxbox, meaning they can then save the processing power for where they really need it. Something like Aero is a waste of processing time if you're looking for gaming performance.

Whatever happens, I think the next few years are likely to be interesting. One thing to note, though, even if you're happy with Windows or OS X, is that any growth in Linux adoption benefits you as a consumer, even if you don't use it. I'm not just saying this as a proponent of Linux, but if Microsoft and Apple have more effective competition in the desktop operating system market, they will be forced to improve their own products to compete. The nature of Linux, with hundreds of distributions competing with each other, means that it has improved in leaps and bounds over the last few years, and will no doubt continue to do so. The entry of Linux into the mainstream desktop market would really shake up the scene.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts, and you may disagree - please feel free to comment!

Upgrading to Hardy Heron

I've upgraded to Kubuntu Hardy Heron, and so far I'm very impressed. I decided to stick with the KDE3 version in the end (mainly because Katapult isn't in the KDE4 version and I'm so used to it, and yes I know it's easy to download and install it), and it's working out well for me. Now that I've got /home on a separate partition, I didn't have to spend ages loading old e-mails or entering passwords for websites I used.

However, I'm using the Firefox 3 beta as my browser and I have one or two issues with it. First of all, a couple of extensions that I rely on aren't yet available (Google Toolbar, Google Browser Sync). Second, it's a real pain sometimes when I click on a link - sometimes it will open something random, like it will try to download something if I right click, rather than coming up with the right-click menu! Not sure why this is, but it's a shame as Firefox 3 solves many of the issues I'd had with Firefox 2 and is a LOT faster.

I'm also impressed with Xubuntu Hardy - great default wallpaper. I was actually seriously tempted by it this time, as despite my preference for KDE, I also really like Xfce (as well as IceWM and E17).

One very handy feature in Hardy is uFW, an easy-to-use command-line application which enables you to configure your firewall. Also, Kubuntu has better Compiz support.

All in all, while I'm sad to see Gutsy go, as it was so much more reliable than Feisty, Hardy is a worthy successor. It appears to no longer have the issue with DNS that I experienced with Gutsy, and the wireless works out of the box as it did in Gutsy.

What kind of experience have you had with Hardy so far? If you're using Kubuntu, have you gone for KDE3 or 4? Have you switched desktops? Or has Hardy given you problems?

IceWM

I've been trying a lot of window managers with Ubuntu in VirtualBox over the last few months. These are a bit harder to get set up than the regular desktops such as Gnome or KDE, but they're a lot more lightweight. If you have an older computer that might suffer under the weight of Gnome or KDE, then using a window manager instead is worth considering.

I'm a fan of Enlightenment, but I don't like the current stable version (E16), and the forthcoming version, E17, has been in development for years, despite its use in OpenGEU and gOS (although gOS Space has switched to Gnome). Enlightenment is probably one of the biggest and most powerful window managers, yet looks amazing. I've heard rumours that there may be a release of a stable version of E17 this year, but I'm not optimistic. However, it really does look great - I actually think it knocks the stuffing out of the Mac desktop.

So, Enlightenment's not really much of an option for me. I've tried Fluxbox, Openbox and several others, but one stood out for me - IceWM. This is a very simple window manager - it resembles the classic Windows GUI, with a main menu at the bottom left and a panel along the bottom. Although there are a few graphical configuration apps for it, it's not too hard to configure it by editing text files. It has a great integrated application launcher - just press the Windows key and the Space bar, then type the name of the application and press Enter. It doesn't autocomplete like Google Desktop or Katapult, but it's still a great touch.

It supports both Gnome and KDE apps, and it's easy to find or create themes for it - you can find plenty of Windows ones, as well as more than a handful of Apple-themed ones. Presumably because of its resemblance to Windows, IceWM is used in the basic desktop on an Asus Eee PC (using the SilverXP theme), making it an easy transition for people used to Windows.

I've found IceWM to be a great desktop, and have now installed it alongside KDE. If your computer finds Gnome, KDE or even Xfce to be a bit too heavy, IceWM is definitely worth a try.

Going Mobile

On Wednesday, fed up of having no Internet access at my new place, I went and bought a Vodafone Mobile Connect ExpressCard, basically a PCMCIA card which allows you to access the Internet via HSDPA. It works out of the box in Windows Vista, but of course I didn't want that, I wanted it to work with Linux!

Trouble is, it's one of those chicken-and-egg situations - I needed Internet access to get to the information and programs necessary, and until I'd done that I couldn't get online. Thank goodness I had a Vista machine as well, which allowed me to find Vodafone's Betavine Forge site, which provides Linux drivers for Vodafone's mobile broadband devices.

I had opted for the PCMCIA card rather than the USB modem, because I've had bad experiences with USB wi-fi adapters, although I was keenly aware that USB is generally more likely to work than PCMCIA devices. But Kubuntu seemed to detect the device fine on startup, although you couldn't get anywhere from there on as the software on the card is for Windows.

So I downloaded the Linux drivers (the stable version1.99.17, rather than the beta, both of which were available as .deb packages, presumably designed for Ubuntu). Thing was, the Linux driver had rather a lot of dependencies, which themselves had other dependencies, meaning that it wasn't practical to get it working without already having an Internet connection. So I had to wait till I could use my parent's broadband at the weekend.

So the weekend came and I brought my laptop home, and logged onto the wireless network. First of all I did:

sudo apt-get -f install

to resolve the outstanding dependencies (there were a few, many of which themselves had further dependencies to resolve, so it did take a few minutes. Now, I could start up the application, but I didn't have the settings to get it working, namely the user name, password, and APN (Access Point Name), which the application prompted me for. A little Googling led me to this forum post which explained that the settings needed to be "internet" for the APN, and "web" for both the user name and password. After having done this, the card works perfectly in Kubuntu Gutsy!

It's very slow at my parent's house as there's no 3G coverage in Diss, just GPRS. But in Norwich where 3G coverage is near-total, it was a lot faster on my Vista laptop. Still significantly slower than connecting via wi-fi to my parent's broadband connection with TalkTalk (which I didn't appreciate earlier, but now realise is pretty damn fast and has a sky-high download limit, although it's worth taking the time to ditch their DNS servers and use OpenDNS instead for a faster and more reliable response), but it's faster than some of the dialup connections I've used in the past.

Word is that mobile broadband will become dominant by 2011, but for it to match landlines the mobile phone networks will need to invest very heavily in new infrastructure. I've noticed a big difference in speed between browsing around 7-8pm and around 11pm, significantly more so than when I was using my parent's wi-fi. It could potentially be very big, and with the price war going on between the mobile operators in the UK, it's reached the point where it's competitive with landlines on price, if not performance.

Kernel compilation

Well, on Sunday I managed to compile a new kernel fine in Xubuntu Gutsy (I actually compiled a 2.6.24 kernel, rather than the 2.6.22 kernel Gutsy came with, and really I should have gotten it from apt-get so I was getting the one patched specifically for Ubuntu rather than a vanilla kernel). It took absolutely ages to compile.

But was it worth it? Hell, no! I should really have had a better idea of what to do when I got the menu up to decide what drivers to include! Therefore I just left it as the default, so presumably it included every driver under the sun! It took a long time to boot up afterwards.

But, on the plus side, I CAN say I have compiled my own kernel from scratch, and it did work. Next time, I will pay a LOT more attention to the options available.

Incidentally, I found out today that the book Linux Kernel in a Nutshell, which I will have to read before I try to compile a kernel again, is available as a free download. Needless to say, as soon as I heard this I was straight onto the site! I'd actually rather have a physical copy as ebooks are hard to read, but I'm not going to complain.

My kernel has now gone - it was in VirtualBox, which I use to experiment with different Linux distros and generally mess around a lot, which is actually a very good learning experience. I've now put a new command-line install of Ubuntu in to play around with.

Adobe AIR for Linux!

Yes, you read that right. There's now a version of Adobe AIR available for Linux! It's still quite an early alpha, but Tumblweed, Twhirl and Pownce all work fine in it - check out this screenshot:

Now I can finally update my Twitter status with ease in Kubuntu!

Compiling from source

For a while now, I've been using a Xubuntu install in VirtualBox on my Vista laptop as a test bed to try all the things I don't want to do on my Kubuntu laptop, but would like to get better acquainted with, such as messing around with desktops and things like that. I highly recommend this method if you have a powerful enough computer (even if that computer is running OS X or Windows) as you don't need to burn an ISO image to disc and if something goes wrong with a VirtualBox install you've always got access to the Internet through the host system, and if it goes completely belly-up you haven't lost anything. It really is a great way to learn more about Linux.

Well, I've certainly learnt something today. I just compiled Crimson Fields from source. It's surprising how easy it is when you know how - you just have to untar the source code package, switch into the newly created directory, find the README or INSTALL document for details of the dependencies, install the development versions of these dependencies, then just the usual triad of commands (./configure, make, and sudo make install). However, I actually used checkinstall, a great utility for Ubuntu which when used instead of make install, doesn't install it as normal. Instead, it creates a .deb package which you can then install using dpkg as normal. The advantage of this is that it's easy to uninstall it if necessary.

The finished program works fine. Here's a screenshot as proof:



Now, I want to have a go at compiling my own kernel. Will very probably screw that up, but I can try!

The Slackware Report

Well, having used Slackware, I quite liked it! I had to start the X Window Server myself from the command line with the startx command, and I couldn't seem to log in as myself, only as root, but I was able to get it working in VirtualBox. It booted up to a very nice, fully featured KDE 3.5 desktop with loads of applications installed. It also has the option of using Xfce as well as a number of window managers. Only thing is, I'm used to the convenience of the Debian package manager as used in Ubuntu, and although Slackware apparently does have a package manager, it's based on tar packages, which would be a big change for me. If I change distros at some time in the future, it will very likely be to Debian.

I also tried out Zenwalk, which is based on Slackware but made easier, in the same way as Ubuntu is based on Debian, but made easier (the only difference being that Debian is a great deal easier than Slackware to start with, IMHO). Didn't like that so much.

I've also gotten the Live CD for Linux From Scratch, which is essentially a kit for rolling your own Linux distro. I may try this at some point, but also may try remastering Ubuntu using one of the many tools available to produce my own custom version.

Anyway, where has the weekend gone?

Out goes Gentoo, in comes Slackware...

Got kind of stumped by Gentoo - it wouldn't boot into the Live CD mode in VirtualBox. That's a shame as I was really looking forward to trying it - maybe I'll give it a go on a real machine sometime. I was planning to do a fresh install when Hardy Heron comes out so I can try it then seeing as I'll have to do all the setting up again anyway.

So I've decided to try another technical distro instead: Slackware. This is a distro based on simplicity (not necessarily for the end user, more a case of it being a simple, bare-bones distro with very little hand-holding. Last time I tried it with Slackware 11.0 I didn't get very far, but now I have a simple guide to installing Slackware 12.0 as well as a DVD copy thanks to Linux Format magazine. We'll have to see how this goes...

Trying another distro

Having managed to cope OK using Debian, a fairly complex Linux distro, in VirtualBox, I'm now going to try a new one: Gentoo. This is among the most difficult of distros to use as you basically compile the whole thing yourself from scratch. Should be interesting, but I suspect I will not get very far!

I managed to get an Enlightenment desktop set up in VirtualBox OK, but the end result isn't that great. There's no doubt that Enlightenment can be the basis of a fantastic lightweight desktop, but really I'd have to use it full time to do that, which I don't really want to do. Ditto for IceWM, although if I had an old computer that wasn't up to running Kubuntu I would use IceWM on that.

But wish me luck on Gentoo!