The Ubuntu Project #5: Does Ubuntu Linux Stay, or Go?
By Tom Chandler on Aug 21, 2008 in Underground Entertainment, Writer tools
When I started my “Is Linux Ready for Word Workers?” series, I thought I’d squeeze a pair of posts from my Ubuntu Linux installation, erase it, and dive right back into Windows Vista.
So much for expectations.
No, I didn’t much like Vista (I’m not alone: a recent Infoworld survey suggests a startling 35% of its readers (corporate IT types) ‘de-upgraded’ their current model PCs from Vista to Windows XP).
I found Vista cloying and cluttered - a tarted-up version of XP that demanded more RAM and CPU power to run acceptably, yet managed to get in my way more than even XP.
My overall impression of Vista was of an operating system collapsing under its own weight.
But Linux was too hard, right? Too arcane? Too hard to install?
Not exactly.
Four long posts later - and despite one rough patch involving an internal modem and some media player issues - I’ve been running my business atop Ubuntu Linux for more than 60 days.
The bottom line? Ubuntu Linux is fast. It’s reliable. The interface is clean (if not a little spare). And plenty of Open Source software is freely available.
Simply put, I like it.
Is Ubuntu Linux better than XP or Vista?
That’s impossible to say; your preferences will depend on your definition of “better.”
If you live and breathe Microsoft Word - or use any of the other “industry standard” software packages - then Linux could print money and it wouldn’t be “better.”
To those of us living on a steady diet of OpenOffice, text editors, image editors, podcasts, a browser and a few utilities, it’s a compelling option.
In truth, the decision to use an open source system like Ubuntu Linux is more a philosophical question than a “logical” one.
More software is available for Windows, and it’s a safer choice.
On the other hand, no Linux operating system will ever download - largely without your knowledge - a “validator” designed to check and see if your OS is pirated.
There’s also a question of flexibility.
Don’t like your current flavor of Linux? Want to try a stripped version on an old laptop?
Feel free.
(See? That philosophical thing again.)
Real World Questions - and Answers
I think Ubuntu Linux is simply more productive (for me).
Is it better than XP? Being as Microsoft is no longer developing Windows XP (or selling licenses), then yes - it is.
Is it better than Vista?
That depends. Vista is smoother than XP. It’s also far more cluttered and dense than Linux.
A lot of the animosity directed at Vista came because users tried to upgrade XP machines. And ran into problems, often with hardware drivers.
Not surprisingly, those same issues dog Linux.
When manufacturers ship a PC with Vista or Linux already installed, those issues simply disappear. But there, of course, lies the hell of it.
Very few manufacturers ship computers with Linux installed (Dell will, but only a few models). So almost every Linux installation goes on unknown hardware.
If more manufacturers offered Linux as an option - and passed along the savings - much of the Linux reputation for difficulty would simply fade away.
And yes - market share would almost certainly grow beyond the current 2%-3% (desktops - Linux server market share is an order of magnitude higher).
The Good. And the Bad.
Here’s a story with a happy ending: I was going to re-format the hard drive on my old XP-based desktop, then give it away (I never liked that machine under XP).
On a whim, I installed Ubuntu instead of XP (again, without a hitch).
Surprise.
It runs faster. More reliably. And avoids all the machine’s formerly-quirky hardware issues.
No twice-a-day re-boots needed. No slowdowns after I opened and closed a bunch of applications. No browser lockups. No disappearing CD drives.
Suddenly, it’s a brand-new desktop.
Are all endings in Ubuntu Linux this happy?
Sadly, no. It suffers some video issues. Install it from the CD, and you need to download a special library to play commercial DVDs, and its streaming video performance can be spotty.
Drivers for a lot of hardware aren’t available for Linux, though I haven’t had any real problems.
More importantly, all those issues would go away on a PC shipped with Linux installed, and they weren’t too hard to solve anyway (though I got the impression the Linux world wants to pretend they don’t exist).
My final word?
Ubuntu Linux is everything Linux is supposed to be - except really, really hard to install or use.
The basic interface is simple, and anyone with Mac or Windows experience would find their way around pretty quickly.
It runs into trouble with some video and audio formats, and suffers from a dearth of software choices in odd areas (contact management is a little thin, as is the choice of blog editors).
That said, it also runs like a pickup truck, updates automatically (nicer than Windows), and features a “package” management system that makes installing and uninstalling software a far easier job than in XP or Vista.
It’s running on all three of my PCs (Vista is still bootable on my laptop), and I have no plans to remove it.
Test-flying Ubuntu is easy; it even installs as software within your Windows system (dual-boot), and uninstalls quickly if you don’t like it.
My clients couldn’t care less what’s running on my end. And - dare I suggest it - Microsoft Vista’s huge stumble out of the gate has given computer users a great, big, resource-hogging reason to look at alternatives.
One of them is the Mac (most are surprised to learn OSX is built atop Linux Unix). I haven’t touched on it because it’s tied to specific hardware, though Mac and Linux users might represent opposite ends of the non-Windows-using universe.
Still, the Mac is gaining market share at Microsoft’s expense, and - given my very positive experience with Ubuntu Linux - believe we could see the same thing occur on the PC side of the fence.
Can I squeeze another post out Ubuntu Linux? Maybe.
I’m developing some new work habits - and how writers get words on paper has always fascinated me - so look for a “What Linux has done to my writing process” post in a couple weeks.
Keep writing, Tom Chandler
Hey Tom,
Great wrap-up! You certainly have me tempted to try it. I’ve spent so much time over the years trying to get things like this to work (I once had to “write” my own printer interface software) — it’s just not as fun as it used to be…
Can you run any Windows software at all on it? Dreamweaver, Photoshop, etc.? Or is it purely no-go? If they won’t work, perhaps the next step is to create an emulator for Linux (if such a thing is possible). That would certainly help convince people to switch — though perhaps you would lose all the advantages of Linux with a Windows emulator running in the background all the time…
~Graham
Graham Strong | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
The ‘emulator’ you speak of exists, and it is called ‘Wine’. It runs everything from WoW to Photoshop CS2. Some programs are even are listing it as an acceptable requirement, some use it for their Linux port (ie Picasa).
Of course, there are plenty of native, or web-based equivalents for general things and such :)
Vadim P. | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
Okay, the above post looks way cheesy - Wine isn’t perfect, so it doesn’t run everything. Some programs might not start at all, others might have glitches. But hopefully you won’t be dependent on Windows-only software too much!
Vadim P. | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
To the above post: WINE Is Not an Emulator (WINE).
A better choice of words would be a compatibility layer.
Check http://appdb.winehq.org for applications compatible with WINE.
And OS X is _not_ based on Linux. It is based on DarwinBSD, which, while similar to Linux, is not Linux at all (no derived code or anything).
DarwinBSD is a distribution of UNIX, and while Linux is UNIX-like, it is not UNIX.
Anyways, nice writeup, but I’ve found that installing media codecs is really easy and you can install the DVD codecs easily if you don’t mind being in a legal gray area.
zmjjmz | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
As has been said before, OS X is not Linux at all.
WINE, while not perfect, is pretty darn good. Some applications perform better under WINE than under Windows (although this is very rare,) and most don’t perform noticeably worse.
DirectX 10 under WINE isn’t there yet, but DirectX 9 has been mostly implemented.
I might like to add that Ubuntu is the second-slowest and second-most bloated Linux distro (after Fedora, maybe also after SuSE.) A basic speed-up is to use Xubuntu instead, which halfs the system requirements (down to 128 Mb RAM and 2 Gb hard drive space.)
It’s considered really bloated for a Linux distro to take up a full CD (Fedora takes up 2 CDs, Vista takes up a DVD.)
Nonetheless, I use standard Ubuntu, and it runs just fine on the computers at my school, because the school computers’ hardware (256 Mb RAM, Pentium 4, ancient nVidia graphics) can handle it AND all the “flashy effects.”
Max | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
@Graham:
Other posters have covered Photoshop under Wine. I just wanted to add that I did run a version of Dreamweaver under Wine, but it’s been a couple of years. I’m not sure how well newer versions run, but this is a good place to look and see how apps you are interested in will run:
http://appdb.winehq.org/appbrowse.php
David Cherryholmes | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
WINE is an option you should try, although personally, I dont run it, because WindowsXP running inside VirtualBox will do a better job. You’ll need a faster machine with preferably dualCPUs, but XP in a VM will give you Outlook, domains, iTunes, Dreamweaver, etc. Whereas WINE is a bit more unstable and bizarre, from my experiences.
Good luck with Ubuntu, I’ve had much the same experiences as you, and now that I’ve switched I don’t regret it, and I will not go back! :)
Dave K | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
@Graham: Thanks. Ubuntu Linux is easy to try. Download the disk image, burn a CD, boot off the CD, and you’re given a few options for installation, the easiest of which (when you’re simply trying the software) is to install it on your windows drive as Windows software (you’ll get a choice of which to boot from when the machine starts).
As for running Windows software, as Vadim pointed out, there is something called “Wine” (and a commercial offshoot that’s affordable and might be a bit easier to use).
My experiences with Wine are mixed; some of the software loads and runs well, but a lot has run poorly. I’ve largely ignored it in favor of native Linux software - easy for me because I was using the same (in most cases) open source software under Windows.
@Everyone: Oops on the Mac OSX thing. Read it was Unix, but I typed Linux about 3,000 times in the post, so…
@zmjjmz: Installing codecs and the like isn’t hard, but it’s not at all clear that you need to install them once Ubuntu is running. Like most users, I popped in a DVD and expected to see the movie. Instead, I had to jump through a few hoops. It’s no biggie once you understand it — and it’s something Dell has taken care of on their Ubuntu-loaded laptops — but it’s a barrier to adoption.
@Max: I’m running Xunbuntu on a laptop and think the average user would be happier with Ubuntu, though one of the beauties of Linux is the sheer number of choices - everything from compact to Ubuntu, which is not truly “bloated” when compared to Vista…
Tom Chandler | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
It should be noted that Vista (exclusing the most expensive one or 2 varieties) also does not come with DVD playback, and many codecs also have to be downloaded (DivX and realaudio/video come to mind). Linux combines all codecs and other proprietary goodies into one convenient metapackage, “ubuntu-restricted-extras”, covering all major A/V codecs including DVD, Java, Adobe flash, copyrighted fonts, and other useful stuff.
It seems harder because people simply don’t know. They aren’t as familiar with Linux as they are with Windows, and typically once they get used to the Linux way of doing things, the Windows way just seems like a big pain in the a**.
shayne | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
I can’t edit my above post unfortunately, but I made a mistake in the above post and used Linux and Ubuntu interchangeably, a habit that actually irks me to no end.
sorry ’bout that.
shayne | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
I am a Ubuntu convert from about 2 1/2 years. I have been playing with MS operating systems (including the DOS days) since my early teens (over 20 years ago). I wish I got on the *nix train a long time ago but didn’t hear about it until about 5 or 6 years ago.
First I tried a Red Hat based distro (Fedora) and was completely frustrated with my lack of knowledge. Then I came across Ubuntu. The first distro I installed was 6.06, dual boot w/ XP on my laptop. I must admit it was frustrating in the beginning, but the support forums are chock full of knowledge out there. Not to mention the IRC channel is very helpful.
As of now, I have my work PC that’s in a Windows environment running Ubuntu…and to add, I converted all of my self written scripts and c# programs to run in a linux OS. I do need to run some VBA excel workbooks, so I do have XP loaded in a VM to take care of those tasks.
I also have Ubuntu loaded on my Dell laptop which came with Vista (it never saw the light of day!). I have become pretty fluent in Linux in this time, but far from a ‘pro’…I learn something new everyday.
Sorry for the long winded post, but I just has to put my 2 cents in :)
Too add, Ubuntu 8.04 is the most user friendly distro out there. It loaded the drivers for wireless card and video card (both which are proprietary - Nvidia and broadcom) right after install (well it did take some interaction, but not much).
To anyone wanting to switch and has a little time to invest in learning a few new tricks, I say go for it!
lsutiger | Sep 28, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for adding to the conversation. I think the latest Ubuntu distros install pretty easily; I’ve got them running on three PCs, and while I had to jump through a couple hoops with my old, old desktop (my the ndiswrapper isn’t included is beyond me), they pretty much work, and yes - I’m getting more work done.
Tom Chandler | Sep 29, 2008 | Reply
Like you I’ve been considering the move from XP to a linux based OS. Initially I couldn’t wait for Vista to come out because I’m one of those that likes everything to be up to date on my PC hehe. But after reading reviews and seeing it on my friends laptop I really don’t want to use that. To many shiny, fancy and useless things that eat up resources that could be used to make my work faster etc. I’m going to try out the big version of Ubunto on my desktop PC, some advice for anyone wanting to do this is that you should visit all the driver websites for your hardware to find out if their is a linux driver. Nothing worse than finding out that your nvidia card isn’t supported and you cant use it for your games or 3D work.
But as a word processing nexus for blogs and articles, its clean, efficient interface looks perfect.
I’m going to try running from the CD first, just to see.
Marcus | Nov 18, 2008 | Reply
I have used Linux and escpecially Ubuntu for some time now and I truly believe that the operating system is by far better than XP / Vista in terms of performance, security etc. A good example is that there is yet to be a single virus for Linux (in the wild). My only issues with Ubuntu at present (and the only reasons I still have XP installed)are with graphics card drivers (if you have ATI cards) and support for Games (yes I play when I get time).
If Ubuntu sorts these issues out better then I will ditch microsoft forever (and be glad to).
Ant | Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Marcus: I’ve been fortunate - no driver issues so far (save one for an internal modem that I solved).
Driver issues are an oft-mentioned problem with Linux, though they wouldn’t occur very often if we were buying PCs pre-configured with Linux instead of trying to install it on machines after the fact.
After all, many of Vista’s early missteps involved attempts to upgrade “Vista-Ready” machines that lacked Vista drivers.
In one sense, Linux faces an uphill battle with everyone save the techies until it begins shipping already installed on PCs, when most of the installation/driver issues will simply disappear.
Ant: I tend to agree; I use Linux as my main OS at this point, and rarely boot back into Vista.
When I do, I’m barraged with pop-ups telling me my security needs fixing, my anti-virus software is expiring (which I pay for in addition to the OS), an upgrade is available (it will require multiple restarts), and that my fly is open.
I already have a mother, thank you MS.
I get more “core” work done faster in Linux, and perhaps that’s simply a matter of personal fit.
I don’t believe that Linux is quite ready for beginners. It still requires a bit more tinkering than most would find comfortable.
Tom Chandler | Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Hi Tom,
I agree that Linux is still not quite ready for “beginners” but I think its getting pretty close, as you mention if its bundled with PC’s it will really make the difference.
On that note the one lap top per child intuitive should introduce Linux at the right stage, as kids before they learn the bad habits you pick up when using MS (XP Vista etc). When these kids grow up they will have learned to use linux and be much more open to a different OS than microsoft.
I think this is one major issue, beginners, or novices that have learned by using XP or vista and find it difficult to adapt to anything else. This is also true of the OS X thing, getting used to one button etc.
We need to educate people that there is a better choice, which starts with teaching our new generation really.
Ant | Nov 20, 2008 | Reply
In my opinion, Ubuntu 8.04 is a disaster, especially taking into account that it’s supposed to be LTS.
I’ve been using ubuntu since its first release. On its second release I decided to use it as the base OS of my business, combined with a virtualized version of Windows XP.
Yesterday I made a clean 8.04 hardy heron install and found out that:
1. The great KVM does not seem to work (there’s a registered bug showing that virt-manager cannot install XP as it cannot read CD-ROM - which it asks for during the installation even if started from a HD iso file -). Many people complaining about that one too.
2. Virtualbox - which I used in the latest releases of Ubuntu - doesn’t work either as it doesn’t capture the mouse (quite a few complaining about the same throughout the forums)
3. The great UFW firewall is only shell-based, no GUI, and in addition Hardy poses problems for configuring Firestarter. A lot of complaints on forums and reviews about this.
4. Hardy is slower than previous versions and doesn’t seem to be as stable as they were.
In other words, Ubuntu is becoming closer and closer to Windows…..It is full of bugs and incomplete (i.e, UFW lacks a GUI), which is not compatible with the LTS approach.
It seems that the Ubuntu development team are concentrating on meeting release deadlines rather than on matching quality and performance targets.
Just in case, I’ll be moving back to 7.10 as everything worked fine there, despite it was not an LTS.
Sam | Nov 21, 2008 | Reply