Wow. Linux is really moving up in the world. I just read a fair review of a Linux distro in the mainstream press.
Think on that for a moment. A fair review. Not a FUD-fest. Where lots of non-techie people are going to read it.
This is very good. I believe most Linux distros are fully capable of holding their own against MS Windows in a fair comparison. Maybe not winning every time, but that is just reality. Fair comparisons have been pretty rare in the mainstream press, unfortunately.
Who knows, maybe they still will be rare in the future and today’s was just a fluke. Possible, but I don’t think so.
Anyhow, head over USAToday, and read Andrew Kantor’s review of Ubuntu and Kubuntu.
Do I agree with everything he said? No, I don’t. But I can understand his point of view and I do not think he is being unreasonable at all. For starters, he actually praises Linux several times in his article. Not faint praise or the qualified praise that often accompanies a FUD piece, but honest praise about the sorts of things Linux users know impress new users.
Some examples:
Let no one say that Linux — specifically Ubuntu and Kubuntu — isn’t a beautiful, mature operating system. It installs quickly and easily.
A Windows or Mac user would feel quickly at home, and would enjoy some of Linux’s nicer features, such as my favorite: multiple desktops you can switch among.
And Windows has nothing on Adept, Linux’s add and remove programs feature. It doesn’t just help you remove unwanted programs. It also gives you access to hundreds of pieces of software — from simple games to powerful office applications — stored in online libraries called repositories. It’s like having a huge software store at your fingertips, where everything is free.
So let’s see. Easy install, beautiful desktop, similar to other popular operating systems, multiple desktops, and the huge amount of software available. Yup, all the things that usually impress new users.
Of course, he then gets into the things that he feels are drawbacks in the Linux world. Basically three things:
- too much choice
- sometimes hard to install software that isn’t packaged up for your distro
- “lack of polish” when compared to proprietary apps
To be honest, I do not disagree with Mr. Kantor on these points. Not completely at any rate, it is more a matter of degree.
Choice
Yes, there is a lot of choice in the Linux world. A lot of choice is a good thing because it means you can usually find the software that best fits your needs. But it also means that people new to Linux can feel overwhelmed and not know how to proceed.
This is one reason good defaults are important. Should the makers of a distro put in just one text editor or maybe one for each desktop? Maybe Kwrite and gedit, plus perhaps NEdit for Fluxbox users?)
Repeat for every major piece of software. Obviously there are plenty of possibilities and lots of room for disagreement. Which is fair game in a review of operating systems aimed at the general user.
As readers of my first and second articles on switching to WinXP at work know, I went through a bit of culture shock during that transition. Lots of things about WinXP annoy me, but the lack of a package manager continues to annoy me even now, a year and several months after switching.
In Linux (Gentoo, in my case), almost all of my software gets updated automatically through the package manager. In WinXP, I have to manually go and check the web site for updates to each program, one at a time. If there are updates, I have to download and install them by hand.
Linux package managers can do this because they know about most of the available software. So while too much choice can be annoying or confusing for new users, it also makes management much easier. Which may not be something a new user appreciates right away, but after a couple of months, I believe they certainly would.
Unsupported Software
Yes, it can be hard to install unsupported software — “unsupported” meaning software that is not prepackaged for your distribution. It can be hard to do that on MS Windows too, of course. You are just much less likely to run across it in the MS Windows world. Monopoly has its advantages.
I question how likely a new user is to even try to install unsupported software in Linux. Still, it no doubt can happen and when it does it can be difficult and confusing for the user. Especially in the case of something like video editing, currently popular with a fair number of MS Windows and Apple Mac users, and where there is not a lot software to choose from on Linux.
Lack of Polish
As for lack of polish, I think this is interesting because it ties in with something that many people lose sight of during discussions of this sort.
Total cost of ownership for the general user.
But first, what are we talking about when we say “lack of polish”? Mr. Kantor was kind enough to explain to me that he meant things like how easy it is to accomplish tasks and how steep the learning curve is.
My first thought is that much, though not all, of this is just what you are used to. I experienced this when switching to WinXP at work — things that most WinXP users take for granted as the obvious way to do something seemed to me to be totally unintuitive.
My second thought was total cost of ownership.
True, in some cases The Gimp might be rougher around the edges and less polished. Removing red-eye from your pictures is a good example. A general user software package for MS Windows (the sort that comes with a digital camera) will likely have a button or a wizard for removing red-eye in one or two easy steps.
The Gimp doesn’t. Of course you can remove red-eye with the Gimp. Just no wizard. (There are some good tutorials on the web, though.)
In this case, the Gimp could be said to lack polish, when the general user is the target audience.
The really important thing to notice, however, is the price for what you want to do. Make a list of all the programs you want to use. List the MS Windows version and the comparable Linux software (even those that are “not quite there”).
Now add up the costs of all those MS Windows programs. For the layman, with modest needs, is the cost of all that software worth it? Are a little bit of “polish” and a few extra features and wizards worth $50 (for example) or more per software package?
Remember this is for every commercial program you use on MS Windows. Adobe Photoshop, Sony Vegas, MS Office, Nero, Norton, MS Windows, etc. The cost starts to add up quickly. And you get to pay again every couple of years.
I am not saying that everyone would always decide that the Gimp is good enough for their needs. But neither would everyone decide to go with Photoshop (Elements, which I suppose is the “lite” version) for $79.99. Or the full version for $599.49. Everyone has different needs and must make their own choices. But everyone should consider cost as well as polish when deciding which is better for their needs.
Further, is any one piece of software important enough to you that you will choose your operating system just to get that software? Would you switch to (or stay with, as the case may be) MS Windows just to run Photoshop? Is one program that important to you? For some people, it may very well be that important. I doubt it is true for the majority of typical users though.
Personally, I would not trade Kate, amaroK, K3B, Konqueror, Quanta+, Kile, (etc., etc, the list is long) — none of which yet run on MS Windows — just to get Sony Vegas or Adobe Photoshop, or any other MS Windows only application. But that is just me. Your needs are no doubt different.
Mr. Kantor understands this, I think. He closes with:
Is Linux a viable desktop option if you’re buying a Dell computer? Absolutely, as long as you’re not interested in video editing (and you image-editing needs are limited), and as long as you’re willing to put up with rough edges in exchange for a free operating system, freedom from just about any virus, and the potential to tinker to your heart’s content.
I agree with him, assuming that “limited” is still more than what the average home user needs and with the understanding that it is not just the operating system that is free, but pretty much all of the software as well.
Still, more important than the content of one review of one Linux distribution is the fact that it may represent a change in the way Linux is portrayed by the mainstream press. Linux may finally be competing on the desktop on merit as an accepted contender. Not as some novelty that gets mentioned in an off-hand, “oh, and Linux too” sort of way.
Okay, so I am not going to hold my breath while we wait and see. Still, I am going to be cautiously optimistic.
[edited to more closely address Mr. Kantor's points about "lack of polish"]
Post a Comment