Oh Gentoo, what had become of thee?

Dear friends

Yesterday was an important day for me. I stumbled into a very important issue, albeit small, which made me to come to the following decision: I am leaving Gentoo as a desktop platform.

It does not come as an easy decision. I've been using Gentoo and quasi-actively participating in the community for about 5 years. I have it installed currently on 3 out of 4 computers I have (the last one being mac mini, which I keep with Mac OS X). So why would I take this decision?

It all began with a one simple thing. You may have read my previous posts on various WINE installations, and I use some Windows applications with WINE. But recently Internet Explorer stopped working. I've tried to reinstall it (and it is easy in Gentoo, just as in any other Linux distribution with decent package manager), but to no avail.

Next step was slightly more complicated, but still quite simple: I've used VMWare to install complete Window XP environment. It worked fine for awhile, until I couldn't use VM images between different computers I have. It just stopped working. Besides that, the performance of VMWare on my AMD Athlon 1.8 with 1G of memory was, to say the least, appalling. Next came Innotek (now Sun) VirtualBox. This is the best emulation environment I could find to work on my computer. It works fine, and I use it for all my Windows-related projects.

But as a side effect of all installations, system began breaking. I started noticing various weird things, such as sudden applications freezing at times, etc. Couple of days ago, when there were no applications running, I've seen CPU usage at ~80%, I did what most Windows users do. I rebooted the machine.

And then, system just broke. System utilities seemed nowhere to be found. Some init scripts seemed to be incorrect, etc. I somehow fixed the situation by copying old versions from other projects, and updating the system. But now, GNOME has problems with graphics and themes, and most applets do not work and even do not exist. It just never ends, does it?

So, as a normal user of Gentoo, I went to emerge my world. I haven't done that for a couple of months, so there were almost 1G of updates waiting for me. I've downloaded all the packages, and began the emerge.

The thing that broke the last straw was a simple apache update. The system update failed because I had an old version. Not because compile didn't work. Just because it needed me to manually do something!! It redirected me to a Gentoo doc site, which has 2 lines of code that fixed the problem, and emerge now runs again.

Why in the heavens name wasn't this done automatically? Why did I loose half a day, during which my system could be updated? I lost this time because update procedure stopped. I had to fix the Apache configuration, so my GNOME desktop could continue updating. I understand that this specific issue with Apache may be serious, and that not many ordinary people run it on their computer, it still bugs me. I don't like it when I have to do this sort of manual intervention in update procedure.

So what is the problem here? Daniel Robbins created a Gentoo moto once: The goal of Gentoo is to design tools and systems that allow a user to do his or her work as pleasantly and efficiently as possible, as they see fit....If the tool forces the user to do things a particular way, then the tool is working against, rather than for, the user. (cited from Gentoo Philosophy)

The problem is that I spent too much time caring for the computer with Gentoo. I don't have that luxury anymore. There was time, when geeking with the machine and fixing problems was cool. Today, its a burden. I value time, and I only have 24 hours a day of it.

I believe that this may be one of the general problems with Gentoo. When it began, most folks using Linux were techies, who cared about all the bits on their computers. Gentoo fit very well in this community, so it flourished and became very popular. It provided tools that noone had (and used to compile anything manually anyway), and community of a good will and lot of friendship. It had the best documentation (and maybe still do) among brothers, and best team of engineers.

But nowadays, many users want word processor, web browser, email program and video player. They want it now, and not wait 20 minutes when compilation will finish. They don't care about technicalities. And as Gentoo haven't changed its nature, it doesn't fit for majority anymore. Sabayon anyone?

Gentoo distro has proven over the years, that it will stay the way it is. And that's why it won't be back on my desktop soon.

So, Gentoo, stay on server.

Ubuntu, CentOS - my desktop is waiting.

Linux on the desktop now!

Hello all

I just read an article, where Novell's CEO says that Linux will not be on the consumer desktop in at least for another 3 years. And that made me think.

We, users of Linux and open source software, would be happy to see everyone using Linux. We use it every day ourselves. And we're happy with it. Dell is installing Ubuntu Linux on various models, and people are buying them, preferring this to installing it by themselves. IBM, Sun and other vendors provide Linux systems just as they do Windows-based ones. Isn't this a nice trend that shows readiness of an operating system and its acceptance by vendors?

With this trend, how can it be that Linux on the desktop will take another 3-4 years? And what does it mean exactly? Linux desktop share currently stands about 3-4% of total desktop installations. Another 3-4% goes to Apple Mac OS X installations, another similar share to other alternative operating systems (such as Free/Net/OpenBSD, BeOs, Haiku, OpenSolaris, etc).

But Windows OS is spanning over 90% of all desktop computers. So, my guess, that in 3-4 years Linux installations can get to say, 10%. Will this mean that it is "on the desktop"? What numbers it should show for CEOs and other similarly hierarchially placed people, compared to a Windows OS so they will consider it "there"?

I personally believe, that any tool that you use should server its purpose and serve it well. If it does not do what it is supposed to do, choose another tool. I recently began to believe that there's a place for Windows systems as well for Linux systems, but I am still open-source minded. Choosing Linux or Windows, or Mac or Solaris is purely business decision in many cases. If choosing Linux on the desktop provides me with the tool to do my job (or work, or fun and procrastinate) - that's fine. If Window does the same - that's fine too, I'll just go with cheaper solution in the long run.

All the tools I use in Windows (those that are not forced on me anyway) are open source - VirtualWin, vi, GIMP, Open Office, Firefox, Innotek VirtualBox, 7zip; and much more - and if I go to Linux I will use the same tools, so I don't have to re-teach myself each time I switch platform.

So for me Linux is really on the desktop for about 4 and half years already. I don't even use Window at home anymore. And yet, Novell's CEO thinks that it will take another 3-4. If that's what a CEO thinks, then no wonder that it is all about Novell Linux. Maybe they are hibernated and there's an alarm clock set into the 3-years distant perfect future.

I wonder where RedHat and Ubuntu will be by then.

Cheers.

Update: it seems I'm not the only one

Commercial Ubuntu

Hi all

I just read a post by Bruce Byfield, where he raises an interesting question: after the fact that Canonical will try and offer commercial software from a specific repository, would anyone use it? And if not, could it alienate other users of Ubuntu from using the distribution at all?

He continues to argue for a whole 2-pages-long article for something that I don't even think exist. His main point is that this idea of commercial repositories has been tried out before and it didn't work. Why try now? After all, it's just a matter of time until something else will replace our current software:

A download service might find a temporary niche in offering software for which no free equivalent exists. For instance, despite recent improvements in apps like Kooka and Tesseract, someone who regularly needed to convert scanned text to a usable format might welcome a GNU/Linux version of OmniPage. The trouble is, given the speed with which free software is developing, such a market would be temporary, lasting a year or two at most. A service specializing in these niches would continually lose out to maturing free software, with no prospect of replacement products.

But why doesn't he see that this service may not be different from other software distribution methods? It seems he more argues the fact that there are proprietary and commercial application offers in Linux, than the fact that they are provided in Ubuntu. But, as it seems to me, the main reason for Canonical to do so is not for all Ubuntu Desktop users - its for business users and maybe even Ubuntu Server users, who may use those proprietary applications for their businesses and need a standard way of installing applications. Why should the way of installing Parallels be different than one for installing Open Office? It should not.

Sun has its own software distribution system, just as Apple's Mac OS X and MS Windows do. Why is it forbidden for Linux distributions to have one that includes commercial software?

I can provide the example of commercial software that I have used and had to install on Linux: IBM Rational ClearCase (and trust me, moving to other version management tools was much more expensive in human-hours because of the huge amounts of code and fast workforce turnover). Yes, the are free/open source alternatives, but they were not viable for that specific case.

I see the offer by Canonical as very pragmatic, practical and not hurting Ubuntu in no way. Ubuntu is Linux distribution. Canonical is the company behind it, which goal is to make money. So what is the problem that they try to monetize the free infrastructure they supported to build? The infrastructure is and will remain free, and as there's no additional effort required (except maybe for billing system in-place), Canonical has nothing to loose - and much to gain.

Here's another question while we're here: why the author doesn't criticize the Red Hat's model where you pay for the distribution first, and then if you use proprietary software, then for the software once more? Is it that much better? I don't see users ditch Red Hat and its siblings (Fedora and CentOS) just because Red Hat has proprietary parts in it.

And I don't believe that Ubuntu users will drop using Ubuntu because Canonical has proprietary repositories.

I side Canonical in this specific case not because I'm pro-Ubuntu. While I am pro-Ubuntu, I'm really distribution-agnostic person (although I do have some emotional and personal allegiance to Gentoo). But I think that author just emotionally reacts on the offering of something proprietary for Linux. While it is perfectly fine for some users to be upset, business people might actually be glad that they will be able to get the software they anyway want or need in a standard fashion.

Update: I just thought about it while answering to one of the commenters. Would this issue be such negatively reviewed if IBM or HP would offer such a repository with their own commercial offerings and not Canonical? I wonder...

Olive branch to all Free Operating systems users

Hello my dear readers,

A little statistics part first. WHAT A RUSH!!!! That's my response on what happened after I posted my opinion on Ubuntu and Linux. At the beginning there were few responses from Planet Larry where I'm syndicated, as I mostly use Gentoo. Then I submitted it to digg and Linux Today, and until the end of the day in my time zone, it got 424 diggs and more than 5000 visits, which was about a total on this blog until this day from the start. That feels great. Then it came ~5000 more visits the next day, and about 1500 visits the day after that. It have received ~100 comments on my blog, and about 200 on digg. So its cool.

There are few things that I wanted to share about this. The comments are generally split into 3 categories, and they are:

1. Yea, exactly!!! My favorite distro rules! And its better than Ubuntu!!!! Ubuntu sucks!!!!
2. Yea!!! Ubuntu rules!!! We're here to get you all!!!!
3. Who cares?

And, to my own surprise, I agree with those who are in group 3. Let me explain:

Group 1 says the following (well, almost. I added some cynicism myself): you're right!! I've been feeling this for the long time already, and it makes me angry that my favorite distribution doesn't get enough attention in the press. Those evil Ubuntu people has bought out all the media and independent journalists to write articles about Linux and use "Ubuntu" instead. I hate Ubuntu!!! I will never ever use it!

Group 2 says: well, of course!! Ubuntu is the best distribution evah, and hence all the smartest people in the world are using it. So, no wonder they use it as an example of Linux-de-facto when writing their articles, and demos and reviews. Yes, maybe they misuse some words sometime, but its not a bad thing...

Group 3 says: Who gives a damn? Let Linux (be it Ubuntu or whatever else) to get some market share in computing, worry about the semantics later. Does it matter that my dad would know Ubuntu and not "Linux"? No!!! Its better than not knowing any of them at all.

So, I would like to put things into perspective, because they seem a little out of it.

Group 1: Take it easy folks. No one is trying to overshadow other distributions. Ubuntu is one of the most known distributions, definitely one of the easiest to use and so it is no surprise people using it more and more. Just as most applications in mid-90s were automatically written for Windows 98 and NT4 (and some companies still choose Windows only, and say it's just "for now", but then "other" never comes), most reviews and how-tos are written for the largest audience - and in our case, specifically for Ubuntu Linux. But there's nothing wrong with that. Most of the installation procedures regarding system environments (such as Gnome/KDE, or some application in those) or devices are almost always distribution-agnostic, and aside the installation procedure which varies from distribution to distribution, they are almost the same. I configure Gnome in Gentoo the same way as it is done in the same version of Gnome in Debian, [K|X|Ed]Ubuntu, PCLinux, FreeBSD, Fedora Core, Mandriva, SLES and all the others.

Group 2: Yes, we know your distro is the best. Or sort of. But we didn't chose it to use (well, not yet at least). So what? The time may come when we do, and also you might want to use my favorite distro once. And you know what? I will help you the best I can. And will not patronize on you. I don't understand - why do we have to argue all the time which ones shwartz is larger? Let's just all work to the same goal - make the computer experience easier for everyone (and it means both me and my dad).

Group 3: I'm totally with you. I believe that spreading Ubuntu is an important thing (just as Red Hat, Gentoo, Debian, SLES and others), and it makes all the Linux-based operating systems to conquer the computers around the world. The more the better, and if it is done with Ubuntu - its fine by me.

To all:

1. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. I don't hate Ubuntu. Do I make myself clear enough?
   
2. I actually like Ubuntu. Not yet having used it too much, I like the spirit and the attempt to get where no one else (except maybe Red Hat and SLES) has ever succeeded before. I will probably definitely start using it soon, because any literate IT person should know well enough at least 3-4 top spread distributions.
   
3. I still use Gentoo on all my machines and very happy about it.
   
4. Just consider this (suggested by multitude of comments): if the choice for a new user is to use either Windows Vista or Ubuntu Linux, what would you suggest that user? Now Ubuntu Linux doesn't look that scary anymore, does it?
5. I'm not an Ubuntu fan person.
   

On that happy note, my last words:

1. I like all Linux-based operating systems (and not only Linux).
   
2. Just to further enforce the point, I like all BSD systems (Free-, Net-, Open-) as much as Linux (and even better). And I also like Unix systems (like IRIX and Solaris).
   
3. I like Ubuntu.
   
4. I like Gentoo.
   
5. I like that Linux and other free software is spreading.
6. I like Mac OS X.
   
7. I don't like Windows OS line.
   

:-)

Many thanks to everyone who commented wherever.

Peace out.

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, Technology, Ubuntu

There's more to Linux than Ubuntu

Dear reader

I've told a million times by now, that I am a Linux person. I like the operating system, the tools, the applications, the works. I like the process. I like the community. I like the people. And all these positive feelings are not distribution-specific, or "KDE vs. Gnome" or "Is Amarok the best media player?" kind - its genuine people-to-people kind of a thing, and the love for the technology.

Recently I got to read more and more stories about Linux in general (at least that what it was insinuated by the name of the article) where term "Linux" is quite replaced by Ubuntu. The latest one was from the LifeHacker blog, which I follow frequently (I have it in my RSS reader) and respect greatly. But why Ubuntu is the Linux chosen all the time? I know that this is the most spread and used distribution (or maybe 2nd most), but there's still no reason for it to be a solely used in such an article. It really makes me sad that media uses term "Ubuntu" and that there are no mentions that almost all of the things described in those stories can be done on any other Linux distribution. There's even no mention that Ubuntu is the distribution.

I've told already before, I fear that if the trend goes on (and at the moment I don't see why would it stop), then the Ubuntification of Linux is unstoppable, just as Windows became a follow up to the "PC" term. There were days (and in many cases are still), when some tech support person would ask you: Do you use Mac or PC? (just like in Apple's commercials). You would say, "PC". "OK then, go to the Start menu....", "I don't have one", you would interrupt. "How so? In the left low corner of your screen...", "I use Linux...", you would interrupt again.

Silence. "Hm, well, I'm not sure we support that. Are you sure this is PC?"

I'm afraid, that Ubuntu can overshadow Linux. I know that technologically literate people will not confuse the two, but for general public, there will be no Linux - just Ubuntu. Just like Windows - do you family members know that there are versions of this thing?

I already said that it scares me. It scares me that I am in no power to change the state of affairs. It scares me because competition between distribution benefits them all, perfecting the tools, causing applications to be developed, economies and companies created, communities united. Without all this, Linux would stop being the "way of the l337", and the title "cool" and talent may move to other directions. So I hope it's not too late. I hope there's still time to differentiate. To explain to all that Linux is what matters, not the specific distribution, no matter how good and successful it may be. Hell, I may even use Ubuntu for different purposes, but I will use others as well (Gentoo for example, but also Fedora Core/CentOS and others), and remember the most important thing.

There's much more to Linux than just Ubuntu.

An Update: I spoke with my friend Alon, and I agree with him that although I'm said with aforementioned stuff, I am still very happy that Linux gets attention, even if its Ubuntu and without mentioning "Linux".

Are linux distribution names should be locked?

I just read a post by Lucas Nussbaum, where he complains about the fact, that there are some Ubuntu deviations, which have different names. I find this irrational. There were times, when we only had sort of one Linux operating environment. Then, as the time passed, it became the GNU/Linux OS, and then, as it is regarded today, it is a base for many different flavors of Linux Operating systems.

There are many people who ask the question: is there too many Linux distributions? But the answer to that question is bordering with the definition of Open itself: as long as one allows openness and provides means, there always will be someone who will customize the product to his/her own needs. And that includes the name change.

Why the author has no complains to Linux Mint distribution, which is largely based on Ubuntu? Who should decide when to provide new distribution name? I don't think it really matters.

What matters is that people use Linux, in any form and shape, and under any name they like. I would be glad to see my friends using Debian, [K|Ed|X]Ubuntu, Gentoo, Red Hat, Fedora or any other distribution, other that Windows. Why is the anger of the author is directed towards Linux users? Why not enjoy the fact that someone uses Linux to bring it to the people?

I don't care how would you call it - if it's Linux, I'm buying.

Mobile really likes Linux (supported by ArsTechnica)

As a prove for what I've been preaching for a while:

The Eee PC will likely have a noticeable influence on future mobile computing development. Companies are increasingly adopting Linux in the mobile space, and Linux developers and distributors are embracing this trend and accommodating rapid development. Intel is also pushing forward Linux-based budget mobile computing with the Silverthorne architecture.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to hardware makers that Windows simply isn't flexible enough to meet the requirements of the rapidly-evolving mobile market and that open-source software provides a clear path forward. The Eee PC is a stunning example of what a hardware maker can accomplish when mixing a highly compact form factor with a custom open-source Linux platform. With the Eee PC, consumers can get a taste of the future today.

Read on ArsTechnica, in Asus Eee701 PC review

Top Best 50 Ubuntu Opensource Applications For Design

I just seen this post on digg, List of the 50 best opensource applications for Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu and Fluxbuntu.

It got hundreds of diggs, but I wonder, why is it the Ubuntu list? I run almost all of these in Gentoo as well.

So I wonder, why is it the author defines it with some distro name?

I'm afraid that Linux might go the pass of podcasting, when people believe that they need an iPod to listen to one. It may happen with Ubuntification of Linux.

The future will tell.

Recording screencasts in Linux made easy !

Ubuntu users can install recordMyDesktop and gtk-recordMyDesktop with:sudo apt-get install recordmydesktop gtk-recordmydesktop

Nice to know!

read more | digg story

Ubuntu Live Stats - keep track of what the Ubuntu Community is up to!

The Ubuntu community is a vibrant one, and it is easy to lose track of what is going on. But not anymore! This site displays all updates coming from various sources in real-time. Keep track of Launchpad, the wiki, the forums, news, blog posts and more!

This is a really cool feature! I just checked it up, and it really works wonderful. I just like the live update sites :-)

-A

read more | digg story

Ubuntu is SuperOS

Ubuntu. Humanity to others. That's what it means, right?

For many of us, it is the Linux OS. For some, it is the only one. For others - its the show-off brother. An enemy for others.

What is it about Ubuntu, which in few years of its existence became one of the leading distros around, and the one for many? It gave a basis for many others and variations of sorts.
And what does it mean for the rest of us?

There are many explanations for many things, but I'm going to dig few important ones.

First. Ubuntu is GNU/Linux operating system. All those who jealous, please hold your peace. Ubuntu pushes forward the same thing that you do. It's in a user experience, stupid.

Second. Ubuntu is made with usability in mind. All Debian zealots (who "translate" Ubuntu as "can't install Debian") are probably correct from technical standpoint. They just forget, that computer is a tool, and I (and many many many) other users do not use Ubuntu, or Debian or Gentoo. They use computer. Surfing the web. Reading email. Watching porn movies. These sorts of things. So we don't actually care most of the time what operates our computer tool. That's why many of us like Ubuntu.

Third. Ubuntu has a commercial support of involved vendor. This in turn means that there will be someone who will push it further while money is in the game. Given that Linux OSes came up greatly up until now without formal support of many distributions (except maybe Red Hat and Novell), another player is definitely a plus, even though Red Hat and Novell do not see it that way.

Forth. Ubuntu is about community. Everyone knows it by now. For such a project to be successful, it has to build a community around it. There was a basis for this community in the first place: Debian. But Debian folk missed the usability part. Ubuntu created a community which is fun to be in. This leads us to -

Fifth. Ubuntu is a successful business model. Take some niche but wanted and/or undeveloped area. Find negative aspects in existing offers. Make what other don't. Eat them alive.

Sixth. Ubuntu is making it with a good planning and within the wishes of their users. Who said that I will always want open software? Yes, I'd prefer it to other one, but hey, first and foremost I want my tool to work. "No 3d drivers? You mean, not at all? Not even those non open source ones? No, thank you, I will use Ubuntu instead".

Seventh. Ubuntu is doing it for every platform. Desktop. Server. Mobile. Internet Kiosks. Ubuntu is everywhere.

And you know what? They will succeed. Where Red Hat will fail, Ubuntu will pick up. Where Novell will piss some communities off, Ubuntu will be careful.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a second Ubuntu is perfect. I don't think that any such project can be.

But I also remember, that their success will benefit me in all the ways possible.
Go Ubuntu!

-A.

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, Ubuntu, technology