J_K9 @ Linux

Linux’s Diversity As An OS

August 24, 2006 on 1:29 am | In Linux |

I believe that, in the same way that the right tool should be used for the job, the right OS (Operating System) should be used for the job. There is no such thing as “the best Operating System” (although, if there were, I’d like to think it was Linux ;)), but there is a “most suitable Operating System for a certain job.” For example, what OS would you use to play games: Windows, Linux, OS X, or another? Anyone who has not discovered the wonders of Frozen Bubble would say Windows. Sorry - I meant any 3D gamer would say Windows! And what OS would you use to run an Apache webserver? Why, Linux, of course (or a *BSD, but Linux seems to be more popular).

Linux has many uses. Every day, you see more and more people adopt it as a desktop OS, and it is entering the enterprise desktop market as a strong competitor to Windows. Hundreds of thousands of servers around the world are powered by it. Besides these, there are many other uses for it.

But, let’s focus on home users. Most of them are quite comfortable with Windows - they have paid for Office and a few other applications, and they see no need to change to something completely different and unfamiliar to them. They plug their iPod in, and it works. They plug their webcam and wireless card in, and they work. Sure, it crashes once in a blue moon (or not so rarely), but it works just fine the rest of the time. Let’s suppose that they do get fed up with Microsoft and their OS (I know I did, just two short years ago), or that they are told that they can get everything they currently have (and more) for free on Linux, without needing to purchase any software or download pirated copies. Or maybe they saw a video of XGL and Compiz running on Linux on a video sharing service such as YouTube, and were so entranced by its effects that they felt the urge to take it for a spin. So, what’s their first step? They Google “Linux.”

The first hit is Linux.org. Being the absolute geniuses they are, they click on it, and go straight to the download page (we’re talking about the typical prospective migrant). They read the text, and, there’s their answer, in the second paragraph:

First, you don’t have to actually install Linux in your hard disk to use the Linux operating system. There exist several “versions” of Linux that can be downloaded an burned to a CD. These variants of the Linux operating system, known as “Live CD” versions, will boot Linux directly from the CD on systems that are capable of doing this. (most PCs manufactured in the last 7 to 8 years will allow this). Memory requirements vary, so please consult our list of Live CD distributions on our distributions page (choose the option ‘Live CD’ from the ‘Category’ menu). There are several popular Live CD distributions, such as MEPIS, Knoppix and Slax. Most major Linux distributors (SUSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu) also offer Live CD versions of their products.

There’s no need to read more - that sounds absolutely amazing! They then click on the link to go to the distributions page, and then choose the “Live CD” category. The first hit is the FREEDUC project. Now, to be honest with you, I hadn’t even heard of that distribution until a few minutes ago, yet it’s still at the top of the list. Interesting. I’m surprised Knoppix is ranked second…

Now, depending on the user, they will either:

1. Click on the FREEDUC link, and download that. Then, figure out that they have no clue how to use what they have downloaded and return to the FREEDUC page, or
2. Click on the FREEDUC link and realise that it’s a distribution for primary school, think “wtf?” and hit the back button in a state of confusion, or
3. Look at the list of 91 distributions (this person actually read the Download and Distributions pages and knows what a distribution is) and be overwhelmed, and faint at the thought of having to decide on which link to click.

I’d like to concentrate on the third one. While I think that having hundreds of different distributions is excellent, because it means that there is a Linux distribution for (almost) any niche, and it gives the user the option of choosing the right version for them, it can also confuse newbies. Take a look at that live CD list, and imagine yourself as a Linux newbie - Windows is the only OS you have used in your entire life. What would you do? What would you think?

I know that I would be confused. Yes, there are “Linux distribution choosers” which can help you out, such as the ones available from zegenie studios and tuxs.org - but are those on Linux.org’s front page? They most certainly are not - and they won’t find them unless they type that string into Google, read a recently updated migration article, or stumble across a link while browsing a forum like LQ.org; but the chances of this happening are not too great.

So what was that rant about? The fact that, while having many distributions is a good thing from one point of view, it is a bad thing from another, as there is no standardization (and, no, the LSB and DCC Alliance won’t cut it).

Now, let’s move on to package managers and archive formats. Let’s also invent a user called Joe. Joe has recently migrated to Linux - he tried out Kanotix, followed a few tutorials, and loved the feel of it, so he backed up his stuff and installed it on his computer. He then copied all his photos and documents onto his brand new Kanotix installation. He used to use Picasa on Windows, as it served his image editing needs perfectly, so he went ahead and Google it and he soon found himself at the Picasa Linux download page. Bugger - there are three different versions. Which one does he download? Let’s see.. There’s the Red Hat/Fedora/Suse/Mandriva one - nope, no Kanotix. Then there’s the Debian/Ubuntu one - no Kanotix either. Wait a minute… He remembers seeing Debian before. Hmm… Must’ve imagined it. The next one is meant to work on any Linux distribution, but what does “x86″ mean? Does he have an “x86 Linux distribution”?

And that is a mild example - there are some applications whose developers only create .deb packages, and expect everyone else to compile from source, or they create .rpm packages and let the rest do it manually. Why can’t there be just the one binary package format? This is another source of frustration (excuse the pun). I, personally, do not mind the differences - I know when to use RPMs, and when to use DEBs, but that is because I have two years of experience under my belt. Does a home user, a Linux newbie, really want to read pages and pages of tutorials to find the answer of which one to download? I highly doubt it - they want it to “just work.”

So, perhaps if we used a single binary format then Linux would be adopted more widely, as developers of commercial applications would only have to concentrate on creating one binary package which would work on all compliant Linux distributions, instead of having their DEB (for example) aliened into another format, which may not install properly, and users would not need to scratch their heads when trying to download a Linux application.

Oh well, rant over - comments and opinions appreciated