(no subject)

[thatcrazycajun]

So I was considering whether to do as technoshaman suggests and divest myself of any further association with the unholy trinity of the Intarwebs—Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft, henceforth referred to by the nifty term TS came up with, YaGooSoft—in protest against their being willing corporate handmaidens to China's attempts to censor the Net and jail anybody within their borders who complains about it. I'm not terribly thrilled about having to face my iGoogle and YouTube addictions down, but I'm having trouble thinking of any other meaningful way to whack YaGooSoft on the nose with a clue-by-four—i.e., make them see this is evil (in direct contravention of Google's stated "don't be evil" credo), grow a set and start standing up to Beijing.

One big part of this strategy, obviously, would have to be getting rid of the WinBlows installation on my Dell laptop and replacing it with some other GUI. (I already use Firefox as a replacement for Internet Exploder except for sites that simply will not play nice with any other browser but IE, and my copy of M$ Office can quite easily be replaced with OpenOffice or some such.) I thought the go-to package for this would surely be Ubuntu, the Linux-based GUI that's become all the rage among those who want Penguiny goodness on their desktops/laptops without having to use/learn command-line code. (Popular T-shirt/button slogan for the clued in this area: "Two hours of broadband to FTP the Linux package: $ .15; CDs to burn the files: $1; the knowledge that nothing on your computer is from Microsoft: priceless. There are some operating systems that money can't buy; for everyone else, there's Windows.")

But then I started hearing about this progenitor (or competitor, depending on who's talking) to Ubuntu called Debian. (Another popular slogan I came upon recently: "'Ubuntu' is an ancient Zulu word meaning 'I can't configure Debian.'" I just adore techie snark, even when I don't have the background to really get it in full.) A search on "Ubuntu vs. Debian" turned up only some long, verbose and highly technical rants opinions I couldn't follow for long. And the one visual attempt I found at explaining the differences between the two didn't help much either.

So, can anyone among the techies that I know infest my friends list give me a simple (meaning understandable by a non-programming, non-Slashdot-reading, Mac and Windows-raised user) explanation of the relationship of Ubuntu to Debian, which is better for the average GUI user and why? Kthxbye.

Comments

I told you so in advance

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

I'm all for voting with one's feet and dollars but if you go the Linux route, no matter which flavor, you're going to find out why Microsoft has such a big market share despite two decades of Unix users hatred and Apple lovers snideness.

I've been a programmer with administrative skills on both Unix and windows for fifteen years, and I predict that you will spend more time fixing your operating system than using your computer if you move to Linux. Understand that I have no dog in the fight over operating systems. Although I defend MS against attacks, it's only because the attackers never really understand why they're so frustrated.

First let me say, Unix has great security, but you have to make a study of its quirks and secrets to really get anything done. Windows is buggy and hard to fix if it breaks, and the Office suite is so overblown that I'm amazed that anyone uses it in the first place. But if you want to get your work done, or find simple to use third party apps that don't take a lot of configuration and maintenance, it's the only game in town.

The reason it's so hateable is that one doesn't realize how much of the complexity of computing it hides until something goes wrong. The thing is that at that point(when things have gone wrong), it doesn't matter what OpSys you're using, if you don't understand the underlying workings, you have to call someone who does. When you're using a Unix variant, that's obvious from the moment something screws up, but if you're using Windows, you feel as if you should be able to fix it yourself because everything else you do with it makes it seem easy.

Nothing about computing is easy if you have to work at the level where you can't just click a magic button that fixes what went wrong.

If you're willing to make a study of Unix/Linux I'll be glad to help if you don't mind asking "one of those conservative whackos" ;-), but it really won't be easier than learning the behind the scenes stuff that will make Windows easy for you to maintain. Truthfully, I haven't lost a single document to a Windows glitch since I installed a bad upgrade to Win95 in 1997, and haven't once had to reinstall Windows since 2000.

At the very least, let me suggest that you get a new, reasonably priced hard drive, install it as a second HD in your computer, and install the Linux system on it, so that your Windows installation remains intact and unaltered, preferably in a dual boot configuration.

Re: I told you so in advance

[mdlbear]

Linux has improved considerably since the old days; Ubuntu in particular is at least as easy to configure and maintain as Windows or MacOS. Easier, in my opinion. And a lot less hassle to upgrade.

I haven't had to re-install Linux on a machine since switching to Debian, and some of my personal configuration files haven't been changed significantly since I switched over from SunOS a dozen years ago. One of my servers has been up for nearly two years now. And I have never lost a document on Unix except to pilot error or hardware crashes, and not even those since I started keeping regular backups.

Re: I told you so in advance

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

-- And I have never lost a document on Unix except to pilot error or hardware crashes, and not even those since I started keeping regular backups. --

I just want to say that I wasn't in any way trying to suggest that U/L is more prone to problems, only that Win is not as prone to them as some would suggest.

I'd also like to point out that I suspect you're at least as 'educated' in operating systems and computing as I am, and part of my warning tone to Matt is that training is required to care for an operating system instead of just using the apps that run on it.

Also, I have a question. What are you referring to when you say "as easy to configure and maintain as Windows or MacOS." I haven't thought of anything that a typical user might do as configuration for a long time because as a developer I have to do serious low level configuration which a 'user' would never see, sometimes reinstalling the operating system and applications two or three times a day. What I mean is that I'm not sure what kinds of things you might be calling configuration because my world is so deeply complex as to be out of touch with the commonplace.

For example, setting the background color of my desktop is something I wouldn't call configuration, but I know many people would consider it one of those secrets that makes you a guru. I'm serious and neither tooting my horn nor putting anyone down; just trying to figure out the level of the discussion when the word 'configuration' is used in this conversation.

Thanx

Re: I told you so in advance

[mdlbear]

I use Windows and Mac so rarely that I'm only one cut above a newbie on those. I'm talking about configuring things like email, networking, file sharing, printers, and firewalls. These are all pretty straightforward under Gnome or KDE on Ubuntu. Screen background, screensaver, and so on are trivial.

And let's not even start going into the things that simply can't be configured at all on Mac and PC, like focus-follows-mouse and tabbed titlebars.

As for maintenance, neither Mac nor Windows has anything like synaptic, the GUI package-browser for Debian and its derivatives. Nor any way of updating all of your applications with a single click. (Or single command, if you're an old Unix hacker like me.) There are very few applications you can't simply install from the Debian or Ubuntu repository these days. Certainly nothing that a casual user will be needing.

[mdlbear]

I'm a Debian user; I usually recommend Ubuntu to people who want an easy, GUI-based setup (the Debian installer is text-based) that comes with most of what they need out of the box.

Debian and Ubuntu differ primarily in the timing of their releases; they use the same excellent package manager (apt, which stands for "A Package Tool") and the same set of packages, but usually with different revisions reflecting the different release strategies.

Debian has three releases available at any given time: Stable, Testing, and Unstable. Stable is, well, stable: it's sometimes a year or more between updates. Rock solid, and especially good on public servers. Testing is going to be the next Stable when it grows up. Unstable is where newly-updated packages go for bug testing until they've been beaten on for a couple of weeks (plus however long it takes for all of the packages they depend on to get updated). Most people find Unstable to be good enough for a workstation, but you sometimes get some surprises.

Ubuntu takes packages out of the Debian repository, usually a mix of Testing and Stable, and releases them on a fairly firm six-month cycle. Every once in a while they designate one to be worthy of long-term support and promise bug fixes and security updates for three years, otherwise it's one year.

Ubuntu also comes in several specialized versions: Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu. Each comes with a different "desktop" and a different collection of applications. It's not too important which one you start with, because all of the 16,000 packages can be installed on all of the desktops, but Kubuntu, which is based on the KDE desktop, is generally considered to be slightly closer to Windows in general appearance and behavior.

On the whole, I think Ubuntu or Kubuntu will give a beginner the best experience. If you want to put together a server, or some more specialized system, go with Debian Stable because it gives you a lot more control over which packages to install. (All the Ubuntu variants install from a "live CD" that you can boot from and experiment with before installing. So that's another plus.)

Digression on desktops: unlike Windows and Mac, which go to great lengths to make all applications have the same "look and feel", the X Window System (which Linux got from Unix) splits up the responsibility: the "toolkit" (basically a DLL, in Windows terms) determines how applications look and behave. The "window manager", which is an ordinary user application, determines the look and feel of everything outside the applications' windows: title bars, screen backgrounds, menus, and so on. This provides a lot of room for experimentation, and you can customize a Linux system in ways that Windows users can't even imagine, and Mac users don't want to imagine.

So you can start with Kubuntu and the KDE desktop (toolkit plus window manager), install the Gnome window manager to see what that's like, play around with Xfce (which Xubuntu starts out with -- it's a bit lighter-weight than the others), and go on to some of the really esoteric ones like ctwm (my personal favorite), ion, enlightenment, or ratpoison (which avoids the mouse and does everything with keystrokes).

Enjoy!

re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

How are the application selection, availability and interactivity.

I can use paint Shop Pro to scan a document directly, save it as any image type commonly used on Win (jpg, bmp, wmf, gif, psd, png, tiff and a dozen more). I can then import that file, (again in virtually any of the common formats) into Smartdraw or Visio, and then add drawing, shading, connections, and links. I can then export that finalized drawing to those formats again, and additionally export them as a web site, with all the low level(albeit simplistic) html generated for me and posted to my web server(IIS or any of half a dozen personal servers written for Win). From there I can open the web site in almost any serious programming IDE written for Win and add Java, Javascript(and its variations) style sheets, XML documents, etc.. and save them all back to the site without having to do any conversions or even think about what limitations there might be in communication and interactivity between all those apps.

Two things:
1). I know Matt probably just wants to write some documents, save some pictures from his camera and ftp his stuff to his web host. I was just trying to make my question about interactivity between apps on Unix/Linux clear.

2). My question is sincere since I'm not familiar with the latest U/L standards, and the ability to work from one app to another seamlessly was the biggest problem the last time I did look.)two or three years ago)

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

Unix applications tend to interoperate on the file level, and since the formats are all standard, most are supported wherever they're needed. Cut-and-paste is still a little behind the leaders, but it works well enough on KDE and Gnome.

You can scan from The Gimp, which is basically Linux's answer to Photoshop, and export to JPEG, BMP, PNG, TIFF, or any of a dozen other formats. You can even import Photoshop format, though I'm not sure about export. GPhoto does most things you need to do with digital camera images; there's a KDE equivalent but I'm not sure what it's called. Photo galleries? Dozens. All working just fine with Apache, which is the standard webserver for Linux and almost all hosting services. PDF, Postscript, and HTML are well-supported.

For audio editing and multitracking I'd suggest Audacity, which is cross-platform (so I can collaborate on a project and not have to worry about what OS everybody is using).

I'm not sure I've completely answered the question. Things tend to be done a little differently in Linux/Unix: the workflow is different just because you always have the option of dropping down to a command line to do something that might be next to impossible with a GUI.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

You've answered my questions as well as can be expected in a brief note. Thank you.

I should have realized for myself that the object linking and embedding functionality of Win would not be generally supported, but unless you're used to using it for your daily tasks as I am, you won't notice it's missing unless someone (for instance) sends you a Word document with a linked spreadsheet and/or graph. As I said, it really only matters what Matt wants to and must do for his daily bread that limits his choices. All the fun and games stuff is covered by somebody's program.

==================================================

--Things tend to be done a little differently in Linux/Unix: the workflow is different just because you always have the option of dropping down to a command line to do something that might be next to impossible with a GUI.--

Could you please clarify this statement? What might be harder with a gui than a CL?

==============================================

BTW, there are toys for Win which emulate the nifty things that you described. The MS dev team wrote the focus chaser, and Winforms appearance modules in the mid 90s, but usually only developers and those familiar with both sides of the fence(Win-U/L) even know about them. There are some really cool esoteric desktop switchers too, but I don't know if the U/L side has found them entertaining enough to emulate yet.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

"There are some really cool esoteric desktop switchers too, but I don't know if the U/L side has found them entertaining enough to emulate yet."

Unix had them first -- I've been switching between multiple desktops in X since 1989 or so. For eye candy while switching desktops, check out the 3-D environments Compiz and Beryl.

"What might be harder with a gui than a CL?"

For example: locate all the .wav files in a directory hierarchy, collapse their pathnames by converting slashes to double hyphens, convert them to mp3's, and store them on a USB drive in one directory. That's a one-liner in a CL.

For another: find all files with a .c or .h extension and convert them from DOS to Unix format by changing CR-LF to LF. Again, a one-liner.

Or: copy all the files and subdirectories in my home directory onto a backup drive, except for the ones that end in .bak or ~. That's a single command.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

--Unix had them first--
How'd I know you were gonna say that? ;-)
==========================================

--"What might be harder with a gui than a CL?"--

Last one first
--copy all the files and subdirectories in my home directory onto a backup drive, except for the ones that end in .bak or ~--
That is a simple act of highligting the files I wish to move and unhighlighting those I don't, then dragging and dropping. I could do it before you could type GREP

As for converting file names or changing the text contents of files on the fly, without looking inside to be sure you really want to do that first, that's just doing things that are one time tasks and generally unnecessary. Even at that, I've seen GUI based programs that allow both of those things. The one that changes the CRLFs I was using to translate Java documentation in 1996. The one that allows you to manipulate file names was part of a larger graphics program which allowed scripting for that as PART of the package that allowed you to automate the conversion and manipulation of your graphics files and their formats.

If their was a real need to do that sort of thing on a regular basis, I could write a GUI based app in less than a day, or simply use the DOS command line and write a batch file(shell script)in Win. Also, Win has encapsulated the entire GREP functionality into its programming APIs so if it were really useful, a GUI app could allow you to do any of that and more to files you could select from a display instead of a scrolling text screen.

Please forgive me if this sounds combative. I only mean to point out that the only reason it's easier is that there aren't enough people who want to do that sort of thing to make it profitable for other people to write a GUI to do them.

I learned DOS and Unix at the command line using shell scripts, batch files, and command line tricks to impress my friends and teachers. I remember painting animated command prompts using the 'prompt$' command, and probably still have the examples around somewhere in my archives. (clickety-clcik...type, type, type scroll..scroll.. dir/a/s/p -".c" >> OldCmdTriks.txt ...scroll...scroll...) Ah never mind, I'll have to look later. :-)

I'm just sayin, I understand where you're coming from, but in the context of this discussion, cmdln isn't easier. I doubt that we could even explain what we're talking about to Matt, let alone teach him how to do it, at least in a reasonable amount of time.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>I doubt that we could even explain what we're talking about to Matt, let alone teach him how to do it, at least in a reasonable amount of time.<<

Probably right. I've heard for decades from command-line snobs that the CL gives you way more power than a GUI user could ever dream of -- and it may be so, but only if you can remember all those arcane codes and commands; I never could.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

Last one first, again: there are roughly 210,000 files and directories in the tree rooted in my home directory.

The point is, I don't have to spend a day writing a Perl script to do these things: I can notice that they need doing, type in the command, and get back to something productive. It's precisely because they're mostly one-shot operations that come up every couple of days or weeks that it's important that they be comparatively easy to do.

And as for the clickety-click, it sounds like you're thinking of something like:
find . -name '*.bat' -e grep 'prompt\$' {} \; -print

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

--Last one first, again: there are roughly 210,000 files and directories in the tree rooted in my home directory. --

You must have a small hard drive. Mine's got over a million. What is that supposed to prove?
===================================================

--The point is, I don't have to spend a day writing a Perl script to do these things:--

Neither do I. All I have to do is drag and drop if I want to move files from on place to another, but I said that.
===================================================

--...one-shot operations that come up every couple of days or weeks...--

Those are what I call repetitive tasks, and it doesn't matter if your working in Win or U/L, if you're not automating them, your doing something wrong. BTW, I said I could write a GUI app that would encapsulate the entire GREP functionality so that it could be used by ANYONE, in less than a day, but that there's no market for it because people who need to do that kind of thing often are too rare to make it profitable. If that were not true, bet your bottom dollar SOMEONE would have written it by now.
=======================================================

--And as for the clickety-click, it sounds like you're thinking of something like:
find . -name '*.bat' -e grep 'prompt\$' {} \; -print--

Actually, I'd just open a directory dialog, browse to where my archives are, then type "*.bat" in the box that asks for files to be searched and type "prompt$" in the box that asks for text to be searched for. I would have my answer in less than 10 seconds (start to finish) and could open any or all of them for editing by selecting them, right clicking the selected group, and selecting "edit" from the context menu that would pop up.

I could then cut and paste the text I wanted to anywhere I pleased including a DOS window I could open from the same context menu.

Are you having some sort of meltdown. It was a joke, and I was making fun of what I used to do, not you.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

No, I'm not having a meltdown, just trying to come up with a convincing example. I'm very literal-minded, and don't always have an easy time distinguishing attempted humor from simple comments.

I'll go away now.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

--I'll go away now.--

Please don't. The idea here is to help Matt make a very serious decision. If it were just his personal fun stuff, I would encourage him without reservation, just to get some giggles from the ensuing train wreck, but he's considering moving his working environment too, and that is not my idea of something to make a practical joke out of.

My questions have been and will continue to be sincere. If I know the answer to a disagreement, Matt can tell you, I will say so clearly. As things stand, I'm an expert in Win, a used-to-be expert in U/L, and a competent user on the Mac(just don't ask me to tell you how to do anything with it unless I'm actually sitting at the keyboard ;-)

I'm not familiar with the state of Linux in the past two or three years. I'm waiting for people to stop bragging about how much easier it is to configure, because I don't see any difference in configuring different systems. You either understand the settings for your networking software or you don't. You either know how to back up your mail files or you don't. You either know the IPs of your primary and secondary DNS Servers or you don't. No matter which OS you have, you know those things or you call someone who does and pay them.

When people talk about how much easier their upgrades are my eyes roll back in my head. The only upgrades I ever have to do are readily available at the web site of the vendor and install with a single double click and the typing of a few answers about things like -- do I want to overwrite the existing installation or install in a new directory? Do I want to install the complete pkg or pick and choose which components I want to install right now? I don't upgrade until I have a serious need for a new functionality, or time on my hands to play around if it goes wrong.

Security patches I do once a month. I NEVER let someone else, including MS, automate what goes on my machines [period]

Lastly, when I hear people mention that they have to compile their U/L apps before they can use them, I'm always caught by surprise even though I've known it for fifteen years. To me compiling is a programmers job because he has to test his program on every platform anyway, so why not just distribute the executable? Knowing the problems I have with compiling on a new environment for just those testing purposes, even though that's my job and I'm good at it, I shudder and have bad dreams when I think that someone who doesn't even know what is happening during compilation is left to figure it out when it doesn't go well.

In short, Matt's going to need help from people on both sides of the cursor; from those who believe in copyrights and those who support copylefts; from those who believe in paying for their software, and those who are working for the cause of freeware.

I say no blood, no foul. :-)

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

Fair enough. The CL stuff was basically me getting distracted.

Upgrades are more important. In the Debian/Ubuntu family, upgrades really *are* simpler: because essentially all your packages are coming from the same place, you don't have to go chasing after each of your vendors, or hoping the apps check the website automatically. You're guaranteed that when you do a security upgrade, everything has been tested by the security team to make sure it doesn't break anything else, and takes care to preserve your existing settings.

Upgrading between releases is a little more drastic, but in Ubuntu that's only every six months to 1 year; less if you stick to the Long-Term-Support releases. In many cases, where an upstream vendor makes drastic, incompatible changes in a program, somebody who prefers the old one will continue maintaining it as a separate package.

As for compiling, I've been using Debian for several years, and I've only had to compile one package. That was Audacity, and it was because the stable version didn't support my new Mac laptop, and I needed the cross-platform compatibility. (I could probably have found a compiled and packaged version of Audacity 1.3 if I'd asked around, but I was impatient.) A normal user never has to compile anything.

(Some distributions, like Gentoo, do require compiling; they're for people who like to live on the bleeding edge. They occasionally get sliced to ribbons on it.)

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

So generally one only uses the apps that come with the package? If other apps are required, do they require compiling or do they have executable distributions which can be installed under the existing OS?

Again, I'm unfamiliar with current U/L, but what I'm asking is:

If the distribution comes with graphics pkg A and it doesn't have to be compiled, and does get upgraded in the auto-upgrade, what would it entail for me to be able to use a third party graphics pkg named B in addition to or in place of A? Would I have to download, compile, and upgrade B separately from then on?

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

Since Ubuntu and Debian come with upwards of 16,000 packages, it's unusual to find a well-known application that isn't already there. Even without that, most applications "upstream" from the distribution (if they're meant for ordinary users) have a pre-built binary that has all but the lowest-common-denominator libraries linked in, so it's likely to just install and run. Firefox is a good example - it comes in a universal binary, but Debian has repackaged it to fit in better with the distribution.

Graphics on Linux come in three pieces: there's the X server, which handles the work of actually driving the display. The protocol, X11R6, has been stable since 1992 or thereabouts, so that's not a compatibility issue. The second part is the window manager, which controls things like window placement, title bars, and icons. That's an ordinary userland program that uses the X11 protocol to interact with applications. They're interchangeable.

Applications use "toolkits" or "frameworks" to put their own graphics on the screen, and these are just libraries that, down in their guts, call the low-level X protocol library. Any decent distribution will have many toolkits in the form of DLLs; if an application wants something really unusual it'll get linked in with the binary.

So, even though there are different "desktops" like KDE and Gnome, underneath they're all using X, so applications designed for KDE will work under Gnome and vice versa. Ubuntu comes in four different desktop-oriented flavors: Ubuntu (Gnome), Kubuntu (KDE), Xubuntu (Xfce), and server (none). But the only difference between them is which desktop's window manager they install by default -- you can have as many desktops as you like, and try a new one every time you log in. Since they're all in the distribution, they all get upgraded automatically.

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by a "graphics package", but I'm thinking it's something like the desktop - a window manager and a suite of applications that share a toolkit. A distribution will generally pick a default desktop, typically either Gnome or KDE, but users are so evenly split between the two that they have to support both. Debian and Ubuntu are among the few that still support some of the stranger, older desktops; it was Debian's support for ctwm that made me switch to it from RedHat several years ago.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

When I say graphics package I'm referring to a program that allows graphic creation and manipulation, and all of its bells and whistles, including any plugins. I'm not referring to any part of the OS.

I simply mean(and I'm making these up for the example) if a specific distribution of Linux came with Photoshop, but I wanted to use Paint Shop Pro instead, would I have to download, compile and manually upgrade Paint Shop Pro from then on, or would Paint Shop's distributors provide a binary that I could just install and register with the distribution's upgrader mechanism?

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

OK, so what you meant was any application program -- it's not confined to graphics applications. There are three cases to consider:

1. It's been packaged for Debian or Ubuntu, but for some reason isn't part of the distribution. In that case, you just add the vendor's private repository to the list of repositories, install the application by name, and away you go. There are a couple of groups that maintain Debian repositories of this sort; the one I'm most familiar with is 64Studio for audio applications.

2. It hasn't been packaged for your distribution, but there's a Linux binary available. This is the usual case with proprietary software. In this case you may have to pay someone before you download, and possibly pay for upgrades, but at least it's a binary. All you have to do is install it and it runs. No compiling, because they're not giving you the source code. In some cases the application knows how to upgrade itself, otherwise you have to check.

2a. A lot of free software -- Firefox and OpenOffice are good examples -- is available in binary form for Linux, but because it's free software it's almost guaranteed to have been packaged for Debian and Ubuntu already, and installing the distribution's package will ensure that it plays nice with everything else and gets upgraded automatically.

2b. If something is available only in binary form but can be downloaded for free, perhaps after agreeing to a click-through license, odds are that somebody has made a wrapper that integrates it with the distribution's packaging system, in which case it gets installed like any other package and, in most cases, upgraded automatically. This is done with Adobe's Flash and Acrobat readers, Realplayer, several of Microsoft's TrueType fonts, proprietary codecs, and so on. There's a program called EasyUbuntu that downloads and installs a bunch of them for you.

3. The application is only available in source form. This only happens with free software that's so new or so uncommon that nobody has gotten around to packaging it for your distribution. Rare enough that you don't have to worry about it.

There are a lot of different graphics applications in Debian already. Not Photoshop or Illustrator, unfortunately, because Adobe doesn't believe Linux is a large enough market to be worth supporting. But there are rough equivalents: The Gimp is roughly equivalent to Photoshop, Inkscape is roughly equivalent to Illustrator, and (moving slightly further afield) OpenOffice is roughly equivalent to Microsoft Office. In some cases they can import and export some of the same files. Postscript, PDF, SVG, JPEG, BMP, and TIFF are all well-supported because they're open standards.

There are literally hundreds of other graphics packages in Debian; I've only mentioned the big ones. If you have kids you might want to look at TuxPaint. If you do flowcharts or architectural drawing, see Dia. And so on.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Nice explanation. Thank you.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

I should add that, if you go to a free program's web page, you will almost always find instructions for downloading and compiling it. You might not find it as easy to locate the binaries. That doesn't mean that a binary package isn't available for your distribution, only that the original developers haven't made it themselves. They usually don't: they're much too busy getting the next version into the hands of the developers and power-users who are willing to put up with some potential problems in exchange for getting their grubby hands on the latest hot features.

The distributions are going to be trailing behind the developers: it takes time to put together a package that meets the distro's rather strict standards for robustness, licensing, documentation, and, in the case of Debian, putting all of its configuration files where the distribution's standards say they should go. Developers and package maintainers occasionally argue about this, but a user will almost always be better off with the distribution's approved version.

Audacity is a good example: I've been using the 1.3.x series since early this year because it wasn't compatible with the Intel-based Macs; 1.3.3 finally showed up in Ubuntu last month. Firefox is another: they do provide a universal Linux binary that, by default, automatically downloads its own updates. Debian insists that updates be under the control of the user, and also has issues with the restrictions on the Firefox trademark. So they file the nameplate off and repackage it as Iceweasel, with its own particularly cute logo, and it only gets updated when I decide it's safe to do so.

The package manager, by the way, includes the ability to do a full-text search on the entire package database, so it's pretty easy to figure out which package (or packages) you have to install to get the program you want, even if all you have is a rather vague description.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>1). I know Matt probably just wants to write some documents, save some pictures from his camera and ftp his stuff to his web host.<<

Only partly right. First off, I'm still shopping for my first digital camera; haven't actually bought one yet. (I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a Nikon or Canon, unless Pentax can come up with something surprisingly nifty and cheap, since they made the sturdy K-1000 SE manual film camera I've owned for over two decades now.) Second, since I'm a graphic designer for print and the Web, I also need to, in addition to what you listed, be able to use the Big Three (QuarkXPress, Photoshop and Illustrator), which are industry-standard in my field and therefore not optional for getting work (although Adobe has managed to make some inroads with more recent versions of InDesign). There are free/open-source analogues (Scribus for QXD, The GIMP for PS and several for Illustrator), but some, like Scribus, are dependent on X11 and therefore non-trivial to install and use for someone based in a Windows, Mac or (I suspect) Ubuntu/Debian environment.

I also need to be able to use a scanner (print work requires minimum resolution of 150 dpi for newsprint, 300 or more for magazine/book work) and a stylus tablet (Wacom by preference). And since I listen to a LOT of music and watch a LOT of video on my computers, multimedia functionality is a must. And as my Songbird and I are thousands of miles apart these days, and landline LD phone service to Kenya ain't cheap, Skype or some other VoIP software is also an absolute necessity.

Hope this gives you a better idea of what I'm looking for.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

--Only partly right. --

I wasn't trying to guess for real. That's where you come in actually.

Your post is a really good start on doing your part in this. If you were one of my customers, the first thing I'd have you do is to make a formal list of all the tasks you need to do, all those you want to do in the near future, and (as you've begun) all the software you must use for which you cannot substitute anything else.

Also, you'll need to list (again, as you've well begun) all of the hardware that you will need the new system to support so that you can find out if the manufacturers provide drivers for the new OS, and if those drivers fully support the functionality you're dependent on from those devices. Generally the drivers provided by a mfgr. deliver the same functionality for all OSs, but not always, and especially if the manufacturer is a small co. or start up, or the OS is a more recent derivative.

Too, you'll want to consider whether versions of the software written for the new OS will import/export all of the same file formats that you're used to using. For instance, some of the newer drawing programs don't support GIF format anymore because of the copyright wars a couple years ago, while vendors that have been around a while just eat the licensing cost rather than disappoint their client base by discontinuing their support for it.

I'd also suggest lining up someone who IS in fact current on, and expertly knowledgeable in both OSs, so that you spend as little time as possible "figuring things out", and therein lies the crux of my original point. Such people are not be as ubiquitous as one might think from casual conversations before the rubber hits the road. If you intend to do your livelihood's work from the new setup, that person is going to be critical to your success. I'm not knocking the community of U/L users, but wanting to help, and actually being able to help, provide rapidly and wildly diverging result paths.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

Excellent advice, all of it. Although GIF is free now that the patent has expired, there are still plenty of formats that aren't, though implementations can often be found.

While looking for the expert, it's easy enough to fire up the Ubuntu live CD and just see which of your peripherals and formats are supported -- you might be pleasantly surprised.

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

--While looking for the expert, it's easy enough to fire up the Ubuntu live CD and just see which of your peripherals and formats are supported -- you might be pleasantly surprised.--

Ditto. There's nothing that will give you the experience of doing it like doing it will. :-)

Re: ubuntu-hello-cthulhu

[mdlbear]

X11 is Linux's native graphics system, so Scribus and The Gimp are easy -- Debian has both of them. The Windows-native apps might conceivably work under WINE or one of its commercial variants -- haven't tried. If they don't, or the emulation isn't fast enough, you might have to keep a Windows partition around. Dual-booting a machine is easy.

Most scanners and tablets are supported -- I fired up xsane (the graphical front-end for SANE, Linux's version of TWAIN) and my Epson scanner just plain worked at 1200dpi. Skype has a no-cost but not open version for Linux; there's also support for SIP and other VoIP protocols, including several forms of voice chat.

MP3 audio and DVD video require libraries that can't be distributed as part of a totally free Linux distribution, but they're readily available at no cost. (There are patent problems.)

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Ubuntu is definitely superior to Debian for the novice user. There are a lot of GUIs that Ubuntu (or, my personal preference, Kubuntu - the KDE variant, which I find more stable) install by default that just make things easier.

Deb is more purist, has a longer development cycle, and there's more of a geek cred factor for running straight Deb. Ubuntu has a short (6-month) development cycle, is more pragmatic about things like proprietary binary drivers, and you can actually get commercial support from the maker if you really want to.

Although that last paragraph really sums it up: You're not looking for geek cred, you just want something that works. Get Ubuntu. Go with Gutsy Gibbon; Dapper Drake has long term support but Gutsy is close enough to an LTS release that it's well worth the extra drivers and stuff you'll get.

(There are a few other things around that when they mature will be really cool for novice users. There's something called PCLinuxOS, and another one called Symphony.... but Ubuntu has the time in grade now, and I think it's ready for if not prime time, at least Saturday morning cartoons.

Oh, and the remark elsewhere about maintaining your OS? Dead easy here. When there's an update, you'll get a little attention thingy in your tray. Punch it, and follow the resulting dialog. Piece of problem, no cake. And the update downloads are usually a fair bit smaller than corresponding Windows ones.

(I would remark that anyone who doesn't spend at least a little time every week maintaining his OS, no matter what it is, is asking for trouble.)

Oh, one other thing. If you want just a taste of what its like? You can always boot a LiveCD. (K)Ubuntu comes as one by default; you boot the LiveCD, then tell it to install to your hard drive. (Which procedure I think can shrink and save your Windows partition... don't quote me on that, and back up anything you think you might need someplace safe first!) There is also Damn Small Linux and Puppy Linux, the latter of which is my favorite. You can boot Puppy from a USB stick - without touching your hard drive - and save your session back to the stick for later (e.g. Firefox bookmarks); when the stick is gone, you're back where you started. Useful for working with employer-supplied laptops. :)

mdlbear and I have both been doing stuff at a shell prompt since God Linus Torvalds was a little boy; if you've got questions, ask away.

[mdlbear]

..."since God Linux Torvalds was a little boy..."

You do know that God wrote in LISP, don't you?

It's worth mentioning that the main reason installs and updates are so easy is that all the applications most people need are in the distribution's repository, so it's one-stop shopping. And if you install something like Sun's Java or Microsoft's TrueType fonts that requires agreeing to a license, you only have to agree to it once. After that the package manager remembers that you've agreed to it, so it doesn't need to ask again.

And rebooting. Try keeping a Windows box or a Mac updated without having to reboot practically every time you load an update. With Linux, you only have to reboot if you install a new kernel.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

God wrote in LITHP

Oh, dear.

rebooting

F'rexample, my mail server:

> uptime
23:10:09 up 135 days, 9:36

And that's only because of a power out; I had well over a year on it before..... one of the locals got his up over 1000 days. (BTW, the mailserver *is* Debian; the base install on that box dates to 2004. I've just kept running the updates as they come in....)

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>And if you install something like Sun's Java or Microsoft's TrueType fonts that requires agreeing to a license, you only have to agree to it once.<<

That's a no-no for purposes of this thought experiment; the idea is to avoid using ANY product from Micro$oft at all, including TrueType (which, ironically, they bought from Apple). Java, *maybe,* but nothing from the Colossus of Redmond.

And as for updating, I've never been bothered by having to reboot after updates on the Mac, since the boot process is usually much quicker and more painless than on WinBlows.

[mdlbear]

TrueType, Postscript, and PDF are all open standards; doesn't matter who implements them. There's a set of fonts that Microsoft gives away for free (and that everybody and his brother use on web pages), but you have to agree to a license. Same for Java (although that's changing) and Flash.

You can avoid them, and many people do, but it's difficult just because there are so many documents out on the Web that use them.

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/06/02/one-year-with-linux is a great story of one (admittedly techie) man's experiences with Ubuntu

[mdlbear]

Excellent article.