Linux - still not quite for the masses
One of the things I really value about Linux is that it's not a lowest-common-denominator, one-size-fits-all system. It's a system for "power users", those people who enjoy understanding at least some of what is going on with their systems, who enjoy putting some serious time into getting them set up the way they like best.

Yes, I have a working desktop system. I've been messing with it and tweaking it for a couple of months now, and to tell the truth I probably couldn't go back and tell you everything I had to do to get it to be a usable, workable system. It would be especially hard to sort out the steps I took to make it usable from the ones I took that were pure customization for my own preferences.

I use the system - so far - for basic Internet services (mail, IRC, Usenet, and browsing), for basic office tasks like sending letters (printing) and tracking expenses, managing a photo collection, working on web sites, and managing a growing music collection including digitizing vinyl albums. It does all of the above well, and without the headaches I had with my windows systems.

I know for certain though that two or three of the things I had to do required a fairly advanced knowledge of PC architecture, Operating Systems, and some knowledge of programming. Solving the problem with CUPS security on SuSE was tough, even though I found it well documented AFTER I'd solved it on my own. Issues connecting with the NT network were probably on a par with common Windows networking problems. I _could_ have used a separate NIC instead of tracking down and compiling the driver (thanks again, Gerald).

In my opinion, that's what keeps linux from being "ready for the desktop". It's certainly ready, and in use, for those of us with the knowledge to make it work. For those who, like my father, are not willing, ready, or able to learn that level of computer skills I still can't send them a CD and say "here, solve your Windows problems by installing Linux".

There aren't that many stumbling blocks left, and not every user will hit them. The same applies to adding new functionality to the system, whether it's new hardware or new software. Much of it will work just fine, but it was about forty-five minutes into figuring out how to mount a USB smart card reader before I realized that the system had automatically recognized and mounted it.

Linux is still slow too. I've heard the many excuses that it's not Linux, it's not X, and it's true. You can tune Linux to be fast, and with some sacrifice of admittedly decorative features you can make it faster than Windows. Still, it wasn't until I upgraded to a fast Athalon 2.4 with plenty of RAM and a 7200 RPM UDMA 133 hard drive that I really felt comfortable with the response time for most tasks. I'm sure the current Windows XP is just as lumbering, if not perhaps worse, but I can still use a 500MHz system with Windows 95 and be happier with it's performance than I would be with Linux on the same system.

I don't really feel like our goal should be to put Linux on every desk top. I'm happy to cede Bill Gates the bottom of the heap, the cheap businessmen, the idiot home users, the ones who really should be using Windows, not Linux. For the evangelists out there though, the need for expert support is still the stumbling block.


- posted by Jonathan Hutchins @ 11:32 AM 0 comments