Open Source

After deciding to move to Linux and determining that my hardware is compatible with Linux, it’s time to pick a Linux distribution. Choosing the right distribution for you is exactly that. You have to choose the right distribution for YOU. There is no one size fits all Linux distro. You have to think about what you’re looking for in a Linux distro and essentially rule out the ones that won’t fit you. Lou Grinzo said it best. In an article on ZDNet on 11 Sep 2000 he wrote, “Picking the right version just takes planning.” This still holds true today. I’m trying to determine which Linux distro is going to work for me and the users in my household. Should I go with a major or minor distro? Should I pick an easy to use distro or a more pure Linux distro? What about support? What differentiates the distros? There are a few things I’m looking for specifically for my Windows replacement Linux distro. ...

The first step when preparing for the move to Linux is to make sure that your hardware is compatible. It requires a great deal of research when you get very specific (as I did). For example, I have a Logitech QuickCam Express and I wanted to make sure it would work with the latest Linux kernel. Well initially one would say, “Well it’s USB 1.1 it should work in Linux, no problem.” My research took things one step further by looking to see if that actual model worked and what it would take (if anything) to make it work right and to see how well it actually worked. This research utilized all the resources I had available to me. Searches on Google, newsgroups, and other Linux oriented web sites were quite helpful. There was never really a lack of information. Here is the hardware that I’ll be using regularly in Linux: ...

Like a lot of people, I for one am tired of playing Microsoft’s silly little game. Update this, patch that, buy our new operating system that turns out to be nothing but a glorified service pack. I’ve had it with Microsoft and the money pit that corporation has created. The sheer cost of staying up to date with Windows 2000 or Windows XP (Home or Professional) and Microsoft Office is, by itself, reason enough to look at other operating systems. Then let’s not touch too much on the “OS Nothing” experience Microsoft has been serving up. First there was Windows ME, a glorified service pack or third edition to Windows 98 that gave most people a lot of headaches. Now I’m reading about how Windows Server 2003 isn’t going to be much of an upgrade but more like a service pack to Windows 2000 Server editions. These are great money making ploys but there are better things that I could do with my money. The alternative: Linux. Linux is an open source, fully customizable operating system that could be engineered to power your microwave if you wanted. I’m moving to Linux. ...

For the past year or so Microsoft has repeatedly said no to Open Source and more recently after numerous attempts to say no has opened up some of its source code to various businesses and governments. Imagine a world where Microsoft Windows and Office were totally open. That’s not likely; so let’s imagine a world where Microsoft made its products a little more open. What do you think would happen if Microsoft kept its kernel under wraps and released just its GUI out to the world as Open Source? Once the major code heads cleaned out all the crap, I imagine a Redhat or a Mandrake would quickly come out with its combo of Linux with the Windows GUI. Similar attempts have been made in the past to make a Windows-like GUI but now it seems that the Linux community is looking at Gnome and KDE to “bridge the gap” between Windows and Linux users. Why would Microsoft do this? Well, control of course. If the majority of users were using a Microsoft-based GUI then most of the people in world would feel more inclined to use these operating systems as opposed to learning a new one. Think about it, the power of Unix with the ease of Windows. Another thing is money. Microsoft could charge a small lump some for the GUI to individuals and corporations or (the more likely of the two) charge a small fee for every copy of the Windows GUIed operating system sold. This would take away from the freeness of Linux but I’d bet money IBM would jump all over it. Consumers would as well. But, if you made Linux and Unix as easy as Windows then the market share of Windows would begin to slip a little. Linux and Unix would still need a competitive productivity suite. ...