More Linux on the Desktop Musings

Looks like this blog post by Asa got Slashdotted. I talked to Asa in depth about this at Gnomedex a couple of weeks ago. I actually discussed that conversation a bit during the most recent episode of LQ Radio. As I said there, I have to agree with some of what Asa said. Of course, as you may have guessed, I don't agree with all of it. But I do think that when someone like Asa, who clearly not only gets Open Source but promotes it for a living, talks about something like this we should all listen. Application and driver support aside (note: I know these are both huge issues, but they are not technical ones per se and not on topic with the point I'd like to make. I don't want anyone to think I am minimizing them though), I'd say that Linux is almost as ready for the desktop as Windows is. The issue that many people have is that it is different, not better or worse. They don't want to take the time to learn is one problem I see, which is fine – but if they remember far enough back they had to learn Windows too. It's just that they know it now. They have an investemnt in time that makes them averse to change. Another complaint I see is that Linux is too hard to install. This one could not be more incorrect. Linux is easier to install than Windows. Most Windows users have never installed it though, since it came with their computer. For some reason I think they just assume it must be easy. If I sat my dad down with a computer and a Windows install disk, a working installation wouldn't come out of it (and he's a smart guy, just not necessarily computer savvy). Another issue I see talked about is that to get anything done you have to edit all these text files. First, I don't think this is true any longer, although it certainly once was. While I prefer to do things command line, almost all of it can be done through a GUI tool. The thing that gets me though, is that most things that you would have to drop down to a CLI to do, would require a registry edit in Windows. Which one of those is easier?? At least with Linux you have a choice.
Now, don't take this as I don't think Linux has a long way to go – it does. Asa and others bring up some very solid points and I could definitely add to the list. Some Linux advocates seem to have blinder on in this regard, and that's bad for everyone. In the end though, I think some people give Windows way more credit for being easy than it deserves. Windows seems to have created a legion of “Power Users” that know how to do a couple things in the GUI or make a couple of registry edits, without really knowing what they are doing and why they are doing it. Linux does require you to learn a little more, but the reward is a more solid, more stable system that is logical in design and efficient in operations. Once you understand the underlying paradigm, everything just makes sense. Even after a long time of Windows use, a ton of things make no sense to me. I mutter, “you can't do what?” to the Windows admins more than they'd like to admit. I'd like to think of the initial learning curve in Linux sort of like having a permit. Without that step, having a drivers license would be much more dangerous. That's probably why such a high percentage of Windows machine get compromised.
–jeremy
, Linux, , ,

Even More on Apple Moving to Intel

This topic continues to get an amazing amount of press. I've seen a couple reports that this surely spells doom for the PowerPC platform. I don't think so. First IBM uses the POWER (which at this point actually uses the PowerPC instruction set – nice and confusing) in way too many places – and expensive places at that. Additionally, all three major console manufacturers have gone with IBM chips. This probably means something along the lines of 150 Million or so units shipped (warning: that is a guesstimate). Exact numbers aside, it's more than the number of Mac's that would have been sold. But I think the coup de grace for the death of PowerPC may just be China. China is a huge market in which almost no one has a computer. The largest PC manufacturer that is partially funded by the Chinese government and just happened to be the former IBM PC division. Since compatibility issues are much lower than in a mature market such as the USA (a small number of current PC's mean a small number to be compatible with), there is a somewhat level playing field as far as what the architecture of choice will be. If Lenovo can make a solid PowerPC machine running Red Flag, then I think it may just have a chance. We'll see.
–jeremy
, ,

Fun with Compiler Optimization Flags

I thought I'd comment on something in this article (which I blogged about yesterday) that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Apple/Intel/IBM debate. Here's a snippet from the article:
So why didn't Apple take any of these offers? Was it performance, as Jobs claimed in his keynote? Here's something that may blow your mind. When Apple compiles OS X on the 970, they use -Os. That's right: they optimize for size, not for performance. So even though Apple talked a lot of smack about having a first-class 64-bit RISC workstation chip under the hood of their towers, in the end they were more concerned about OS X's bulging memory requirements than they were about The Snappy(TM).
The above statement isn't entirely correct. Speed and size are not diametrically opposed in this case. When it comes to kernel and OS level code, compiling with -Os can actually produce faster code than say -O2 or -O3; especially on architectures with a relatively small amount of L2 cache. Basically, being able to keep core code in the cache gets you more performance than loop unrolling and the other fun that comes with -O{2|3}. The Fedora/Red Hat kernel team did a bunch of benchmarking on this, and the Fedora kernel is now compiled with -Os.
–jeremy

More on Apple Moving to Intel

This topic came up during the LQ Radio Show last night, and I noticed this article today. The article makes a point that I hadn't thought of. Apple can now move to a single manufacturer for all products by using Intel's XScale in the iPod. They are putting all their eggs in one basket, but Intel is a pretty big basket. The fact that a laptop G5 was continually delayed probably didn't help, but I don't think it was the deciding factor. But, why would Apple need something as powerful as an XScale for the iPod. I've seen rumors that it's for a “PSP killer”, which would be a cool device. Surely though Apple realizes that the market for mobile video is a fraction of mobile audio. People use their iPod's while running, working, walking, driving and pretty much doing anything. The mobile video market is relegated more to frequent travelers and people who use public transportation to get to work. Most people want to watch movies on their HDTV's with surround sound. It's not a minuscule market, but not one I'd want to develop a killer product around. Now, that doesn't mean that video in addition to what the iPod currently does wouldn't be interesting. The thought of being able to buy movies at the iTunes store is extremely cool. And then the light goes on. What is one thing that Intel has that IBM doesn't (especially with the announcement of the new G5)? DRM. Intel is all over DRM at the chip level…and IBM isn't. Surely if Jobs wants to get the MPAA and others on board, DRM is going to be huge. Now they have it. Having an XScale would also allow for an iSight/iPod combo that turns into a camcorder. Add to that the fact that Apple will be able to get better volume pricing and the ability to run Windows and Linux apps and the decision starts to look like a no brainer. Intel wins too as they will finally be able to showcase a cool x86 box (remember the Mac mini-lookalike that was only an empty box). The only question I have left is, do we need to call them iNtel now?
–jeremy
, ,

LQ Radio Episode #2

Got back on track and recorded another episode of the LQ Radio Show last night. Once again we had some minor Skype problems, but overall I think the audio quality is much improved over episode #1. The moral of the story here though I think is that if we want real quality we are going to have to invest in a hybrid (Doug Kaye told me this already, though). You may notice that the episode ends a bit abruptly. In fact, Skype hung up as we were wrapping up the show. We had a ton to talk about and I wanted to keep the show less than 90 minutes, so you can expect a follow up show real soon now. Thanks goes to dave, john and fin for being on the show. Note that on the show we took LQ Bookmarks out of beta.
–jeremy

A Few Quick Updates/Comments

…none of which are really worth a dedicated post.
You may have noticed that we didn't post an LQ Radio episode last night. One of the panelists had a last minute conflict and the show has been moved to Sunday. Stay tuned.
Technorati got back to me a couple of days ago to tell me that the problem I reported to them here had been fixed. Did a little testing, and indeed it has. Thanks for being responsive and following up .
I was thinking that it would be great to have a Firefox search dropdown for LQ. Lo and behold, one exists (and was posted well over a year ago). Unfortunately, I can't get any “additional search engines” installed on the two machines I tried them on, unless I run FF as root. It appears that a fix for this has been checked in already though. Absolutely fantastic that an LQ plugin already exists.
The LinuxQuestions.org Podcast is now listed in the iTunes Podcast directory. While we're not seeing a huge spike in downloads, it's good to be listed. Still not 100% sure how they are getting that Relevancy number though.
–jeremy

Mark Cuban on Podcasting

Mark Cuban has some interesting things to say about Podcasting for business sake. He's a smart guy. What does he know about streaming over the Internet you ask? Well, he did sell broadcast.com to Yahoo! for about 5.7 Billion, so I'd say he knows a little. I'm glad we didn't start the LQ Podcasts with the sole goal of bringing in cash. I'd hate to be looking for a viable revenue model for that (and especially if it was that, in a vacuum). We started it to further the LQ goals – helping people with Open Source and Linux.
–jeremy
,

LQ to be a Sponsor for OSCON

A little late – but it's finally official. LQ is once again a Media Sponsor for the upcoming OSCON. Looks to be another great conference and one that I am proud to be associated with. I hope to actually make the trip this year, but that's not finalized quite yet. If you'll be going drop me a line if you're interested in chatting.
–jeremy
,

Google and Linux III

Looks like this conversation between Doc, Chris and I couldn't have been much more timely, at least if this is true. It appears that the Google toolbar may soon support both Linux and Mac. I've not seen official confirmation yet, but this is extremely encouraging. Thanks Google. A tall company indeed. Another thing that I really liked was that they gave credit to the Open Source Googlebar for “filling this gap in our products for so long”. That's class! It has also been pointed out to me that the Yahoo! toolbar supports Linux and Mac. Kudos!
EDIT: It's official! Google Toolbar BETA for Firefox has been released. Just installed it here. As promised there is even a link to Googlebar on the download page. Thanks!
–jeremy
,

Next LQ Radio Show

It looks like the next episode of LQ Radio is a go. Should be myself along with John, Dave and Christian. The delay between the last show and this one was a little longer than I would have liked, but we're back on track now and I am really looking forward to the show. We are going to finalize what we'll be talking about tomorrow, so if there is anything you'd like to see discussed let us know. Thanks for listening (and don't forget about the LQ Podcasts).
–jeremy
,