John Dvorak, a well known PC Mag columnist and cranky geek, announced today that Ubuntu 8.10 is “a winner.” Even the cranky geek likes Linux? It must be great. It is, and that’s why we’ll be seeing a lot more of this soon.

So many people’s first experiences with Linux only a few years ago were plagued with hardware-compatibility issues. Not anymore, though. Now it is amazing how many different pieces of hardware work out of the box with Linux. Another problem has been application support, but, more and more, people do their computing “in the cloud,” otherwise known as in a web browser, which of course just about every Linux distribution has.

My prediction is that as tech journalists decide to give Linux a try, they are going to like it a lot more, largely due to the last bit of polish that has been added in the past couple of years. Dvorak’s testimonial for Linux is just the beginning. His post will probably inspire more mainstream technology writers to try Linux who will likely have similar experiences.

It is true that these sorts of “my experiences with Linux” posts have been happening in the blogosphere for a long time, but when they become more mainstream they take on a completely different nature. I am hopeful that this will be the start of a trend for Linux.

Remember when it was a big deal that Ubuntu was going to include Compiz/Beryl/Compiz Fusion out of the box? It wasn’t long ago, actually, yet Linux desktop effects have come a long way since then. We’ve gone from desktop effects on Linux being a cool add on you could install if you wanted to do it yourself, to having it be part just another part of the Linux desktop.

Still, this time has not been smooth sailing for Compiz/Beryl/Compiz Fusion, as you  might guess from the name assortment. First there was Compiz and then Beryl. Then those became Compiz Fusion. Finally, some smaller projects branched off of that, forming branches such as Compiz++.Throughout all this, Linux desktop effects have continued to move forward, but, perhaps, not quite as fast as they could have.

Luckily, it appears that Compiz will once again be a single project, thanks to some recently proposed plans to merge the various forks into a single code base and give the project a new direction.

These plans look promising and I am hopeful that Compiz, as it will now be called, will shed its past project troubles and move on to provide better desktop effects for Linux, one of the coolest and most useful pieces of most distributions.

When you create a new device that you believe is one of the first in its category, the hardware design can only be as good as the software. As demonstrated by the iPhone’s success, if you ignore the software, the hardware is worthless, no matter how good it is.

What do you do, then, if you have a completely new device and you can’t find software that is suited for it? The answer is Linux.

Take a look at TechCrunch’s CrunchPad. It is only a prototype at this point, but it represents a potentially new class of device – an inexpensive and light tablet that could sit on your coffee table for some quick web browsing. What canned software exists for something like that? Just about nothing. Sure there is software for standard tablet computers, but those are different. Those are meant for doctors and note taking, not casual web browsing. Starting from scratch is not an option, either, since it would take a long time and a lot of effort to build an operating system from scratch. So what did they use? Linux, of course. Just using a standard Linux distribution would defeat the purpose of using Linux in the first place, though. Instead, the CrunchPad is based around a custom web browser interface that uses Linux for the backend.

This ability to easily adapt Linux to unusual circumstances and really make it fit, which has been taken advantage of in products ranging from Palm’s new smartphone to the Eee PC , is an incredibly important advantage of Linux and open-source hardware. The year of the Linux desktop may be taking a while, but the year of the Linux devices is already here.

Epidermis is a project that promises to bring together all the aspects of a complete GNOME theme in to a single interface, allowing you to install and apply a completely new theme in a single click.

After installation, Epidermis lets you install a complete theme (including desktop background, GDM theme, splash screen, window theme, etc.) either through a downloadable package or repositories. The purpose of this is to integrate all of the settings available to you through different interfaces and applications into a single theme management window.

If properly implemented, this ability to change the entire theme with one click could be an incredible feature. Unfortunately, the system does not work as well as it claims to, at least not yet. Actually using it on my Hardy Heron resulted in a difficult to fix theme mess, with some things correctly skinned and others apparently only partially themed. In a virtual machine running Intrepid Ibex, however, everything appeared to work perfectly.

Epidermis has a lot of promise as a great way of easily switching themes. Unfortunately, especially if you are still running Hardy Heron, I would not recommend you start using it. At this point it is better to wait for your distribution to integrate Epidermis. At that point, it should be incredible.

A recent Free Software Magazine article points out that using Linux protects you from potential governmental spying or hacking in two ways. First, Linux is open-source, so it would be extremely hard to inject a backdoor into its code. Second, since Linux is far less commonly used than, say, Windows, a governmental organization is far less likely to target it. All of this logic basically also applies to ordinary hackers, too. (And if you don’t think that governmental hacking will be an issue, it will almost undoubtably be an issue in some major country in the next few years.)

The open-source part is important, too. In most cases, the big deal is that you are using a product that have is out of the mainstream. Basically, if you run Windows, you have a thousand cannons firing you at all times. If, however, you run Linux or another less common operating system, you may only have a few or no cannons firing at you.

This is not to say that using the mainstream operating system is always a bad thing. In addition to having a thousand cannons firing at you, you also have the aid of everyone around you, rather than being an outlier fending for yourself. This is equivalent to Windows being the “standard,” and, thus, almost always supported.

While Linux being a less common operating system is often played as a disadvantage, it is really neither a disadvantage nor an advantage. It just depends. Do you want the support of the group with the cannons firing at you or do you want to be on your own, but with little chance of being hit?

Some time ago, I talked about the possibility that, if Wine was perfect, you could simply migrate Windows user’s applications directly into Ubuntu automatically. Obviously, that is far from reality today. Perhaps that sort of thing would be possible in the future, but, right now, there are just too many issues. There is another way to do something similar, though.

Although this idea could theoretically be applied to any installer, I am going to talk about Wubi, since it would work best in a Wubi environment.

One of the frequent complaints people have is that there are certain applications they always install and others they always remove. Advanced users can get around this problem by making a custom install disc that they use whenever they install Linux. There is really no easy solution, since it seems that no one can agree on the perfect packages to include – unless you automatically customize it to the user.

Let’s say you are installing Ubuntu with Wubi from Windows. The Wubi installer could look at your program files folder and identify the applications you use. Using one of the many online open-source alternative finders for software, an application that is capable of performing the same task could be installed. Conversely, if a particular type of application is not found that is usually included in the default Ubuntu install, it could be removed, saving disc space.

In addition to saving people some time, this would also ease the transition for new users, who would find that, seemingly magically, good alternatives to all of their software are already included on their system.

I don’t understand it. When it comes to Windows, everything either sucks or is the best thing in the world according to the press. There seems to be no intermediate point, despite the fact that that is where most Windows releases would fit. Recently, I have been getting very tired of anything with the words “Windows 7,” “killer,” and “linux,” no matter what order those appear in.

I am using the beta now in a virtual machine and, to be honest, there is not a lot of changes. Sure, Microsoft messed with the taskbar some (I don’t like it, but I’ll leave that to you to judge), made some networking improvements, fixed the messed-up UAC, and added a few more desktop effects (some useful, such as moving windows to the side of the screen to make them cover half the screen, and some annoying, like strange colors floating all around your taskbar in place of standard, subtle effects), but the truth is that only one feature from Windows 7 is likely to have a major effect (and of course PR): performance.

Performance in really important, but it is really just a bug fix. It’s pathetic that Vista had the poor performance that it did. Now they fixed it. Now we can move on.

The fundamental daily annoyances of using Windows have simply not changed. Here is what is still true:

• It still blue screens. (Yep, I can confirm that – I returned to the VM while it was booting up from a hard shutdown to see the end of a blue screen followed by a reboot).
• It still treats you like a baby and nags you about turning on automatic updates.
• It still is susceptible to malware.
• It still lacks any form of multiple desktops.

Windows 7 will probably be a good release as far as I am concerned, if only for the performance improvement. It just won’t be the ground breaking, new, and amazing release that some people say it will be. What do you think?

Last year CES practically seemed like some sort of Linux show. It seemed like every company had their own netbook – based on Linux, of course. At the time, the Asus Eee PC was just fairly new and people were just realizing its success. In short: it was an exciting time for Linux. This year is not like that.

We have only just ended the first day of CES 2009, but already potentially interesting press conferences like Asus’s have passed without so much as a mention of Linux. A search for “linux” in the CES section of CNet reveals only a few results:

• Palm’s new Linux-based operating system
• A NAS device based on Linux
• A NEC pro monitor that will eventually have a Linux config utility
• Two Linux-based pre-OS quick boot systems

Although I happen to think the NAS device looks pretty cool, the only real significant announcement here is Palm’s new Linux-based operating system. Even then, we will have to wait and see how important that turns out to be.

Last year saw the hype of Linux netbooks, but this year Windows 7 and its lack of novelty ate that up. I am sure we will still see the scattering of random devices running Linux, but as far as netbooks go, all I can say is “congratulations Microsoft.” I mean that seriously. While I am sure that not all will agree, it looks to me like Microsoft has played a fair game, made their product better, and caught up.

It’s temporary, though. Such a huge advantage as Linux had over Windows Vista couldn’t last and it didn’t. Windows has familiarity, compatibility, and leverage with OEMs, while Linux has its price tag, customizability, and security. This may be as close to an even playing ground between Windows and Linux as we have ever seen. Linux had a brief advantage, Microsoft took a step in the right direction, and now its a tie.  May the best operating system win.

No, I didn’t write that title wrong. Linux’s key advantages, such as customizability, the repository system, hardware support, and excellent interfaces, are frequently viewed as downsides or deal-breakers to new users. How many times have you seen someone complaining that it is so much easier to install software on Windows or claiming you can’t do anything with Linux without being a hacker? The real problem is that if you make anything different in a meaningful way, many users dismiss it as “worse” than whatever they are used to.  Take the example of software installation and updating systems:

This is how you install and update software on Windows:

1. Open a web browser.
2. Download an executable file from an (often un-verified) source.
3. Press next, next, next, next, next, next, next, next, finish.
4. Launch your software.
5. Wait for each individual piece of software to nag you about the latest update. (”Logitech is going to look for updates…,” “Adobe PDF Reader version 8.4 is available. Please install it now,” “QuickTime needs an update (hey, mind if we sneak Safari in there, too? *wink*)”)

On Linux, on the other hand, it works something like this:

1. Open Add/Remove programs.
2. Press a check mark and hit apply.
3. Launch your software.
4. Sit back as your software is automatically updated.

The point here is that, despite the Linux method being better, a lot of people prefer the Windows way, just because that is what they are used to. What about OS X, then? Well, OS X is really just Windows plus some tweaks, all built on a better platform. I am not trying to imply that OS X is a bad system or that Apple has done nothing new, but the changes in OS X are not fundemental changes to the way things work in the OS.

Am I saying we should dumb down Linux and add a big, green start button? No! Features that are being viewed as bugs need to be carefully looked at though. The question is: what can be changed about this feature so that we retain the core advantage but make it simpler to use? For example, in an ideal world, perhaps if you needed an application that was not in the repositories, you could go to a website and press a single button (and enter your password, of course) to add a new repository and install the relevant software.

I am sure that a better solution to that particular problem can be discovered, but the point is that any feature that is sometimes viewed as a problem should have its implementation reconsidered, in an effort to keep the advantages and make the experience more intuitive.

Just a few days ago I began the Terminal Test. The idea is to put up a tweet/ident (what do you call an update on Identi.ca?) every time I use the terminal explaining what I used it for and how it could be avoided. Since then, I have used the terminal a number of times. The experiment is not over, but I wanted to give an update on what is going on.

Many people have commented that they consider the terminal an important and powerful part of Linux and do not want to see it taken away. I agree and do (as evidenced by the posts I have made so far) use the terminal just to save time on occasion. I do not, however, believe that a new user (or, for that matter, any user) should be forced in to using the terminal and not given a graphical option. Sure the power of the terminal is great, but there has to be a simpler way for new users to become familiar with Linux.

Looking at the posts so far, all of them fit in to one of these categories: a tutorial instructed the use of the terminal, the terminal was used because it was faster, or I was doing something development-related. Two of those categories I have no concern about. Without radical changes to the way graphical interfaces work, typing in a command is going to be faster than navigating through menus, so I see no issue with using the terminal to speed up something that could be done with the graphical interface. I also don’t really care that some development work requires or works better in the terminal. Seriously, if you can write code you should be able to use the terminal. Perhaps basic HTML/CSS would be an exception, but you don’t really have to use the terminal for that sort of thing. (On a side note, I do think that the Bazaar developers should fix this bug, but that’s just a personal annoyance.*)

The category here which is a consistent annoyance of mine is the “I was following a tutorial and it said to do this.” I will admit that I myself may be guilty of this, but it really bothers me when tutorial authors advise the use of the terminal when it is really not needed. In this specific example, I needed to open a .chm file, so I did a Google search. The tutorial I found instructed me to run “sudo apt-get install gnochm.” It could, however, have said to go to Synaptic and install “gnochm.” That would have been less disto-independent and harder to write, but it does make a better impression on a new user. Granted, I don’t know the context of the site I found. The intended audience makes a big difference, but, as a general rule, I would like to see more tutorials focus on how to get things done using graphical tools.

Remember to follow twitter.com/terminaltest or identi.ca/terminaltest!

* Yes, I know that someone is going to say “well, why don’t you fix it?” I can do HTML/CSS (leading to the existance of this site) and bit of other stuff, but I can’t do any real development.