There is a two part article that was originally written at the Linux Gazette, and it is now referenced in TLDP, The Linux Documentation Project. It is about installing, not just the standard software applications, which is discussed in the first part of the article series, but having the ability to install newer, less rigorously tested versions of software. Debian uses the terms Stable, Testing, Unstable, and Experimental to describe its four main binary software repositories, but perhaps a better description would refer to the extent of testing performed on the software. From my perspective, Stable contains completely tested, verified software that passes all entry criteria. Testing contains software that has passed the basic unit testing done in the Experimental stage, and has also passed the first qualification level of testing, successfully moving from Experimental to Unstable, and passing the intermediate criteria to be considered Testing, which is software that has passed basic functionality and is ready to undergo rigorous tests in order to be a candidate for the next Stable release.
http://tldp.org/LDP/LGNET/86/tougher.html is the location of the second part of this series, "Installing Unreleased Software".
Friday, May 13, 2011
Canonical sponsored alternatives to Ubuntu
In recent weeks we have seen the introduction and release of the 11.04 versions of the Canonical Ubuntu-based distributions, Ubuntu, which uses GNOME 3.0, but Canonical substitutes the Unity Shell in place of the GNOME 3 Shell, Kubuntu, which uses the KDE 4.6.2 desktop (current as of April; 4.6.3 was recently released as an update; Personal Package Archives (PPA) can track these changes if you want them), Xubuntu, which uses the Xfce 4.8 desktop introduced at the end of January, with updates and patches included since then (some up to Version 4.8.3), and then Lubuntu, the LXDE-based desktop which just recently was recognized as an official Canonical distribution, which means that in future releases, the Lubuntu packages will be in the Canonical repositories with the lubuntu-desktop metapackage, alongside the desktop metapackages for each of the other three supported desktop environments.
All four of these desktops are usable, but the main one, Ubuntu, is in a bit of a state of transition. I found the fundamental features to work, but the flexibility with it at this stage is limited. A year from now, when the next Long Term Support (LTS) release becomes available, these issues ought to be better handled, and hopefully completely resolved. In the meantime, the other three alternatives represent very solid alternatives to Ubuntu. If you want a full featured desktop with even more flexibility than Ubuntu has ever offered, then try Kubuntu. It continues to evolve and improve, and this may well be the best release they've had. The only complainers I have seen have been those with multi headed displays and an arrogant attitude. Most others have had high praise for Kubuntu. If you would prefer to have something slightly lighter and a bit closer in features and appearance to Ubuntu, then try out Xubuntu. It may be the best overall compromise of the bunch, enough features to handle most every daily chore, but not too many extra bells and whistles. On the light end, Lubuntu is easily the lightest and fastest member of the Ubuntu family. It sacrifices some of the convenience tools and flashy graphical capabilities for a simpler, lighter, faster feel and performance. All of these distributions, however, have common software repositories, so if a certain application is missing from one of them, the software manager is more than capable of finding and installing them.
APT stands for the Advanced Packaging Tool - it is a package management system for Debian GNU/Linux. The apt family of tools can be used from a command console to update the package cache, install or remove one or more packages, to search for packages, and to ensure that any dependent libraries are installed along with whatever applications are installed. Debian includes a number of different command and graphical interfaces to the APT environment. Kubuntu uses Kpackagekit as its default tool; Ubuntu uses the Ubuntu Software Manager, and Xubuntu offers a choice of the Software Manager or Synaptic. Lubuntu makes Synaptic available. Note that you can acquire any of these tools from the Ubuntu repositories for any of these systems, so if you don't see what you want, install it.
The Ubuntu-based distributions are a nice blend and compromise between the tremendous flexibility available in Linux software and the simplicity of the user interface in proprietary systems from Apple and Microsoft. Critics of Linux-based systems claim that Linux is more complicated and difficult, but those who say that are often simply not as familiar and well educated with the differences between Linux and their favorite system. Even the arguments that too many choices are provided and confusing is a weak argument: derivative distributions from other projects, such as the Linux Mint project, the PCLinuxOS project, and the SimplyMEPIS project, clearly demonstrate that the software need not be overwhelming or overly complicated in order to be useful. All three of these projects have derivatives within themselves to promote and exploit several features, which speaks to the flexibility of each one of them and of the underlying Linux systems. In the case of Mint, this software directly descends from the Ubuntu project. It is not a Canonical sponsored project, but it does represent a viable alternative to Ubuntu, and it is one that I expect quite a few people will be investigating; a release candidate of Linux Mint 11, built on the code in Ubuntu 11.04, is now available.
All four of these desktops are usable, but the main one, Ubuntu, is in a bit of a state of transition. I found the fundamental features to work, but the flexibility with it at this stage is limited. A year from now, when the next Long Term Support (LTS) release becomes available, these issues ought to be better handled, and hopefully completely resolved. In the meantime, the other three alternatives represent very solid alternatives to Ubuntu. If you want a full featured desktop with even more flexibility than Ubuntu has ever offered, then try Kubuntu. It continues to evolve and improve, and this may well be the best release they've had. The only complainers I have seen have been those with multi headed displays and an arrogant attitude. Most others have had high praise for Kubuntu. If you would prefer to have something slightly lighter and a bit closer in features and appearance to Ubuntu, then try out Xubuntu. It may be the best overall compromise of the bunch, enough features to handle most every daily chore, but not too many extra bells and whistles. On the light end, Lubuntu is easily the lightest and fastest member of the Ubuntu family. It sacrifices some of the convenience tools and flashy graphical capabilities for a simpler, lighter, faster feel and performance. All of these distributions, however, have common software repositories, so if a certain application is missing from one of them, the software manager is more than capable of finding and installing them.
APT stands for the Advanced Packaging Tool - it is a package management system for Debian GNU/Linux. The apt family of tools can be used from a command console to update the package cache, install or remove one or more packages, to search for packages, and to ensure that any dependent libraries are installed along with whatever applications are installed. Debian includes a number of different command and graphical interfaces to the APT environment. Kubuntu uses Kpackagekit as its default tool; Ubuntu uses the Ubuntu Software Manager, and Xubuntu offers a choice of the Software Manager or Synaptic. Lubuntu makes Synaptic available. Note that you can acquire any of these tools from the Ubuntu repositories for any of these systems, so if you don't see what you want, install it.
The Ubuntu-based distributions are a nice blend and compromise between the tremendous flexibility available in Linux software and the simplicity of the user interface in proprietary systems from Apple and Microsoft. Critics of Linux-based systems claim that Linux is more complicated and difficult, but those who say that are often simply not as familiar and well educated with the differences between Linux and their favorite system. Even the arguments that too many choices are provided and confusing is a weak argument: derivative distributions from other projects, such as the Linux Mint project, the PCLinuxOS project, and the SimplyMEPIS project, clearly demonstrate that the software need not be overwhelming or overly complicated in order to be useful. All three of these projects have derivatives within themselves to promote and exploit several features, which speaks to the flexibility of each one of them and of the underlying Linux systems. In the case of Mint, this software directly descends from the Ubuntu project. It is not a Canonical sponsored project, but it does represent a viable alternative to Ubuntu, and it is one that I expect quite a few people will be investigating; a release candidate of Linux Mint 11, built on the code in Ubuntu 11.04, is now available.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Does the OS really matter all that much?
I am doing a lot of Internet-based computing these days, and I am wondering more and more just how much the operating system really matters. Clearly we need an operating system. The operating system is what controls the devices on the system, allocates resources, not only within the CPU, which is the "Brain" or controller of everything, but also the peripheral devices, from the keyboard to the mouse, the disk drive to the display, and whatever additional devices are on the system.
A flexible, extensible operating system, one which has a good job scheduler, device handler, and can be quickly modified when hardware changes occur, is essential.
We have a lot of operating systems available. In terms of the types of system kernels, we have several camps, and let's keep this confined to Intel compatible hardware, just for discussion; clearly there are more alternatives out there.
First, there is the camp that defined and created what a personal computer is all about: Microsoft, first with MS/DOS, then with Windows. The original MS/DOS and Windows wouldn't be very useful on today's hardware, but Windows has evolved many times over the past two decades, and we can't argue with the fact that it remains the most common operating system on Intel hardware. We can argue about cost, we can argue about security, we can argue about freedom, but the simple fact remains that it is still popular and it actually works. Though many other alternatives threaten its continued dominance and existence, at least right now it continues to lead the pack.
Then there is the Apple and Mac camp. Once upon a time, this was a 100% proprietary operating system space, but many years ago, Apple created OS X. Though the operating system, OS X, itself is very closed and proprietary, the kernel and many of the components that run within it are not, and there are alternatives based on it to prove it: Darwin for the operating system, really a BSD-based kernel, and Fink for the graphical user interface, an alternative to the Apple Aqua interface.
A lesser known, but long time alternative to the highly proprietary Apple camp is the BSD camp. The history of BSD software goes all the way back to the early UNIX systems. BSD developed out of graduate university research at the University of California at Berkeley (UCB), and the name BSD stands for Berkeley Standard Distribution. In the early nineties there were legal conflicts between AT&T and UCB over the content in BSD, and also in the content in UNIX System V. AT&T claimed that BSD used code directly from UNIX source code, and UCB claimed that AT&T lifted code directly from several utilities, such as the ex and vi editors, the termcap configurations, and the C shell. AT&T and UCB eventually settled their dispute, but efforts, such as FreeBSD and NetBSD were formed during that time, and represent a rewrite of the UCB UNIX code, and that is what we call BSD today. Several other variations, most notably OpenBSD, which evolved from NetBSD, and others, such as DragonflyBSD and smaller, lesser known projects developed. Many of these exist today, and not only does Apple's OS X come out of this lineage, as well as products from iXsystems, most notably PC-BSD, a consumer-oriented version of FreeBSD.
Then we have the smartphone, tablet, and netbook camp. These spaces have developed their own operating systems, but most of them evolve, at some level, either from BSD or Linux based kernels. For instance, Android was developed using a Linux-based kernel. iOS, used in many Apple products, comes from BSD-based kernels. Blackberry has developed proprietary systems, but if you look closely at them, they have hints of POSIX-based code in them, possibly with some code that originally evolved either from QNX or VxWorks inspired code. Hewlett Packard, after acquiring Palm, inherits a Linux-inspired system with WebOS.
I've alluded to Linux-inspired and Linux-based systems already, and clearly that is another major force to be considered. I have long been a proponent of flexible, freely shared and freely used software. I believe that if you collaborate on the common, core components, you can still create your own unique product, even a semi proprietary one, and yet share many of the base technologies. I see no reason to have to keep inventing and reinventing kernel technologies. Why not share and pool those ideas? Same with common utilities, commands, and commodity applications. We all need them. Why not collaborate on their development? Linux is the champion in this space.
Now that companies like Yahoo, Google, Amazon, and Red Hat have all successfully built solid businesses around a framework of software that has a shared tradition behind it, more companies are believing that this is possible and practical. So I return to the question - does the OS really matter all that much? If you are a consumer, probably not. The combination of price and features that match what you need are what matter the most. I would assert, though, that the free and open development of applications is what has driven both the free-based and commercial-based development, especially over the past decade.
With Amazon.com developing EC2 and other cloud based service offerings as a major business, Yahoo and Google building an entire search and advertising industry around either "free" or "open" based software technology, and Google in particular driving everything they do to draw Internet traffic to their revenue producing businesses - with free software, it seems to me that a free or at least shared software infrastructure makes a great deal of sense. It matters to me because that is where I find the sweet spot of products and services that I use. On the Internet, the majority of things I use are either Yahoo or Google based, or some new free alternative with a similar model. In mobile equipment, nearly everything I have is in one way or another tied to Google, and all of their stuff is based on freely available technology, so for me, I would assert that while the Internet allows you to use any OS technology, I feel it is the freely available technology that has driven the Internet explosion in the first place, and the freely available technology is what continues to drive it, and that's why I think that while the specific OS doesn't matter all that much - it is more of a personal choice, the freedom and the alternatives matter a great deal - including the freedom to utilize a very specific, commercial approach, as Apple and Microsoft do, or a much more open, commodity approach, like Canonical and Red Hat do - matter a great deal.
A flexible, extensible operating system, one which has a good job scheduler, device handler, and can be quickly modified when hardware changes occur, is essential.
We have a lot of operating systems available. In terms of the types of system kernels, we have several camps, and let's keep this confined to Intel compatible hardware, just for discussion; clearly there are more alternatives out there.
First, there is the camp that defined and created what a personal computer is all about: Microsoft, first with MS/DOS, then with Windows. The original MS/DOS and Windows wouldn't be very useful on today's hardware, but Windows has evolved many times over the past two decades, and we can't argue with the fact that it remains the most common operating system on Intel hardware. We can argue about cost, we can argue about security, we can argue about freedom, but the simple fact remains that it is still popular and it actually works. Though many other alternatives threaten its continued dominance and existence, at least right now it continues to lead the pack.
Then there is the Apple and Mac camp. Once upon a time, this was a 100% proprietary operating system space, but many years ago, Apple created OS X. Though the operating system, OS X, itself is very closed and proprietary, the kernel and many of the components that run within it are not, and there are alternatives based on it to prove it: Darwin for the operating system, really a BSD-based kernel, and Fink for the graphical user interface, an alternative to the Apple Aqua interface.
A lesser known, but long time alternative to the highly proprietary Apple camp is the BSD camp. The history of BSD software goes all the way back to the early UNIX systems. BSD developed out of graduate university research at the University of California at Berkeley (UCB), and the name BSD stands for Berkeley Standard Distribution. In the early nineties there were legal conflicts between AT&T and UCB over the content in BSD, and also in the content in UNIX System V. AT&T claimed that BSD used code directly from UNIX source code, and UCB claimed that AT&T lifted code directly from several utilities, such as the ex and vi editors, the termcap configurations, and the C shell. AT&T and UCB eventually settled their dispute, but efforts, such as FreeBSD and NetBSD were formed during that time, and represent a rewrite of the UCB UNIX code, and that is what we call BSD today. Several other variations, most notably OpenBSD, which evolved from NetBSD, and others, such as DragonflyBSD and smaller, lesser known projects developed. Many of these exist today, and not only does Apple's OS X come out of this lineage, as well as products from iXsystems, most notably PC-BSD, a consumer-oriented version of FreeBSD.
Then we have the smartphone, tablet, and netbook camp. These spaces have developed their own operating systems, but most of them evolve, at some level, either from BSD or Linux based kernels. For instance, Android was developed using a Linux-based kernel. iOS, used in many Apple products, comes from BSD-based kernels. Blackberry has developed proprietary systems, but if you look closely at them, they have hints of POSIX-based code in them, possibly with some code that originally evolved either from QNX or VxWorks inspired code. Hewlett Packard, after acquiring Palm, inherits a Linux-inspired system with WebOS.
I've alluded to Linux-inspired and Linux-based systems already, and clearly that is another major force to be considered. I have long been a proponent of flexible, freely shared and freely used software. I believe that if you collaborate on the common, core components, you can still create your own unique product, even a semi proprietary one, and yet share many of the base technologies. I see no reason to have to keep inventing and reinventing kernel technologies. Why not share and pool those ideas? Same with common utilities, commands, and commodity applications. We all need them. Why not collaborate on their development? Linux is the champion in this space.
Now that companies like Yahoo, Google, Amazon, and Red Hat have all successfully built solid businesses around a framework of software that has a shared tradition behind it, more companies are believing that this is possible and practical. So I return to the question - does the OS really matter all that much? If you are a consumer, probably not. The combination of price and features that match what you need are what matter the most. I would assert, though, that the free and open development of applications is what has driven both the free-based and commercial-based development, especially over the past decade.
With Amazon.com developing EC2 and other cloud based service offerings as a major business, Yahoo and Google building an entire search and advertising industry around either "free" or "open" based software technology, and Google in particular driving everything they do to draw Internet traffic to their revenue producing businesses - with free software, it seems to me that a free or at least shared software infrastructure makes a great deal of sense. It matters to me because that is where I find the sweet spot of products and services that I use. On the Internet, the majority of things I use are either Yahoo or Google based, or some new free alternative with a similar model. In mobile equipment, nearly everything I have is in one way or another tied to Google, and all of their stuff is based on freely available technology, so for me, I would assert that while the Internet allows you to use any OS technology, I feel it is the freely available technology that has driven the Internet explosion in the first place, and the freely available technology is what continues to drive it, and that's why I think that while the specific OS doesn't matter all that much - it is more of a personal choice, the freedom and the alternatives matter a great deal - including the freedom to utilize a very specific, commercial approach, as Apple and Microsoft do, or a much more open, commodity approach, like Canonical and Red Hat do - matter a great deal.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Lubuntu 11.04 is now an official Ubuntu derivative
On Linux.com, I just noticed an announcement indicating that Lubuntu 11.04 has been granted status as an official Ubuntu derivative. Recent articles had suggested this would be the case; Mark Shuttleworth had recently been quoted as being very pleased with what the Lubuntu team had accomplished with the most current release.
From my perspective, I appreciate this distribution, not so much directly, but in what it contributes to derivatives that use it, and in my case, specifically with Peppermint OS One, which I enjoy using.
From my perspective, I appreciate this distribution, not so much directly, but in what it contributes to derivatives that use it, and in my case, specifically with Peppermint OS One, which I enjoy using.
Starting to see more systems with Xfce 4.8 and KDE 4.6.3
Xfce and KDE are the two desktop environments that I most commonly use, so it is nice when I see distributions that update these environments and keep them close to the most currently available software. In the case of Xfce, Version 4.8 was released near the end of January, so any distribution that offers Xfce really ought to have Version 4.8 available, and the good news is that most of the distributions that I use are now offering Version 4.8, and most of them have the patches that have been added to Xfce 4.8, and some packages are labelled as high as 4.8.3.
Similarly, KDE 4.6 has been available at least three months now, but not all distributions are keeping up with it, because it does require a large commitment to build the large number of packages contained in the complete KDE Software Collection (SC). There are, however, a number of distributions that are, for the most part, keeping up with KDE. Some of them include Kubuntu 11.04, Sabayon 5.5, PCLinuxOS, Mageia 1 Beta 2, and openSUSE 11.4 "Tumbleweed" rolling release.
As I write this note, I am using Linux Mint Xfce 201104, which is a rolling release based on Debian Testing. On my Debian Sid system, I have had Xfce 4.8 with updates for several weeks now, and as I ran the updates to this rolling release today, I found that the latest Xfce changes have now been promoted from Sid to Testing (Wheezy), so that is good news for Debian based systems.
Similarly, KDE 4.6 has been available at least three months now, but not all distributions are keeping up with it, because it does require a large commitment to build the large number of packages contained in the complete KDE Software Collection (SC). There are, however, a number of distributions that are, for the most part, keeping up with KDE. Some of them include Kubuntu 11.04, Sabayon 5.5, PCLinuxOS, Mageia 1 Beta 2, and openSUSE 11.4 "Tumbleweed" rolling release.
As I write this note, I am using Linux Mint Xfce 201104, which is a rolling release based on Debian Testing. On my Debian Sid system, I have had Xfce 4.8 with updates for several weeks now, and as I ran the updates to this rolling release today, I found that the latest Xfce changes have now been promoted from Sid to Testing (Wheezy), so that is good news for Debian based systems.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Using SimplyMEPIS 11.0
The MEPIS distribution has been available even longer than antiX, which became available in 2006. MEPIS has been available in public form since May 2003, and the work started even before that, in November 2002.
Warren Woodford, the founder and sole developer of MEPIS, has a long professional career that spans an incredible forty five years or more in time, is noted for outstanding attention to detail and quality, a conservative approach by today's standards, resulting in excellent software that just works.
SimplyMEPIS is always a pleasure to use, and the current release is no exception. This is, by no means, the newest possible software that you can get. For that, go over to something like Gentoo, Sabayon, a new project under development, such as the very nice Mageia, due for its first release in June, currently in Beta testing. For something you can simply count on, won't waste a lot of your time with needless changes and defects, is simple, straightforward, and functional, it is hard to beat SimplyMEPIS.
Yes, you may be able to find something else that is also stable. Yes, you most certainly can find something newer and fancier. But only distributions like Debian and Slackware, which also tend to be very conservative, well tested, and "older", with mature, tested software, can compare to SimplyMEPIS, but SimplyMEPIS adds value to the Debian proposition. It includes a complete system that is well tested, well integrated, well documented, with a user community behind it. Debian has many of these things, but it is the foundation for solutions like SimplyMEPIS, not necessarily a complete solution in itself, and that is where MEPIS really excels - it is ready to go and it works well. I keep mentioning it, but I will do so again, I recommend this software for a complete, easy to use desktop system.
Warren Woodford, the founder and sole developer of MEPIS, has a long professional career that spans an incredible forty five years or more in time, is noted for outstanding attention to detail and quality, a conservative approach by today's standards, resulting in excellent software that just works.
SimplyMEPIS is always a pleasure to use, and the current release is no exception. This is, by no means, the newest possible software that you can get. For that, go over to something like Gentoo, Sabayon, a new project under development, such as the very nice Mageia, due for its first release in June, currently in Beta testing. For something you can simply count on, won't waste a lot of your time with needless changes and defects, is simple, straightforward, and functional, it is hard to beat SimplyMEPIS.
Yes, you may be able to find something else that is also stable. Yes, you most certainly can find something newer and fancier. But only distributions like Debian and Slackware, which also tend to be very conservative, well tested, and "older", with mature, tested software, can compare to SimplyMEPIS, but SimplyMEPIS adds value to the Debian proposition. It includes a complete system that is well tested, well integrated, well documented, with a user community behind it. Debian has many of these things, but it is the foundation for solutions like SimplyMEPIS, not necessarily a complete solution in itself, and that is where MEPIS really excels - it is ready to go and it works well. I keep mentioning it, but I will do so again, I recommend this software for a complete, easy to use desktop system.
Using antiX M11.0
Since 2006, antiX has been one of my favorite distributions. There are several reasons for this. 1. I have, for many years, preferred to use Debian based software on my favorite systems. The antiX distribution is based on Debian Testing repositories and MEPIS installation and configuration tools. 2. I like flexible, configurable systems. The antiX configuration tools are among the very best available. 3. I like the MEPIS project, and when the antiX project emerged, I found I liked antiX as well, maybe even better, than the main MEPIS project, which I also like quite a bit.
I used antiX a bit once I installed the new version and now I am using it a bit more today. I did find one thing that represents somewhat of an issue: the default Web browser, Iceape, is prone to oscillate, using high percentages of CPU time, then back off, returning to normal.
Running my own instance of Firefox in my own directory, it has some CPU bursts as well, but they are not as prominent, and do not seem to affect the user interface - such as typing in a Web based text widget, such as this one, as much as with the default Iceape.
I will do some more experimenting, installing my own versions of browsers and see how they behave here. The only things chewing up CPU and memory here are the browsers, so it could be that the version of Iceape in Debian Testing is a bit suspect. More research will tell.
That's a nit for me; I run lots of stuff anyway, and with the great flexibility inherent in antiX, I have no problem at all getting what I want and configuring it the way that I want.
I used antiX a bit once I installed the new version and now I am using it a bit more today. I did find one thing that represents somewhat of an issue: the default Web browser, Iceape, is prone to oscillate, using high percentages of CPU time, then back off, returning to normal.
Running my own instance of Firefox in my own directory, it has some CPU bursts as well, but they are not as prominent, and do not seem to affect the user interface - such as typing in a Web based text widget, such as this one, as much as with the default Iceape.
I will do some more experimenting, installing my own versions of browsers and see how they behave here. The only things chewing up CPU and memory here are the browsers, so it could be that the version of Iceape in Debian Testing is a bit suspect. More research will tell.
That's a nit for me; I run lots of stuff anyway, and with the great flexibility inherent in antiX, I have no problem at all getting what I want and configuring it the way that I want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)