April 2007


I am typing this from the Ubuntu 7 beta. The last time I checked out Ubuntu was back in the Dapper Drake era (5.04). Fast-forward to today and I am quite impressed.

Installation was very interesting. Ubuntu booted to a live CD and had an “Install” icon on the desktop. Clicking on this walked me through a straight forward and easy installation. Once it was underway, I still had full access to the live CD functions. During install, I was able to surf the internet, use OpenOffice.org, play some games, etc. Very nice to be able to use my computer while installing an OS!

Once I booted into the OS for the first time, I was pleasantly surprised to see that everything worked. It auto-detected the basics: DVD-RW, network, hard drives, USB, monitor, keyboard, mouse, sound … it also auto-detected and configured my scanner and printer. When I plugged in my MP3 player, it auto-detected it as a music device, offered up Rhythmbox for managing my audio and placed an icon on my desktop showing it was mounted. Just as I expected it to work. Right clicking on my icon allowed me to safely unplug my device. Yippie!

Shortly after booting for the first time, Ubuntu notified me of updates. Given the beta nature of the software, there were quite a few updates for the system (343 infact). Unlike Windows, the centralized updating tool will update all the software on the system. No need for multiple, conflicting updating services.

The 3D Accelerated desktop (Compiz) is a user-selectable item from the System Preferences menu. This allows for wobbly windows, a graphical window selection tool and a rotating virtual desktop interface (among other 3D eye candy). The system, while impressive was clearly marked as “experimental” and while it ran acceptable on my computer, performance can vary.

So far I haven’t been tempted to drop to the shell to do any command line functions. Everything “just worked” to allow me to quickly get to work in a desktop environment. The core set of apps are not overwhelming but best-of-breed. The desktop is very clean and professional.

Overall I am quite impressed. There are some new open source tools for loading up Windows apps and using Windows virtualized within Linux to use legacy applications. I am going to give these tools a shot to see how they function. From what I have read, my expectations are very high.

It really is exciting to see how far Linux has matured. I can see myself recommending these to computer novices. Why not? The core apps are Linux native, Windows can live in a virtual world for those Windows specific applications and the entire system is far lower cost and secure. Its exciting!

If it works, don’t fix it…

Thats probably a good motto to follow. Infact, one of the websites I maintain runs an older version of a content management system — it works, the content creators are happy, the visitors are happy, so why invest the time and effort to upgrade to the latest and greatest when there is no tangible benefit to the end user?

Well if it was built on closed source software, I would be FORCED to.. The recent version of Firefox has a slightly different naming convention that triggers a browser identification bug in the management system. One bad assumption by a programmer made a core function of the management system unusable in the current version of Firefox (due to version naming).

Even though I am running an older, unsupported version, I was able to (thanks to open source), copy and paste one line of code that fixes the issue into my existing installation. Within minutes I was fully functional again, bug squashed.

It got me thinking .. if this was built on closed source software, I would be left with the following options:

1. upgrade the entire site to the latest version (and given the major version number release, would require $$$, upgrade woes and lots of testing and deployment planning)
2. Convince editors to my site to either downgrade to an older version of Firefox, fiddle with the user agent settings in the new Firefox or use Internet Explorer (eeek!!)
3. Stick with a broken site and just ignore the issue, pissing off my users (haha..)

Its just nice to know that instead of resorting to those options, I was able to change one simple line in my other-wise complex site and be on my way … I was able to verify the actual change (unlike updating a huge array of updates/bug fixes where I’m not sure WHAT is being touched) and if desired, run a unit test to verify compliance. Very simple, very straight forward and next to impossible in a closed source world.

So even in a non-programmer world, access to source code is still a very good thing. :)