Living in Fedora

Well, just after my last post, I received a new desktop computer at work and decided, rather than staying in my safety zone and installing Ubuntu, that I would go ahead and put Fedora 15 on my work machine. Having been using it on a couple of laptops, the basics of yum/rpm and GNOME 3 were all pretty familiar. My biggest fear about moving to Fedora, or any other non-Debian-based distro, was feeling like I was in a foreign country without knowing the language, and without any friends. Most of the Linux users I know use Ubuntu or some flavor of Debian, and I am, frankly, quite attached to the Ubuntu support community (by which I mean the forums and IRC channel).

A cursory look through the Fedora Forum and hanging out in the #fedora IRC channel showed me that each of those is far less active (and far less n00b-friendly) than their Ubuntu equivalents. I'm not writing them off - I'm just saying that the communities are very different. Fortunately, I plan to continue with volunteer Ubuntu support, though now I'll need to have an Ubuntu instance running in VirtualBox.

So far though, using Fedora has been a breeze, and it's funny how little I'm missing Ubuntu's environment. I thought changing my primary distro would feel like some sort of breakup, but since it's free software, I know I could always return to Ubuntu if I wanted to. As it stands at the moment, though, the little usability things I don't like about Fedora (or GNOME 3, specifically) are better than the many things I do not like about Unity.

Inching towards Fedora...

Since I installed Ubuntu on my main computer in February 2008, I have pretty much been an Ubuntu devotee. If your goals are to get most any computer working out of the box without a lot of tracking down of proprietary drivers and the like, Ubuntu is probably your best choice. I have spent a great deal of time over the last few years advocating for the use of Free and Open Source alternatives to proprietary software, particularly to library staff, as libraries are my professional milieu. When a Windows user I know is wanting a change from all the strife that comes with running Windows (and needing an upgrade), I always, without hesitation, recommend Ubuntu as their solution. I have also been very active on the Ubuntu Forums and the #ubuntu IRC channel on FreeNode (username yeats on both), assisting new users with problems I know the answers to.

However, as a Linux user myself, I've been feeling the need for a change. I still primarily use Ubuntu on my home and work desktops, but on my work laptop and Dell mini, I have been experimenting with Fedora (first Fedora 14, and now on Fedora 15).  In the Linux world, Ubuntu is undoubtedly the most popular desktop distribution, but it's always followed closely by Fedora (often vying with Linux Mint for second place).  Both Ubuntu and Fedora use GNOME primarily, and they are both quite polished (nice fonts, consistent display, well-designed backgrounds, etc.).  Up until this spring, the desktop environments were very similar overall.  The recent moves to the "next generation" desktop environments (Ubuntu to Unity, Fedora to GNOME3), has made the choice more about which environment you want to work in.  Without getting into a full comparison of the two (which has been done to death all over the web - enjoy Bruce Byfield's evaluation here) or into the "Canonical vs. GNOME" drama, I will say that 1) I was not happy about the "taking my toys and going home" attitudes I saw from Canonical, which is a slight on the entire Ubuntu project, unfortunately and 2) I stopped using Unity, preferring "Ubuntu Classic" (calling up some nostalgia for me) after a couple of weeks for usability.  Using GNOME3 has been a pleasure so far.

I'm sure I'll report more as I begin to transition from Ubuntu to Fedora on my primary desktops.

Posting from GoogleCL

I am testing the ability to post content to my blog from the command line\!

Proprietary Software Traps - Adobe Flash

I've been working on a project for work involving the re-use of older (6-8 years old) PCs and laptops using Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, with the goal of distributing them to some of our tech-impoverished Georgia libraries (nothing's firm yet - still in the exploratory phase). These were state library staff members' computers from maybe 2 generations ago and if they are not re-used, they'll be surplused or discarded. As I was installing and configuring Ubuntu, it occurred to me that since we would be redistributing whatever software we install, we are constrained about what we can include when they are sent out. Ubuntu, as-is, is all free software and all included packages can be redistributed freely. However, installing Adobe Flash, Sun (or Oracle) Java, or many proprietary A/V codecs or device drivers, makes it illegal to redistribute.

Once the libraries have the stations, of course, installing proprietary software on a per-station basis is no problem. But since our plan is to distribute these dozen or so computers to libraries with very little tech expertise on staff, we want these stations to be as "plug and play" as they can possibly be. Fortunately, these are Dells and HPs and the open source device drivers are covered. Proprietary Java *usually* isn't necessary for normal web browsing, and it's unlikely that these library staff are going to want these stations to be DVD-capable - it's hard enough to limit library patrons' time on computers without this complication.

The real problem is Adobe Flash, which is what much of the 2.0 web is built on. Even if libraries restrict the use of online video (many do for both content and technical reasons), Flash is necessary to view and use *many* websites, and seems like most corporate web developers assume that Flash is a given. Unfortunately, in the Linux world, it's not a given and it's not because Linux is not capable of running it - it's because it's proprietary software.

So because of the Ubuntu project for libraries, a Flash-free environment was already on my mind when the Flash security vulnerability was announced (and not just because of Apple's hypocrisy on the Flash/iPad issue), and I have begun exploring how I might wean myself off my Flash dependency (mainly for YouTube and Pandora, both which I use heavily). I spent the first part of the weekend trying to live with Gnash with disappointing results. Like many open source alternatives to established proprietary software, Gnash needs a lot of extra work just to get basic functionality (for me anyway), and as committed as I am to free/open source software, I don't want to spend all my time configuring something that probably won't work all that well anyway. I also signed up for YouTube's HTML5 beta testing program, but it doesn't work with Firefox, just Chromium (open source Chrome) and even then, the videos aren't playing. What to do?

Hopefully, the combination of Steve Jobs' criticism and the new security flaw will move web development away from Flash and into more open web standards. Until then, I'll just live in the discomfort of either holding my nose and just using Flash or sticking to my principles and doing without web content I truly enjoy. Wish me luck!

Software Ecology and Taking Responsibility for It

I co-presented a conference session a few months ago about the use of open source software in libraries, and was in a conversation with one of my co-workers in the days leading up to it. This colleague, who I worked well with otherwise, said "You know all that stuff you're going to talk about? Well, it all pretty much sucks." He then began to list off the feature sets of the "proprietary version" of this or that program and how the "open source versions" were lacking because they do not contain certain features that he expects. While it's hard to hear this sort of criticism, I also can't really argue with it. I don't use open source software because of the feature sets of its individual programs. I use open source software because I have a commitment to software freedom and believe that software works better when there is a community of collaboration.

I use free and open source software for the same sorts of reasons people commit to buying organic produce or cooking their own food or recycling plastic or driving a hybrid car. There exists a "software ecology" that suffers when huge corporations are the only players. It's the difference between purchasing pre-made, jarred spaghetti sauce, and making your own ragu by letting it simmer for hours. The jarred sauce may taste fine. It is certainly predictable and stable. Decades of marketing has led the American consumer to believe that less work is better, so many people think it is foolish to "slave over a hot stove" and make your own food when there are so many convenience options available (not to mention that this availability has resulted in a complete lack of interest and skill in cooking for oneself - but that's a post for another non-software related blog).

I understand that many people are too busy to cook, much less to worry about the origins of the software programs they use, and I'd wager that most end users have never heard of a shell script and have never seen source code. So why care, then? Why would one sacrifice the practical features they use in a proprietary program for an "open source version" that does less (or does it in a way that encumbers one's workflow)? Why would someone ignore the release of Windows 7 (or Vista, fixed) just to get to the Karmic Koala and potentially fight with device drivers that "just work" on Windows or Mac?

Some will always scoff at people who go to a lot of trouble to conserve or protect the environment in the small ways they can. Well, I'm a software tree hugger, striving to protect the intellectual property commons as best I can, and enjoying the products of the community: organic, home grown, open and free.

Mini Dell Ubuntu!

I recently had the pleasure of leading a "lunch & learn" session at my job in which I got to talk about the value of Ubuntu, both for personal/office use and for public libraries, and one of my colleagues brought in her brand new Dell Mini Inspiron 9. I'm finding that I need a laptop nearby for many aspects of my job, and using her lightweight, ultraportable Ubuntu box got me convinced that I wanted one myself. After a few weeks of investigation, another colleague sent me a link to a deal on a Dell Vostro A90 with Ubuntu preinstalled. I haven't had the opportunity to buy a computer since becoming a Linux convert, and the idea of an OEM-installed Ubuntu laptop was too much to pass up. It came installed with a Dell-specific version of Ubuntu Hardy Heron. Restless as I always am, I immediately began investigating ways to hack the out-of-the-box version into something I could love. I downloaded the Ubuntu Netbook Remix version of Jaunty Jackalope and wrote it to a USB drive to try it out live and I was SO impressed with it, except that the sound was not working. In my search for solutions to this, I came across an excellent help site called Ubuntu on the Dell Mini 9, which has many tutorials and guides about running different versions of Ubuntu - what works, what doesn't, how to configure things, etc.

I finally decided to put Intrepid Ibex on and then install Ubuntu Netbook Remix from the special repositories. Here's a screenshot:


I'm very pleased, though the keyboard is going to take some getting used to.

KDE 4.2 Lures Me Back to Kubuntu 8.10 . . .

Well, I sounded pretty certain in my last post that I was done with KDE 4.1 and Kubuntu 8.10. I was told by a commenter to that post that KDE 4.2 looked pretty promising. I spent this past weekend working with VirtualBox (which itself has matured into a great program - more later) and I got curious about what the Jaunty Jackalope Kubuntu had to offer. I downloaded the Alpha 4 release of Jaunty, and as with my first reaction to KDE 4.1, I was a little slackjawed at the aesthetics of 4.2:


So, deciding that KDE is my environment of choice, and that I'm going to have to grow with it or be left behind, I decided to re-upgrade to Intrepid on my laptop so I could upgrade to KDE 4.2. So far I am very pleased, but I haven't dug in yet. I've decided to keep my desktop on Hardy for the foreseeable future. Like my last post said, my Linux needs very quickly moved from hobby to professional use, so stability (and familiarity) are somewhat necessary. I'll report back on what I find . . .

A Final Word on Kubuntu 8.10

I have been so deep in my new job lately (my position has changed twice in the last year) to really blog much, but I wanted to report on my experiences with KDE 4.1 and Kubuntu 8.10. I first downloaded KDE-4.1 over last summer and had a good first impression because of its sleek design, and I moved to Kubuntu as my job needed a solid and usable terminal environment. Ubuntu's default Gnome terminal just doesn't cut it for me, and I live in Konsole in work and at home. In November I succumbed to the temptation to upgrade from Kubuntu 8.04 (which uses the KDE 3.5.9 version - screenshot) to Kubuntu 8.10 and KDE 4.1. My initial enthusiasm quickly faded, as I found the desktop environment to be buggy and non-usable for my work needs. My main complaints have to do with the strictures on environment configuration. In KDE 3.5 I can drag an icon from the menu to the task launcher bar and I then have a quick launch for any given program, I can drop a file I need to use on the desktop and pick it right back up and drop it somewhere else. This is the way I (and most users) expect desktop environments to act.

By contrast, KDE 4.1 requires that I add a "widget" to either the desktop or task panel that I can then use in prescribed and limited ways. The default menu in KDE 4.1 stopped making sense to me and I reverted to "classic view" fairly quickly, though since I never did figure out how to create a task launcher in the panel, I had to tailor the menu to have my most-used programs all together and visible. These issues had me briefly running back to Gnome, but I can't really go back at this point - I like KDE too much. [There were also Ubuntu-Intrepid-level issues (unrelated to KDE) that bothered me, the most annoying of which was that my CD-ROM drive would only mount sporadically. I'm concerned that Intrepid is not up to my high Ubuntu expectations :-(]

Because of all this, I reverted to Kubuntu 8.04 last weekend, and breathed a HUGE sigh of relief. Everything works, everything looks great, and I realized that I needed a fresh install. I hope that the KDE developers will consider keeping a 3.5-level strain of development around for awhile, as I don't plan to try a newer KDE again until at least the end of Hardy Heron LTS support in 2011. . .

UPDATE: Linus Torvalds, original author of the Linux kernel agrees:

I used to be a KDE user. I thought KDE 4.0 was such a disaster, I switched to GNOME. I hate the fact that my right button doesn't do what I want it to do. But the whole "break everything" model is painful for users, and they can choose to use something else.

I realize the reason for the 4.0 release, but I think they did it badly. They did so may changes, it was a half-baked release. It may turn out to be the right decision in the end, and I will retry KDE, but I suspect I'm not the only person they lost.

Living in KDE . . .

After my recent experiences with KDE 4.1 (followup here), I decided to finally give Kubuntu its due, and I have to say: I really like it. I went ahead and changed my Gnome Ubuntu installation to Kubuntu (using sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop) and choosing kdm as my default desktop manager. I've been very pleased, and I may have even made the leap to KDE as my preferred environment. So what's changed for me? I wasn't having any problems with Gnome, per se, but, as I posted recently, I was just getting a little bored with it. Here's a shot of my current desktop:


I've found that KDE is just as stable as Gnome, and the buggy-ness that I have complained about has not really been an issue now that I've committed to it. On a side note, I'm also just getting better at fixing problems as they occur. Linux settings are much more doable than I thought, and I'm having less of that "Oh-my-god-I-wish-I-could-just-call-tech-support" feeling about problems I encounter. Her are my favorite things about Kubuntu's brand of KDE:

• a "right-out-of-the-box" attractive interface - even the default background photos are attractive, which is not true for Gnome Ubuntu (note: the image in my screenshot is one I found through StumbleUpon)
• Amarok - it's now my favorite music player and comes (in Kubuntu, anyway) with a link to Magnatune - great music, free to listen - it's usable and configurable
• Konsole - it makes the terminal feel like a web browser: I can run concurrent sessions in multiple tabs - very useful since I'm often logged into several computers at once

"Regular" Ubuntu has been my home desktop, but now that I often work from home, KDE is a better fit overall. I'll report back as I continue to explore.

Having to Feed the Windows Monkey

I haven't done much "Windows bashing" here - a very popular sport among Linux users in general - because I tend not to 1) think it's a good idea to do so when my goals are about free software promotion and 2) care all that much. Since I began this project, the Windows partition on my original hard drive has become smaller and smaller, and I boot into it less and less. As others in my dual-boot situation probably know, however, this can become a problem - I'll explain what I mean through a short Ubuntu vs. Windows comparison.

If I were to take the Ubuntu Hardy Heron installation disk that I burned in April and put a fresh install on my computer, the necessary software updates required to bring my computer up to the state it's now in would number in the hundreds and take, oh, I don't know, 25 minutes at the most to process with a high speed Internet connection. I'd probably have to reboot once during this process, but that's only because the Ubuntu kernel has been replaced at least once since then, and you can't (or shouldn't) run a new kernel without booting into it. All told, though, I'd be done with this maintenance and ready to play Same Gnome within a half hour or so. This process is no fuss and you can usually do other things on the computer while it's all processing.

Well (and you know what's coming), when I booted into Windows XP last night to use iTunes (which I almost never use anymore, but I have an older iPod shuffle, for which Linux alternatives are limited), I was confronted with several competing programs that all wanted to automatically update at the same time (including iTunes). Windows Update, McAfee antivirus (which comes free with my ISP), Adobe Reader (which is its own story - why do we have to work so hard for a program that only occasionally opens PDFs?!) and Java were all jumping up and down saying "Update me first!" " No - me!". I felt hijacked! All I wanted to do was to see if Apple had a $0.99 song to download (and they didn't even have was I was looking for!). My computer seemed to be pushed to the limit and I finally gave up on browsing the web because it was requiring too many resources just to process the many updates. I had to reboot twice. Then I went ahead and set McAfee to scan Windows and went to bed. And this was after not booting into Windows for maybe 2 1/2 weeks!

With Ubuntu running so well (the cooling fan, which was blowing at full speed in Windows, almost never comes on during normal use), and doing all the work I need my computer to do, I wonder sometimes why I keep Windows at all. Maybe I'll start seriously looking into using Wine to run my necessary Windows programs and finally moving to a full Ubuntu box. Using Windows is just too much work for an OS that I don't even like that much anymore!

Ubuntu: Old Hat?

I've only been using Ubuntu for six months, but I'm finding I'm getting a little restless as far as Linux goes. I just read two interesting Ubuntu-related articles, one about Ubuntu boredom (in the sense that solid and dependable are "boring") and the other from a jaded Linux system administrator who found in Ubuntu the home desktop Linux he's been looking for all his life. I'm understanding both perspectives now. For my new job I'm learning Linux (Debian GNU/Linux, more precisely) at the command line level (servers typically do not employ GUI desktops), and at home I keep wanting to explore new places. I think what I'm dealing with is the inevitable letdown that comes after any sort of mountaintop experience - when your new love or religious insight or whatever begins to just become part of your life. Not that it's "nothing special" - you just want to rekindle some of that emotional high that you had when you first found it. That's where I am with Ubuntu at the moment.

As I mentioned, I partitioned my Windows hard drive, originally for Kubuntu, and there I saw KDE 4.1, which captured my imagination for a few days, but again, I still land in the Gnome camp as far as desktop environments go, at least for the time being. Now I have an installation of Lenny, the soon-to-be-labeled-"stable" version of Debian, which I intended to be a minimal installation so I would really be forced to work in the command line, even at home, but I put KDE on it after some back and forth dithering. I'm simultaneously enjoying the utterly dependable nature of Ubuntu and its many applications and wanting something more, something different.

Maybe what I really need is to bring more people into this world, so I can vicariously re-experience that flood of excitement again. "Whoa! This is really fast!" and "Wow - this rivals Windows and Mac for quality alone!" and "This is all free?" and "Ah. . . I get it. That's what 'free' means!" Until then I need to learn to appreciate Linux for all it's stability and dependability, and be more patient about what innovations are around the corner.

My Linux Anniversary - 1 Year Later . . .

Well, it has been a year since I took the plunge and installed Debian on my parents' old desktop, and my what a year it has been! One year ago I was a reference librarian at a busy suburban library who found a book about Linux and decided to try out Knoppix for the first time. I had just been turned down for a job with the state library agency and wanted to bone up on my "technology skills," whatever I meant by that. Since the state library's system runs on Linux, I thought learning that environment would make me more marketable. So for a few weeks there I would drag my parents' desktop out of a closet and hook it up, then when I was finished I'd disassemble everything and put it back in the closet (since it took up too much space in our small apartment). Since the network card never worked, I never really did get a feel of what actually using Linux for my day-to-day computing needs would be like. Then, because of several goings on in my personal and professional life, I put my Linux toys away for a few months (and gave away my parents' comptuer) until I needed to use the Linux-based Cinelerra for a video project and I installed Ubuntu on a second hard drive on my main computer.

Having Ubuntu on my main computer truly changed the way I thought about my computing needs and choices, and I spent weeks just downloading free (and I do mean free) software and trying different things out. I was truly astonished at what tools I now had at my disposal, and when I began researching how this all came about (through books and online videos, mainly) I discovered that this was something I truly wanted to get involved with, both personally and professionally. I've always been "computer savvy," meaning that I know my way around computer hardware and software and learn those concepts fairly easily, but I wanted to develop specific skills that would allow me to get a job in technology-oriented librarianship.

Then another job came open with the state library as system administrator, and I was dissatisfied enough in my reference librarian position to give this a try. I was not exactly qualified for the position, but I hoped my newfound determination to get this sort of job, along with my nascent devotion to free and open source software, would win me some points as a candidate. They were looking for either a techie with library knowledge or a librarian with a technical background or interest (neither combination is all that common), and they chose me, the librarian with tech skills (well, more interest than skills, but I'm working on it). So I'm now the system administrator (in training) for one of the most forward-thinking library agencies in the country, running the open source, GPL-ed Evergreen ILS, for which my predecessor led the development team (now Equinox Software, Inc.).

So now I've gone from being a non-Linux user to a Linux end user/advocate to a professional position where I need to know the inner workings of Linux cold. I'd say it's been a pretty good year, wouldn't you? :-)

More on KDE 4.1

Okay, I've only used KDE 4.1 for a couple of days and I have a little more to report. The first thing to say that this is my favorite KDE "straight out of the box" that I've encountered so far in my limited experience. Aesthetically, this couldn't be better - I think it's much sleeker than Gnome (we'll see what Gnome 3.0 brings) and rivals the design of Mac OS X (sorry - prejudice aside, Vista's not in the running here!). The eye candy is abundant, but not overdone. The last thing to say about the "look" factor is that in all my years as a computer end-user, I have never just wanted to sit there and admire the desktop, especially without changing the default wallpaper. I can't help it - I'm posting another screenshot:


So let's consider it a settled point that KDE 4.1 is very pretty.

There are, though, some issues I've encountered. I've always found KDE to be a bit buggy, and this one seems to be no exception:

• The "startup" music clip is truncated (I hear dramatic piano that begins, then suddenly stops). Strangely, the "shutdown" clip works fine.
• As a Firefox - Thunderbird user, I always have problems setting them as my default browser/mail client - this has been true in all my KDE experience.
• I tried to configure Kopete as my Google chat client, but it failed, saying that I didn't have a certain plugin installed (which I do see on my package list as installed).
• I'll mention here that my KDE 4.1 is installed onto my existing Kubuntu KDE 3.5 installation, which may be a factor in these issues.
  

And just a couple of usability complaints:

• Well, (and this was lambasted in KDE 4.0 from what I've read) the desktop is no longer a "desktop" in the sense that you can just, say, download a file and put it there (which is something I do all the time). It is now a palate to place "widgets," some of which are actually useful, but are mostly nonessential eye candy as far as I can tell.
• Things are not as "configurable" as they were before. I can't, for instance, change my clock to display in a "12 hour" mode - not a huge deal, just a preference. Some of the things that are configurable are things I'm not that interested in changing, like the length of my task panel at the bottom of the screen.

All in all, though, this is an impressive program, and I will keep it going alongside my "normal" Ubuntu Hardy installation.

KDE 4.1 - Wow!

Okay, I'll just start with the screenshot, because, I'm just a little speechless:



Can you believe this is Linux?!? As anyone who has followed my blog knows, I've had mixed reviews of KDE in the past. I first saw KDE in Knoppix, my first experience using Linux, and it just looked foreign and strange, and not that inviting. I tried KDE again when I first installed Ubuntu and liked it okay. Actually I thought it was nice enough, but just a little boring maybe - a little too Windows-y looking for my taste. And I know it's shallow, but all the "K" names (Klipper, Konsole, Konqueror) were really bugging me there for a while. Since then, though I've kept a separate Kubuntu partition, just to be able to use it from time to time, if for no other reason than that it's free and that it gives me a well-rounded Linux experience to use both Gnome and KDE.

I replaced my monitor today, the CRT model that came with my Dell in 2004 with an LG 19" flat panel, and I wanted to see how KDE looks on it. Then decided to see if I could give KDE 4.1 a whirl. So I downloaded it to work alongside KDE 3.5 and wow, is it awesome! It's almost like an entirely different program, making my darling Ubuntu Gnome desktop look a little boring itself. I may even do a fresh install of Kubuntu in this partition with KDE 4, then upgrade to KDE 4.1. In any case, I'm sure I'll report back with more to say!

Learning How Linux Really Works

The thrust of this blog has been an attempt to use Linux in the same way one would use Windows or Mac OS, which is to say, without using the command line. Nothing makes people's eyes glaze over more quickly than the very words "command line," no matter which type of computer you're using. I recently showed my father-in-law the bash shell on his three-year-old MacBook, and he had no clue what it is or what it does. When Windows 95 took hold of the computing world, it was a while before I found that the "MS/DOS" icon opens the command window that works like it always did in the pre-GUI days of the late eighties. In any case, the command line is where Linux truly works, and all the mousing and clicking is really only issuing commands to the shell, the Unix/Linux term for the command line interface.

For all of the Linux distributions I've encountered, bash (the Bourne Again Shell) is the default shell (there are others that I haven't explored yet). I'll mention here that bash is a program developed for the GNU operating system, which, along with the Linux kernel, constitutes GNU/Linux, or what many call simply "Linux." A shell is simply a program that allows a human being to interface with the computer, manage files, perform tasks, and so on. To use the shell, you type in a command (input) and the shell performs the command and provides feedback (output) or simply returns to the command prompt, which lets you know that the command worked and all is well. If something goes wrong, it lets you know that too by giving you (usually comprehensible) error messages. That's about it. Once you know a set of basic commands, you can navigate through your files in a more hands-on and precise way than is possible from a graphical interface. It's a little like driving a car with a stick shift after only driving an automatic. You have much more control, but there's a steep learning curve and you're in for a bumpy ride for a while.

The other main thing to learn about Linux that you can only do effectively (in my view) from the shell is the directory structure. At first this is a little overwhelming, but since it is set up in a standard, orderly hierarchy, you'll soon learn what it is you're looking at. Finally, when you have learned some commands and get your bearings, you can learn the true meaning of "open source" since you can view the source code of all the programs you have installed. Of course, at that point you'd want some understanding of programming languages, and I'm not much help there at this point!

A Non-insider's Guide to Free and Open Source Software

For years I have been using and, in some cases, promoting "open source" software, but until a few months ago, I really couldn't have told you what is really behind that idea. I knew vaguely what it is - that the source code for a certain software program is "open" (available) and can be copied and improved upon by anyone who wants to. And that's good, right? But since neither I nor anyone I know actually would delve into the source code (at least not at this point), what does it matter? Windows, Office, and Adobe Reader all work, even though they don't share their source codes, so why should an end user (that's you) care? From a practical point of view, there are not that many compelling reasons, but I'll try to lay out what "Free" and "open source" mean and why they might just matter to you after all.

A Nutshell History - Free Software and GNU

In the 1970s, long before everybody had computers in their homes, computers were confined to university research centers, and software was free and shared for the most part. Two future figures in personal computing came out of this era with opposite impressions. Bill Gates, frustrated by the idea that software was being shared among computer enthusiasts without payment to the software creators (known as "pirating" software), wrote an open letter saying so, in which you can see the seeds of the Microsoft business model.

Richard Stallman, on the other hand, became frustrated that people were putting restrictive licenses on what was previously open and shared software, and in response to this, he created the Free Software Foundation, which still advances the cause of Free Software. Stallman's greatest innovation is the intellectual property workaround of "copyleft," in which a program's creator copyrights the source code, then releases the source code and program with the condition that it must remain Free and shared and that any modifications to it must also be shared in turn, preventing anyone from taking, say, the Linux kernel, changing the code, then copyrighting that code to make millions of dollars. This concept has been codified in what is known as the "GNU General Public License" or "GPL," which led to the Linux/Open Source revolution as much as anything else.

If you are interested in Richard Stallman's ideas about this, peruse the GNU Project website. It is worth mentioning that what is normally referred to as "Linux" is actually just as much Richard Stallman's GNU system (hence some distributions' insistence on calling it "GNU/Linux") - unfortunately for Stallman, "Linux" is a much catchier, if not quite accurate, name.

"Open Source" Software

In the late 90s, as Linux began to take hold as a viable alternative to proprietary software, Free Software advocates began attempting to shop their software programs to the business world. Given the political stances of the Free Software movement, and the inherent trouble of describing software as "free" to people interested in making money, several Free Software figures got together and formed the Open Source Definition, which was based largely on Debian's Free Software Guidelines. This new term (to which Richard Stallman strongly objects) gave businesses a way to extol the practical benefits of free software without having to negotiate the ambiguous (and potentially loaded) term "free." Unfortunately, "open source" is also ambiguous enough to lead to situations where companies may release their source code (making it "open"), but will attach a number of caveats about its use and redistribution that are not at all in line with the Free Software movements goals (or those of the Open Source Initiative for that matter).

"Freeware", "Shareware", and Other Confusions

To add a large dose of confusion to what is already a complicated topic, there are many software programs out there on the Web which are free to use, but are not Free or Open Source software. These programs will often use terms like "freeware" or "shareware" in their descriptions, which to the untutored eye all look the same. Browsers like Internet Explorer or Safari, or programs like iTunes, Adobe Reader, or VMWare, are all free to download and use under certain conditions. There is also a growing number of free (of cost) web-based services that have come to define the idea of "Web 2.0"-style computer usage, like Google Documents, PBWiki, and even Blogger (which I use to host this blog). These are not Free Software in the "free as in speech," Open Source Definition/GPL sense. As Free Software advocates continually have to explain, the "Free" is about "freedom", not cost, and these "pseudo-free" programs have ulterior motives when they don't charge for their use (mainly advertising).

How to Tell if Your Software is Free

Now that I've laid out what's Free and what isn't, how do you tell? Here are a few characteristics of non-Free software:

• A restrictive End User License Agreement (EULA) - a quick glance should tell you - you will see a lot of "You may not . . ." language.
• Many non-Free programs will attempt to slip in extra software (like the Yahoo! or Google browser toolbars that track your internet usage and provide advertisers with whatever personal information you don't explicitly "opt out" of)
• You may see advertisements appear during the installation process
• You may have to enter your personal information to "register" your product or use a product key to be able to use the product

Free software programs will often be licensed under the GPL or some other license (Apache, Mozilla, and other open source companies provide this sort of licensing as well). Look for language affirming the rights to redistribute and share the product.

It's All About Choices

Just like in your grocery-shopping, software choices matter. Most of the time (at least to my palate) conventionally-grown brocolli tastes the same as organically-grown brocolli, so why spend the extra money? I buy organic fruits and vegetables (when possible) because I know (or trust) that my body doesn't need the extra chemicals and pesticides that are used in conventional factory farming nowdays. Free and Open Source software are similar, in that you know that you can use conventional corporate software solutions with all of their caveats and insidious advertising, or your can use Free and Open Source software, which guarantee your freedoms to use and share it as you see fit, without any ulterior motive. You can argue that they "taste the same", but isn't an extra glance at the EULA worth the effort?

Free as in Kittens

I've talked so far about software freedom as in speech and as in beer. Today my topic is the kind of "free" that people view as a burden, the example being "free kittens." This is the meaning of "free" that keeps many regular, reasonable computer users from adopting (or perhaps even trying) free software solutions for everyday needs. Free kittens are free of charge initially, yes, but that doesn't include the monetary costs of vet care, food, or replacing clawed up furniture. The word "free" here also doesn't include intangible costs like time spent training the kitten, cleaning up after her, having her keep you awake at night, and the like (can you tell I speak from experience?). We learn as adults that many so-called "free" things are not really free, since the costs of ownership outweigh the benefits.

A big reason that people pay for software is so they have someone else accountable when things go wrong, which as Mr. Murphy has taught us, they always will. That accountability is obviously worth millions (just ask the recently-retired Bill Gates, age 52). The sense of "getting what you've paid for" also provides much of the basis for Microsoft's infamous "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" (FUD) strategy that was revealed in the leaked "Halloween Documents" in the late 1990s. From this perspective, it's easy to say that free software is "not really free," since you can't call anybody when it breaks.

In an earlier post, I addressed how tech support is usually provided in the GNU/Linux/Free/Open Source community. Through online forums and IRC channels, users have great access to support from fellow users - people just like you who use a computer just like you who've had problems just like yours, not someone getting paid pennies to answer a phone and pretend like they care. As anyone who's sat on hold waiting for a tech support person, or sifting through hundreds of "knowledge base" articles that almost-but-not-quite address the problem, knows, "support" in this case is often not very supportive. Since Linux is community-driven, you're bound to find someone to help you with your problem, because we've all been there!

So what's the counter-argument to the charge of free software being "free as in kittens?" First of all, most cat owners will tell you that the kitten stage is worth the effort. I mean, we're all adults here, right (unless you're not :-))? Does anybody who's actually lived real life believe that anything is really free in this sense? Does having the "right" to call tech support 24/7 and sit on hold being told by recordings that your time is valuable really constitute peace of mind? I don't think so, but I'm also kind of a sold-out believer in free/open source software at this point and I know from experience that I can pretty easily find solutions to problems.

The main point to make at the end of the discussion is (to paraphrase Richard Stallman), "think free speech, not free kittens." Free software is not about monetary cost, it's about having the freedom to use and share software for the benefit and enjoyment of all. Have a happy Fourth of July and make sure to download some free-as-in-speech software this weekend! Be brave and build it from source!

***[Fireworks, Star Spangled Banner playing]***

Free as in Beer!

As I mentioned in my last Independence Day post, most free software is free in the monetary sense of the word ("gratis"), which can be a hindrance to those of us who are trying our best to emphasize the "freedom-as-in-liberty" sense of free software to those who don't yet understand. To your average computer user, "free" usually means "free to download," and that category includes many programs that no one in the Free Software world would consider free in the "liberty" sense (here's an FSF page with some definitions of these variants). And even when people download software licensed under the GPL and its variants, they don't notice that difference because they click right by the EULA in every case. And let's face it - most computer users aren't philosophical about software - they just need a program or OS that works so they can get things done (be that work or play).

One of Richard Stallman's memorable and concise ways of making the "free" distinction is to say "think free speech, not free beer." The problem with the term "free software" seems to be that many users can't think past the "free-as-in-beer" quality (or perhaps "free-as-in-cheap" or "free-as-in-kittens" - my next topic!). But let's think for a second about why that is, and how we advocates and defenders of software freedom might use it to our advantage. This software is (almost always) free of charge. When I go out looking for a Linux distribution or a software solution, I don't go to a shopping site. I look in the Ubuntu repositories for a program I know I can use without buying it or I go to a download mirror. Isn't there value in this quality of free software? Can't we enjoy free speech and free beer? (I can really appreciate free beer, can't you?)

Of course, I'm not advocating not caring about freedom-as-in-speech. I'm a librarian and have worked for years in a world were everything's free-as-in-speech, but I also advocate the enjoyment of that shared freedom. Just like the library, the freedom of free software is something all of us can use, share, and enjoy. (And in the case of free software, you don't even need a picture ID and proof of residency!) :-) Let's enjoy it!

Partitioning Hard Drives - My Experiences

When I got into all this Linux business, I was very intimidated by the thought of installing Debian onto what amounted to a throw-away PC that nobody needed. The only way I was ever going to install Linux on my main PC before about six months ago was to purchase a second hard-drive so I could leave my current configuration (aside from the Master Boot Record - which we'll get to shortly) alone. Even recently, when a library co-worker mentioned a desire to dual-boot on a laptop with a single hard drive, the very idea of partitioning a drive was scary and unknown to me. Now I've done it twice, and it was quite easy (maybe too easy).

I recently began a new job, and when the IT guy gave me my work laptop, he mentioned that I was welcome to resize the Windows partition and install Linux (WOW - I didn't even have to ask! In my last job the systems guy quailed at the idea of putting Linux on a web server!). I smiled and gulped and decided to get to it. By the end of the evening, I had installed Ubuntu on my work laptop and all was well.

Next, my wife just got a Windows-based computer, and we off-loaded her data from my desktop and deleted her Windows XP profile, which then allowed me to consider shrinking the Windows partition and use the space for Ubuntu (I later ended up using it for Kubuntu). This was a little more involved than it was the first time since I used a Live CD program called GParted (Gnome Partition Editor) to resize the Windows partition. Then with the freed space, I installed Kubuntu.

Since both of these experiences were successful, I'll make up a simple guide for my next post.

Taking a Closer Look at KDE

I actually have a lot to report, but I'll have to get to it bit by bit in more than one post. For the moment I'll stick to one topic - my renewed interest in the K Desktop Environment (KDE). To review, Linux distributions can come with different desktop environments, even if the same file structure lies underneath. This is a very foreign concept to users of computer systems like Windows or Mac (which is like, everybody) that might allow you to change things like fonts and color schemes, but if you really want your computer to look and act a different way you have to buy a new computer (or at least upgrade operating systems). In Linux, there are choices that are just not present in proprietary software programs.

As faithful readers of my blog may recall, I added KDE to my regular Ubuntu installation, just to give it a test drive. Since I have so far generally preferred Ubuntu's default desktop environment (called Gnome), I didn't want to keep KDE and all of its many programs installed, so I worked tirelessly for a few days to remove it. I have since been satisfied with Gnome and KDE just hasn't been on my radar until several things happened over the last couple of weeks.

First of all, my poor Ubuntu laptop, which my wife had claimed as hers, died a pitiful death as it gave me chilling messages like "kernel panic!" Fortunately (miraculously), I was able to save much of my wife's data - she's a student so there was a lot of important information on there. (Take this as a cautionary tale to back up your data regularly!) As a replacement, we bought a new laptop running Windows Vista, which meant I was able to offload my wife's Windows data from my desktop and shrink the Windows partition (the mechanics of which I will note later). After some thought about how to use the freed disk space, and some conversations with a new co-worker who prefers KDE, I decided to install Kubuntu, which is Ubuntu with KDE as the native desktop environment.

Here's a screenshot of my new desktop:


I've decided I'm going to try and live and work in KDE for a while, just to get to know it better. I'm told it's the favorite of many Linux users, including Linux kernel author Linus Torvalds. I'd say that's a pretty good recommendation!

I'll report more as I form opinions about it.