A First Look at KDE

As I mentioned in a previous post, there are options about which desktop environment to use in Linux. This is difficult to wrap your mind around when you're used to using either Windows or Mac, which only have their own displays that you can only slightly modify or configure. When it comes down to it, if you want Windows to look drastically different, you have to buy another version (which often means buying a new computer!). Linux GUIs (Graphical User Interfaces) have basic functionalities you can't modify, but with know-how, it seems like you could tailor it to whatever you want. This is part of what is meant by "free software" in the GNU and Debian definitions of the term (also mentioned in that other post) - you can modify it however you want. Anyway, the major GUIs for Linux are Gnome and KDE.

As I mentioned, Gnome is the default desktop environment for Ubuntu, and it is the only option that comes with the initial installation. There is an Ubuntu variant called Kubuntu that has KDE as the native environment, and I was considering giving that a shot sometime soon, but after doing some reading on the Ubuntu Forums, I learned that using both is quite easy, and that I just have to download it from the software repositories and install it. This I did, and I got a chance to give it a whirl. Here's a screenshot:



My first impression is that everything is blue (I changed the default blue background to the photograph you see), which is a shock after the orange-brown "Human" theme of Ubuntu's Gnome. All of my installed files and programs are still available, plus a positive slew of KDE programs: games, widgets, educational software, and many others. With the Gnome programs also available in each menu, I'm actually having a hard time finding anything. One thing about KDE that grates on my nerves a little is that all of its applications either begin with the letter "K" (Konqueror - the default browser, KNotes, KPilot, etc.) or have the letter "K" prominently in the name. The names also often don't correlate with any function of the program ("Kaffeine" is a music player, I learned), which makes the menus a little more overwhelming. This is strange (in my view) for a program touted for its usability. Here's a shot of the screen with the start menu:



The other thing I noticed is that KDE looks a lot like Windows, and moving from Windows to KDE, at least visually, would be a more intuitive switch. Other things to mention:

• I found that Firefox does not display as well in KDE. The default text size is too small.
• Konqueror, the native Internet browser and file manager is very nice, and in some ways, I like it better than Firefox. It actually resembles Opera a little.
• The "eye candy" factor is quite impressive. It seems that Linux desktop environments rival Windows Vista and Mac in this respect.

There are many features and applications I have yet to explore. I'll report back when I have more to say!

Linux Studio!

When I was in junior high and high school, I had a friend whose parents were pretty well-off and who seemed to have everything he wanted (like Ricky Schroeder on Silver Spoons). He had lots of musical equipment, but the thing I always wanted was his four-track recorder. This would take a normal cassette and utilize its two tracks per side, enabling multitrack recording. I've thought for years that if I only had one of these, and a drum machine, that I could truly express my creativity.

Well, thanks to Linux, I now have a chance!

After using Cinelerra, a full-featured, multitrack video editing program, I shouldn't be surprised that Linux programs like this exist, but I'm still very impressed that they do. I haven't started using it yet, but Ardour seems to have all the features I would need (multi-track recording with the ability to export to a CD format). I'll just need a microphone and maybe a new PCI card to allow multiple inputs from my amp or other instruments.

I actually had a dream last night about using a drum machine for recording and I was journaling about it when it occurred to me to check for a Linux drum machine. Of course, there it was, also in the package manager's repositories! It's called Hydrogen, and it's great!

Now that I have these, I just have to start recording!!

Ubuntu Installation

It's been about a month since I did this, but I wanted to share how easy it was to install Ubuntu onto my computer. I got my Dell Dimension 4600 (80 GB Hard Drive, 512 RAM, Pentium 4) in August 2004, and although it is still running strong, I want to extend its life as long as I can. So I ended up buying a second 80 GB hard drive to add storage space and I plan to add memory as soon as it makes sense to. I had been planning to install Ubuntu on my computer for a while but I didn't want to do it on my current hard drive. It just seemed too risky. Buying a second hard drive made a lot of sense for this purpose, so while home from work with strep throat, I decided to do it. (I was also trying to do a video editing project with Windows Movie Maker with no success, and I wanted to give Cinelerra - a Linux based video editing program - a try. This was a whole other ball of wax that I will NOT get into right now!).

I worked for a couple of nights trying to offload and backup programs from my Windows XP drive - just in case something awful happened. After doing this, and doing a lot of reading on the subject, I decided to go for it. I went to Ubuntu's download page, and downloaded the .iso image, which I then burned to a CD. Then, after sitting there, throat hurting, contemplating, I decided I would boot from the CD and see what happened. I entered the installation program and it was really quite simple. I selected that I wanted a dual boot with Windows XP and that I wanted Ubuntu to go only on the new hard drive. After about 20 minutes, everything was installed, and I booted up.

The first thing I saw after the Dell splash screen was GRUB with Ubuntu and Windows XP Professional as options. I booted into Ubuntu and it was beautiful. Then to make sure all had gone well I booted into Windows successfully. Sick or not, I felt wonderful! Everything worked with Ubuntu - the mouse, the printer, the network, the sound. True success!!

For those interested (if you're not and you've read this far . . . um, wow - you must have a lot of time on your hands :-) ) I'll post some good reference resources for this:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WindowsDualBoot

http://apcmag.com/6101/dualboot_windows_xp_and_ubuntu

http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2006/05/08/dual-boot-laptop.html?page=1

A Basic Take on Using Ubuntu

Well, last month I took the plunge and installed a dual-boot installation of Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux, and I wanted to share my thoughts about the choice of using Linux and the experience I've gained.

Why Would You Want to Use Linux?

A basic question that you need a good answer to before embarking on any Linux project. My answer is that I began using open source software while in grad school and have been interested in what Linux is and what it does for about three years now. In one my classes we were required to learn UNIX commands (a predecessor to Linux), which gave me some basic ideas about how UNIX-derived systems work. The main thing I learned from this experience is that Linux is an alternative operating system that achieves many of the same purposes as Windows (or any other operating system).

There is a great deal of politics that surrounds the "free" or "open source" (another viewpoint here) software world. For many within this world, the whole point is to be free of corporate control over what you do on your computer. Computer software companies learned that they can license their products in ways that limit the way they are used. Free or open source software is almost always licensed to require the user to release the software from any proprietary limits and allow others to use, modify, or adapt the software in any way they see fit. Truly living this way requires sacrifices that I imagine most computer users are not willing to make. In any case, most users would not give up all proprietary software for the sake of a fairly obscure political stance that requires constant definition and clarification and that even its proponents do not always agree on.

So my own interest in using Linux is not political, even if I am not a fan of big corporations. I'm pragmatic enough to allow myself to continue to use Windows. To be even more heretical from the open source standpoint, I've found that I still like Windows, particularly Windows XP. Yes, it's not as secure. Yes, it sometimes takes a long time to load. etc. etc. But I'm not really a power user anyway. :-) I have no plans to "upgrade" to Vista anytime soon. By the time XP stops being supported, I will probably be in a position to fully commit to a Linux box.

What are Similarities Between Linux and Windows?

Well, I'm not a programmer, and with the exception of HTML and its variants, computer code looks like hieroglyphics to me. The desktop versions of Linux I've used mostly look and act a lot like Windows. Here's a screen shot of my current Ubuntu desktop:


Ubuntu uses Gnome, which is only one option for a desktop program on Linux operating systems (the other most popular one is called KDE - there is actually a historic competition between these two - I prefer the aesthetics of Gnome, myself). Visually, the layout is very similar to Windows, with an added "menu bar" at the top. There are menus and files and folders just like you'd be used to. Your mouse, printer, network card, and sound cards all work the same. I don't know why this impresses me so much, but it does. This is the power Microsoft has - that we think they're the only ones who know how to program for our PCs. There are many differences, though.

I'll go into the differences in another post.

Network Card Issues

**NOTE: This post, along with all the posts dated August 2007, is about my first experiences using Linux on a computer I have since parted with. I installed Debian "etch" onto a hand-me-down desktop computer just to see if I could do it. I note this since all of the posts from 2008 deal with an entirely different computer!

My network card has not worked since I began the installation process. Here's what's happening: I have some connectivity, but it is slow and inconsistent. When on the web, I can view pages, but they load very slowly. This limited connectivity has been very useful, though, and I was able to download Debian package elements from the Web. Since my dad never got it to work either, this card may not work well at all, but right now I'm convinced the problem is the driver. Here's why:

1. The light on the back of the computer that indicates an active Ethernet connection is on. The light on the router is also on. This has not been consistently the case, but most of the time the lights are on.
2. The connection works, if slowly ("jerky" is a term someone had for a similar problem on a Linux discussion site - it's an accurate description), which makes me think the hardware is not the problem. The router is also working, because I'm allowed onto the Web.

Another interesting feature of the current connection is that is works faster when I am opening a program. This means that if I'm downloading a file from the Web, it works much faster if I just keep opening programs - games, apps - whatever. When I'm up and running again I will detail the processes I've gone through so far to solve the problem.

Puppy Linux for our Laptop

In a side project, we have a 1999-2000 Compaq Presario 1900 laptop that runs Windows 98 SE and is on its last legs. After we bought our main desktop, the laptop fell into disuse, and was not revived until I set up our Ethernet network a couple of years ago. Even then though, it takes about 8 minutes to fully boot up and moves VERY slowly when performing even the most basic tasks and crashes often. This was my wife's computer when she was a student about 6 years ago and she intentionally bought it to be as bare bones as possible, because 1) she just needed Internet access and word processing capability and 2) laptops were quite expensive at that time.

Here are the specs:

Pentium III Processor
64 MB RAM
3 1/2 floppy drive (out of alignment and not functional)
6 (?) GB Hard Drive
1 USB port
CD/DVD ROM drive (no writing capability)

The PC Magazine Linux Book that I was consulting mentioned using "Puppy Linux" on older PCs with low memory specs. Once we got DSL again I downloaded the ISO from a mirror site and tried it out on the Compaq. It works fine, though when running it the first time it was awfully slow because of the small amount of RAM. What Puppy does, however, is create a file (which can reside on your hard drive) that keeps your settings, documents, etc., so when you log in the next time, it doesn't have to use as much RAM and programs run fine. Much much faster, in fact, than Windows 98 ever was. I have to boot from CD to get into Puppy, and Windows is still on the PC, but I don't ever have to use it.

I've had a little trouble configuring the network to provide Internet access, but I'm confident it can work. Of course, this means I now have 4 computers. Who needs 4 computers??!

Up and Running!

I used CD 1 to get Linux up and running. I kind of surprised myself by deciding to change my strategy for getting this project underway. Since I'm such a newbie at Linux, I decided to install the GUI and start with a standard system. That way I can get a handle on the way things work and then hopefully work with the web and file server options.

I'm VERY impressed with the Gnome GUI. It's clean and very attractive, like Apple. Windows looks decidedly UN-graceful in comparison. Here's a screenshot:


I'm very pleased. After using it for a couple of days I'm getting used to the Linux mindset, if gradually.