During a planning session at the Ubuntu Developer Summit last week, a decision emerged to remove the GIMP from the default Ubuntu installation. Although this decision has generated a bit of controversy, it's a sign of Ubuntu's growing maturity as a mainstream platform for regular users. As a participant who attended the session in person, I want to shed some light on how and why the decision was made.
After the failed install yesterday, I retraced the steps and redid the bootable USB creation. Sure enough, the installation USB booted flawlessly. Reading JfwHome's installation guide, I now have a running UNR 9.10 PC. I am now using it as I create this entry. Below I enumerate some observations from using it on first run.
First run observations:
Thing(s) to do:
I'm really happy with the successful installation. Even happier with the OS that has mostly configured everything correctly out-of-the-box. I am impressed with this as the previous 8.10 version gave me headaches most specifically with configuring WiFi. Today, just about a year later, the improvements are great. In a year's time, I don't know how great this free OS will be.
I MAY post the installation process I did if I can remember correctly. But, as always, Google is your friend.
The EpiValley USB modem appeared as an optical drive each time I connected it in Ubuntu.
For Linux to recognize it as a USB modem, I had to use usb_modeswitch.Then used wvdialconf to configure the modem & finally wvdial to dial-in et voilà :-)$ ldd /usr/bin/ffmpeg
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7f22000)
libavformat.so.1d => /usr/lib/libavformat.so.1d (0xb7e93000)
libavcodec.so.1d => /usr/lib/libavcodec.so.1d (0xb7a36000)
libavutil.so.1d => /usr/lib/libavutil.so.1d (0xb7a2b000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libm.so.6 (0xb7a06000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libpthread.so.0 (0xb79ee000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xb789f000)
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0xb788a000)
libogg.so.0 => /usr/lib/libogg.so.0 (0xb7885000)
libdc1394_control.so.13 => /usr/lib/libdc1394_control.so.13 (0xb7875000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libdl.so.2 (0xb7871000)
libgsm.so.1 => /usr/lib/libgsm.so.1 (0xb7864000)
libtheora.so.0 => /usr/lib/libtheora.so.0 (0xb781b000)
libvorbis.so.0 => /usr/lib/libvorbis.so.0 (0xb77f3000)
libvorbisenc.so.2 => /usr/lib/libvorbisenc.so.2 (0xb76f7000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7f23000)
libraw1394.so.8 => /usr/lib/libraw1394.so.8 (0xb76f1000)
Ubuntu 8.04 lts の ffmpeg も libx264 へのリンクはない。libx264-57 というパッケージはあるのにね
Congratulations to Google on the open sourcing of Google Chrome OS
When Chrome OS was announced in June we saw this as a positive development, bringing choice to the consumer. We considered how open source development is as much about co-operation as it is about competition. Google have made it clear that they are keen to develop Chrome OS openly and we have had the pleasure of hosting a number of the Google team at the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Dallas over the last few days where we have been able to see that openness in action.
In the interest of transparency, we should declare that Canonical is contributing engineering to Google under contract. In our discussions, Sundar Pichai and Linus Upson made it clear that they want , wherever feasible, to build on existing components and tools from the open source community without unnecessary re-invention. This clear focus should benefit a wide variety of existing projects and we welcome it.
On the consumer side, people will ask about the positioning of Chrome OS and Ubuntu. While the two operating systems share some core components, Google Chrome OS will provide a very different experience to Ubuntu. Ubuntu will continue to be a general purpose OS running both web and native applications such as OpenOffice and will not require specialised hardware.
So 2010 looks set to be a very exciting year. In addition to delivering Ubuntu experiences with both existing and new OEM partners, we will be working with Google on Chrome OS based devices.
Chris Kenyon VP of OEM Services, Canonical
なんでかなと思ったのだが、強調したlibavcodec.so.52 => /usr/lib/i686/cmov/libavcodec.so.52が問題。
libavcodecっていうのは、ffmpegにおける各コーデックを抽象化（？）しているライブラリらしく、libx264やらlameやらはこいつ経由で呼び出される。
libavcodec自体はffmpegと一緒にコンパイルされて/usr/local/libにインストールされるのだが、/usr/lib/～にlibavcodecがあるとそっちにリンクされてしまう。邪魔だから消せばいいじゃんと思うところなのだが、/usr/lib/i686/cmov/libavcodec.so.52っていうのは要はlibavcodecというパッケージであり、これにはgstreamer0.10-ffmpegが依存していて、Totem動画プレーヤなんかをまともに使いたかったら入れざるを得ないようになっている。
なんかリンカのオプションでライブラリを探すパスを指定できる。。。らしいんだけど、よく分からなかったので環境変数LD_LIBRARY_PATHを使うことにして、以下のようなラッパスクリプトで回避することにした。
#!/bin/sh env LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib ffmpeg "$@"
totem とか使わないのでパッケージの libavcodec は remove した。
I like debating. I like technology. These two characteristics leads me to invest more time than I should debating the pros and cons of various technologies and technology-related products, including desktop operating systems. (Yes, Windows is not the only one! ;-)
I've extensively used every version of Windows from 1.0 to XP, and every version of Ubuntu Linux from 6.06 to 8.10. When debating the merits of each, I'm often told that “until Linux is as easy to install as Windows, it will never succeed on the desktop”. Thus, when Microsoft recently provided an open release (for a time) of Windows 7, I decided to perform a fair, unbiased side-by-side comparison of installing and configuring each from scratch. How could any self-respecting geek resist?
If you're not a hard-core geek, then let your eyes glaze over now. Otherwise, read the summary of my testing below (yes, that's the short version!), or see all the gory details at http://tr.im/FIyt.
Install Time
Windows 7 requires more than twice as long to install – almost 36 minutes, compared to Ubuntu's under 15 minutes – although nobody will find either process particularly tiresome or confusing.
Windows 7 required that I complete 9 screens of information across the 36 minutes and endure 2 reboots to install, while Ubuntu required only 4 screens up front and then no reboots. Ubuntu's inclusion of a LiveCD test mode (try before you install), live install mode (run while you install), and the famous wubi mode (install while you run Windows itself), make Ubuntu's installation much easier and more straightforward than Windows 7's experience to any objective standard. It's also a totally cool suite of technology, you gotta admit.
However, if installing an OS makes you at all queasy, then you should simply buy your OS pre-installed like most people. Ubuntu is available from Dell, System76 (where Janet bought my Starling Netbook), and ZaReason, Windows 7 from... well, just about anyone. ;-)
Configuration
Once installed, neither operating system offered any driver challenges at all on my older test hardware (but here, your mileage will vary the most). Windows 7 was mildly more challenging to configure on the test machine than Ubuntu, particularly if you try to follow its advice – the confusing and ultimately futile guided quest for malware protection should shame someone at Microsoft.
Initial User Experience
Windows 7 required quite a bit more work to get running than Ubuntu, primarily because so much functionality was missing. For instance, no Instant Messenger (IM) or email client was provided by default, and when you install Microsoft's IM client, it only works with Microsoft's service (all my friends use Yahoo! or AOL).
Ubuntu came pre-installed with a full-featured email client and multi-service IM client that quickly connected to the services I actually use. And Ubuntu included much of the other basic productivity software I need – browser, office suite, bitmap and vector graphics editors, and PDF readers; Windows required installing each program (other than Internet Explorer) separately.
Long-Term Usability
Windows 7 has some nice tricks up its sleeve once you get it going. It's somewhat easier to “pin” an application to the task bar than to add a launcher to Ubuntu's panel, but more importantly, the unique right-click menus provided by Windows 7-aware applications provide some real usability improvements. It's not a killer feature exactly, but it's innovative and useful. AeroPeek is also way cool.
It's actually easier to install and remove applications in Ubuntu, especially the several thousand available in the app store, but in terms of sheer quantity of apps Windows wins hands down – particularly niche, vertical market, and commercial applications. However, Ubuntu's multiple desktops and a more capable compositing manager (which means eye candy), its free price tag, and especially its immunity to the malware that infests most Windows computers, help balance the equation. And for those of us who care about software freedom, Ubuntu's focus on the computer owner's liberty is, well, priceless.
Why Switch?
Ubuntu isn't the only desktop Linux product available, but it's generally regarded as the most popular and one of the best. Yet desktop Linux powers a mere 1-4% of the billion desktops in the world, compared to 4-6% for Macs and 90-95% for Windows (statistics vary a lot, depending on who's measuring and the assumptions they make). So why switch?
Most Ubuntu users cite freedom from viruses, a strong community, and a focus on what works rather than what's profitable as incentives for making the switch. My reason was somewhat different, as illustrated by the old story of the proud old Soviet dog who nevertheless immigrated to America.
Taken to a grocery store, Comrade Dog haughtily exclaimed, “Russian food is much better!” Taken to the opera, Comrade Dog stated, “Russian culture is more refined!” Taken to a baseball game, Comrade Dog complained, “Russian sports are more exciting!”
In exasperation, his host asked, “So why exactly did you move to America?” With a look of contempt at the obviousness of the question, Comrade Dog replied, “I like to bark.”
I find Ubuntu an excellent fit for my work, but even if it didn't, the freedom to use the software as I choose, share it with whom I like, and never have to answer to a Corporation's demand for a 40-character “authorization key” or plead for the right to re-install it after replacing a broken component makes Ubuntu infinitely superior to the more popular option. Or even 7 of them.
Embrace liberty. It's worth it.
Earlier today (or rather late yesterday), I tried to install Karmic Koala UNR (a.k.a. UNR 9.10) and as half-expected, it failed to install.
Steps:
Quick Guide to Switching to Ubuntu
I was one of the first engineers at work to switch from DOS to a Mac, way back in 1984. I also began using Windows 1.0 just over a year later, though I didn't fully transition until Windows 3.0. So it's a little embarrassing that I didn't begin using Linux until 2000, a good 9 years after its initial release.
What took me so long? Well, Linux represented a strange new world, where technology wasn't owned and marketed by a *company* but rather created and distributed for free by a loose confederation of geeks. Thus, it was a little, well, unpolished. Over my 9 years of using various Linux products, however, that polished feel has crept into Linux bit by bit until, in my opinion, it now compares very favorably with Windows and Mac OS/X.
I recently read a blog entry by Jackson Chung titled “A Windows User's Quick Switching to Mac Guide”, and realized just how far Linux, and in particular the Ubuntu product that is based on Linux, has come in terms of usability. Let's consider the categories that Mr. Chung (who has no apparent interest in Linux) chose to highlight for transitioning Windows users, as they compare to Ubuntu. (Note: I mention Windows 7 a bit, but stick mostly to Windows XP, as that appears to be Mr. Chung's Windows of choice.)
Installing a new application in Windows usually means buying a DVD from a store or searching the web for a download file. Running setup.exe from the DVD or download by double-clicking it typically leads you through a “wizard”, answering several screens of questions, until an Install button appears. Click it, wait a bit, and you're done.
Installing a new application on a Mac involves acquiring a DMG file from a store or an Internet search. Double-clicking the DMG file “mounts” it, displaying its contents. Dragging the app's icon to the Applications folder completes the install. Unmount the DMG by dragging it to the Trash, and you're done.
In Ubuntu, click Applications → Ubuntu Software Center, click the application of interest, select Install, and you're done.
My Opinion: I find the Ubuntu approach to be more intuitive and modern than Windows or Mac, in fact very similar to using Apple's App Store for the iPhone. I especially appreciate the program descriptions and screenshots for many of the Center's available applications. Ubuntu also uses the same consistent mechanism for providing critical updates, where applications on Windows and Mac must implement their own update strategies (and many don't).
In Windows, go to Control Panel → Add or Remove Programs, find the application in the list, and select Uninstall.
On a Mac, simply drag the app's icon from the Applications folder to the Trash.
In Ubuntu, open the Ubuntu Software Center again, select the application (most conveniently by selecting from the Installed Software list), and select Remove.
My Opinion: The Mac and Ubuntu both win here in my book, because they are consistent with how the application was installed in the first place.
In Windows, open Control Panel for the applets to change any setting you like.
On a Mac, select the Apple menu (upper right of the desktop) and select System Preferences.
In Ubuntu, select System → Preferences.
My Opinion: I honestly see little difference between these approaches, nor do I see a way to make them much easier.
In Windows, you normally browse the file system by double-clicking My Documents (or My Computer) on the desktop.
On a Mac, click the smiley face on the Dock to open Finder.
On Ubuntu, the Places menu directly lists everything that Windows Explorer and Mac Finder keep in the sidebar (which Nautilus, the file browser, also supports), but without opening a separate program.
My Opinion: Ubuntu is slightly more direct here, but you won't be challenged at finding files on any of the three operating systems.
Windows shortcuts consist of a combination of Control, Alt, Shift and a letter or function key. They are fairly consistent across most programs – for example, F1 gets you help, F5 refreshes the application's display, Control C or X or V copies, cuts and pastes whatever is selected, and so on.
The Mac replaces Control with the clover-themed Command button, again in combination with Shift and (in place of Alt) Option. Some of these are similar to Windows, but many are quite different and require some finger training to adopt.
Ubuntu generally uses the same shortcuts as Windows. In addition, the Super key (which sports an Ubuntu logo on pre-loaded computers and a Windows logo on most others) can be used for Compiz shortcuts (to paint fire on the screen, to dynamically zoom in and out using the mouse scroll wheel, to rotate the “cube” of desktops, and many other highly fun and sometimes useful actions).
My Opinion: Shortcuts are most useful when you know them. Switching between Ubuntu and Windows thus offers some advantage over switching between either and the Mac, but functionally they all work similarly.
To launch an application in Windows, you can always click Start → All Programs → [vendor] → application name. More commonly, you place a copy of the icon on the quick launch bar and launch by clicking it. Adding the app to the quick launch bar in Windows XP is a bit unintuitive, though. Right-click All Programs and select Open, find the icon, and drag with the right mouse button to the task bar (using the left mouse button removes it from the Start menu). Then select Copy from the resulting menu. (Windows 7 drops the quick launch bar in favor of a more souped up Dock-like integrated task bar, which is very nice indeed.)
On a Mac, you can always open the Applications folder and double-click the application of interest. More commonly, you place a copy of the icon on the Dock by simply dragging it there from the Applications folder. The dock acts as an integrated quick launch bar / task bar, which is quite convenient. The bouncing icons when attention is required is amusing, too.
On Ubuntu, you can always click Applications → [Category] → application name. More commonly, you place a copy of the icon on the panel (sort of a super-quick launch bar) by right-clicking it in the menu and selecting “Add this launcher to panel”.
My Opinion: The Mac's Dock and Windows 7 task bar are certainly snazzier that the XP quick launch bar or Ubuntu panel, but functionally all four are equivalent for launching an app. Ubuntu and XP are a bit behind the times with separate launcher and task manager panels, though.
In Windows, the ubiquitous hourglass cursor is the most obvious clue to an unresponsive app. The most direct path to killing it is to right-click the task bar entry and select Close, or click the Close button on the app's window. Oddly, Mr. Chung only mentions selecting Control-Alt-Delete to invoke the Task Manager, where apps are listed as “Running” or “Not Responding” with an associated “End Task” button.
On a Mac, right-clicking the app's icon on the Dock and selecting “Force Quit” in the resulting menu will kill the application.
In Ubuntu, unresponsive applications are immediately apparent, as the window visibly darkens. Simply click the close button and acknowledge the prompt to kill the app, or right-click the task bar entry and select Close. (Control-Alt-Delete brings up the Shut Down menu in Ubuntu, not a Task Manager.)
My Opinion: Ubuntu's darkened windows are the best way to highlight an unresponsive app, but all three operating systems approach killing apps in similar ways.
Mr. Chung's blog spoke only of disk fragmentation here, which is a pretty small subset of system maintenance considerations. However, I'll stick to his definition.
In Windows, disk fragmentation is a significant issue that is dealt with using a separate program called Disk Defragmenter (from Start → All Programs → Accessories → System Tools → Disk Defragmenter).
Mac's have fewer problems with file systems, but still provides a Disk Utility when some work is required.
Ubuntu provides a marvelously comprehensive tool at System → Administration → Disk Utility (the formal name is Palimpsest, if you look in Help → About). Edit → Check File System is the rough equivalent to the Disk Defragmenter, but it's capabilities go far beyond basic disk repair. It's worth the price of admission.
My Opinion: Window's Disk Defragmenter is surprisingly well hidden. Disk Utility is much easier to find in Ubuntu or on a Mac, even though needed less often on those platforms. Ubuntu's Disk Utility is the most capable of the three.
I have nothing against Windows or Mac OS/X - they both work well for general purpose computing, as long as you are comfortable with the lack of freedom that comes with proprietary systems. I'm quite pleased, though, at the progress Linux products like Ubuntu have made toward providing a powerful and enjoyable platform for those of us who place liberty at the top of our requirements sheet.
