I wanted an easy-to-use Linux distribution, something that "just works." I didn't want to spend my time tinkering or figuring out how to make my system work.
At work we have been migrating our Web servers and some of our other database servers to Red Hat, so that seemed a good first choice. However, Red Hat is expensive and, in my opinion (from a usability point of view), better suited as a server. I could have gone for the free and more updated Fedora Core but I didn't want something that was labeled "experimental."
My next thought was Ubuntu. You have to search pretty hard to find negative comments about Ubuntu. I loaded up Warty Warthog on a spare computer and played with it for a while. I liked the clean interface but was bothered by the things missing. I had to hand-edit my X.org config file to set the refresh rate (which wasn't properly detected), I could not get printing to work over our Active Directory network, and I had a difficult time setting up connections to our file server (also Active Directory). After a few days without the ability to print I decided to move on.
My next try was Xandros. Although not free, Xandros has a free (for non-commercial use) version which I downloaded. I was extremely impressed with the simple install routine and the ease of setting everything up. I set up mappings to our Active Directory file server in minutes with no problems, but the real selling point was that I set up printing in less than 10 minutes. I was hooked.
I didn't want to jump into anything without some thorough testing, so I took a couple of months before hitting up my boss for funds to purchase it. One by one, I moved my applications over. It wasn't hard since I was already using Opera for Web browsing and Thunderbird for email. My word processing and spreadsheet needs were pretty basic, so OpenOffice.org replaced Microsoft Office quite easily. I use a few Windows-only applications, but since I don't use them often, I just left them on a spare Windows box.
I decided to do my "conversion" cold turkey. I immediately went to Linux full-time and only used my Windows box when I absolutely had to. Xandros handled everything I threw at it. I love how you can install local standalone Debian and RPM packages as well as repository-based packages from Xandros Networks. I even came to love the Xandros File Manager (which I didn't like at first) for its power and versatility. It still amuses me that Windows takes three or four mouse clicks to unmount a flash drive and Xandros does it in one. The best part of all is that it just worked. I wasn't spending time fiddling with config files or fighting with OS issues. I just did my job and was happy.
After two or three months of using Xandros, I went to my boss and told him that I had been using Linux for the past few months and explained why I felt it was a better OS for me. I asked for funds to purchase Xandros Deluxe version 3 (which had been released while I was still doing my evaluation). The funds were approved, and within a few days, I had a shiny new copy of Xandros Linux.
The migration from the Xandros 2 installation that I had to version 3 was painless. I just backed up all my files and moved them over to the new computer (I upgraded my computer at the same time). Apart from installing some programs, that was about it. The look and feel was the same. The big changes were in the underlying architecture (moving from the 2.4 to the 2.6 kernel, upgrading KDE, etc.). The most noticeable change was the inclusion of Crossover Office (which I use only to test Web pages in Internet Explorer). After just a couple of days I was done tinkering and back to work.
Of course I had some minor issues. Setting the default Web browser to Opera involved some Internet searching and command line configuration. Printing gave me grief every now and then (which turned out to be an Opera issue) but I got that solved. In order to install the Oracle client, I had to trick the installer into thinking that Xandros was actually Red Hat. The only recurring problem came from Samba. I set up my network shares by mounting them off of my home directory, but every now and then (maybe once a month) I would lose my connections and the file manager would freeze for about five minutes trying to access the shares. To fix this I had to wait for the file manager to time out, manually unmount the shares, and remount them. Apart from that, Xandros was solid as a rock and so easy to use that I rarely thought about what OS I was using at all.
I've been using Xandros for over a year now and no longer consider it a grand experiment; it's just my desktop. Some say that Linux is not ready for the desktop and, for them, it may not be. However, for me, it's not only ready but it's the perfect OS for my job.
What's your desktop OS of choice? Write an article of less than 1,000 words telling us what you use and why. If we publish it, we'll pay you $100. (Send us a query first to be sure we don't already have a story on your favorite OS in hand.)
Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
I could see some speciality department first demanding Linux because of security, performance, or available software. Then, it could go to admin staff. At my place, we are still stuck with win-98 because of many little custom programs (like timesheets).
I can imagine a GNU distro that is better than Xandros and the others: One where drivers can be downloaded from vendors and installed using a simple GUI, one where driver writers have a consistent environment to write for (and the same for writing and installing apps).
This does not cater to the Unix sysadmin vision of a desktop-as-micromanaged-sandbox with helpless users; That is just a 2005 version of videoterminals that everyone with even a slightly creative role (i.e. all managers) will eventually need to do an end-run around using flexible and approachable products. Eventually, the centralized software repository/database will have to go away (or be beaten back to where most people agree the OS ends and applications begin), otherwise users continuing to battle dependency problems and who are sick of not being able to download the latest upgrades from a real software author/vendor, will continue to turn back toward Mac and Windows.
Users do not fall into two groups: The Helpless and the Unix Guru, even if this idea gratifies the collective ego on this site. In fact, it is the range of people in-between that made the PC Revolution possible! People who were comfortable learning business logic, and who needed some creative control in the local workplace, but didn't want unnecessary hassles. I have experienced it: People have built Sneakernets (remember them?) to tunnel around sclerotic Unix/Mainframe priests, and they'll do it again if they have to. They're doing it right now as they are saying 'Yes' increasingly to a revamped Mac OS while keeping GNU/Linux at arms-length.
Look at the marketshare trend: We can't even GIVE this stuff away. Anticipate the needs of ISVs and their customers, or expect nothing to change.
Here's hoping...
Why not use AutoFS to resolve the SAMBA issues?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 05, 2006 07:01 PMI don't know whether this is relevent to you or not, but I believe the SAMBA issue you've described should be able to be resolved using AutoFS. It'll take some configuring to start with, but once it's in place, it'll mount your SAMBA connections when you need them, not leave them persistently connected - and, if necessary, you can increase the "timeout" from a couple of seconds (which is the default) to a couple of hours if needs be - which means that effectively, every night, you reconnect to the server.
It's just a suggestion, but maybe it'll be useful to you?
Jon "The Nice Guy"
#