Apple sucks.
I don't mean Apple products. Macs are a bit pricey, but they're very reliable. OS X isn't my cup of tea, but it's a solid and attractive OS. And the iPod set a standard for mp3 players that its competitors are still struggling to meet.
No, when I say "Apple sucks", I mean Apple, the company. And why, you ask, do I say this even though I freely admit that I like its products? Because Apple, even more than Microsoft, likes to lock you into using their products by making them interdependent on each other and incompatible with other hardware and software. The iPod is an excellent example. You can't just use any file manager to add or remove files from your iPod, as is the case with most other mp3 players. You have to use a program specifically designed to work with iPods, which typically means iTunes. You can use other programs, of course, but because of Apple's secrecy when it comes to interfacing with the iPod, few of them come close to matching the functionality of iTunes. Unfortunately for Linux users, Apple hasn't seen fit to release a Linux version of iTunes. So it's a good thing we have gtkpod. (Ubuntu users can install it by clicking this link.) According to Wikipedia's comparison of iPod managers, gtkpod is the only such application that matches the features of iTunes when it comes to managing your iPod — except possibly for a Java application called MediaChest which I was hesitant to try because of its unimpressive website that uses a Java applet that failed to run in my browser. (Oh, the irony.)
In keeping with the Linux philosophy of doing one thing and doing it well, gtkpod isn't fancy. It doesn't play music or videos, display photos, or manage your media library. It doesn't rip songs from CDs or transcode movies to an iPod-playable format. It just manages the files on your iPod. So if you use Linux and want to rip songs from a CD, complete with album art, to add to your iPod, then you need a couple of other programs.
First of all, you need an application for ripping CDs. A number of such apps are available, but the simplest is Sound-Juicer. (Ubuntu users can install Sound Juicer by clicking this link.) You might want to change some of the preferences as far as where and how songs are ripped, but the basic operation is extremely simple: insert a CD and click "Extract".
Of course, it would be nice to include album art for the mp3s you want to put on your iPod, so you have something nice to look at when browsing your music using Cover Flow. For that, we need another separate but incredibly simple application called Album Cover Art Downloader. This program pulls album cover art from any of several websites including Amazon and Yahoo, and like Sound Juicer, it's operation is exceedingly simple. Just select the mp3 files to which you want to add cover art, and click the download arrow.
Now that you have a number of mp3s with cover art, open gtkpod and plug in your iPod. The program will automatically detect your iPod. To add files to the iPod, simply make sure you have your iPod selected in the left pane, click the large "Add Files" or "Add Folder" button, and after you've selected the files to be added, click the large "Save Changes" button. Unlike some other iPod managers, gtkpod is equally capable of adding videos and photos to your iPod.
And if you're interested in converting DVDs or video files to play on your iPod, Handbrake is your new best friend. Ubuntu users can get the latest version by adding the Handbrake PPA to your Software Sources, and you'll probably want to install the unstripped versions of the ffmpeg libraries as well.
Showing posts with label Linux. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Linux. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2009
Thursday, November 15, 2007
A World Without Walls or Fences (pt.2) — Selecting an Operating System
When considering the installation of a new operating system, the first thing to do, obviously, is to pick one. With Windows or Mac OS X, it's a fairly simple choice. Consumers are usually forced into one or the other, depending on whether you're buying a PC or a Mac. Times are changing, though -- it's possible to install Windows on a Mac now that they're using Intel processors, and some manufacturers (notably Dell) are offering Linux installations on select PCs.
With free operating systems, the decision is a bit more complex. There are plenty out there, but the most popular are BSD and Linux. Both of these are Unix-like systems, and while there are some differences, they would likely pass unnoticed by the average user. Each can be installed on both PCs and Macs. BSD is a fairly direct descendant of the original Unix, and its development has been fairly structured. The development of Linux, on the other hand, has been a bit more... organic. It could be said that BSD was engineered but Linux was grown. Neither is necessarily better than the other, though there are plenty of people on both sides who would vehemently disagree.
There are three freely available versions of BSD. FreeBSD focuses on efficiency and reliability, NetBSD focuses on portability (i.e. being able to run on any machine, from your laptop to your Playstation), and OpenBSD is (ironically) obsessed with security. Unless you're concerned that government satellites might be reading your thoughts (in which case you fit right in with the OpenBSD crowd), FreeBSD is probably the best of the three for a desktop operating system, though like its siblings it's really targeted at servers.
Linux is a completely different beast altogether. There are about three hundred different flavors (called distributions) of Linux, though the core of the operating system itself (i.e. the kernel) is essentially the same from one to the next. The primary differences between distributions are the software bundled with the operating system and the community of users and developers that supports that particular distribution.
Linux, in my opinion, is the better choice of operating system for the average PC user for a couple of reasons (other than it's cool mascot, Tux). First, Linux tends to have slightly better support for the more PC-specific hardware like webcams and WLAN cards. Second, Linux is significantly more popular (by several orders of magnitude) with PC users. While "because everyone else is doing it" is usually a poor excuse to do something, there are times when it's a good thing. A larger user base and development community means that any problems with the system will tend to be identified (and ideally corrected) that much more quickly. By far the most popular distribution of Linux for PCs is called Ubuntu. Ubuntu has a huge user base, as well as a regular release schedule.
Ubuntu itself actually has a few variants, the most significant being Kubuntu. The difference between the two involves the last decision that needs to be made when installing a Unix-like operating system: which desktop environment to use.
Unlike Windows and Mac OS X, Unix-like operating systems are not inherently graphical. To get the attractive and convenient windowed interface with which we've all become familiar, BSD, Linux, and their relatives need to run desktop environment software. This is actually a good thing, because it gives the user greater flexibility in altering the computer's interface with a minimum of effort or difficulty.
The two main desktop environments are GNOME (pronounced "Guh-nome") and KDE. The difference between Ubuntu and Kubuntu is that the former is packaged with GNOME and the latter with KDE. Its possible to change desktop environments after installation, or even to install both and switch back and forth between the two. Each has software written specifically for that desktop environment, but again, it's possible to run such software while using the other desktop environment. You'll take a very slight hit in performance, especially when starting the software, but this might not be very noticeable given the power and speed of modern computers. While there are quite a few differences between GNOME and KDE, for the time being let's just say that GNOME is a bit like a cross between Windows XP and Mac OS X, and KDE is more like Windows XP or Vista. Both, however, are much more customizable than Windows or Mac OS X, and can be configured to look and (for the most part) act like either.
The most recent version of Ubuntu family is 7.10, "Gutsy Gibbon". Both Ubuntu and Kubuntu conveniently provide installation disks (free of charge, of course), either through the mail or by download, which allow you to test each operating system before you commit to an installation. I tried each on my old laptop, and found no hardware incompatibilities or other problems. While I like quite a few of the applications written for KDE, Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon feels slightly more polished and complete than Kubuntu Gutsy Gibbon, so I'll be discussing an Ubuntu installation for the rest of this series.
Stay tuned for the play-by-play commentary, with pictures (and maybe even videos)!
Next time: Avoiding the "Windows Tax"
With free operating systems, the decision is a bit more complex. There are plenty out there, but the most popular are BSD and Linux. Both of these are Unix-like systems, and while there are some differences, they would likely pass unnoticed by the average user. Each can be installed on both PCs and Macs. BSD is a fairly direct descendant of the original Unix, and its development has been fairly structured. The development of Linux, on the other hand, has been a bit more... organic. It could be said that BSD was engineered but Linux was grown. Neither is necessarily better than the other, though there are plenty of people on both sides who would vehemently disagree.
There are three freely available versions of BSD. FreeBSD focuses on efficiency and reliability, NetBSD focuses on portability (i.e. being able to run on any machine, from your laptop to your Playstation), and OpenBSD is (ironically) obsessed with security. Unless you're concerned that government satellites might be reading your thoughts (in which case you fit right in with the OpenBSD crowd), FreeBSD is probably the best of the three for a desktop operating system, though like its siblings it's really targeted at servers.
Linux is a completely different beast altogether. There are about three hundred different flavors (called distributions) of Linux, though the core of the operating system itself (i.e. the kernel) is essentially the same from one to the next. The primary differences between distributions are the software bundled with the operating system and the community of users and developers that supports that particular distribution.
Ubuntu itself actually has a few variants, the most significant being Kubuntu. The difference between the two involves the last decision that needs to be made when installing a Unix-like operating system: which desktop environment to use.
Unlike Windows and Mac OS X, Unix-like operating systems are not inherently graphical. To get the attractive and convenient windowed interface with which we've all become familiar, BSD, Linux, and their relatives need to run desktop environment software. This is actually a good thing, because it gives the user greater flexibility in altering the computer's interface with a minimum of effort or difficulty.
The two main desktop environments are GNOME (pronounced "Guh-nome") and KDE. The difference between Ubuntu and Kubuntu is that the former is packaged with GNOME and the latter with KDE. Its possible to change desktop environments after installation, or even to install both and switch back and forth between the two. Each has software written specifically for that desktop environment, but again, it's possible to run such software while using the other desktop environment. You'll take a very slight hit in performance, especially when starting the software, but this might not be very noticeable given the power and speed of modern computers. While there are quite a few differences between GNOME and KDE, for the time being let's just say that GNOME is a bit like a cross between Windows XP and Mac OS X, and KDE is more like Windows XP or Vista. Both, however, are much more customizable than Windows or Mac OS X, and can be configured to look and (for the most part) act like either.
The most recent version of Ubuntu family is 7.10, "Gutsy Gibbon". Both Ubuntu and Kubuntu conveniently provide installation disks (free of charge, of course), either through the mail or by download, which allow you to test each operating system before you commit to an installation. I tried each on my old laptop, and found no hardware incompatibilities or other problems. While I like quite a few of the applications written for KDE, Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon feels slightly more polished and complete than Kubuntu Gutsy Gibbon, so I'll be discussing an Ubuntu installation for the rest of this series.
Stay tuned for the play-by-play commentary, with pictures (and maybe even videos)!
Next time: Avoiding the "Windows Tax"
A World Without Walls or Fences (pt.1) — An Introduction to Alternative Operating Systems
"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
I've been running Windows Vista Business Edition since February of 2007. Unlike most people, I actually like it... at least once I turned off the unbelievably annoying User Account Control and downloaded new device drivers for a few components. The search-as-you-type feature in the Start menu and Windows Explorer windows is extremely handy, and the file structure is more elegant (e.g. "C:\Users\username" rather than the verbose "C:\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents"). And Vista is sexy... at least if your system has sufficient resources to run Aero without becoming as sluggish as ticket sales for Lions for Lambs.
But change is inevitable (except from vending machines). A few weeks ago I decided to abandon Windows as my primary operating system. Yes, there are operating systems out there other than the ubiquitous Windows and the Mac OS X operating system that you find on the iMac and MacBook. Most of these operating systems are derivatives of Unix, an operating system developed by AT&T Bell Labs in 1969 and used primarily for servers. The most common of these are BSD and Linux, and they're used daily by millions of people.
Let me toss out some statistics to make this seem a bit more respectable... More than 4 times as many Web servers run a Unix-like operating system. And according to the W3C (the people responsible for developing standards for the World Wide Web), Linux is the operating system of choice for 3.4% of people on the Internet. That may not sound like a lot, but it's approximately the same number of people that are currently using either Windows Vista or Mac OS X.
So Linux machines are as popular as Macs, they just don't have those funny commercials. Oh, wait a minute... maybe they do.
But why, you may ask, would anyone want to install a Unix-like operating system instead of Vista or Mac OS X? Hrm... Well, how about because it's free? That's right, most Linux and BSD distributions are 100% free. (Free to you, anyway... TANSTAAFL applies to open-source software just like everything else, but that's a post for another day.) Much of the software designed for these operating systems is also free (and incredibly simple to install, but more on that later). Or how about because it's more secure? Linux and BSD users don't worry about viruses or spyware, because they're virtually immune. True, part of this is because of the popularity of Windows -- viruses are naturally designed to target the largest possible audience to maximize the mayhem -- but it's also in no small part because the security of these operating systems is simply better.
But surely these operating systems are too arcane and complex to be usable by anyone but technophiles and geeks? Um... not really. Anyone familiar with Windows should be able to adjust to using a Unix-like operating system (or rather its desktop environment, but more about that later) in no time at all. In fact, the differences between Windows and Mac OS X tend to be quite a bit greater than those between Windows and the desktop environments of Unix-like operating systems.
If you're interested, Michael Horowitz has written an excellent and exhaustive non-biased comparison of Linux and Windows. Some of it is a bit outdated, but it is an excellent resource for anyone debating a change in operating systems. There are a few points on which I disagree. The first is the installation of software in Linux. I find installing software much easier on Linux than on Windows, but YMMV. The second is Linux's support of hardware devices, which has greatly improved in recent years. Third is his opinion whether Linux will become a serious competitor to Windows in the personal computer market. He says no, but an ever larger number of desktop users are turning to Linux. Already, as many people use Linux as use Mac OS X. While Linux isn't going to overtake Windows as the dominant operating system anytime soon, if at all, it is already a serious contender.
Next time: Choosing your operating system
I've been running Windows Vista Business Edition since February of 2007. Unlike most people, I actually like it... at least once I turned off the unbelievably annoying User Account Control and downloaded new device drivers for a few components. The search-as-you-type feature in the Start menu and Windows Explorer windows is extremely handy, and the file structure is more elegant (e.g. "C:\Users\username" rather than the verbose "C:\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents"). And Vista is sexy... at least if your system has sufficient resources to run Aero without becoming as sluggish as ticket sales for Lions for Lambs.
But change is inevitable (except from vending machines). A few weeks ago I decided to abandon Windows as my primary operating system. Yes, there are operating systems out there other than the ubiquitous Windows and the Mac OS X operating system that you find on the iMac and MacBook. Most of these operating systems are derivatives of Unix, an operating system developed by AT&T Bell Labs in 1969 and used primarily for servers. The most common of these are BSD and Linux, and they're used daily by millions of people.
Let me toss out some statistics to make this seem a bit more respectable... More than 4 times as many Web servers run a Unix-like operating system. And according to the W3C (the people responsible for developing standards for the World Wide Web), Linux is the operating system of choice for 3.4% of people on the Internet. That may not sound like a lot, but it's approximately the same number of people that are currently using either Windows Vista or Mac OS X.
So Linux machines are as popular as Macs, they just don't have those funny commercials. Oh, wait a minute... maybe they do.
But why, you may ask, would anyone want to install a Unix-like operating system instead of Vista or Mac OS X? Hrm... Well, how about because it's free? That's right, most Linux and BSD distributions are 100% free. (Free to you, anyway... TANSTAAFL applies to open-source software just like everything else, but that's a post for another day.) Much of the software designed for these operating systems is also free (and incredibly simple to install, but more on that later). Or how about because it's more secure? Linux and BSD users don't worry about viruses or spyware, because they're virtually immune. True, part of this is because of the popularity of Windows -- viruses are naturally designed to target the largest possible audience to maximize the mayhem -- but it's also in no small part because the security of these operating systems is simply better.
But surely these operating systems are too arcane and complex to be usable by anyone but technophiles and geeks? Um... not really. Anyone familiar with Windows should be able to adjust to using a Unix-like operating system (or rather its desktop environment, but more about that later) in no time at all. In fact, the differences between Windows and Mac OS X tend to be quite a bit greater than those between Windows and the desktop environments of Unix-like operating systems.
If you're interested, Michael Horowitz has written an excellent and exhaustive non-biased comparison of Linux and Windows. Some of it is a bit outdated, but it is an excellent resource for anyone debating a change in operating systems. There are a few points on which I disagree. The first is the installation of software in Linux. I find installing software much easier on Linux than on Windows, but YMMV. The second is Linux's support of hardware devices, which has greatly improved in recent years. Third is his opinion whether Linux will become a serious competitor to Windows in the personal computer market. He says no, but an ever larger number of desktop users are turning to Linux. Already, as many people use Linux as use Mac OS X. While Linux isn't going to overtake Windows as the dominant operating system anytime soon, if at all, it is already a serious contender.
Next time: Choosing your operating system
Nice Ubuntu Installation Video
For those who don't want to wait for my series, here's a fairly nice video showing the installation process for Ubuntu Linux using the Live CD. This video shows each step of the installation process, but only for a very basic installation. It doesn't discuss partitioning your drive properly, barely touches on using or customizing Ubuntu once it's installed, and certainly doesn't provide any information about some of the more common issues you might encounter, such as installing drivers for unusual video or wireless cards. However, it does an excellent job of demonstrating how simple installing Linux can be.
Since that video also doesn't show off any of Gutsy Gibbon's nicer desktop effects, for those of you who like the slick appearance and graphical features of Vista and Leopard I made this short video of my desktop. (I had to severely reduce the resolution of my screen to get smooth video capture, so what you're seeing doesn't come close to conveying how slick Ubuntu looks on my system. I'm still playing around with my screen capture software, so hopefully my future videos will look better.)
[EDIT: Videos moved to the "Tech" playlist of the Video Player.]
Since that video also doesn't show off any of Gutsy Gibbon's nicer desktop effects, for those of you who like the slick appearance and graphical features of Vista and Leopard I made this short video of my desktop. (I had to severely reduce the resolution of my screen to get smooth video capture, so what you're seeing doesn't come close to conveying how slick Ubuntu looks on my system. I'm still playing around with my screen capture software, so hopefully my future videos will look better.)
[EDIT: Videos moved to the "Tech" playlist of the Video Player.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)