The Open Source Advocate

Introduction I am confident that the future of Linux server administration will rely less on the command line, and that most server admins will use a GUI interface. To understand why this will happen, lets take a look at the success of Windows servers. Learn from history Windows servers have always included a graphical user interface, and there is no indication that this will change. In fact, the popularity of Windows servers is largely due to the fact that server admins could manage their servers with the same interface they used on their desktop. Novell's Netware started out with a huge lead in the server market, but server admins started migrating to Windows because they were more comfortable with the interface. Why should server admins need to learn two operating systems when they can just use Windows? Now that most server admins are familiar with a graphical interface (Windows desktop and server editions), they will resist changing to a command-line driven operating system.

Its true. Windows operating systems hate me. I don't understand why, since I feel I have always been fair and balanced in my discussions about Windows. Why the animosity towards me, then? Here are a few examples to help you understand how I am being discriminated against. We use some Windows 2003 servers at work (not my choice) to perform some basic functions. My problems first occurred when I wanted to browse for some files. Here is what I did: I double-clicked on "My Computer". Ok, nothing too advanced there, right? Well, a window opened up but the only thing inside is a blank grey color. Where are all the files ? Ok, no big deal. How often do I browse for files anyway? Only about once an hour, so nothing to worry about. Sheesh ! Fortunately, this started working after I rebooted the server. Apparently, I only have a few days of a working file browser before I need to reboot. Next, I created a small script (a.k.a batch file) to backup some data, and I c

Introduction In the short amount of time that Ubuntu has been around (3 years, with 6 releases) it has attained an impressive level of popularity and growth. I believe this success is due to some critical improvements that Ubuntu has implemented when compared to other Linux distributions. These improvements were not always created by Ubuntu, but Ubuntu was the first distro to strategically implement the best features and to remove the unnecessary ones. I will discuss some of the major advantages that Ubuntu has provided from day one. UPDATE: There were some great points made in the comments to this post, so I am updating this post in the interest of accuracy. I want to emphasize what I said in the previous paragraph; Ubuntu did not create many of these improvements, and they were not always the first distro to use them. It is the unique combination of these improvements that has helped Ubuntu achieve its popularity. Secondly, I intended this post to be a historical comparison of f

First, I want to thank everyone who gave their input regarding my last post about unifying the Ubuntu brand. You can also read more opinions on Freddy's and Og's blog. Next, I want to share some of the ideas that were expressed in the comments to my post. "Ubuntu Lightweight Desktop edition? Why didn't they make the default edition lightweight enough? How come when I install it, it uses the same amount of memory right after I boot up as the regular edition? XFCE is not lighter than Gnome in reality at all. What you end up with is that people will be forced to install some KDE/Gnome applications because XFCE doesn't provide everything required. That will pull in several environments running simultaneously, and in overall it's far heavier than pure Gnome/KDE. It will lead to some new comers to think "ooh it's LIGHT", and getting really disappointed and moving along to something else. "Light" should NOT be used as a selling point for X

Everyone agrees that Ubuntu is making huge progress towards mainstream adoption. But what do we mean when we say " Ubuntu "? Don't we really mean *buntu, a collection of all Ubuntu versions? How do we explain this to the mainstream user? Will the names " Kubuntu ", " Edubuntu " and " Xubuntu " make sense to a newcomer? Are they self-explanatory? I think we can all agree that these names are not easily understood by people outside of the Linux arena. Even worse, they will help to dilute the impact of the Ubuntu name in the minds of potential users. Therefore, if we want to encourage mainstream adoption, we need to use a simpler naming convention. Let's take a look at some existing names that are easy to understand: " Ubuntu Desktop Edition " " Ubuntu Server Edition " " Ubuntu Mobile and Embedded Edition " Why don't we come up with some new names that are easier to understand? Something like this:

I have just learned about a new open source application called OpenProj. This application has similar features to Microsoft Project, and it can even import native Project files. One major advantage it has over MS Project is that it will run on Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. Open Proj is scheduled for release on August 7th, but you can download a beta from here . The download is a JNLP file, which is handled by the Java Web Start application. Once you run that file, it will install OpenProj. It is surprisingly easy to install, considering that I had it running in less than 30 seconds on Ubuntu 7.04. It looks like the OpenProj team will be coordinating with the OpenOffice team, which I think is a great idea. They should combine marketing and distribution efforts so that these great open source applications can reach a wider audience. Mark Shuttleworth has spoken in support of OpenProj: "OpenProj is an exciting addition to the range of professional desktop applications that are