My Linux experiment is over.
I thought those were words you'd never hear me say, no? But they're the truth, at least until Desktop Linux gets their act together.
The basis of my Linux experiment was to have, on all my computers, Linux as their primary operating system. In the course of that, the objective was to have as much free/open-source software as possible. I had a virtualized installation of Windows XP for the few programs that needed a native Windows environment to run.
Maybe I need to back up and explain why I embarked on this experiment: My passion lies in helping nonprofits build their capacity and help in their development strategies through thoughtful and comprehensive information technology resources and social media campaigns. On the surface, Linux is perfect for them. One can say, "Here's a complete operating system that's free, safe, and user-friendly; can interact with Windows quite well, and is always being supported from the community."
So, in other words, I would practice what I preach.
That is, until I just got fed up with it. Simply inserting or removing a flash drive caused the machine to "hang" (freeze) for a minute. The window manager frequently freaked out, causing the programs I had running to do the same as well. Thunderbird, my email client, had its own problems. While these might seem like a small assortment of problems, these things happened frequently. How many times a day do we use flash drives? Email? Applications?
That all came to an end on Saturday (7 August). I relegated Linux to a small 150GB partition on my hard drive and installed, on its own disk partition, Windows 7. So far, I'm loving it. No crashes. No hangs. It just works (so far).
Still, the philosophy behind the major Linux distributions is rather sound. Yet, for the average nonprofit without a designated IT support staff, it's just too much. Whilst installing the operating system itself might be easy, installing the things that make an operating system useful and keeping that operating system safe, secure, and up-to-date is not. The trend in Linux seems to focus on the bleeding-edge and not stability. Bloggers across the Linux community have noted this. Companies prefer stability over not-thoroughly-tested cutting-/bleeding-edge technologies. They want something that just works.
If we're all moving things to the cloud, then maybe we need to shift our attention to creating a stable thin client that focuses its attention to rich Internet applications and has little to do with the software on the client itself.
Farewell, Linux. It was good whilst it lasted.
-EJ
Why we need open primaries
A couple of days back, the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at ASU, Arizona's biggest non-partisan think tank, released their findings that more and more Arizonans want non-partisan, open, primaries.
Some excerpts [emphasis added]:
This is big. This is good! As the article said, a lot of the primary elections are the de facto general election as the district is predominantly Republican or predominantly Democrat. And whilst I have no data to support my claims, this forces candidates to build consensus to attract people from all political affiliations and be more consistent in their message.
For instance, the primary forces candidates to show off that they have more conservative or liberal credentials. In the general election, to appeal to a greater base of voters, they have to change message. This also forces candidates to work across party lines to appeal to more people. If anything big will happen, it has to come through consensus and collaboration. Not repudiation of one person or one party.
It's time for this to happen. It's time for a new way of thinking.
-EJ
Posted by Edward Jensen on 25 August 2010 at 10:20 AM in Current Affairs, Government and Policy, Opinion, Comment, and Editorial | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: Arizona, open primary, politics
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us | |