The number of posts I make have dwindled quite a bit since the start of 2009. There are a number of reasons for this, ranging from the load of life and work to total disillusionment with desktop Linux. Other time sinks have appeared, such as Facebook and Twitter, and I've been heavily involved (again) with photography, posting odd bits of work on Flickr. All of that is about to change.

If you look at the Olympus tag in the Category cloud you'll discover I shoot with Olympus DSLR equipment, specifically the E-300 (which I first purchased back in March 2006) and the E-3 (which I purchased in December 2008). I've been collecting lenses and other peripherals, expanding my tools and doing more and more with my "hobby". I've got my sister's wedding to shoot in October, and I've been building up before I make the big trek up to Atlanta. This is her wedding, and I intend to give the best I possibly can.

In the mean time I will be transitioning to more photography-based blogging, ranging from equipment experience to post-processing on notebooks and the type of tools and operating systems. It will all be Windows or Mac based post-processing; no Linux. After a lot of work I've come to the conclusion that if you want to get work done day-in and day-out, then you buy Apple or Microsoft and the tools that run on top of those OS platforms.

If you'd like to read about one of the reasons I won't be using Linux, you should read Thom Holwerda's editorial "X Could Learn a Lot from Vista, Windows 7". I agree with this assessment 100%. Linux didn't use to be this way. The 'golden age' of Linux, for me, was the period between 2006 and 2007, when I was running OpenSUSE 10.x and Ubuntu 7.04. I didn't realize it at the time but both those distributions at those points in time were pretty rock solid for what I wanted to do. But not today. Too many unstable changes in too many subsystems such as video, sound, and even the file systems have produced an environment in which all distributions suffer. Perhaps those earlier distributions were just as unstable, and I've grown intolerant of instabilities over time. Vista hardware incompatibilities and performance-sapping change for the sake of change are two of the reasons I stayed with Windows XP and refused to move to Vista.

But now, it looks like Microsoft has cleaned up it's OS game with Windows 7. And I'm in the market for a new system. So it's going to be a 'contest' between Windows 7 and Mac OS X. In spite of what Microsoft claims the hardware is going to cost essentially the same no matter what OS I pick. I'll probably make a purchase around January of 2010. In the mean time I'll work with either my Windows XP systems or my wife's Mac.

I've got too much to do in too little time. I need support from tools and services that "just work". Unless it's embedded (Android) or managed (Google) I just don't have the time any more for Linux.

This is post 600. Too many, or too few over time? Who can say?


  1. I have on comment on what you express your frustrations with Linux.

    You say that everything worked right around the time of Ubuntu 7.04, and after that many things were wrong so you decide to ditch Linux. In the same post you say that you ditch Vista and stay with XP because it works.

    Do you see the contradiction? You are not employing the same logic for both OSes. Why you have to update to a version of any Distro if it works fine for you and for M$ products you measure it different?

    Think about it.

    I think that the release process of Linux Distros every 6 month it's plain stupid. You can never be effective that way, there is no enough time to rewrite bad code, review it and also be innovative at the same time in 6 month!!

    It's crazy. I'm sure M$ would be glad to be able to release a new version of Windows every 6 month, but for obvious reason they don't and even with that they still releasing crap.

    By the way I'm a Linux user that recently was forced to go back to WinXP and finding it reliable, if I don't install too much crap.

    Have a good one.

  2. You're right that it appears contradictory. The reason for updating Linux was to supposedly pick up major fixes and improvements (especially in the kernel) over the currently installed distribution. After all, that six month release cycle was supposed to rapidly advance the platform, helping Linux to move well beyond Windows. The fundamental assumption being that what currently worked and was stable would stay that way. History obviously proved otherwise.

    Microsoft makes Windows bug fixes (yes, as does Linux) and has released service packs that have enhanced features. Unfortunately, that has broken application compatibility (witness SP2), but at least OS stability was no worse after the installation.

    You're right about maintaining Windows overall stability if do don't install "too much crap." That's been my rule of thumb since the Windows 3.x/9x days.

  3. Linux distributions need to refresh so often because of the whole packaging model they've chosen. A Linux "distribution" essentially holds firm major versions of *far* more pieces of the complete system than a Windows release.

    If using Windows XP meant that you had to use (unless making many unsupported kludges) MS Office 2000, IE 6, could only develop in Visual Studio 6, and had similar limitations on 75% of your 3rd-party software (only getting bug fixes), it would drive you up the wall. Instead, the software that constitutes the OS is sufficiently separated from the applications to the point that they have independent upgrade paths.


Post a Comment

All comments are checked. Comment SPAM will be blocked and deleted.

Popular Posts