Install Hell

I recently had a free afternoon and decided to test the ease of installation of my favorite Linux distro -vs- Windows 2000 Professional. My main interest was in seeing how much KRUD had improved relative to the generally easy Windows install process. The test machine was a home built AMD-k6-2 500 based system (Biostar Mobo, single PNY 256M SDRAM, single Maxtor 20G HD, Stealth 540 32M AGP graphics, Sound Blaster 128 PCI, Intel 10/100 NIC, Creative Labs 52X CD drive).

Windows 2000 Pro

Boot: 1.40PM

Format drives
install OS
reboot halfway through (installer decided it couldn't find CD drive after the stock
network setup ran)
restart install from beginning
same result
decided to customize network settings
same results
put in different CD drive (generix 20x)
start clean install at 4.05PM
install completes
customize network settings
run internet connection wizard
run windows update to SP2 (later realize this was a horrible idea, more on that...)
install FTP server from W2K CD
IE crashes
System freezes on shutdown
Reboot to working system
Finish: 5.35PM
Total time: 1.5 hours (I'm only counting the one successful attempt).

KRUD

Boot: 7.05PM
Select configuration options
finish install
use Red Carpet to grab latest updates to needed packages
Finish: 7.50PM
Total time: 45 minutes

I was rather surprised by the results, as I'd only been hoping to see that KRUD was closer to being comparable in ease of installation. It's entirely possible that the problems installing Win were BIOS or hardware issues, but I don't think that's terribly likely as the machine had previously had Windows on it with the same configuration (I simply wiped the existing install), and Linux had no troubles at all. This would tend to indicate to me either a deficiency in the Windows installer, or that Linux is better at coping with hardware problems.

A linux installation is highly customizable, as you can select what you want installed at a fairly granular level. In addition, there is much more installed with Linux (note that this is not a case like Windows, where the bundled apps are anti-competitive. With linux they generally include several competing applications (Abiword and KWord, for example) and let you choose which one you like, and the apps are rarely developed by the company who created the distribution).

After installing windows I had: GUI, Web Browser (with many security problems), email client (with many security problems), telnet client, cd player, media player, audio recorder, calculator, basic image editor (BMP format only, limited tools), some system management tools (fairly comprehensive), a few games.

After installing KRUD I had: GUI (several to choose from, all installed), several web browsers (Mozilla, Netscape, Galeon, Konqueror), several email clients to choose from (pine, mutt, KMail, Evolution, etc), SSH/telnet from terminal, ftp client, cd player, media player, audio recorder, calculator, advanced image editor (on par with Paint Shop Pro), system management tools, web server, ftp server, enterprise quality firewall, BIND/DNS server, mail server, several ...

read more

Starbucks != Evil

This may sound blasphemous coming from an avowed leftist/progressive, but Starbucks is not evil. I realize that most dittoheads and other rightist "intellectuals" believe that all leftists must believe exactly the same thing on every issue, but this is not actually the case (kind of ironic to hear that sort of accusation from a self-described dittohead, isn't it?).

I hung out in North Beach (S.F.) through much of high school and college. There are a LOT of indie coffee shops there (or at least there were, I haven't been there in 10 years). There were also a fair number in the South Bay. Sure, Starbucks was around back then, but they hadn't become the juggernaut that they are today. I started going to Starbucks when I moved to L.A. There were still plenty of indie shops in L.A. then, and there still are. The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf in SoCal has Starbucks beat hands down, let me make that clear right now. You want the real deal frap, you go to Coffee Bean.

The main complaint I hear about Starbucks is that they put the indies out of business. Sometimes they do, other times they don't. From all the indies I hung out in, I can tell you most of them deserved to go out of business. Average coffee, horrible service, minimal selection. The clerks were generally surly at best, and the maintenance on some of those places should've gotten them shut down by the health department. Starbucks has quality product, good service, and good selection. I still think they are overpriced, and their non-coffee offerings (biscotti, chocolate, etc) are sub-par. However, offering better service and selection and quality doesn't make a company evil. I understand the arguments about the overseas plantations underpaying their employees. Do you honestly think that Folgers or Maxwell House or Dan's Coffee shop on main street don't have the same issue? Yes, Starbucks puts smaller shops out of business sometimes. Other times, they don't (this is, after all, a caffeine driven society. There is a LOT of demand). There is a great little place across the street from my office that also serves sandwiches and salads and the like, and they will always kick Starbucks ass because they offer more and they offer good service and selection as well (though no matter what you get in any combination (drink+salad, sandwich+chips, etc) it's always about $8, I've no idea how that happens).

Indie shops will do fine if they offer comparable quality and service (they can skimp on selection if the other two are there) at comparable prices. The shops that I've seen go out of business didn't do that. They offered lesser quality and service and far less selection. You were supposed to go there because they were cool. They were non-corporate. They were local. Why should I support a local merchant that sucks?

read more