Thursday, January 3, 2013
The crazy branches of the Linux family tree.
Sometimes it's fun looking at what happens in the Linux community.
I remember when RedHat pissed everyone off by killing their desktop version. That spawned many work alike desktop Linux replacements, including Mandrake and Connectiva. Mandrake was the Ubuntu of it's day. The alternative to the big guys, fiercely loyal users. Then they merged with Connectiva and became Mandriva. Aside from the terrible new name, they kept on putting out a decent distro. I hadn't really paid much attention to them and they became Mageia while I wasn't looking. Meanwhile RedHat got their hat out of their butt's and sponsored Fedora which they should have done in the first place.
Distro watch is a vast archive of Linux history. It's funny to see the hundreds of Linux distributions. I remember when there were no distributions, a Linux install was a whole days work maybe two back then and none of these sissy GUI tools and administration shells. It was all command line.
Anyway I remember when the first distro wars broke out because suddenly you had TWO choices. Slackware or Debian. After spending a few days downloading floppy disk images and copying them to floppies, you were ready for an install marathon.
Then came RedHat and SuSE and things really started to multiply and get crazy after that. Now we have hundreds of Linux options to choose from. Life is good, mostly.
If you look hard though, you'll see that the only real long term survivors are Debian, Slackware and SUSE, and RedHat in a different way. They've churned away as other distributions come and go.
Currently we're having a similar crisis in desktop window managers and UI concepts. I'm sure this will settle down too. It will settle down eventually and we'll have at least a handful of good options to choose from.
Linux, it's quite a wild ride.
Meanwhile, as all this has happened, other OS's have come and gone, risen and fallen. DOS got eaten by Windows and replaced. OS/2 like Caesar got stabbed by it's best friend in Microsoft's Brutus.
NeXT came and went, with other's picking the good parts off the carcass. AmigaOS had it's chance to shine and was left in the crib to die while it's parents shot up in the living room. BeOS reached for the stars and burned it's wings on the sun. The big UNIX's have retreated from PC's and Linux. Some dying, others consolidating. The survivors better for the competition. Now mobile is dominating, and trying to merge with desktop. The early offspring being pretty deformed and retarded. But it will happen I'm sure and lead to great things.
Through it all, Linux will carry on. Slowly taking over more and more markets. I have no doubt that by the time we finally build the Enterprise, there will be a fight over if it should run Spaceship Linux or Warp Linux.
This Mint leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Part I
I try and be unbiased and open minded in my job in IT. I make an effort not to get too attached to brands or companies. Plus I just like to know what's out there and try it all. One of the things I do to keep up is try out different Linux distributions a couple times a year.
Before Christmas I decided to take a look at Linux Mint 14.1 - Cinnamon (Which I'll call LMC from now on). It gets mentioned by a lot of people as a good alternative to the pestilence that is Ubuntu so, based on all the positive mentions, I was anxious to give LMC a look.
First, on a positive note. It is a big improvement over Ubuntu. The install is fairly clean and simple, though honestly I'd prefer the option to have more fine grained control during the install. But, for new Linux users the simplicity will be a bonus. For someone that loved Ubuntu but has been looking for an alternative since that train went off the rails, LMC is definitely worth a look.
The look of LMC's UI and themes once you finish the install and boot is again clean and simplistic, though it seems a little dated to me style wise.
Administration tools are more complete and better laid out than in Ubuntu, which is good, but they are still lacking and advanced users will find them frustrating.
Package management is typical for a Debian/Ubuntu type distro and while it's good, it's certainly not the package management nirvana that Debuntu fans like to think it is. It's certainly not superior to the better RPM based distro's as they believe. But it's good.
The default software repositories seem to suffer from the same nonsense that plagues all Debian based distro's. A dearth of important proprietary packages due to their "iceweasel" attitude. For example, try finding Adobe Acrobat Reader. You'll find lots of crap substitutes, but none of the real deal. Yes I'm sure it's out there, but not from the default repositories which is where most users will know to look for it. If they go looking for it at Adobe's site they won't have any luck unless they know to download and manually install the binary installer version or think to dig down the Adobe download menu to find and try the Debian version.
Another area that was decent was the inclusion of nVidia binary drivers in the default software manager list. For those that actually want to use their expensive graphics card this is a must and the nouveau driver just doesn't cut it. On the downside the version of the nVidia driver in the software manager was quite old. I'm not sure why they don't do this like OpenSUSE does and link their repository to the nVidia server so they'll aways have the latest version available.
Another thing I didn't like is that LMC 14.1 runs an EOL'd, unstable, 3.5 kernel version for some reason. Why wouldn't they go with the stable 3.4 LTS kernel?
To be continued...
Before Christmas I decided to take a look at Linux Mint 14.1 - Cinnamon (Which I'll call LMC from now on). It gets mentioned by a lot of people as a good alternative to the pestilence that is Ubuntu so, based on all the positive mentions, I was anxious to give LMC a look.
First, on a positive note. It is a big improvement over Ubuntu. The install is fairly clean and simple, though honestly I'd prefer the option to have more fine grained control during the install. But, for new Linux users the simplicity will be a bonus. For someone that loved Ubuntu but has been looking for an alternative since that train went off the rails, LMC is definitely worth a look.
The look of LMC's UI and themes once you finish the install and boot is again clean and simplistic, though it seems a little dated to me style wise.
Administration tools are more complete and better laid out than in Ubuntu, which is good, but they are still lacking and advanced users will find them frustrating.
Package management is typical for a Debian/Ubuntu type distro and while it's good, it's certainly not the package management nirvana that Debuntu fans like to think it is. It's certainly not superior to the better RPM based distro's as they believe. But it's good.
The default software repositories seem to suffer from the same nonsense that plagues all Debian based distro's. A dearth of important proprietary packages due to their "iceweasel" attitude. For example, try finding Adobe Acrobat Reader. You'll find lots of crap substitutes, but none of the real deal. Yes I'm sure it's out there, but not from the default repositories which is where most users will know to look for it. If they go looking for it at Adobe's site they won't have any luck unless they know to download and manually install the binary installer version or think to dig down the Adobe download menu to find and try the Debian version.
Another area that was decent was the inclusion of nVidia binary drivers in the default software manager list. For those that actually want to use their expensive graphics card this is a must and the nouveau driver just doesn't cut it. On the downside the version of the nVidia driver in the software manager was quite old. I'm not sure why they don't do this like OpenSUSE does and link their repository to the nVidia server so they'll aways have the latest version available.
Another thing I didn't like is that LMC 14.1 runs an EOL'd, unstable, 3.5 kernel version for some reason. Why wouldn't they go with the stable 3.4 LTS kernel?
To be continued...
What's wrong with the electric car?
I wouldn't have even thought of owning one only a year or two ago, but electric cars are now advancing to the point where they are a legitimately viable option for many people. At least for those who live in the city and have a regular, short daily commute. The two vehicles that have caused me to pay attention are the Tesla S and the Chevy Volt.
The Telsa is by all accounts is a good car. Not just a good electric car, a good car period. One you would actually want to drive and enjoy doing it. However, it has an achilles heel. The same one that plagues all electric cars. Range and recharge time. Even with the largest battery pack option the Tesla has a range of 480 km. While much better than the Nissan Leaf's 117 km range, it's still nothing compared to the 1,000+ km range of the diesel Jetta and others. And even most regular gasoline vehicles have nearly double the range. Additionally, when the Jetta runs out of fuel, it only takes 5 minutes at any gas station to refuel. The Tesla will need much longer. Worst case scenario, and a very real scenario today with the dearth of supercharging stations, is being forced to charge via a standard 110v outlet. At this charge rate it takes an hour for every 8 km of range restored. At this rate, it will take 60 hours to get your 480 km back! So maybe you get lucky and find an RV park and you charge at the 10 kw rate from their 240v outlets. Now you're waiting an hour for every 50 km of range restored. That's about 9.6 hours to restore your 480 km of range. Plus I doubt you're going to do it for free. The RV park will likely make you rent a basic spot for the night. So let's be generous and say that it only costs you $10, it's still ruining your cost advantage to having an electric vehicle, not to mention that you had to sleep in your car in an RV park.
Let's go to magical fairy land for a minute and assume that Supercharger stations are as widely available as gas stations and that you can find one anywhere. Let's also assume that you have one of the top Tesla models which actually support Supercharging. You still are going to wait an hour to fully recharge your battery pack.
Imagine you were driving to your sister's wedding 1500 km away.
Your brother left his house down the block at the same time as you did, 06:00. He drove his fully loaded, Highline trim, sport-nav package Volkswagen Passat TDI for which he paid about $35,000. He made one stop for fuel, and ate lunch, went to the bathroom, stretched his legs and switched driving duties with his wife. 30 minutes for the fuel and stop. They made the trip in 16 hours counting stops and traffic. they arrived at 22:00 that night.
You drove your $72,400 Tesla Model S 85 kw standard model and left the $87,400 85 kw sport model home. You had to stop for two full Supercharge's which took 2 hours total, and then you took on a third half charge to finish the last leg so that took another half an hour.
Your total trip took 15.5 hours driving time, 2.5 hours charging time for a total of 18 hours. You arrive at 00:00 in the morning and you miss the bachelor party and your mother asks why you can't be more like your brother.
Now I'm not trying to belittle the Tesla. I think it's really great. What I'm saying is that electric cars are not there yet. There still needs to be a lot of charging infrastructure* built and charge times need to be improved. Ultimately we also need new battery technology that will increase range without increasing weight or cost. That may take a while.
This is where the Chevy Volt comes in. I'm really impressed with GM's thinking on this one. They were very aware of the realities of the situation as it is today and built a vehicle appropriate for conditions as they exist right now. Not based on some future infrastructure and materials that may exist down the road. The Volt is an electric car, not a hybrid. Don't let the gasoline engine fool you. Unlike a Prius where the gas engine shares the load of moving the vehicle, the engine in the Volt is just part of a large generator. The Volt always runs and motivates via electric drive motors. The difference is that when the battery pack get's low, the generator kicks on. Not only does it provide enough juice to power the electric drive motors, it also recharges the battery pack. It would be no different if you slung a big Honda generator into the trunk of your Tesla.
While the Volt isn't as cool or fancy as the Tesla, it is much more practical today, especially for single car families.
It's too bad you can't combine the Volt and the Tesla. Or can you?
Looking forward, I wonder if another mid-term solution would be to replace the engine in the Volt with a bank of Supercapacitors. These could be charged in 5 minutes at a Supercharger type station and then operate as the gasoline engine did, by charging the regular battery pack while driving. You'd have fast fill-ups and long range.
Anyway, overall I think we're seeing the light at the end of the electric car tunnel. I think it's reasonable to believe that someone with a kid in grade school today will be able to send them off to University in a new, cool, long range, electric vehicle they'll be proud to drive.
*I won't even get into the fact that in the US much of that power comes from dirty coal power plants, negating the green reason for owning an electric car.
The Telsa is by all accounts is a good car. Not just a good electric car, a good car period. One you would actually want to drive and enjoy doing it. However, it has an achilles heel. The same one that plagues all electric cars. Range and recharge time. Even with the largest battery pack option the Tesla has a range of 480 km. While much better than the Nissan Leaf's 117 km range, it's still nothing compared to the 1,000+ km range of the diesel Jetta and others. And even most regular gasoline vehicles have nearly double the range. Additionally, when the Jetta runs out of fuel, it only takes 5 minutes at any gas station to refuel. The Tesla will need much longer. Worst case scenario, and a very real scenario today with the dearth of supercharging stations, is being forced to charge via a standard 110v outlet. At this charge rate it takes an hour for every 8 km of range restored. At this rate, it will take 60 hours to get your 480 km back! So maybe you get lucky and find an RV park and you charge at the 10 kw rate from their 240v outlets. Now you're waiting an hour for every 50 km of range restored. That's about 9.6 hours to restore your 480 km of range. Plus I doubt you're going to do it for free. The RV park will likely make you rent a basic spot for the night. So let's be generous and say that it only costs you $10, it's still ruining your cost advantage to having an electric vehicle, not to mention that you had to sleep in your car in an RV park.
Let's go to magical fairy land for a minute and assume that Supercharger stations are as widely available as gas stations and that you can find one anywhere. Let's also assume that you have one of the top Tesla models which actually support Supercharging. You still are going to wait an hour to fully recharge your battery pack.
Imagine you were driving to your sister's wedding 1500 km away.
Your brother left his house down the block at the same time as you did, 06:00. He drove his fully loaded, Highline trim, sport-nav package Volkswagen Passat TDI for which he paid about $35,000. He made one stop for fuel, and ate lunch, went to the bathroom, stretched his legs and switched driving duties with his wife. 30 minutes for the fuel and stop. They made the trip in 16 hours counting stops and traffic. they arrived at 22:00 that night.
You drove your $72,400 Tesla Model S 85 kw standard model and left the $87,400 85 kw sport model home. You had to stop for two full Supercharge's which took 2 hours total, and then you took on a third half charge to finish the last leg so that took another half an hour.
Your total trip took 15.5 hours driving time, 2.5 hours charging time for a total of 18 hours. You arrive at 00:00 in the morning and you miss the bachelor party and your mother asks why you can't be more like your brother.
Now I'm not trying to belittle the Tesla. I think it's really great. What I'm saying is that electric cars are not there yet. There still needs to be a lot of charging infrastructure* built and charge times need to be improved. Ultimately we also need new battery technology that will increase range without increasing weight or cost. That may take a while.
This is where the Chevy Volt comes in. I'm really impressed with GM's thinking on this one. They were very aware of the realities of the situation as it is today and built a vehicle appropriate for conditions as they exist right now. Not based on some future infrastructure and materials that may exist down the road. The Volt is an electric car, not a hybrid. Don't let the gasoline engine fool you. Unlike a Prius where the gas engine shares the load of moving the vehicle, the engine in the Volt is just part of a large generator. The Volt always runs and motivates via electric drive motors. The difference is that when the battery pack get's low, the generator kicks on. Not only does it provide enough juice to power the electric drive motors, it also recharges the battery pack. It would be no different if you slung a big Honda generator into the trunk of your Tesla.
While the Volt isn't as cool or fancy as the Tesla, it is much more practical today, especially for single car families.
It's too bad you can't combine the Volt and the Tesla. Or can you?
Now this is a vehicle I'd buy today!
Looking forward, I wonder if another mid-term solution would be to replace the engine in the Volt with a bank of Supercapacitors. These could be charged in 5 minutes at a Supercharger type station and then operate as the gasoline engine did, by charging the regular battery pack while driving. You'd have fast fill-ups and long range.
Anyway, overall I think we're seeing the light at the end of the electric car tunnel. I think it's reasonable to believe that someone with a kid in grade school today will be able to send them off to University in a new, cool, long range, electric vehicle they'll be proud to drive.
*I won't even get into the fact that in the US much of that power comes from dirty coal power plants, negating the green reason for owning an electric car.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)