unBlogged

Hello!

Doing web development under Linux requires to no longer use Internet Explorer. For web site testing the only available solutions are dual-boot, virtualization or WINE.

I have the feeling that picking to use dual-boot is like not actually switching to Linux. That's because you'd code everything in Windows, test everything in Windows, with all Windows browser: IE, Firefox and Opera. Not a true switch. You can't code everything in Linux then do a quick boot in Windows to see if the cool CSS layout renders properly in IE 6. You still need to have all your web development tools (your IDE, your FTP/SSH client, etc) in Windows.

Virtualization is a nicer solution: you can do all coding and testing in Linux. Once you've booted Windows in VMWare Server (insert your favourite virtualization software) you can simply load the page and refresh it when you need to test something. Quite nice. I use this for "complex web applications" and for final testing of any web site. You only need a clean install of Windows.

For occasional and quick web development testing I mostly like WINE. Yes, installing IE 6 in WINE is (very) annoying.

However, there's IEs4Linux - a script which automatically installs IE 6, IE 5.5 and IE 5. It's very easy to use and quick to install.

Also, very recently there's beta support for IE 7 installation - which is quite awesome.

Why is this better than virtualization *and* dual-boot? You can have a context menu item in Opera which opens your page in IE 6 and IE 7 in just a few seconds after clicking (I do, hehe). Nothing to boot, and it's faster than virtualization.

I even use WINE with Opera 9 + Voice enabled for web development. Installing Opera 9 in WINE is only a matter of running the installer in WINE - easy.

Bottom line is: are you a web developer who would like to switch to Linux but believes he can no longer test his web sites with IE? The complete answer is: you can test your sites in IE, quick and easy. There's no long answer. You do not have to drop compatibility with IE. You can make the switch™ .

This is the Linux and open-source article I previously wrote in english. Translated to romanian, on request.

Când eşti un utilizator al Windowsului, fiecare din prietenii tăi care folosesc Linux îţi sugerează să treci la Linux: "nu mai fi sclavul Microsoftului" sau alte formule.

Alegerea unei distribuţii de Linux este un pas greu de sine stătător. Acest pas este greu chiar şi pentru "experţii" Windows.

După ce în sfârşit ai ales şi instalat distribuţia, urmează o etapă pe care eu o consider amuzantă: prietenii tăi care folosesc o altă distribuţie încep să glumească pe seama alegerii făcute. Asta se întâmplă indiferent dacă ai avut sau nu cunoştinţele necesare să alegi exact distribuţia de care ai nevoie (deobicei nu ai). Dacă întâmpini probleme şi le ceri ajutor răspunsurile pot fi de genul "ha, asta nu păţeşti cu distribuţia X".

După ce eu mi-am instalat Ubuntu, un utilizator de Gentoo mi-a spus în glumă "ah, Ubuntu e aproape Linux, dar bine că ai trecut pe Linux". Asta e încurajare! Alt utilizator de Fedora Core 4 mi-a spus foarte simplu "Ubuntu merge prea bine, e prea grafic". Interesant, deoarece lui nu-i place că unele distribuţii Linux ajung la un nivel la care utilizatorul poate să treacă direct la Linux, fără să întâmpine problemele foarte cunoscute: linia de comandă şi editarea manuală a fişierelor de configurare. El a spus acest lucru deoarece a văzut că am avut Samba funcţionând perfect şi v4l (Video for Linux) era deja funcţional (el a avut aceste două probleme pe FC 4). Cauza acestor probleme poate fi dată de faptul că FC este o distribuţie ce introduce pachete de ultimă oră, fără foarte multă testare.

Trebuie specificat că nu doresc să las impresia că distribuţia Ubuntu este cea mai bună. Nici pe departe. Am întâmpinat şi eu tot felul de "bucurii", dar multe din ele sunt foarte uşor de rezolvat.

Contrar părerilor unora, eu nu am trecut la Linux doar pentru a fi în pas cu moda (aş fi putut face acest lucru ani în urmă). Trecerea mea la Linux a fost datorată necesităţilor în domeniul programării web: am nevoie să experimentez cu tehnologii mai noi care în mod "natural" sunt făcute pentru Linux.

Nereuşita Linuxului de a creşte în popularitate pe desktopuri este cauzată de lipsa acordului între membrii comunităţilor de programatori Linux şi utilizatorii Linux, diversitatea fiind foarte mare. Comunitatea Linux este probabil prea diversă prin definiţia open-source-ului. Foarte bine (din punctul meu de vedere) este că acum se mobilizează tot mai multe grupuri de utilizatori şi dezvoltatori pentru a face Linuxul pentru desktopuri mai bun şi mai uşor pentru începători.

După ce te obişnuieşti cu Linux, poţi ajunge să-ţi chiar place puterea oferită de scripturile Perl/Python sau orice altceva din consolă. Acestea-ţi oferă într-adevăr libertatea de care ai nevoie după ce foloseşti mult timp abordarea WIMP pentru a interacţiona cu calculatorul. Window, Icon, Menu, Pointing device (fereastră, iconiţă, meniu, dispozitiv de indicare) sunt metaforele cele mai bine cunoscute în interfeţele actuale ale programelor de calculator (pe Windows, Mac OS X, Gnome şi KDE). Pe Windows aceste capabilităţi lipsesc. Distribuţiile de Linux destinate utilizatorilori începători nu dezactivează accesul la consolă, ci doar adaugă capabilităţile necesare în modul grafic. Asta este foarte bine, deoarece după un timp ţi se permite să experimentezi, să înveţi şi altceva.

Nu ar trebui să existe "războiul distribuţiilor" Linux. Fiecare distribuţie este bună în felul ei. Trebuie să o foloseşti cea care-ţi place, cea care-i pe gustul tău. Nu vei ştii care-i până nu le încerci pe fiecare. Când ai găsit una care-ţi place, nu o mai schimba.

În legătură cu diferenţele între distribuţii: Claudio Santambrogio a punctat foarte bine spunând că Ubuntu este doar o simplă distribuţie, nefiind specială, şi mi-a dat o legătură spre un articol scris de el despre laptopul de $100, din care citez:

Pentru un începător Linux este confuz să înveţe că există mai multe aplicaţii care fac acelaşi lucru. Răspunsul la cea mai evidentă întrebare («care program să-l folosesc?») este de multe ori, îndrâznesc să spun, o problemă cvasi-religioasă decât ceva raţional ce poate fi înţeles de începători.

Exact aceeaşi problemă este reflectată şi în alegerea unei distribuţii Linux.

Am instalat KDE pe Ubuntu doar să-l încerc. Acum am mii de pachete care nu le folosesc niciodată şi nici nu ştiu cu ce se ocupă toate. Am vreo 10 vizualizatoare de imagini, câteva navigatoare web, managere de fişiere, managere de pachete, playere video/audio, joculeţe, şi multe altele.

În general, distribuţiile foarte cunoscute (Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, etc) sunt şi foarte bune, chiar mai bune decât Windows. Asta se datorează stabilităţi, a vitezei şi a programelor disponibile. Cea mai serioasă problemă este că programe importante pentru Windows (gen Photoshop sau Flash) nu există pentru Linux şi nici multe drivere pentru imprimante, scannere şi alte accesorii la calculator. Parcă nu ar fi de ajuns, librăriile necesare pentru vizionarea filmelor şi ascultarea muzicii nu sunt permise în distribuţii Linux open-source (este ilegală integrarea acestora). Pentru un simplu utilizator asta este ceva foarte neplăcut, făcându-l să refuze Linuxul şi să nu mai vadă părţile bune.

Din unele puncte de vedere KDE şi Gnome sunt mai bune decât Windows. Ceea ce afectează KDE-ul este incorecta organizare a meniurilor, a interfeţei din fiecare pachet ce îl are. Gnome urmează standarde mai stricte şi din acest motiv îl folosesc.

Proiectele open-source sunt exemple extraodinare de lucru voluntar şi de organizare, fiind produse realizate de programatori începători pasionaţi şi de experţi angajaţi la diferite firme.

Trei dintre cele mai populare proiecte open-source (OpenOffice, Firefox şi Wikipedia), au tot felul de "probleme". Nu trece o săptămână să nu apară un articol negativ despre Wikipedia în care se arată proasta calitate a unor articole. Cu toate că exemplele oferite în aceste articole "bine intenţionate" sunt reale, nu se poate spune că Wikipedia este un proiect nereuşit. Wikipedia este, în general, o sursă bună de informare. Însă nu trebuie să crezi tot ce citeşti pe orice site. Avantajul pe Wikipedia este că ştii înainte că informaţiile ce le citeşti sunt probabil greşite. Dacă e ceva important întotdeauna trebuie verificat. La fel trebuie făcut şi cu orice alt site. Oricine doreşte să se documenteze la modul serios despre ceva nu trebuie să-şi bazeze cunoaşterea pe un singur site.

OpenOffice este un pachet foarte mare care probabil are scopul să ajungă la fel de greoi ca Microsoft Office. La ora actuală este bun şi-l folosesc, dar ar trebui să fie mai rapid, mai bun şi mai mic. Personal nu sunt prea mulţumit de el, deşi îl recomand în locul lui Microsoft Office.

Firefox este un produs realizat într-un mod inteligent. Corporaţia Mozilla este mult mai bine organizată şi se menţine pe o linie dreaptă. Nu e bine că Gecko (motorul din Firefox) introduce tehnologii proprietare, care nu sunt bine departajate de celelalte. Mă refer la adăugarea de proprietăţi noi în DOM care sunt specifice Gecko. Aceeaşi metodă este folosită de Microsoft, în Internet Explorer. Probabil cei de la Mozilla vor să obţină un Firefox similar cu Internet Explorer-ul actual (nu numai să domine piaţa navigatoarelor). Să sperăm că asta nu se va întâmpla şi că Gecko nu va rămâne în urmă la suportul standardelor web.

Pachetele Linux nu ar trebui să încerce să copieze programe Windows. Acum este nevoie de abordări diferite, de îmbunătăţiri pe desktop care să conecteze calculatorul la web (noua tendinţă). Mulţi ar trece la Linux dacă ar oferi ceva cu mult mai bun, uşor de utilizat, uşor de învăţat. La ora actuală pe Linux găseşti aproximativ aceleaşi lucruri, dar unele nu sunt la fel de bune. De ce să treci? Doar pentru a fi altfel? Există acele lucruri care chiar lipsesc pe Windows, gen opţiuni pentru customizare, stabilitate, viteză, control mai bun asupra sistemului, şi bineînţeles manager de pachete/programe, dar nimic nu sare în ochi.

Nu e necesară revoluţia, deoarece asta sperie un utilizator fiind vorba de schimbări prea mari. E vorba doar de evoluţie.

Foarte interesant e dacă va fi cândva o distribuţie Linux care încearcă să fie "mama" tuturor. Una care poate fi recomandată începătorilor de către toţi utilizatorii actuali Linux (indiferent de experienţă). O singură distribuţie care să aibă baza de date de pachete întotdeauna cu ultima versiune, unde găseşti aproape orice doreşti, cu drivere, cu instalare semi-automată de librării pentru ascultarea muzicii şi vizionarea filmelor, etc. Această distribuţie trebuie să fie stabilă dar nici veche precum Debian Stable.

O asemenea distribuţie, cu interoperabilitate între KDE şi Gnome, cu WINE preconfigurat foarte bine, ar aduce mulţi utilizatori pe Linux. WINE este un pachet ce poate rula aplicaţii Windows pe Linux la o viteză aproape nativă, dacă-l ştii configura. Acesta poate fi bine integrat în sistem. Nu trebuie uitat că este necesar să poţi să rulezi programele Windows, pentru că multe nu sunt disponibile pe Linux, sau la multe nu se doreşte renunţarea (de exemplu, a plătit mult pentru Adobe Photoshop).

Discuţiile generale despre Linux ar trebui să fie despre Distribuţia Distribuţiilor.

Hello!

How many like the terminal/console in Linux?

I myself like it, even if I do not use it too much. I use much of the X-based "bling bling": Gnome, Opera, Gaim, Xchat, Quanta, XMMS, etc. However, I particularly enjoy the power the console gives you: the one who says you're somehow limited in the terminal is very wrong. That's because you do almost everything you want: you can play music, you can play browse the web, use any Internet protocol (ftp, bittorent, pop3/imap/smtp mail, etc), you can do programming (of course), etc.

Simply forget about the MS-DOS console you know. That's limited (flame bait). Linux console, even if it looks the same, is not the same .

One thing missing in the GUI approach (KDE, Gnome, Windows, Mac OS X, etc) is consistency. The terminal is always consistent, it's the same on Linux, on Windows and Macs. The commands differ between operating systems, but the basics are the same.

I did 4 things to customize my terminals on Ubuntu Linux:

1. Console font. I picked a font which includes the most-used non-english characters in the documents I usually view (romanian and french).

To do this after you booted use:

consolechars -f /usr/share/consolefonts/font-file-name

This is handy for testing because the changes will be lost after you restart, plus the changes are applied only to the current terminal.

You shall pick the font-file-name you want. Just take a look at the console fonts you have installed. The ones I have are named based on the character set they can display: iso01, iso02, latin1, koi, etc. I use iso-8859-2 (for Central European).

To make the change permanent just edit /etc/console-tools/config. Change SCREEN_FONT value to the font file name you found to like.

2. Keyboard layout. I changed the keyboard layout to a custom keyboard layout I made, based upon the romanian programmers keyboard layout provided by default in Ubuntu, plus the American international keyboard layout with dead keys. Last, but not least, I also looked into the french keyboard layouts . My purpose was to have a normal english keyboard layout, but greatly enhanced for Level 3 (activated with the Right Alt key).

To make your own custom keyboard just go to /etc/X11/xkb/symbols and pick the keyboard language you want to start from. Edit it, look into other files to learn what needs to be changed, have fun .

Things to know about those files: they contain the symbols associated to each key on the layout. Therefore, they are not exactly keyboard layouts. The files are named based on the country code, and they contain all the keyboard variants belonging to the country. You should be able to add your own, but you need to learn how to do that (you need to edit other files aswell). My file does not add a new variant for two simple reasons: lack of knowledge (caused by lack of spare time to learn how), lack of motivation (caused by the fact I don't want to backup another file). I just modified the basic variant.

XKB is very advanced and complex: you can change the geometry, the rules, the symbols, everything. You can make a single key do wonderful things. Yet, don't ask me how LOL (I am still learning myself). All I know is enough to make my own nice keyboard layout .

To learn more:
- The XKB Configuration Guide
- An Unreliable Guide to XKB Configuration

It is important to note all changes also apply to the X server. You can use the keyboard layout in Gnome, KDE and what else you wish.

To change the keyboard layout in the terminal just run kbd-config or

sudo dpkg-reconfigure console-data

In Gnome you must know how to do it, same goes for KDE.

Download:xkbd-ro
If you are a romanian, you'll most likely want this layout . Save the file as /etc/X11/xkb/symbols/ro (overwrite!).

For maximum fun I edited my xorg.conf to use the custom keyboard layout.

Section "InputDevice"
        Identifier      "Generic Keyboard"
        Driver          "kbd"
        Option          "CoreKeyboard"
        Option          "XkbRules"      "xorg"
        Option          "XkbModel"      "pc104"
        Option          "XkbLayout"     "ro"
        Option          "XkbVariant"    "basic"
EndSection

For an unknown reason, the keyboard layout does not work exactly in the same way as in X. In the console, the keyboard map is a bit "screwed" and dead keys are out of the discussion, since they are not supported by the font. I'll probably have to make a new variant specialized for the console. Based on what I learned, the difference might be caused by the fact I do not have the same XkbdRules as xorg. I'll see .

Suggestion by csant: To edit the keyboard layout, you can also use a GUI-based tool:

sudo apt-get install xkeycaps

3. Sticky keys. I use sticky keys in X, so I wanted to use them in the terminal aswell. The above two guides also provide tips in regards to how to enable sticky keys. Based on other tutorials, there are several ways one can achieve this goal. I picked the "loadkeys method".

The file is:

keymaps 0-6,8-9,12
keycode 29 = SCtrl
keycode 42 = SShift
keycode 56 = SAlt
keycode 54 = SShift
keycode 97 = SCtrl

Keymaps differ from a configuration to another. So, you need to learn which ones are on your system:

dumpkeys | head -1

Save the above file, after you update it and execute:

sudo loadkeys your-file

Warning: Providing a wrong keymap can render your keyboard unusable (I actually needed to do a forced reset ).

Warning 2: Your system might use different keycodes for the same keys. If this is the case, use showkey. Generally, if you have a PC which is "mainstream" (like mine), this should be safe.

If you take a close look at the above, you'll notice the missing second SAlt. That's because the second one (Right Alt = keycode 100) does provide access to level 3, used for inputting special chars. Making it sticky, loses the "special" attribute. I don't know currently how to make the it a sticky without losing the capability of switching to level 3.

The behaviour is: you press Shift then a = A. Pressing again a = a. This means that pressing shift will not lock it. For locking-type of sticky keys, read the above two guides.

To make the change permanent, just add the call to loadkeys into your /etc/rc.local.

4. Higher resolution. To do this edit /boot/grub/menu.lst by adding vga=792 to the kernel you use. Something like this:

title           Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.15-25-386
root            (hd0,0)
kernel          /vmlinuz-2.6.15-25-386 root=/dev/hda3 ro quiet splash vga=792
initrd          /initrd.img-2.6.15-25-386
savedefault
boot

Tips and tricks:

1. VNC for the console. If you like VNC, you can also share your console . Install the linuxvnc package (use apt-get).

Yet, it's recommended that you use the screen package, which is better. VNC is generally meant for graphical stuff .

2. To capture the screen of your terminal, as a text file, use:

sudo setterm -dump

What I want to do next is enable beep for sticky keys, same as in X. Also, I'd add the "locking-type" of sticky keys, exactly as in X: press Shift twice to lock it.

Internet Explorer 7. What is this in essence? Is it an Opera and Firefox killer? Microsoft would like us to believe the latter, but I don't, even if I wanted to believe they'll bring IE to a decent level.

Almost all the CSS-based layouts look almost the same in IE 7 beta 2 as in IE 6. No big difference. I still can't drop *any* of those hacks I have in my layouts. I know they fixed *some* bugs, I know some pages render perfectly, or even better, but it's not enough. Why urge developers to drop the hacks when they are still needed?

The Internet has become the central part of computing. To me, the computer is almost useless without the Internet. When I boot I also start my favourite browser. I generally don't close it unless it crashes (which doesn't happen more than once a month or so), or I upgrade it .

The web and communication capabilities of the Internet are invaluable. Microsoft seems to get the trend, since there was some buzz around Windows Live and other Microsoft Fluffy products.

Having that in mind: why does IE 7 suck? Is it on purpose? Is it because they don't have the time to make it much better? Take your pick. I'd go for the latter option, since ... Microsoft initially didn't plan to have any updates for Internet Explorer, except updates bundled together with Windows. A huge mistake that even Bill regrets.

One thing's for sure (IMHO): if they would like a much better browser (comparable to Opera and/or Firefox) they do have to start by asking the cleaning lady to clean their hard drives where they've stored the current IE engine. They should do this without blinking and without looking back. Look at what Netscape got after they did that: Firefox . Yes, I know, that was very stupid what Netscape Corp. did: rewriting code is a big mistake. Nonetheless ... they now have a much better product (erm, Mozilla Corp. does ).

Five years since IE 6, Microsoft should have had the time to do what Netscape did. But, if they did't want to screw-up like Netscape did, they could have taken on the daunting task of improving the rendering engine, every minute, every second, every night and day, sundays and saturdays too.

They didn't do so. They actually started working on IE 7 last summer or so. That's because if they would've worked on improving IE since 2001, then ... IE 7 would simply be much better than Opera and Firefox combined. Microsoft has the resources to do that, they did it with IE 4, 5 and even 6. At that time, IE was really better than Netscape 4. Microsoft really had a better product. It was even better than the Gecko engine which was in its infancy at the end of 90's and the beginning of 2000. Opera was better only as a browser (features-wise) and better at CSS rendering, but it was not coping with the tag-soup affecting the majority of web pages (hence it didn't gain much popularity).

Once all the vaporware, buzz and fuzz surrounding the release of this cutting-edge browser (IE 7), users who switched back from Opera/Firefox (IMHO quite many) will start missing the features they've got used to in the alternative browser, and probably most of them will feel disappointed by IE (after the "wow" factor dries). Plus, they'll continue seeing "too cool for IE" and similar "campaigns".

The main point of this post is actually to propose a new way of looking at Microsoft failing to deliver a good browser. It's not just on purpose (because things have changed since then and Microsoft seems to realize the importance of the Internet and the Web). It's also about the possiblity of MS losing the entire market share dominance in respect to operating systems. Will this ever happen? Yes, no doubt. The only question is "when?".

Losing the web browsers market share dominance is not that hard as some think so. It's not impossible. Lets take the example of MP3 players: Winamp versus Windows Media Player. Winamp is not integrated into Windows, but WMP is. Guess which one dominates? Everybody I know uses Winamp (including myself, actually I use Ubuntu now, but the point is I used Winamp with Windows). WMP is simply not good enough: it's slower and it's a resource hog compared to Winamp. Yes, I've tried WMP and yes, it has some nice features, but that's all.

The same can happen in the browsers world. I know it's very hard, but not impossible (nothing is impossible ). If browsers like Opera and Firefox start providing extremely advanced new features and capabilities that will render IE simply obsolete, out-dated, developers and corporations might actually make Opera/Firefox-only web applications (unless MS pays them enough not to do so). Users will switch, because the alternatives are better. Microsoft can't pay all companies, all developers to make IE-only sites because it cannot afford to so and it's not something anybody can do (not even Bill Gates).

Firefox is already being installed on new computers by geeks for friends and families who don't know much about computing. I also install Opera browser on all computers I have to setup and configure, I even try to remove IE shortcuts, so the user can't start it by mistake. This is the same approach used with Winamp. It's just standard procedure: stop useless services, install Opera and Winamp.

That's the first step to losing the operating systems market dominance. Why? Once users realize the benefits of alternatives, the fact alternatives are better, they are more and more interested in alternative operating systems too. That's what happend to me as well.

Browsers are probably even more important than any piece of software on any OS. If you no longer use IE, you can already make the switch easier. Many web applications also make it easier to make the switch. Does Jane use Gmail? No problem, that one works under GNU/Linux too. Does she use Firefox, Thunderbird or Opera? All function under Linux better and faster.

A good move by Microsoft would be to release IE 7 ASAP, but make it stable and with enough "wow" factor for gullible users. Then, in one year develop IE 8, which has the "wow" factor for developers too.

I don't ignore the improvements in IE 7. Quite good ones, except the interface which is worse than what IE 6 looks like. IE 6 actually has an acceptable interface.

If anything's going to be "blamed" for the fall of Windows market dominace, that's the Web. It's not Google, and no other startup nor corporation, because they'll all make use of the Internet and the Web.

P.S. Comments are very welcome and I am actually interested in your personal opinions regarding matters expressed in this post.

Hello!

I decided to try the latest Ubuntu Linux.

I have previously tried Fedora Core 2 and before that I had some very old Red Hat, but that's all very long time ago and ... I always switched back to Windows for various reasons, such as, but not limited to: networking with Windows (Samba-fun), TV tuner configuration (I never got this close to "working"), slow Internet connection (couldn't download a gazillion of packages), getting video/audio playback and what-not. With FC 2 there were some really cool advancements: easier to configure, better package management and seriously stable Gnome (compared to what I tested on the very old Red Hat).

Installing Ubuntu was easy, but I have to say it took more time than Windows XP Professional installation (don't flame me, it's true on my system).

I had the pleasure of finding the local area connection almost working properly. I was able to access shared folders from other Windows machines in just a few minutes. Configuration wasn't a hassle at all. I said it worked almost perfect because I still had to manually edit a file, so I can share my own files on the Windows network.

Ubuntu Wiki is a great resource of information and documentation. Very easy to follow tutorials.

I haven't had big problems with Ubuntu. Everything seems to work just fine. I have removed my Windows installation and now I got only Ubuntu (one month ago). I am actually writing this blog post in Gedit - it's safer to have a local file.

I've got everything working properly without too much hassle (actually very little ... if I read Ubuntu Wiki, which I don't always do, because I sometimes forget ).

TV tuner configuration was uhm ... lets say piece of cake. Yet, I got my TV tuner working on Ubuntu after a few weeks . Why? I was busy configuring other more important stuff and ... TV tuner configuration was a bit "hard": I had to search on Yahoo for some documentation about bttv. The problem: I had v4l and v4l2 working perfectly from the start, but no TV application was able to search for the channels. Why? The driver didn't detect the exact tuner type/card I have (Mentor TV). Solving the problem was piece of cake: modprobe bttv card=78.

On Windows I was using DScaler for viewing the TV (I have no need for PVR software). It was quite a CPU intensive application (100% constantly), because it has some very good deinterlacing filters. Gladly, the Linux couter-part is much better . I use KDE TV 3.5. It's faster than Dscaler, features-packed and very good.

The minor annoyances that affect Ubuntu a bit were:

1. I had to install gcc-3.4 to be able to install kernel modules.
2. Firefox 1.5 was not available in the repositories: manual install is required (not a big hassle once you read the wiki).
3. Ubuntu boots slower than Windows XP. Why? Even after I removed all the unnecessary boot services. Guess what? The slow part is not the graphical boot (actually gdm and gnome start-up faster than the graphical system of Windows). The loading section until gdm starts takes the most time.
4. Opera wasn't available in the repositories .

Movie and audio playback wasn't hard to install at all. Movie playback is actually much faster than on Windows using Mplayer with XV output. Very fast player and good one . I use VLC only for heavy duty stuff .

The part that I liked the most was installing PHP 5, MySQL 4.1, PHPMyAdmin and Apache 2. Much faster and easier than on Windows (of course).

Unexpected goodies of Linux: WINE, accessiblity support (magnifier, TTS, on-screen keyboard display and screen readers) and more I'm forgetting.

I've switched to Linux. Nothing more to add.

P.S. I like the Human theme .