First, I want to be absolutely clear about something. I have been a full time Linux on the desktop user for well over a decade. It has been and will always be my preferred platform for desktop and server usage. It does just what I need and I appreciate that.

All of that said however, the “masses” haven’t gravitated towards Linux for their desktop usage like I had hoped. In this article, I’m going to explore the reasons why I think this has happened.

Inside the Failure of Desktop Linux

1) Linux isn’t pre-installed – No matter how much we may debate it, having Windows pre-installed on PCs means that’s what people are likely to end up using. In order for someone to move over to Linux on the desktop, there must be a clear reason to do so. There is the problem. The only time I’ve personally seen users make the switch over to Linux from Windows comes down to frustration with Windows or a desire to advance their skills into an IT field.

My own Linux story, for example, was a mixture of the two examples above. First off, I was just done with Windows. I had already been dabbling with Linux at the time I completely switched, but I become disenfranchised with the Microsoft way of doing things. So for me, the switch to Linux was based out of frustration.

Had I not experienced any frustrations with Windows, I might not have ever thought to jump ship over to an alternative. Even when I built my own PCs myself, the OS offered at computer stores was Windows only. This is a huge hurdle for Linux adoption on the desktop.

2) Linux freedom vs convenience – It’s been my experience that people expect a user experience that’s consistent and convenience. How one defines this depends on the individual user. For some, it’s a matter of familiarity or perceived dependability. For more advanced PC users, a consistent convenience may mean a preferred workflow or specific applications.

The greater takeaway is that when people are aware of other operating systems, they will usually stick with that they’ve used the longest. This presents a problem when getting people to try Linux. When using a desktop platform for a long time, you develop habits and expectations that don’t lend themselves well to change.

3) Linux lacks legacy software – Expanding on the idea of convenience, another challenge is enticing those who have legacy applications only found on Windows. Even if we consider suggesting Linux-specific software alternatives, we’re expecting users to change existing workflows. I’ve found most people to be resistant to this. Not because one type of application is better or worse than another. After all, this is a matter of personal perspective. No, the real issue is that users have existing workflows, file types and overall application expectations. Switching away from this doesn’t always go all that well.

4) Linux networking isn’t for the faint of heart – Networking in Linux is reliable, however, it’s reliant on understanding the differences between Windows and Linux networking. In Linux, both Samba and NFS file sharing are conf file based. And while it’s not difficult to learn, it’s not going to be as straightforward as you might find with Windows.

On the flip side, connecting to the network itself is incredibly simple. Wired or wireless, modern Linux distros handle connecting to a network in a seamless manner. But it’s unfortunate that even with the most newbie friendly distros, you need to drop to a command prompt to create a Samba password or edit a conf file for an NFS share.

5) Linux video card support is tricky – From a basic perspective, graphics card support works just fine in Linux. However, things become a bit muddled when you bundle in Wayland vs X. Two different display server options mean different benefits and downsides when choosing one vs another. Some distros use Wayland as the default, which means some X reliant applications won’t work.

Then there are the laptops with shared graphics. Laptops with NVIDIA/Intel graphics tend to be the biggest challenges with some Linux distros. I’ve found this to be one of the most common issues facing newer Linux users. Granted, graphics switching has gotten a lot better over the years. But it’s still distro dependent and sometimes upgrades can throw new issues into the mix.

Last, there is the issue of choosing the right driver type. In some distros, a FoSS friendly driver is set by default. But in other distros, a proprietary option is the default. On the surface this doesn’t seem like an issue, but it does add to some confusion.

6) Linux PulseAudio sound server is confusing – Linux audio is actually pretty good. However, the PulseAudio sound server sitting on top of the audio architecture is out of touch and out of sync. The fact that I can adjust the volume with PulseAudio yet if the sound device is muted in alsamixer it must be dealt with at the alsamixer level blows my mind. If you’re going to layer a sound server on top of ALSA, make darn sure it syncs up its adjustments between sound server and architecture.

Making matters worse is the fact that most popular desktop environments don’t fully take advantage of what PulseAudio has to offer. Most desktops lack Recording and Playback tabs in the volume control settings. When you launch a Hangouts session or play music, you might wish to route said audio to different playback devices. With most distros, this requires you to use padevchooser.

7) Linux lacks triple A gaming titles – Linux gaming has come a long way. Thanks to Valve, GoG.com and others, Linux gaming has evolved tremendously in recent years. The title availability and desire from developers to include Linux in their operating support has been fantastic. That said, there is still a lot of improvement to be had with Linux gaming.

I’m not sure what the solution is to get more game developers on board with porting games to Linux, but for now I think we’ll have to continue voting with our wallets. Sadly, I continue to see Linux users justifying their “need” for Windows games and thus, dual-booting their operating systems. This is a cop out and frustrates me more than anything. No one needs Windows gaming, it’s a choice, not a requirement for sustaining life.

8) Linux desktop environments – As much as I love the choice presented with Linux on the desktop, I can understand how some people might feel overwhelmed. It can be challenging to select a specific distro based on a desktop environment. So being able to choose and discover new desktop environments is exciting. It can absolutely be confusing for some newcomers.

The reason for this is most people are coming from the limited world of Windows or OS X. You have a release and that’s what you get. There is no choice, unless you wish to use an older release of those proprietary OS’.

9) Linux distros vary in quality – Most popular Linux distros are fantastic. Unfortunately there are distros that are less than fantastic. Some of them are downright bad. Without labeling some and leaving out others, suffice it to say that it’s not enough to merely choose a distro based on popularity.

My advice is to look at distros with a strong backing. Whether or not this is a strong community backing or corporate backing depends on what you’re looking for.

10) Linux is overshadowed by ChromeOS – ChromeOS is an incredibly limited OS yet has gained in popularity thanks to cheap, easy to use laptops and its deep integration into Google services. Sadly, printing and scanning remains a joke with this OS. Yes, it’s doable…but not without jumping through hoops. Despite this, ChromeOS is based on Gentoo Linux and perhaps this is as close Linux will get to being a mainstream desktop OS.

Linux file servers play an essential role. The ability to share files is a basic expectation with any modern operating system in the workplace. When using one of the popular Linux distributions, you have a few different file sharing options to choose from. Some of them are simple but not that secure. Others are highly secure, yet require some know-how to set up initially.

Once set up on a dedicated machine, you can utilize these file sharing technologies on a dedicated file server. This article will address these technologies and provide some guidance on choosing one option over another.

Samba Linux File Server

Samba is essentially a collection of tools to access networked SMB (Server Message Block) shares. The single biggest advantage to Samba as a file sharing technology is that it’s compatible with all popular operating systems, especially Windows. Setup correctly, Samba works flawlessly between Windows and Linux servers and clients.

An important thing to note about Samba is that it’s using the SMB protocol to make file sharing possible. SMB is a protocol native to Windows whereas Samba merely provides SMB support to Linux. So when considering a file sharing technology for your needs, keep this in mind.

Now those of you who are familiar with SMB and its colorful history may be wondering where a “dialect” of SMB called CIFS comes into play. In the most basic terms, CIFS replaces the older SMBFS. CIFS allows us to connect to and access a SMB2+ share without relying on a typical smb.conf file.

For example, I could set up my fstab to automatically mount a SMB share. Otherwise in order to access the same SMB share, I’d need to setup the appropriate conf file with the needed SMB details. More on this in a minute.

Samba is compatible with a wide range of conf file based configuration options. Some of these options are even integrated into distros and desktop environments. Other times, you need to edit the smb.conf file directly. Ubuntu and distros based on Ubuntu provide a GUI option for making a directory Samba ready/sharable. These GUI tools are useful for “guest” (non-registered user) accessible shares, however fail to provide users with the needed SMB user and password if one chooses to limit access to said share. Creating a SMB user still needs to be done from the command line. Thankfully however, the command needed itself is extremely easy to use.

Getting back to the previously mentioned smb.conf file, the most important elements of the conf structure look something like this:

[global]
workgroup = workgroup
server string = samba server
security = USER
encrypt passwords = yes
smb passwd file = /etc/samba/smbpasswd
guest ok = yes
other global settings...
[sharename]
comment = comment
path = path
writeable = yes

Notice how the file is broken up into sections. Odds are that your own conf file will have more sections than this, but these are the core sections to be mindful of. The first section is known as the Global section. This references the details of the Samba/SMB server. Notice the Microsoft references like Workgroup? Each line must be filled in correctly to allow access to the target server. Remember the GUI for sharing files mentioned previously? This is made possible by utilizing the Guest line in the conf file. Keep in mind, if you want to use a username and password to protect your Samba share, you must create a SMB password for the assigned user. Then enter the appropriate user and password into the conf.

For example, if my current Ubuntu user is Pat and I wish to grant Samba access to that user on a SMB enabled Linux server, I’d need to create a unique SMB password for Pat on the Linux server itself. It’s the server playing gatekeeper here, so that’s where the SMB password must be created and stored.

So what is the best way to access a Samba/SMB share from a Linux client? Really depends on your needs. As mentioned previously, you can use fstab entries to create CIFS access to a share that mounts automatically. Personally, I think this makes the most sense for Guest shares since I’m not using SMB credentials in the fstab itself. The other approach is to simply browse to the share using smb:// in your file browser, then enter your assigned username (usually your existing client Linux user) and your SMB password when prompted.

Where do I recommend using Samba? I’ve found that Samba is best suited for work or home environments where files need to be shared among multiple operating systems. It’s important to note that Samba is to be used in a trusted local network environment. It’s not suitable for file sharing over the internet or in an environment whereas public users are able to access some shares but not others. Samba/SMB security is not really well suited for this type of situation.

NFS Linux File Server

NFS also known as the Network File System is a bit more complex than using Samba. Despite the learning curve, the benefits of using NFS are rock solid. NFS tends to perform faster, with less CPU operation than Samba. This isn’t to suggest that this is always the case, but overall NFS is the sought out file system of choice for Linux file servers.

Like Samba, you have a specific file in which you assign your shares. These shares are known in NFS terms as exports. What’s interesting about a NFS share is how it’s access configuration is based on single line entries instead of section based entries. For a very (possibly over-simplified) example:

/directory1  *(ro,sync,no_root_squash)

/directory2workstation(rw,sync,no_root_squash)

The star (*) is a wildcard indicating that any client with any hostname can access that specific share. For added security, you can define a case sensitive hostname of the client. Next we have ro and rw. These letters represent read only and read/write. With Directory number one above, this might be a directory we are granting the wildcard client access to, so we’d rather not allows anyone on the network have write to directory share capability. The second directory, does allow a single hostname client to read and write to the share. Both directory shares do not allow root access however. You might look at the wildcard (*) hostname as being similar to providing Guest access.

Once you’ve configured your exports (shares), you’re ready to mount those exports. Unlike Samba, NFS is conf file and command line only. So you create your configuration, then you either manually mount the export from the command like or you can use fstab to make the mounting process automatic at boot.

In my experience, I’ve found NFS to be outstanding for rich media sharing, large file transfers and general reliability.

Linux File Server Additional Considerations

With both examples above, you need to make sure the needed files (or kernel modules) are installed. You need to make sure any related services are running. And of course when something doesn’t work, it’s almost always a basic configuration issue. Just double check your configuration and compare it to the documentation provided for the file sharing solution you decide to go with.

As to which storage type you decide to use, that really comes down to storage strategy. Do you need redundancy, are you looking for access speed, or perhaps you also wish to incorporate remote offsite access using technologies like SSH with sFTP?

With regard to the former, that’s something you’ll need to determine based on your specific needs. As to whether to allow sFTP access to a share, consider this. File sharing is done at the kernel level. So you shouldn’t have any concerns about file corruption. That said, if you use NFS and SSH/sFTP on the same share, you can pass along the “lock” option. I’d argue that if you’re really concerned about versioning or other related issues, use Nextcloud as it provides proper “versioning” and is a better option than a sFTP file server. There is no reason why you can’t share a Samba share or NFS export with Nextcloud.

What say you? Which file sharing technologies do you prefer when building a Linux file server? Hit the comments and tell me about it.

It wasn’t all that long ago the idea of binary packages were seen as salvation from having to compile software packages for one’s Linux system.

In 2018, we’ve jumped ahead even further, with distro independent package installation solutions. In this article, we’re going to look into three rising stars in this area: Snappy, Flatpak and AppImage.

AppImage is a software disk image that just works

I’m a huge fan of AppImage as you simply make the individual application you wish to run executable, then double click it. AppImages are just that simple. According to their website, the idea is that you get the software directly from the author of said program. Using the AppImage format, installing an application can feel similar to how one might do it with Windows.

The advantage of running an AppImage is that there is no need for sudo, root or even the need to be bothered with system dependencies. You’re basically mounting a disk image, similar to how one might mount disk images in OS X.

Perhaps the biggest advantage to running AppImages is that you’re running an application that can be removed by simply deleting a single file. This single file/disk image approach is both great and a hardship depending on how you look at it. AppImages are great in that they’re easily distributed and simple to run.

The downside of AppImages are that even when you get the software directly from the author’s website, you still don’t really know if the application has been tampered with. This problem of trusting software is best demonstrated with what happened to OS X users and the application known as Transmission. This application allowed ransomware to infect those individuals who ran the application on their Macs.

So as much as I like AppImages, I take issue with the bold print statement that AppImages are to be trusted absolutely. Fact is, they’re just disk images and instead we need to trust the distributor of each individual AppImage. Thankfully if one chooses to run an AppImage within a sandbox, this prevents things from getting out of hand should the downloaded AppImage become exploited on the source website.

Flatpak provides isolated runtimes

Updates and applications installed by Flatpak are handled by individual runtimes. The idea is that this provides more streamlined package handling than running typical Linux package updates. Now here’s where Flatpak shines – it’s designed for desktop Linux distros. So the applications that are distributed with Flatpaks are going to be designed for desktop Linux users. This is a characteristic also found with AppImages, however Flatpaks differ in that they allow for individual application updates.

Flatpaks share similarities with Ubuntu PPAs in that they’re using individual repositories for application installation and updates. I’ll be first to admit that I honestly don’t love this element of Flatpaks as it’s time consuming to have to chase down individual repos. On the positive side, however, it does provide a better system for installation/updates as it’s distro independent.

Another consideration is that installing the framework for Flatpaks requires the installation of needed components to make the Flatpak available software installable. The irony takes place with distros such as Ubuntu whereas you must add an Ubuntu PPA for the Flatpak framework. In short, install a PPA repository to install a framework to install Flatpak repositories. While it’s not difficult to do this, it is a bit redundant.

The benefit of running Flatpak installed applications is that you can run the latest software on any distro you choose. Additionally, to curb the headache of seeking out individual Flatpak repos, Flathub’s Application section makes finding software easy.

Flathub provides the ability locate software in one location, even though historically Flatpaks aren’t located in a singular location. It’s actually a great idea and it makes using Flatpaks a lot more appealing. Perhaps most importantly, Flathub’s software categories are packed full of tons of software to choose from.

To repeat an item from above: Like AppImages, Flatpaks are designed for Linux desktops. This is an important consideration as we roll into the next section of this article.

Snap Packages are a compressed file system

Snap packages are a packaging concept created by Canonical and designed for Linux and IoT (internet of things). When you arrive at the Snapcraft website the first impression you find yourself with is that Snaps put the developer ahead of the end user. I don’t mean that as a negative statement, however the Snaps web presence backs up my statement completely. The two buttons on the front page are “Build your first snap” and “Get started using Github.”

Both button links mentioned above assume you’re a developer. This differs substantially from the front page of the Flatpak. The Flatpak front page is dedicated to getting Flatpak software onto the PCs of end users. Snaps only offers end user solutions if you look to the very top navigation bar and click on store. Once you click the store link, you’re presented with available Snaps to install onto target PCs and servers.

Snaps also share similarities with AppImage in that you’re mounting a software image vs installing software. Another benefit with Snaps is being able to roll back to an earlier version of software. Additionally, updates are made easy since Snaps share a single repository.

The biggest downside some people find with Snaps is the fact it provides a centralized packaging format that Canonical controls. Granted, Snaps are available across multiple distros, but the control of available Snaps remains in a single location. It’s also worth noting that notable open and closed source software is welcome in Snap’s repository.

One last important point with Snaps is that they’re not limited to the Linux desktop as I mentioned previously. They’re also designed to provide packaging solutions for IoT (internet of things). This is the biggest difference between Snaps and both Flatpak and AppImage. Snaps are heavily focused on IoT with Linux being an added bonus.

Which packaging type is best for Linux?

After looking at the differences and advantages of each packaging type mentioned above, we’re left wondering which one is best. In terms of simplicity, I’d argue that AppImage wins this one. But if you want to be able to update your software using one of these packaging formats, then Flatpak or Snaps make more sense.

One approach might be to try out each of them and see which packaging type has the user experience and the software titles you’re looking for.

What say you? Do you have a preference? If so, what is your rationale as to your choice of software packaging. Hit the Comments, let’s hear your perspective.

Linux was once referred to as a cancer by Microsoft’s former CEO. Ah, how times change. Now that same former CEO is claiming that he loves Linux. Needless to say, a lot has changed in terms of how Microsoft views Linux. Remarkably.

Depending on who you ask, this is a good thing or a not-so-great thing. So what does Microsoft’s adoption means for the greater Linux community?

Microsoft accepts open source

It’s difficult to determine the exact date, however some time in the last five years Microsoft started expanding their enterprise offerings with open source in mind. To do this, they had to begin embracing elements of the open source ecosystem. Microsoft realized that if their customers wanted open source tools and support for said tools with Microsoft products, and Redmond realized they would have to make sure they were in a position to offer the needed support.

Significantly, open source is part of Microsoft’s Azure cloud offering – the success of which is critical to the Microsoft’s continued success.

Meanwhile back in the Linux community, Linux users found themselves in shock over the news that the same company once ran by a CEO who referred to Linux as a cancer is now a very serious member of the Linux Foundation. Yes, Microsoft is feature prominently on the Linux Foundation’s corporate members page. This move to join the Foundation sent shockwaves throughout the Linux world and garnered both positive and negative feedback.

Microsoft: friend or foe to Linux

When Microsoft began promoting themselves as the company that “Loves Linux,” some Linux community members were skeptical. Some even believed that Microsoft’s move to embrace Linux was based on the once tried and true “embrace, extend, extinguish” approach to technology we’ve seen in the past. And this concern is based on a hisory of the past use of this strategy.

While it’s a valid to worry about Microsoft’s motivation behind their self-claimed embrace of Linux, I think Microsoft’s motivation is more selfish than a desire to extinguish Linux would suggest. Based on their activity with cloud computing and more recently, the Internet of Things (IoT), I believe Microsoft is looking to utilize technology that has proven itself in those fields – Linux is that technology.

Linux is a means to an end for Microsoft. It allows the software giant to participate with greater efficiency by utilizing existing toolsets. The official reasoning that Microsoft offers is Linux and open source in general provides a great ecosystem. An ecosystem Microsoft is now (apparently) motivated to give back code to. My own concern, however, is how much of this code being given back upstream is good for the community.

The concern that I have is I believe the code being sent upstream must always benefit Microsoft directly or indirectly in some way. I haven’t seen any examples of Microsoft providing code that benefits projects that are unrelated to their own efforts. Perhaps I missed something along the way, but due to their anti-FoSS history, it’s unreasonable to expect Microsoft to give back to projects that might not benefit them directly or indirectly. And yes, Microsoft’s sponsorship of various Linux conventions is an example of indirect benefit to Microsoft.

Yes, Microsoft is a major open source code contributor

Whether or not we’re comfortable with it, Microsoft is currently the single largest contributor to open source. As I’ve noted, the company is a memberof the Linux Foundation. While neither of these things excite me personally, it’s still important to understand just how much influence Microsoft has over the enterprise elements within the Linux community.

In years past Microsoft’s influence with Linux was always at arm’s length. One example Is Microsoft’s deal with Novell agreeing not to sue Novell over Intellectual Property claims. Without question, it was a very divisive issue for the Linux community, as it lent credibility to Microsoft’s claims.

Microsoft in 2018 may be embracing Linux, but Microsoft is still willing to participate in intellectual property lawsuits if Microsoft feels it will benefit them.

Now let’s reflect upon Microsoft’s involvement with the Linux Foundation and the quantity of code they contribute to open source. Understanding the facts above suddenly paint Microsoft’s involvement with Linux in a less than flattering light.

Microsoft Linux – Azure Sphere

A few years ago if you told me that Microsoft was going to be releasing their own spin on Linux, I’d figure you’re gravely misinformed. Yet as we fly through 2018, Microsoft does indeed have their own Linux product called Azure Sphere. The concept behind Azure Sphere is a microcontroller design, Azure Sphere OS and Azure Sphere cloud security.

What’s most telling is the rationale behind the move to utilize Linux for this product vs a slimmed down version of Windows – OS size. Linux was the best match for Microsoft’s needs in this regard. Not because Microsoft suddenly loves open source or Linux. Rather Microsoft sees Linux and other open source tools as capable solutions to Microsoft problems.

So while it’s fun to say “Linux has won,” the fact is Linux is merely a tool being used by a company looking to keep themselves relevant. This means embracing IoT technology and pushing cloud services further than in years past. Should this be considered a success for Linux and the Linux community? No, it’s a success for Microsoft – not the Linux community. I don’t have a problem with Microsoft utilizing Linux. I have an issue with the fact that Microsoft’s view on IP rights hasn’t changed at all, despite the claims of “loving Linux.”

Microsoft loves enterprise Linux – not the Linux community

The recent news of Red Hat working with Microsoft has some people raising their eyebrows in concern. In truth, however, this is basically Red Hat and Microsoft working together to meet mutual goals. In short, this offers absolutely nothing positive or negative to the Linux community. It’s simply a partnership.

This is important because it’s something to consider when we look at Microsoft Linux adoption. It’s further proof that Microsoft’s recent embracing of Linux is merely a by product of larger Microsoft enterprise goals. Sorry, no tin foil hat conspiracies here. Microsoft is simply doing what publicly traded companies are designed to do – earn more money for their shareholders.

Is this bad for the Linux community? Not necessarily. Then again, neither is Microsoft entering into partnerships necessarily negative. It’s simply something that Microsoft feels is of benefit to them.

Should the Linux community be concerned? Not at all. But understand that the Linux Foundation, Linux businesses and similar represent their own interests first. Companies like Red Hat have done awesome things for the Linux community, but they will always put the enterprise need first because that’s what they’re supposed to do as a business.

What say you? Completely disagree or perhaps, have additional thoughts? Hit the Comments, I’d like to heard your thoughts on the matter.

Also see: Ubuntu History: Linux Evolves

This Ubuntu review of 18.04 is going to be more blunt than what you’ve seen elsewhere. Perhaps a bit of tough love.

Not because there is anything wrong with the release or the distro. Rather the fact that in 2018 Ubuntu’s big push isn’t for the desktop any longer. The 18.04 release is about developing technologies, not desktop technologies.

This Ubuntu 18.04 review will touch on the areas we need to consider before upgrading or switching to a new distro. Allow me to say: my opinions may not be terribly popular, but they are my own.

Ubuntu 18.04 data collection

I’m all for the idea of choosing to opt in for hardware data collection. Done effectively, it allows us to expand on challenges like dual-graphics switching on select notebook PCs, oddball wireless configurations and other issues that might crop up that better hardware detection might solve.

Where 18.04’s data collection completely loses me is the idea that the Ubuntu development team needs to know my “general” location (West Coast, etc.) or why they need to know which applications I have installed. Historically, I’ve never been a fan of Ubuntu crash reporting as it’s the very first thing I disable. Ubuntu 18.04 data collection feels like apport and then some with geo and software popularity data collection.

To make matters worse, you must disable data collection from three separate places. The first thing to disable is the hardware use data collection. Benign enough, but none of Ubuntu’s business as far as I’m concerned. Second, the application popularity reporting. Not only is this the absolute dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of with a distro, it’s again, none of Ubuntu’s business. The last item is in my opinion, the only data collection feature I’d argue is anyone’s business.

Apport data collection while tremendously annoying with its past popups, does lead to bug fixes. Despite any value of apport reporting, I do not like my distro doing anything without me explicitly choosing to enable these features. I will never be okay with data collection by default.

Now before we move on from the data collection element of Ubuntu, I need to state that the Ubuntu devs have been transparent in what is being collected. The report collection GUI allows you to see the contents of the hardware collection report. So that is a positive move for a feature that should still be disabled by default.

Ubuntu 18.04 live kernel patching

The idea behind live kernel patching is fantastic. And for servers, cloud instances and other enterprise specific examples not needing to reboot live hardware is a huge benefit. Enter the desktop space: Does it really matter for desktop users? On reasonably modern hardware, I’d argue it’s a convenience at best. Regardless of my own view of it for desktop users, Ubuntu 18.04 kernel live patching has a decent GUI.

It’s made pretty clear that the GUI for the live kernel patching is being aimed at enterprise users. The general idea being you can update the kernels on up to three workstations without rebooting any of them. The capability of doing this comes down to the Ubuntu One account service. This again makes this the GUI kernel updater useless for casual Ubuntu users in my opinion. But perhaps there are instances where such a non-reboot option is useful for workstations somewhere along the line.

Ubuntu 18.04 minimal install option

While the option to install a minimal Ubuntu install may not do much for saving disk space, it does offer a lot in terms of avoided application clutter. I personally think this is the best feature thus far with the Ubuntu 18.04 release. Now I will grant you that the concept of an Ubuntu minimal install isn’t completely new. It is however, new for its inclusion on a standard Ubuntu desktop ISO.

The reason I like this option so much is that I get to choose what my default applications will be. And while this may sound silly on the surface, I’d counter with the idea that it allows me to better customize multiple installations without having to remove stuff I don’t want. I also see this as yet another enterprise focused benefit. If you had to deploy a number of workstations and each of them had different application needs, this would be a huge time saver.

Ubuntu 18.04 uses Xorg

I’m actually pleased to discover that this Ubuntu release will be relying on the aging yet always compatible Xorg display server. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, Wayland has a long way to go before it’s ready for use. Last time I checked, no dual monitor support, no proprietary driver support and of course, oodles of applications that still rely heavily on Xorg over Wayland.

To be fair, one can deep dive into XWayland and Weston for some of those legacy applications such as screen recording applications. Personally, I’ll stick with the Ubuntu default of Xorg as it means less messing around with Wayland tweaks and whatnot. One can make the argument that Wayland is more modern and elegant. However I’ll go on record in stating that it’s not the right choice for Ubuntu yet. Clearly, the developers agree it is best a secondary option for the time being.

Ubuntu 18.04 GNOME desktop

I must first disclose that despite trying to use GNOME 3.x over the years, I simply prefer the simplicity of more traditional desktops in its stead. That said, Ubuntu has definitely found its stride with the GNOME desktop. From the application menu to the launcher to the indicators in the upper right hand corner, Ubuntu is making the GNOME menu work for them in a positive light.

Buttons to control each window are in the positions that make the most sense. Window behavior feels natural for the most part. And if I’m being completely forthcoming, I would say the switch from Unity to GNOME was a wise decision. Gone are the days of that archaic HUD (heads up display). Instead, you have GNOME interface with a Unity-like launcher bar.

Ubuntu 18.04 now…and tomorrow

So what does Ubuntu 18.04 hold for the future? Well as it stands now, 32bit images are off the table and are no longer available. It’s becoming readily apparent that 18.04 is about change and much of that change is centered around the needs of IoT and cloud services. At the same time, it’s fair to point out that Ubuntu hasn’t dumped casual desktop users.

What say you? Are you going to be trying Ubuntu 18.04 anytime soon? Perhaps instead you’ll stick with other distros either based on Ubuntu or using a completely different distro base altogether? Hit the comments and tell me about it.

I’ve had the pleasure of talking with small business owners in the past about moving their business over to open source technologies. I’ve also heard officers of major corporations speak on the same topic, typically in a conference setting.

The overall point that was shared between the two business types is that in order to switch an enterprise environment to a completely different enterprise environment (software specifically), there needs to be a cause or an identifiable reason why switching to open source software makes sense.

Open Source Software Switching Considerations

I once worked as a consultant for a company that was at the time considered a “Microsoft Shop.” That meant the company relied on Microsoft solutions for many of their enterprise software needs. When I inquired about why they didn’t consider using open source alternatives, the reasons given included everything from not wishing to throw away the already huge investment to having already trained everyone to use the products provided. And for the most part, despite the huge cost, the solutions provided worked.

When the company started years ago, open source enterprise solutions were largely unavailable at the time. Those options were not nearly as trusted as they are today. Because you must remember, whatever solution one chooses for their business – it must be dependable and you must be able to find support if needed.

I personally think it’s that last part that makes getting businesses to “make the switch” to open source solutions so difficult.

Easy ways to switch your business to open source

The two easiest ways to begin using open source business solutions is when starting a brand new business or when you’re introducing brand new software (that’s not replacing an existing solution). With both examples, the key takeaways are that you’re not trying to change learned behavior.

For example, let’s say you’re getting ready to implement a new CRM application for your business. For the sake of this example, let’s also say that you are introducing the use of a CRM for the very first time. This means when you get the CRM instance up and running, there aren’t any preconceived notions of how it should interact with your business. This opens the doors to implementing an open source CRM without trying to get your co-workers onboard and dumping a pre-existing CRM platform.

This is yet again an example of why running open source solutions before the business has grown into a proprietary rut makes sense. There are no pre-existing expectations to overcome and this makes everyone’s life easier.

If none of the above is an option for you, then I’d suggest taking the baby step approach to introducing open source software into your business. Look for solutions that your business needs, that are no longer available. This is very common, especially with accounting, CRM, and other groupware solutions. When this happens, you’re likely to be presented with the problem that the user data in these platforms is locked in with limited export options. If this doesn’t terrify the powers that be within your business, nothing will.

If this problem falls onto your shoulders instead of someone elses, you may need to hire outside help to get your data out of the vendor lock-in nightmare. Once the data is safe, you’re able to make sure that you’re relying on open source alternatives in the future.

Open Source Software Examples For Your Business

Let’s start off with the basics we might want to replace with open source alternatives. First up is clearly going to be Microsoft Exchange. Assuming you’re starting off fresh or otherwise able to get your data free from its grasp, migrating to Kolab is a no-brainer. Kolab is a modern, cable MS Exchange alternative that will ensure your data is accessible in terms of ownership and up time.

For business accounting, I recommend migrating to BeanBooks. It’s been tested by and relied upon by mid-sized company System76. Plus, it can be managed either locally or as a service provided by the aforementioned company above.

Next up, you’ll need a decent open source CRM solution. One great all around CRM option is EspoCRM. Available both as a cloud option or something you have locally on premise, EspoCRM allows you to create and cultivate your customer relations in an open source environment that’s good for your business.

And of course, none of this matters without modern open source human resources software. That’s where IceHrm saves the day. This open source HR software provides you with the tools needed to manage your employee’s time at work, vacations and so forth. Best of all, it does so in a secure way – not something that can be said for all HR software out there.

The last example I want to present is for businesses that may have a customer front facing element. Whether that’s retail or simply the need to process payments, this is typically referred to as POS or point of sale. One of the best is called uniCenta. It is capable of working with just about any retail environment and is scalable to meet your needs for handing POS transactions.

Now it’s time for the last suggestion and I’ve truly saved the best for last – a single application that can be scaled to handle every single element of your business. It’s called odoo and it can be scaled to handle your ERP, CRM, accounting, HR, inventory/POS, project management and more. The only area that it lacks in is that it’s not ideal for groupware tasks. I’d stick to Kolab for that. But otherwise, it’s nearly a one size fits all open source solution for your business.

Should your business go open source?

I think it’s important to consider whether or not it even makes sense for your business to go open source? If it’s new, then the obvious answer is that going open source with as many elements as possible means you’re in the drivers seat and keeping your data free.

On the same level, it’s difficult for existing enterprise environments to make the switch due to employee expectations, existing workplace system requirements and the overall headache that comes from changing anything deeply ingrained into a workplace culture.

My parting advice to you would be this: open source makes sense when it offers your company something of benefit. Cost and avoiding vendor lock-in are indeed considerations to remember. But by the same token, if you can’t find the benefit by making the switch, then it may not be right for your business.

What say you? Do you feel that a mix of open source and proprietary is the best way forward for most enterprise environments? Perhaps instead, you believe it should be all or nothing? Hit the Comments, let’s hear your perspective on this business topic.

For the past few years, Linux Mint has been unstoppable in terms of attracting new users. I honestly never really understood its appeal over Ubuntu MATE. However, the fact remains that the Cinnamon desktop seems to be a large part of its appeal.

Recently I had the pleasure of discovering another desktop distro that is aimed at newer uses. It’s lightning fast, and offers fantastic support for features that newer Linux users are usually looking for. This distro is called MX Linux and it’s latest release is called MX 17.

In this article, we’re going to compare both Linux Mint and MX Linux. This is less about seeing which one is “better,” as that would be a matter of personal preference. Rather, I wanted to share the differences in features, distro base and other important elements that make these distros worth considering.

Why you might consider Linux Mint

Linux Mint is generally considered to be the Ubuntu based distro using the Cinnamon desktop. What I mean by that is that while there are other desktops available for Mint users, Cinnamon is their flagship option.

The overall layout of the Cinnamon desktop is presented with a clear, easy to follow desktop flow. People can suggest whatever they want, however the fact is people who are coming from Windows usually prefer to switch to a traditional desktop experience. This means a menu launcher that is discoverable and leads to one’s applications and settings.

Now when Linux Mint first came out, the “easy” factor was mostly about the inclusion of restricted codecs and video drivers right out of the box. Because back then, Ubuntu was using GNOME 2 (as was Mint at that time) and outside of codecs, there really wasn’t a tangible difference between Mint and Ubuntu.

Some years later, when Unity was released – Linux Mint received a huge shot of popularity due to the fact that Unity was pretty terrible in its early days. And while its issues were ironed out over time, the fact remained that Unity was a resource hog when compared to the “then new” Cinnamon desktop with Linux Mint.

It was at this point, we found that Linux Mint offered its users the popular Ubuntu base without the Unity desktop. I might argue that this was less of a valuable point when you considered Xubuntu or Ubuntu MATE as they offered both a lightweight user experience and a traditional desktop. But I think Mint users also found themselves preferring the Linux Mint tools in addition to the Cinnamon desktop experience.

Linux Mint Tools

Fairly early on, Linux Mint understood the value of providing a custom tool set. One of the most recognizable tools found with Linux Mint has to be their Software Center. Despite it feeling a bit dated looking, it’s fast to load, easy to navigate and does the job of software discovery and rating very easily. Installing applications is straight forward as well.

Taking software and package control even further, is the Mint Software Sources manager. Mint provides PPA access in its own section, official repos are separated from unofficial repos, plus you have maintenance options for fixing broken packages. Newer Linux users like having everything in a clearly labeled section, especially without any additional pulldown menus. Linux Mint makes handling your repositories and PPAs a snap without needing to install extra PPA managers or mixing PPA entries in with your default repositories.

Additional MintTools worth noting include MintUpdate, which allows you to customize which updates you install using a numbering system to classify risk of breakage. Next is MintBackup which is a fantastic app in that you can backup both your user data and your installed applications. This allows users to migrate to a new computer with great ease since it’s more reliable than trying to install each application onto a new machine. There are additional MintTools, however I think these are the specific tools that win over newcomers to Linux Mint.

Linux Mint uses Ubuntu LTS as a base

Earlier I mentioned that Linux Mint uses Ubuntu for its base. Not only do they use Ubuntu, Mint also relies on Ubuntu Long Term Releases (LTS). This means you’ll use a reliable, stable distro vs something that is not offered with LTS benefits. Be warned, the LTS is for Ubuntu only…however historically using a LTS core from Ubuntu has lent itself to a solid experience for distros based on Ubuntu.

Despite its LTS base, you can use the Mint updater tool to access both installed kernels and available to download kernels. This is useful if you need to try a newer kernel for newer hardware or perhaps have a bug with a current kernel and need an alternative.

Another important benefit to Linux Mint using the Ubuntu LTS as their core is that it allows Mint to do releases when the Mint team feels a release is “ready,” not on some set schedule. This wouldn’t work if Mint was a rolling release or on a six month release cycle.

That covers the benefits of using Linux Mint. Now let’s talk about another great distro called MX Linux.

Why you might consider MX Linux

MX Linux is a XFCE desktop distro based on Debian stable and antiX. This distro is also augmented by ongoing backports and additions. Because it comes with a customized install of the XFCE desktop, users coming from Windows will find the launcher/panel flow to feel very natural, especially if they are users who come from a Windows 7 workflow.

At its core, you might even consider MX Linux to be very Ubuntu-like in terms of being pre-configured to make the user experience as simple and as straightforward as possible. The difference however, is that if Ubuntu disappeared tomorrow, MX Linux would be largely unaffected while Linux Mint might have to retool to get away from their Ubuntu core.

So who are the most common user types of MX Linux? I suspect it’s a mix of antiX/Simply Mepis users and others who simply wanted to try something different. MX Linux’s current release is MX 17 and it’s one of the best XFCE desktop experiences I’ve ever used.

MX Linux features

MX Linux comes with a number of great options from an easy to use software installation tool to a custom tweaking tool that is similar to what you might find with GNOME Tweak. Additionally, MX Linux provides you with tools that allow you to repair broken grub menus and correct broken GPG keys. These are considered advanced features that might otherwise need to be done from the command line, whereas MX Linux allows you to make these repairs with a simple dialog.

Other useful functionality found with MX Linux includes a Live USB kernel updater, remastering and cloning tool. These are useful for anyone looking to overcome a kernel issue or simply to customize their own version of MX Linux that meets their specific needs. You might also notice these sort of tools are more advanced than what most newbies might need. This is one of the most flexible elements of MX Linux. It’s suitable for newbies with a restricted driver/codec installer, yet can grow with your abilities into creating custom ISO images or selecting new kernels from a live USB stick for an installed MX Linux instance.

MX Linux Software options

One of my favorite features that will appeal to users of all skill levels is the software selection. The software installer has applications available that on an Ubuntu or Linux Mint system, might only be available from a PPA. These applications available for installation are sorted by commonly installed to the more advanced “user need.” Best of all, thanks to the backports and other antiX offerings, the software is all cutting edge and not outdated even though this is a distro based on Debian stable. This alone, is a huge selling point.

Think of it – the software that you want, without worrying about finding it in a PPA. This includes software found in Debian Stable, Testing and from other non-Debian sources and curated for MX Linux users and kept up to date through MX repos.

MX Linux is lightning fast, stable and yet still offers modern versions of the software you might expect from other Linux distros.

Linux Mint or MX Linux

So which of these two distros is right for you? Let me put it this way. I have my nephew running MX Linux on his older i3 powered Ideabook. It’s blazing fast, allowed him to easily install Steam and PlayonLinux without ever opening a browser. He also has Kodi and Plex installed, all without needing to browse the web.

When I first set it up for him, I selected the kernel I felt was best for his needs and also chose a Conky output that I thought he’d enjoy. Conky is provided out of the box, as luck would have it. Best of all, there are additional Conky configurations my nephew can select in the future if he so desires. Then again, he simply uses the computer for the Internet, word processing and Linux/WINE gaming. He is not an “I have to have Windows” type of user.

That said, if I was to introduce one of these distros to someone who has never used Linux before, I once again think I’d choose MX Linux. I say this as I support the operating systems I install. And, historically, I’ve had zero breakage issues with MX Linux and it’s Broadcom support blows away Mint based on my tests. I’m sure that’s merely a reflection of some Broadcom chipsets, but my experience is pretty difficult for me to ignore.

Perhaps the biggest thing for me is that XFCE applets just work. Whereas Cinnamon applets (spices) are, well, less than dependable. Sure, if you never try to use the ones that are installed and activated, all is well. However if you try adding any new “spices” (applets) to your Cinnamon panel, it’s a toss up as to what will actually work as needed. No thanks.

If I was to install Linux Mint, I’d be more inclined to install Mint XFCE edition. It may not be their flag ship product, but it has Mint’s software tool benefits without the nonsense that is Cinnamon. I think Cinnamon is fast and attractive, however it frustrates me in the same way as GNOME does with its extensions. XFCE applets, while boring, work and work without issue.

What say you? Think I’m wrong or perhaps, have another angle to this comparison I might have missed? Hit the comments, I’d love to hear about it.

Over the years, we’ve seen countless articles state that we’re entering the fabled Year of the Linux Desktop. They cite the advantages of Linux. Other articles, still, have expressed that specific advantages don’t matter – those who switch to Linux need to be motivated by a specific reason.

In any case, many of those switching will be migrating from Windows. So it’s important to understand the core differences between Windows and Linux, now in 2018.

Windows vs Linux – the Linux View

When we think of Linux on the desktop, we almost always think of the top distros listed on DistroWatch.com. In reality, any perceived success with an OS is more about what it allows its users to do and less to do with what a ranking website indicates.

There is one undeniable reality with desktop Linux users – desktop Linux users fall into two separate groups. The first group are users who simply want an experience that works. They want predictable application and hardware support, and are usually individuals who are task motivated or gamers. The second group are desktop Linux users who want to control how their PCs run. They want no unneeded bloat, and only install what is needed. Distros that offer the user the ability to control what and how they run.

Traditionally the first group was thought to be new users and the second group advanced Linux users. But this isn’t really accurate. I’ve found advanced users who fall into the first group while beginners are seeking to run more complicated distros. So my statement on the two groups stand, everything else is fluid.

Windows vs Linux – the Windows View

I have never in my entire life met anyone who uses Windows because they’re passionate about the operating system. This is not a negative comment, rather, a statement of fact. People usually run an operating system to accomplish a specific task. Yes, the layout and user experience plays a part in whether or not a user prefers one OS over another. But in the end, if a user can’t accomplish a task on an OS that needs to be done, the platform’s appearance is of little consequence.

This is where Windows comes in. Generally speaking, love it or hate it, Windows allows its users to accomplish the tasks a user sets out to do. At least that’s the general idea. When Windows 10 rolled out, the perceived promise was that Microsoft learned from the mistakes made with Windows 8 – putting a stop to the touch UI first nonsense and bringing back a more traditional feel to the desktop. Windows 10 was supposed to be a throwback to a predictable user experience.

Unfortunately, Windows 10 presented some interesting challenges. First off, allowing non-enterprise editions of an operating system to update without express permission didn’t go over too well. Yes, eventually forced updates were addressed and that’s great. Sadly the same cannot be said for Windows 10 compatible PCs running older versions of Windows – you’re going to eventually wake up one day and find it running Windows 10. This is expressly allowed in their licensing and that’s just how it is. By the way, this is a terrible approach…but it’s all done in the name of increased security as to keep things patched and up to date.

Is Windows Better than Linux?

Setting all that aside, we must also acknowledge that Windows is the main OS available when you purchase a new computer. When you go to an international retailer like Amazon or a big box store locally, you’re looking at Windows PCs. The only two exceptions to this are the limited selection of Chromebooks and Macs running OS X.

This issue alone has played a huge part of Windows remaining the dominant operating system in the PC space. It’s pretty easy to be popular when 99% of the computers offered only come pre-installed with a single OS.

Does this mean that Windows is better than Linux? To the untrained eye, it likely appears this way. After all, it’s what’s available. But the truth of the matter is much more complicated than that.

Windows as an operating system has made great strides very early on to attract developers. So in addition to the fact it’s popular through its monopoly of the OS market, they also have a monopoly on software compatibility. Think about it. If you want to offer software for a desktop user and want to reach the biggest market possible, you’re creating software for Windows. This led Windows to become a leader with gaming, office, media production and print production work.

This software compatibility issue was so bad, that it took the smartphone market to finally make a dent in the issue. Finally, thanks to Android and iOS, we now see developers targeting the masses on something besides Windows only.

Next up, we have hardware support. Windows does indeed offer a wide range of support for motherboards, pre-built PCs, CPUs and of course, peripherals. All of that said, however, you will absolutely not find that its legacy driver support is top notch because it’s simply not. Windows does well for devices that blatantly state on a label or box that the device offers support for specific Windows releases. So while any new device is going to have great support for Windows 10, you might find that Windows 7 or older doesn’t work. Worse, you may find older devices simply don’t have drivers available at all for Windows 10.

Taking this issues further, I’ve personally seen a large number of low-end Windows 7 laptops that have huge driver issues with basic stuff like touchpad, ethernet/wifi, and peripheral support for devices from the same era as the laptop. That’s not my opinion, that is a demonstrable fact. So while a new laptop and a new peripheral had great support for Windows 10, older hardware was quite limited. And understand, this isn’t an issue with Microsoft, this is an issue with the device manufacturer’s lack of motivation to create new drivers for older hardware.

Or, Wait, Is Linux Better than Windows?

Finding a PC with Linux pre-installed is much easier than it used to be. Granted, you won’t likely be doing this locally unless you live in a random area where some random guy is selling pre-installed PCs. However online there are a number of great vendors out there providing both hardware solutions in addition to supporting those great hardware options. So, while this isn’t outstanding, it’s a decent place to start.

Linux the kernel, bundled with other tools and software to make up one of the many distros available to us these days is built with a tremendous amount of teamwork from developers all over the world. Instead of being created by one company or one single group of individuals, it’s an endeavour that takes on ideas and contributions from an incredible number of people from all over the world. Yet despite this, software (both FoSS and proprietary) pales in comparison in terms of choices for the end user.

Yet if we set aside the fact that there may not be as much software choice available to Linux users, we do have software available to us that is almost exclusively open source. This means that we will never experience vendor lock-in stating that we can’t export our email client data from one application to another. It also means that many of the Linux applications we enjoy can take the user data from one OS and use that same user data on a proprietary OS like Windows running a FoSS application.

For example if I run Firefox on Windows, I can actually migrate my user data over to a Linux distro if I so choose to do so. This data mobility is one of the most valuable assets to casual Linux users. It’s your data, migrate it however you like and never concern yourself with being unable to use it on another OS. If it’s a FoSS application, user data will almost always be cross platform.

Another item of consideration about Linux software is that while there may not be as many titles available to us, we do have some pretty powerful applications at our disposal. Krita is an extremely powerful paint program. LibreOffice provides users all over the world with an outstanding office suite. Blender, Kdenlive and Open Broadcaster Studio bring us the ability to create amazing 3D effects that can be streamed to the world, recorded and then edited in a professional manner.

Are there some missing things that some users need? Yes, some office environments are married to MS Office workflows, require Adobe products for creative tasks and would rather use hardware streaming solutions over software alternatives. There is nothing wrong with needing to address these requirements. However stating that Linux is lacking because some users need this stuff is silly. It would be like saying that Windows isn’t good because I can’t use my favorite Linux software on a Windows box. It’s simply a matter of personal need and preference.

Next we have Linux hardware compatibility. Linux hardware and peripheral compatibility is very different than what you might find with Windows. I’m not going to state that one OS is better than the other in this area. Linux has all relevant hardware detection rolled into the kernel. What’s unique about this is that this includes hardware or peripherals that might otherwise be considered older by Windows standards. So while you may need to wait for a newer kernel for some of the absolutely latest hardware support, most hardware under Linux is detected without missing a beat.

Where most people fall down in terms of getting things working with Linux and their hardware configurations has to do with configuration, loaded modules and user error. Thankfully in 2018, most configurations, modules and so forth are handled with little to no user interaction. Obviously there are exceptions, usually with wireless devices or selecting the best video driver for your needs. But it’s a non-issue most of the time.

Who Should Run Windows? Who Should Run Linux?

I’m a firm believer in finding a platform that allows the end user to accomplish their tasks with as little interference as possible. In 2018, I’ve found that for many people Linux on the desktop is indeed a solid option. And while some will point out that installing Linux may vex some folks, I’d counter with the fact most people don’t install operating systems in the first place. Of course installing Linux would present a challenge – if it didn’t come pre-installed.

Suffice it to say that the biggest challenge for most people interested in using Linux is trying to get a dual-boot setup with Windows. With UEFI being the de facto feature that comes with PCs running Windows these days, installing Linux often requires extra steps that may confuse some newcomers. Unfortunate, as this hurdle isn’t even something that has anything to do with Linux in the first place.

But if you can get past those challenges, there is no question that using Linux is quite pleasant on the desktop. I ought to know, I’ve been doing it for well over a decade. I prefer it for my needs and have come to know the applications made available to the platform. I still support Windows users though. And despite this reality, I’ll be the first to admit that the way Windows handles drivers and other elements of the desktop leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. Again, if Windows works for you, great, use what works. However if you’re willing to learn something new, aren’t expecting Linux to behave as Windows and understand that the experience can indeed be a positive one, I highly suggest trying out Linux using a flash drive.

Because let’s face it – the one killer feature Linux has had for years is a live install that doesn’t touch your hard drive. Bundle this with the fact that there are a ton of distros with different desktop experiences to try out, you might just find that Linux is the way you want to run your desktop in 2018.

One of the most important elements new website owners fail to give enough consideration to is in selecting the right open source content management system (CMS) for their website. Obviously some websites are put together without the inclusion of a full CMS. Yet those websites used in enterprise environments are almost always employing some kind of CMS for easy content handling. Continue reading for my recommended best CMS options.

WordPress Open Source CMS

One of the most popular CMS solutions available today is WordPress. The reason why WordPress is so popular is due to how simple it is to use. Today WordPress is easily considered to be the most popular CMS of all time.

WordPress is available both as a do it yourself installable solution to be used on your own server or can be run from a managed service like WordPress.com. You can run it as is from a base installation, or add extended functionality through the use of WordPress plugins.

WordPress is widely targeted by malicious individuals who try to exploit out of date WordPress installations or those installations that are using insecure configurations. But so long as you keep things up to date and research how to harden your WordPress installation in the first place, you won’t have any issues to speak of.

WordPress is best for those who want a blog-friendly platform, yet might also want to extend its functionality beyond mere blogging and sharing content online. WordPress is usually best for those of you who wish to setup an entry level CMS that can grow with your needs over time.

Drupal Open Source CMS

Working with Drupal is usually best for those who are very comfortable with HTML, CSS and PHP. If you shine in web development, then using Drupal won’t be too difficult for you. Drupal is usually best if you’re looking into building up a database driven website that needs to be fast, highly customized (using your own skills) and provides a robust developer friendly CMS environment that can act as a blank canvas.

One way to differentiate between Drupal and WordPress, is to think of Drupal as a blank page, whereas WordPress might be a vanilla blog. Both CMS environments allow you to customize much of the user experience, whereas Drupal goes a step farther in lending itself to customize much of the backend to better suit your needs.

Drupal is best for a web developer who needs a CMS framework, but doesn’t feel like building one from scratch. Drupal is absolutely not for anyone who is looking for a simple default installation experience.

Joomla Open Source CMS

Joomla is one of the best popular CMS platforms you see all the time, yet we’re never actually aware of it. Without giving away too many names, many of the popular chain restaurants and e-commerce websites on the Web today are running with well maintained Joomla installations.

If I was to mention the one thing I love about Joomla over other open source CMS’ is its balance between ease of use and control. For example, on Joomla I can control RSS layouts, banner placements, user permissions and other important elements without using special themes or plugins. Should I find a feature not included on the default installation of Joomla, I can add it using Joomla extensions. To point out that Joomla is powerful would be an understatement.

Joomla is best for anyone looking to take deeper control of how they present their CMS web content. It’s also fantastic for anyone looking to produce a website that has e-commerce capabilities. If deeper control, customizable options and other more robust elements are interesting to you – Joomla may be the perfect CMS for your needs.

Concrete5 Open Source CMS

One of the lesser known CMS applications that has proven to be interesting is called Concrete5. This MIT licensed CMS is interesting in that you can manipulate each individual page by clicking on edit, then moving elements of that page around to suit your needs. Being able to do this without any add-ons or extensions, is very powerful.

So while Joomla and others may have larger support communities, Concrete5 offers a balance between WordPress’s ease of use and Joomla’s individual page control. Concrete5 has proven popular for websites looking to produce magazine experiences and general web portals.

Concrete5 is probably best for anyone looking for drag and drop page arrangement in their CMS. While it’s possible with other CMS’ through extensions, it’s best to use this functionality in a native environment if at all possible.

TYPO3 Open Source CMS

I found TYPO3 to be an interesting CMS in that it seems to borrow useful elements from other CMS applications, but sets out on a path all its own. TYPO3 puts an equal amount of emphasis on standard CMS functionality and the ability for developers to build off of the CMS to customize it to their own needs.

TYPO3 also has the ability to be expanded, using extensions. However the overall control offered by a default installation reminds me a bit of Joomla. With permissions, users, deep page control, it’s a strong CMS indeed.

Another interesting element to the TYPO3 user experience is the Ajax drag and drop elements. This functionality is similar to what you might find with Concrete5. Useful for less code savvy users, but perhaps not as much for someone coming from a CMS like Drupal.

TYPO3 is a CMS best for those who are looking for a highly customizable experience, but still prefer to have the ability to control the layout of their content pages using mouse dragging. You can expand on its capabilities using extensions or get a lot out of it with a default installation.

Other Open Source CMS solutions

Obviously there are countless other CMS solutions available to you out there. And I certainly encourage you to check them out. That said, I selected the ones listed here with the most critical features: extendable, secure, open source and provide decent support from their perspective communities.

What say you? Perhaps you have an open source CMS that you think is fantastic and would like to share with the readers here? If so, please post to the Comments below and tell us about it. I’m especially interested in hearing your views about the security aspects of simple to use CMS environments vs the more advanced, difficult to use alternatives.

I’ll be the first to admit that I tend to try out new Linux distros on a far too frequent basis. Yet the method I use to test them, does vary depending on my goals for each instance. In this article, we’re going to look at both running Linux virtual machines and running Linux live images. There are advantages to each method, but there are some hurdles with each method as well.

Testing out a new Linux distro for the first time

When I test out a brand new Linux distro for the first time, the method I use depends heavily on the resources of the PC I’m currently on. If I have access to my desktop PC, I’m going to run the distro to be tested in a virtual machine. The reason for this approach is that I can download and test the distro in not only a live environment, but also as an installed product with persistent storage abilities.

On the other hand, if I am working with much less robust hardware on a PC, then testing out a distro with a virtual machine installation of Linux is counter-productive. I’d be pushing that PC to its limits and honestly would be better off using a live Linux image instead running from a flash drive.

Touring software on a new Linux distro

If you’re interested in checking out a distro’s desktop environment or the available software, you can’t go wrong with a live image of the distro. A live environment provides you with a birds eye view of what to expect in terms of overall layout, applications provided and how the user experience flows overall.

To be fair, you could do the same thing with a virtual machine installation, but it may be a bit overkill if you would rather avoid filling up hard drive space with yet more data. After all, this is a simple tour of the distro. Remember what I said in the first section – I like to run Linux in a virtual machine to test it. This means I’m going to see how it installs, what the partition options look like and other elements you wouldn’t see from using a live image of any given distro.

Touring usually indicates that you’re only looking to take a quick look at a distro, so in this case the method that can be done with the least amount of resistance and time investment is a good course of action.

Taking a Linux distro with you

While it’s not as common as it was a few years ago, the ability to take a Linux distro with you may be a consideration for some users. Obviously, virtual machine installations don’t necessarily lend themselves favorably to portability. However a live image of a Linux distro is actually quite portable. A live image can be written to a DVD or copied onto a flash drive for easy traveling.

Expanding on this concept of Linux portability, it’s also beneficial to have a live image on a flash drive when showing off how Linux works on a friend’s computer. This empowers you to demonstrate how Linux can enrich their life while not relying on running a virtual machine on their PC. It’s a bit of a win-win in favor of using a live image.

Alternative to dual-booting Linux

This next item is a huge one. Consider this – perhaps you’re a Windows user. You like playing with Linux, but would rather not take the plunge. Dual-booting is out of the question in case something goes wrong or perhaps you’re not comfortable identifying individual partitions. Whatever the case may be, both using Linux in a virtual machine or from a live image might be a great option for you.

Now I’m going to take a rather odd stance on something. I think you’ll get far more value in the long term running Linux on a flash drive using a live image than with a virtual machine. There are two reasons for this. First of all, you’ll get used to truly running Linux vs running it inside of a virtual machine on top of Windows. Second, you can setup your flash drive to contain user data with persistent storage.

I’ll grant you the same could be said with a virtual machine running Linux, however you will never have an update break anything using the live image approach. Why? Because you’re not updating a host OS or the guest OS. Remember there are entire distros that are designed to be nothing more than persistent storage Linux distros. Puppy Linux is one great example. Not only can it run on PCs that would otherwise be recycled or thrown away, it allows you to never be bothered again with tedious system updates thanks to the way the distro handles security. It’s not a normal Linux distro and it’s walled off in such a way that the persistent live image is free from anything scary.

When a Linux virtual machine is absolutely the best option

As I bring this article to a close, let me leave you with this. There is one instance where using a virtual machine such as Virtual Box is absolutely better than using a live image – recording the desktop environment of any Linux distro.

For example, I make videos that provide a tour and review of a variety of Linux distros. Doing this with live images would require me to capture the screen with a hardware device or install a software capture device from the live image’s repositories. Clearly, a virtual machine is better suited for this job than a live image of a Linux distro.

Once you toss audio capture into the mix, there is no question that if you’re going to use software to capture your review, you really want to have a host OS that has all the basic needs covered for a reasonably decent capture environment. Again, you could do all of this with a hardware device…but that might be cost prohibitive if you’re only do video/audio capturing as a part time endeavor.

A Linux virtual machine vs a Linux live image

What is your preferred method of trying out new distros? Perhaps you’re someone who is fine with formatting their hard drive and throwing caution to the wind, thus, making the idea of any of this unneeded?

Most people I’ve interacted with online tend to follow much of the methodology I’ve touched on above, but I’d love to hear what approach works best for you. Hit the comments, let me know which method you prefer when checking out the greatest and latest from the Linux distro world.