Windows and Mac users can download and install the newest Firefox version with a couple of mouse clicks. With Ubuntu Linux, however, no Firefox 3.6 is available in the Canonical package repository. Even worse, none of the developers plan to add any new Firefox versions to the repository until the next Ubuntu release. So, I attempted to install precompiled versions from the Mozilla website and the Ubuntu Firefox development build repository, but both installs really messed up the fonts, making them blurry and hard to read.
I tried desperately to fix the fonts, summoning the help of the Ubuntu forums. I tried editing font rendering settings in my local .fonts.conf. I deleted the font cache and reconfigured fontconfig. I tried adjusting a font quality parameter in Firefox’s about:config. For some forums posters, these solutions worked. For me, nothing seemed to help. Finally, I was able to get Firefox 3.6 installed with normal fonts by downloading and compiling the source code and installing the binaries compiled on my own system.
I’m not the only one who is frustrated by this. This was probably the first time I’ve resorted to compiling a third party application from source since first using Ubuntu and Debian in 2006. Normally, it’s just apt-get install whatever program you want. The package manager automatically updates everything and keeps out of my way, rarely nagging to reboot unless the kernel was updated. The package repository was one of the main reasons I switched to Linux in the first place: an easy, single step way to install anything and keep it up to date. No hunting for a download website somewhere on the internet or clicking through a bunch of dialogs in an install wizard.
With such lag before new third party applications get added to the Ubuntu software repository, plenty argue that Linux isn’t ready for the mainstream. I agree completely. Most people will have to go through similar steps as I to get many of the latest third party applications installed, and it can be a real pain. However, in Linux, I am free (as in speech) to customize or rewrite any part of the operating system and share my changes with others. It also gives me a free (as in beer), top notch development environment for my work. The problem is that such freedom comes at a cost: tinkering to get everything to work correctly. Every time I’ve upgraded to the latest Ubuntu version, something doesn’t work and has to be fixed. In another example, I recently installed the netbook remix version on my netbook and was rewarded by a flickering screen, which was fixed with a BIOS update.
Mainstream users just don’t want to be faced with flickering screens and BIOS updates, they want something that just works. Consequently, they are willing to give up some of that freedom (as in speech and beer) to have a device that boots normally and doesn’t have font rendering issues when they install the latest version of a program. Such users are better off with an Apple, and indeed Apple charges them a price in terms of money and control.
The iPad has launched a storm of controversy over its lack of user control. Essentially, the device is a large iPhone, except there is no phone. All applications must be purchased from the Apple-controlled App Store. The real question is: do mainstream users really need fine-grained control over their devices? One comment on a Slashdot post really makes an interesting argument:
What has choice done? It’s given us the chaos of spam, malware, worms etc… The average consumer should get a locked down device such as what Apple are proposing, a limited device with a closed market. And you do realise this is really no different to a games console. Full blown computers should be reserved for those of us who know how to manage them responsibly…Computers as they are today are simply too complex and difficult to manage for the average consumer, so you either give them something simple or you take the management out of their hands.
Combined with the “Linux is not for mainstream” argument, this really makes the case that perhaps devices that work well but allow little user freedom may be the best for most people. Most of the time, it’s the best choice for me. I’ve got a phone, media player, GPS device, and others that I want to just work and perform a very specific function. In these cases, I would rather they perform their jobs reliably than be extensively customizable. However, I do think that the option to exercise greater control should be there for those who want it, no matter how few. In the case of PCs, I’ll take that option, stick to Linux, and keep compiling from source when I have to.
Recent Comments