A Symphony For Viola: Parsix 1.5r0 Review

REGULAR readers of this blog will know I'm a huge fan of Parsix, the Debian-based Linux distribution created by a small team in Iran.
In my in-depth review of version 1.0 I said:

“The fact that it's all sitting on a Debian base is hugely reassuring, and my initial concerns about using a system primarily designed for Persian users – with all the language-based implications that brings – have been completely erased. Parsix 1.0 comes very highly recommended.”

Now we have Parsix 1.5r0, codename 'Viola', with the promise of extra features and improvements to what was already a fine operating system.
As of June 25th, all the packages in Parsix 1.5r0 have been synchronised between the Parsix and Debian Lenny (Testing) repositories, so rest assured, you're getting pretty cutting edge applications with this release.
Let me pick out some highlights: Linux 2.6.24.4; GNOME 2.22.2; X.Org 7.3; GNU Iceweasel 3.0 RC-2; OpenOffice.org 2.4.0; Glibc 2.7; Pidgin 2.4.2; GIMP 2.4.6; Synaptic 0.62; Exaile 0.2.13 and xFarDic 0.11.4.
Further, the developers have replaced GQView with gThumb image viewer, Camorama has been dropped in favour of the Cheese webcam utility, and both iptraf and nmap make a return.
For the first time – and this is where things get really interesting - Parsix Viola officially supports Compiz-Fusion, VirtualBox-OSE and GNU Flash Player, all of which I'll return to in due course.
The Parsix artwork team have been busy for this release: Gone is the Black/Blue/Orange theme; it's now Black/Green/Orange, along with a nice green default background with a distinctly oriental feel. It's a pleasing, professional look.Installing Parsix Viola is a fairly straightforward affair – it's done from a live CD environment (you don't have to install at all if you don't want to – just keep using Parsix as a live CD).
Just a note here about the boot options available when you first fire up the live CD: There are some nice options, including one to load into a 1200x800 widescreen resolution.
Installation is done by double-clicking on the desktop icon (you'll need the root password, which is 'parsix').
The only potential installation snag for new users is the fact that you have to have to have partitions ready for it at the outset.
The installer won't create those partitions for you; instead, you're pointed in the direction of Gparted in the System menu, which does the job nicely.
There's a really good installation guide here, which is suitable for absolute beginners.
It's as trouble-free an install as any I've come across and takes about 20 minutes from start to finish.
Once you boot into your HD install you're faced with a comprehensive range of programs sufficient to keep you productive in just about any area: Balsa handles your email; GIMP and Inkscape satisfy your artistic cravings; Brasero takes care of your burning desires; OpenOffice takes care of business; Transmission copes with your torrents and VLC keeps you entertained.
These are all well and good, but it was the newcomers that particularly interested me.
Primarily, I'm talking about VirtualBox and Gnash.
While 3D effects are of little interest to me, I should also report that Compiz works flawlessly and that there are excellent configuration utilities for both it and the Emerald theme manager, so if whizzy globes and burning windows are your thing, Viola has what you need.Given that you'll need 3D drivers before you can take full advantage of Compiz, there are also great guides for ATI and Nvidia graphics cards on the Parsix website.
Now to VirtualBox, my favourite piece of virtualisation software.
VirtualBox has started to appear in a lot of distribution repositories, but this is the first time I've come across it pre-installed in a distribution.This is the Open Source Edition (OSE) which, in the past, has tended to be a little flaky and lacking in features when compared with the full version downloadable from the VirtualBox website.
It's no longer either of those things, however, and the fact it's pre-installed means users not having to jump through the configuration hoops which have troubled us in the past.
This, alone, makes Parsix worth trying, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, I can't report the same level of satisfaction with Gnash, the free/open source Flash media player which comes with Viola.
I checked on the Gnash website first, to make sure my expectations weren't unrealistic, and I have to report that it wouldn't play YouTube Flash vidoes, as advertised.I then checked on the Parsix forum to see if any other users were having the same problem, and found one posting which advised dumping Gnash completely and replacing it with the Mozilla-Flash-Player.
A quick Google revealed Parsix users weren't the only ones having trouble with Gnash, which is a shame as I'd really like this project to be successful... maybe it's still just too early for it. We shall see.
I can't praise Parsix 1.5r0 enough: It's stable while being cutting edge, stylish while being practical and is certainly in my top five favourite distributions, which is saying something given how low-profile it remains (it's still only at No 57 on the Distrowatch page-hit ranking list, which is ridiculously low).
Try it – please – and you'll see what I mean.

Ain't That The Truth!

After reviewing the Asus Eee 900, I was surfing the tech websites looking at reviews of its competitors in the rapidly expanding netbook market, when I came across a good article on the PC Advisor website.
The review wasn't too complimentary about the Everex Cloudbook, but what really made me smile was the author's closing remark.
Here it is:

At present, we'd recommend the Everex CloudBook only to experienced Linux users who will view the inevitable hours they spend hacking their laptop as recreation, not hassle.

Oh great, now they've made me want one!

Review: Asus Eee 900

RARELY have a company shaken up the world of technology more than Asus did when they introduced their tiny Eee 701 notebook PC a year or so ago.
The Taiwanese firm's creation, while hampered by a too-small screen, sold out around the globe and spawned half a dozen rival mini-notebooks.
It's hard to appreciate the Eee without actually holding one: With the lid closed it's the size of a hard-backed bestseller and weighs about the same (940gm, for those who care).
I've been using the Eee 701's successor, the Eee 900, for a couple of weeks now and I have to say I'm rather taken with it.
For one thing, the screen is a larger 8.9inches with a 1024x600 resolution, which overcomes my major objection to the original model without increasing the overall size of the device.
The keyboard is too small for any serious word processing, particularly for an adult with medium-to-large hands, but is perfect for kids and teenagers.
My review unit came with Windows XP installed – the 701s all ran on a customised Xandros Linux operating system, which is still an option for the new model and its replacement, the 901, which launches here on July 1.
I actually prefer the Linux OS myself - I find it runs faster on the Eee's 900Mhz Celeron processor, although the 1024MB of RAM certainly helps push things along nicely.
Depending on which OS you have, there's either a 12GB solid state drive (Windows version) or a 20GB drive (Linux version), both of which are ample for this type of machine and which can be supplemented with Secure Digital memory cards via the built-in slot.
With either OS on board, wireless internet access is a breeze, plus there's a webcam if you want to do any video networking with the relatives. There's also an Ethernet slot for wired networking.I find the 900's tiny trackpad and mouse-control buttons quite hard to use – they do their job, but they take some getting used to and I'd be tempted to get a small travel mouse to plug into one of the three USB 2.0 ports available for peripherals.
When the 901 launches in the UK this week it will have Intel's Atom N270 CPU.
This chip runs at 1.6GHz but has been designed specifically for low-cost devices like the Eee PC.
While it doesn't offer more performance than the Celeron M used in the 900, it uses less power, so battery life is better.
The remainder of the specification stays the same, which brings me to my final concern about these latest Eee laptops – the price.
The Eee 900 I tested (thanks to www.pcworld.co.uk) costs £329, which brings it into the same price bracket as quite a few machines with much higher specifications and bigger screens.
I don't have a price for the 901 yet, but I doubt it will be less than that.
So, I can't help thinking that after their initial impact with the much cheaper 701, Asus are running the risk of pricing their Eees out of their target market – gadget-loving teenagers, students and seriously mobile types.
That said, the Eee 900 is a terrific achievement and certainly a major improvement on the 701, thanks to that increase in screen real estate.

Why Linux Developers Are Wasting Their Time

HOW many Linux users do you know who, once they have installed a new distribution, are so happy with its default appearance that they leave it alone?
I'm guessing here, but I think those people are in the minority.
If you're anything like me you will follow the same procedure.
Once I have a distribution I am happy with, in terms of its performance and stability, I always spend an hour or two getting it to look exactly how I want.
This can mean anything from changing the default icons, to altering the default font and window borders, and almost always involves getting rid of the default desktop wallpaper.
It doesn't even matter if you are using a distribution known for its good looks - and I fully expect an argument here - like Mandriva, or PCLinuxOS, or Fedora, you'll still have the irresistible urge to change something.
This ability to customise is fundamental to the Linux experience and is part of what makes it so attractive to its supporters.
Further, this freedom extends way deeper than superficial, cosmetic changes, down to system-level tweaks that no other OS allows.
I know it's possible to change the look of Microsoft Windows OSes, but not to the same extent as you can in the Linux world, and often not without spending money.
To illustrate the difference, consider the number of desktop environments and window managers available to the Linux user: KDE, GNOME, Xfce, Fluxbox, Openbox, Enlightenment, IceWM, JWM, LXDE, Mezzo (there may be more - let me know).
Then add to that the number of icon sets, window decorations, login screens, splash screens, mouse themes, KDM/GDM/XDM themes available.
And that's before we even start looking at the rapidly expanding world of 3D desktop customisation with things like Compiz and Beryl etc.
Can Microsoft, or even those style gurus at Apple, compete? I think not.
It leads me to think that the chances of any two Linux desktops anywhere in the world being exactly the same are minuscule.
Let me give you a simple illustration, from my own little PC world.
Try to guess what Linux distribution is shown in the screenshot - there's a tiny clue, if you look closely enough.Yes, it's Linux Mint 4.0 (did you see the 'Minty' domain name in my Conky setup?), but instead of running Mint's own customised GNOME desktop, I installed and configured Fluxbox as my desktop manager and added a nice, dark wallpaper I found on the internet.
Plus, I've changed the Fluxbox theme to one called 'Blackened', which has a glossy, 3D feel, which I found on www.box-look.org/.
Thinking about this whole issue of customising Linux led me to wonder how much time developers spend on the default appearance of their distributions, and further, if that time was well-spent.
I'm basing this argument on nothing more than my own experience, but I began wondering if that time might be better spent on improving system-level things, like stability, functionality and hardware compatibility?
Where is the sense in striving for a unique look for your distribution if, within a few hours of installing it, the user has completely changed its appearance?
Seems a waste of time, doesn't it? I know it would break my heart, if I'd spent hours working on a theme for my new distribution.
You might argue that some time needs to be spent on appearance to at least make a distribution stand out from the rest.
It certainly helps if, when you first log in to your new desktop, everything looks polished and professional.
But really, what's the point of spending hours trying to decide which icon set to use, or even creating a new one, if some awkward Joe like me is immediately going to change it for one that better suits his current mood?
My suggestion is this - and it covers some ground I've frequently made in my Linux reviews, regarding the need for User Guides.
Every distribution ought to have a User Guide, a simple text file, sitting there dead-centre on the desktop, just waiting for that new user to read and learn about how to administer his or her new system.
And that User Guide should include a section on how to customise the appearance of your system, with links to the *****-look.org family of community-driven websites, where there are hundreds of themes, icons, window decorations etc, all freely available.
Why don't developers settle for the default look of their chosen desktop environment?
Distributions don't really need to look so different, which means developers don't really need to spend valuable time trying to make them look so different.
Which, in turn, means more developer time can be spent on big-brain stuff that mere mortals like me can't do and really need someone smarter to do for us - like making everything work the way it should.
Leave the wallpaper to me - I can handle that myself.

POSTSCRIPT
I'm surprised at the reaction this article generated - I seem to have stuck a pointy stick into a hornet's nest!
That's OK, I'm more than happy to be shot down in flames by reasoned argument.
The point made in the Comments below about the benefits of branding for commercial distros is one I overlooked.
As a home user I'm blissfully ignorant of the requirements of the commercial world, but I now see the sense of such an exercise, so thank you to those readers who took the trouble to explain their thinking (I did, in fairness, say that making a distro look polished and professional was all that was required, which kind of goes half way there).
However, not all Linux distributions are commercial ones and not all have teams dedicated to each section of the distro's development.
In fact, many distros are labours of love for one or two or three people, as in the Wolvix example I quoted in one of my responses, and for them, spending hours worrying about the look of their distro is a luxury.
It's these people I was thinking of, not the big boys, but I should have made this clearer. Apologies for that.
I received some barbed criticism on the Linux Today posting of my article about my 'false logic'.
I was quite clear in the article that I was basing my reasoning on my own experience - more than a decade of it - of using Linux.
I install a distribution, I change everything, therefore why waste time dressing up the default look of KDE or GNOME? How is that logic false?
One commenter suggested that if my argument was followed through to its logical conclusion the developers would stop doing their art thing, and there would be no wallpapers. themes. window decorations etc for me to use instead of the defaults.
This is clearly nonsense.
Who would use a wallpaper or icon set created for Ubuntu if they were running Fedora, or openSUSE?
And, apart from the fact that I'm more than capable of creating my own using GIMP, Inkscape etc, what about the thousands of contributors to the -look.org family of websites who create this stuff because they love doing it and sharing it?
I was also accused of taking an ungrateful, 'cheap shot' at those who freely give their time to create a distro for me to use.
I've two things to say to that.
Firstly, read the rest of the articles on my blog and you'll see what I think about Linux developers - I've applauded their work and praised their community spirit at every opportunity, and will continue to do so.
Secondly, it's BECAUSE I value them and their work so highly that I would hate to think they were wasting their time doing work that is more often than not changed by the user within the first hour.
And if you doubt that's the case, look at the 'user screenshot' section of any Linux distro's forum, and see how many of them still have the default desktop.
This is so obviously NOT a criticism of developers or their work, but I can't help it if some people interpret it as such.
Anyway, thanks again to all those who commented and please keep reading!
Red Devil

A Quick Appraisal: Xfce in OpenSUSE 11.0

TRUST me to be the awkward one.
The one who finds fault where others find satisfaction and delight.
The bearer of bad news at the celebration party.
You see, I've got a complaint about OpenSUSE 11.0.
While everyone else has been revelling in its KDE 4 loveliness and ogling its GNOME 2.22 glamour, I've been trying to find something nice to say about its Xfce incarnation.
I have failed, because it is a bit of a mess.
The inclusion of all three desktop environments on the 11.0 DVD had me rushing to the torrent download.
I knew that, within 24 hours, Linux websites would be flooded with reviews and that there was every likelihood those reviewers would be focusing on the KDE4 and GNOME versions.
Ever the non-conformist, I decided to ignore the big two desktop environments and give Xfce a try instead.
For those of you who haven't yet tried Xfce, think of it as the Third Way.
It is quicker than KDE and GNOME, making it more suitable for less-powerful PCs and, now at versions 4.4.2, has attained an impressive level of stability.
Configuring it to suit your needs and preferences isn't quite as intuitive as those other two DEs but, once you've learned the Xfce way, it can be made to look every bit as beautiful as any other.
So, to openSUSE 11.0.
I have to hand it to the developers, they have done a wonderful job with their new installer - it's by far and away the slickest, simplest and most professional install I have seen in many a day.
Only Mandriva and Fedora come close to touching it for ease of use.
With openSUSE installed into a VirtualBox virtual machine, I set about seeing how well it handles Xfce.
The first surprise was the login screen - a dull, grey affair with no sign of the usual green openSUSE branding. Hmm, odd way to start.Anyway, to the desktop - where everything was absolutely tiny.
I had openSUSE running full screen on a 19inch LCD, 1280x1024 resolution and could hardly read anything; the fonts were set too small (9pt Sans) so I bumped them up to 12pt and made sure the screen dpi was set to 96, which generally works well on my Acer monitor.
For those unfamiliar with Xfce, it has a panel with some basic launchers pre-configured for you and includes a shortcut to the main menu but, generally, I access my menu through right-clicking anywhere on the desktop.
The openSUSE version of the main menu is pretty much the same as most other Xfce distributions - except for the Settings section.
There are 81 entries in here - check out the screenshot!That's an astonishing, ridiculous amount - how is anyone supposed to find anything with that many options to scroll through?
openSUSE uses YAST as its main control centre, but here there was no obvious sign of a link to launch it (it's actually listed in the Settings menu under 'Software Management', alongside 'Software Repositories').
How difficult can it be to put a YAST launcher icon in the main panel by default?
Just going back to those software options, I tried to launch both but got a dialogue box telling me I needed root privileges.
No big deal, you'd think - except that openSUSE didn't then give me the usual dialogue box in which to enter the root password, like most other distributions do.
The same root password problem occurred every time I tried to access a system configuration as the user - no dialogue box for the root password.
Things became even stranger when I launched a terminal, typed 'su' and entered my USER password - and got a ROOT TERMINAL!
What the heck is going on here?
Well, the heck is that openSUSE now uses 'sudo', like Ubuntu.
Why? What was wrong with the way openSUSE previously accessed root controls - it worked fine.
From an aesthetic point of view openSUSE's Xfce is borderline acceptable and it certainly brings the speed boost I was hoping for.
But if they're going to offer Xfce as a login option, then openSUSE could do more to make it useable.
In its present state Xfce is very much the poor relation among openSUSE 11.0's desktop environments.

Happy Snapping With The Panasonic DMC TZ3

ISN'T it amazing how quickly technology develops?
I'm thinking about digital photography, in particular.
A couple of years ago I bought a Nikon digital SLR camera which, when you factored in the extra zoom lens I wanted, cost me close to £700.
The Nikon has a 6megapixel sensor and all the automatic settings you could ever need, along with manual over-rides for everything... but it's a heck of a lump to lug around, especially when you factor in the big zoom and the tripod it requires.
Now consider the Panasonic DMC TZ3 – the one in the current UK TV advert featuring the Golden Gate bridge.
The TZ3 has 7megapixels, a 10x wide angle-to-zoom lens, image stabilisation, slips in your shirt pocket – and costs £189 (see www.dixons.co.uk).
While it has a number of useful modes, it lacks any proper manual exposure controls.
Still, that wide angle lens comes in useful for landscape shots and group shots, while that 10x zoom and image stabilisation (camera shake is a real problem with my Nikon's big zoom lens) means you can capture great candid shots and get in really close to record great detail.
It even excels at macro work, allowing you to get great images from as little as 5cm away (in wide-angle mode).
The TZ3 doesn't have a traditional viewfinder; rather, you're reliant on the 3inch rear LCD screen for capturing and viewing images (it's terrific, even in bright sunlight), and navigating through the simple menu structure.
This really is a seriously good little camera for the money, easily capable of producing pin sharp A4-sized images that are rich in both detail and colour.
The ISO settings available range from 100 to 1250, but at that higher level you're going to notice a lot of blemishes in your images.
During my time with the TZ3 I took pictures in a variety of settings to test its flexibility: At night (my wife's 40th birthday party - I selected the 'Party' pre-setting), at my kids' school sports day (the 'Sports' pre-setting), on a bright, sunny day in my back garden ('Intelligent Auto' setting) and a few floral close-ups ('general' setting). here are some unedited images:



Judge for yourselves how well the TZ3 does its job – and remember, I'm merely a ham-fisted but keen amateur photographer!
You would expect, given the low cost of the TZ3, that it might feel light and plasticky: Not so, it has a sturdy, weighty and stylish metal casing that sits really nicely in the hand, and comes in blue, silver or black.
The TZ3 records your images onto Secure Digital cards – there's only 13MB of onboard memory, which will fill with just three shots.
If you would like a super zoom digital camera, but have been put off by their bulk, the Panasonic DMC TZ3 could be ideal.
Incidentally, it also comes with one of the best guides I've seen in ages – detailed but easy to follow.
I've been so impressed with the TZ3 that I'm seriously considering putting my Nikon kit on eBay and investing in one or two TZ3s.
You have to weigh up what you want a camera for: The Nikon is great for serious photography but, because of its size and weight, I tend to take fewer pictures because I simply don't carry it around with me that often.
The TZ3, on the other hand, is perfect for day-to-day use, holidays, nights out – just about any situation you can think of.
Sure, you're sacrificing a little in the way of control and, to a small degree, image quality – but you'll take a lot more pictures with it, and surely that's what it's all about in the first place?

Getting To Grips With Netpkg In Zenwalk 5.2

I'M GOING to break with tradition a bit for this article, so please don't expect a typical new Linux distribution review.
Let's call it a leap of faith.
By that, I mean you can take it from me that all the usual review issues - the installer, the artwork, the applications, the hardware detection, yada, yada, yada – are all fine and dandy in Zenwalk 5.2.
Really, they are – there's not a bad thing to be said about any of it. Zenwalk 5.2 is a mighty fine Linux distribution indeed.
I was so impressed with my VirtualBox trial-run, I put it on my Dell Latitude X1 laptop, where it's doing a lovely job of keeping me mobile and productive.
So, if I'm not going to trouble you with the usual “I tried this and it did that...” approach, what am I going to write about?
Netpkg, Zenwalk's purpose-built package manager, that's what.
I first began using Zenwalk way back around v2.0 when Netpkg was really starting to make a name for itself and Zenwalk guru Jean-Philippe Guillemin.
But my relationship with Zenwalk has been a strange one because, while I've always loved its speed, stability and simplicity, I've never really liked Netpkg.
In those early days it was simply too basic and lacked the kind of functionality that made Synaptic such a pleasure to work with.
And that's going to be my main criteria for this article: How Netpkg, now at v4.0, measures up to Synaptic.
Synaptic hasn't really changed much in recent years simply because it hasn't needed to – it's still brilliant at what it does.
Netpkg, on the other hand, has evolved with every subsequent Zenwalk release until we reach the point today where it has finally come of age – but that doesn't mean it is perfect.
Here's what the Zenwalk team have to say about Netpkg 4 in their 5.2 release notes:

“Netpkg 'new generation' is now at version 4, introducing many improvements: better layout, tree-like view of packages, many help pop-ups, ultra-intuitive user interface, automatic colourization of icons; full internationalization of the user interface; real-time recursive dependency computing, and full-text search.”

Well, let's see how those claims stand up to closer scrutiny.
“Better layout”, it says. Damn right it's better: It's a clean-looking environment, for sure.“Tree-like view of packages”, it says. Ah, this is where I have to disagree.
Yes, you can get a tree-like view of packages, but only if you know that first, you have to click on the arrow next to the empty box at the top and select a mirror, and only if you know that you've then got to reload that mirror before your packages database is updated, and only if you know that you've then got to select one of the four options: New, Installed, Updates and Downgrades – BEFORE any packages appear in the main window.
By way of comparison, when you first start Synaptic, you get a pop-up window which tells you to first reload the package database – and in most distros the repository/mirror is already selected for you - so you are working from the most up-to-date list.
“Many help pop-ups”, it says. Yep, there sure are – but there's no guidance whatsoever on the order in which you should go about using each of the options the pop-ups refer to – and getting the order correct is anything but “ultra-intuitive”.
As for the “automatic colourisation of icons”, well, I'm not even sure what that means, let alone if it's useful or not.
I am sure, however, that “full internationalisation of the user interface” is useful, and I know for damn sure that “real-time recursive dependency computing” is absolutely essential if you want to maintain a healthy, glitch-free system.
As far as I can tell, there's no Netpkg documentation included – certainly not in any of the obvious places like, for example, the desktop – which would guide a new user through quickly getting the best out of the application.
That word “quickly” is quite important here: I spent a few days playing around with Netpkg, and now that I understand how it works, I actually really like it.
But for newbies? In my opinion, they're going to need more guidance with the SEQUENCE of commands.
Let's look at this in a little more detail, by returning to that list of mirrors.
When you select the drop-down menu, there are 14 mirrors listed and the only guidance you have is the 'snapshot' or 'current' at the end of each mirror name.Which one to choose?
As it happens, they all contain the same packages – they're mirrors, after all – but how is the new user to know that?
The actual packages available in the Applications section of all the 'Current' mirrors is really impressive – if you don't mind going through them all in alphabetical order.
Yes, you can search for the one you want – if you know what you want.
But what's wrong with doing what Synaptic does, presenting packages in categories – like Networking, Office, Graphics, Multimedia etc etc – thereby making browsing infinitely easier.Let me take you through my initial experience of using this new Netpkg to download the pdf program, Acroread – and please bear in mind, I'm no genius but I do have more than ten years of Linux experience.
I entered the package name in the search box and hit 'Enter'. In the main window I got 'Applications' and a check box. Hmm, what next, I wondered. So, I clicked on 'New' and the main window displayed Acroread in the Applications folder of whichever mirror I was browsing.
Ah, finally getting somewhere, I thought, especially as the app details in the bottom window were very detailed indeed and included a list of all the dependencies required.So, I clicked on the Netpkg icon to begin the download and was given the option to either 'Install' or 'Install with dependencies', which I found bizarre – why would you install a program without the dependencies required to run it properly?
Obviously, I selected the 'with dependencies' option and Netpkg quickly did its thing and dropped an Acroread icon in the Xfce menu for me.
As I said earlier, once you get used to how Netpkg works, it's a fast and efficient way of maintaining your packages.
Here, then, is my Big Point, aimed squarely at the Zenwalk development team.
Guys – you have an excellent package manager in Netpkg.
It does its job supremely well.. but it's not yet supremely easy to use.
So, why not include a simple desktop guide explaining to people how to use it?

Brazilian Blends

HAVE you noticed how many Linux distributions hail from South America?
Specifically, from Brazil, a country perhaps more globally famous for samba than, well, Samba.
A quick look at Distrowatch.com's list and a study of mainstream Linux news websites is quite revealing.
The last time I checked, the following Linux distros were being actively developed in Brazil:
Famelix (Debian derivative)
Epidemic (Debian)
Dreamlinux
GoblinX
Gobolinux
BigLinux (Ubuntu)
Kurumin (Knoppix)
Litrix Linux (Gentoo)
Resulinux (Debian).
There may well be more – let me know if you come across any – but nine major distributions isn't a bad start.
This set me to wondering: Why?
What makes Linux so appealing to Brazilian computer users?
And why are Brazilians turning away from Microsoft's Windows and applications?
So, I started researching Linux use in Brazil, and what I discovered was a groundswell of free open source/Linux adoption which began at the turn of the 21st century and which is driven by a number of related factors.
Firstly, and I accept this is a generalisation, Microsoft products cost around TWICE as much in Brazil as they do in, say, the United States.
Consider, also, that Brazil's gross national income, per capita, is roughly TEN TIMES LESS than that of the USA.
I'm no economist but that seems a fairly compelling reason for using free open source/Linux software instead of expensive Microsoft products.
The government of Brazil appear to agree: The Ministry of Education (MEC) have introduced a programme to get school pupils using Linux, specifically, a Debian-based distribution called “Linux Educacional 2.0”.So far the MEC have deployed 29,000 computer labs in Brazil's schools, serving more than 36 million students, and by the end of next year that figure is expected to be 52 million.
I'll repeat that – by 2009, Brazil will have 52 MILLION kids using Linux every single school day.
Brazil is also in the second phase of the UCA (one computer per student) project, and there's no prize for guessing what those computers will be running.
If you were Microsoft's man in Rio, would you be starting to get nervous by now?
I think I would.
Finance isn't, however, the only reason for the rapid adoption of Linux in Brazil: It's very much a cultural thing, too.
While researching this article, I came across a report, filed in 2004, which quoted the then Minister of Culture, Gilberto Gil.
Here's what he said at a digital conference at the University of Sao Paolo:

“Digital culture is a new concept stemming from the idea that the digital technologies revolution is essentially cultural.
“What is implied here is that the use of digital technologies modifies behaviours; full use of the internet and free software creates fantastic possibilities for democratising access to information and knowledge.

Snr Gil saw free software as a matter of national sovereignty. He added:

"It is pre-eminently a cultural question and thus has to do with the projected nation we are constructing and with the appreciation of cultural diversity, citizenship, and the generation of income and jobs through creative and clean industries.
"Brazil has the opportunity to undertake a massive national movement in favour of digital freedom and become a world reference in the fight for free software."

You might say: That was back in 2004, how far have they actually gone down the free open source path?
Well, in April the Brazilian Electoral Supreme Court announced that the 2008 elections will use 430,000 electronic voting machines running GNU/Linux and open source voting applications.
The voting machines were being migrated from VirtuOS and Microsoft Windows CE to GNU/Linux and open source software in order to meet legal requirements for security and auditability.
Further, as part of the transition, software experts from political parties have until September to access and assess all the voting machine software.
All software on the machines will be digitally signed to guard against unauthorised modifications, with official authentication verifiable by inspectors at voting places at any time to counteract tampering.
Now, my knowledge of electoral procedures is as limited as my knowledge of economics, but do you think America in particular and the West in general might learn something from this process?
It's impossible to ignore a couple of other elements in Brazil's drive toward open source: anti-American and therefore anti-Microsoft sentiment, plus the influence of the internet.
The rapid expansion of the internet meant that talented – but isolated – Brazilian developers suddenly were connected to a world of opportunities.
They were not only able to show off their talents, but were also able to learn from and work with their global peers.
All of which brings me, in a rather long-winded manner, to Famelix, the Debian-derivative Linux distro sitting atop my little list at the start of this article.
And isn't it ironic, given what has gone before, that I should begin my investigation of Famelix by telling you that it's a Linux distribution designed to mimic Microsoft Vista!
Famelix is named for the Faculdade Metropolitana de Guaramirim (FAMEG, or the Metropolitan College of Guaramirim) in the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina, where it was developed.
My Famelix experience was a mixed one, to say the least – partly through my own failing and partly, well, someone else's.
As is my usual method, I made several attempts to have it run first in a VirtualBox virtual machine, but failed every time.
My initial tests were done using the very latest version of Famelix, v2.1RC (which took a staggering eight hours to download – on 8MB broadband!), but each attempt – using the live CD, trying with ACPI disabled, using the ISO directly then, finally, burning the ISO to CD – failed miserably to get the distro to boot at all.
I felt it might be to do with me using the release candidate, so I grabbed the more stable v2.0 download instead (which only took 20 minutes to download!) and tried again.
Unfortunately, I hit the same problems in VirtualBox - I got to the language selection stage and the boot stalled.
Having checked other virtual machines were still working to eliminate VirtualBox from the equation (they were), I again burned the ISO to a disc and decided to try on a different machine, my old Dell Inspiron 8000 laptop.
The Dell's not great with live CDs – she's way too old and under-powered – but she struggled through the boot sequence and eventually got me to the Famelix desktop.
The screen resolution was miles off (1024x768 instead of 1400x1050) but at least I could finally see and use Famelix.
Oh, and it was all in Portuguese, because I looked away momentarily at boot time and missed the language selection option!
Now, I'm just as good at Portuguese as I am global economics and South American electoral procedures but, fortunately, a lot of the language and icons can be guessed at, even by eejits.
And guess what, I managed to install Famelix onto the hard drive in a language I cannot speak – not even a word.
I hope you'll appreciate the unlikely possibility of me producing a detailed OS review from this point onwards, although I do have some general observations.
What I can say for Famelix is this: I hope they've got some good lawyers.
As you can see from the screenshots, Famelix looks remarkably like Windows Vista, from the shiny black panel, to the glossy black menu structure, the wallpaper and right down to the gadget eye candy in the sidebar (PS Nice to know it rains in Brazil, too!).
From my brief play with it, Famelix seems like a really solid, well-constructed distro, especially if you like KDE glammed-up to look like Vista.
And with that Debian connection you know you have just about every free open source application available, just a quick 'apt-get' away.
But I can't for the life of me understand why you would want your Linux to look like Vista in the first place.
I like Linux distributions precisely because they're nothing like Windows, XP, Vista or whatever.
For example, this article was written in OpenOffice.org Writer, on a Linux Mint 4.0 system running Fluxbox as my window manager, which I built and configured myself to include a Conky desktop monitor, which I also configured myself.
Why, then, would I want my PC to look and behave just like Vista?
Doesn't make much sense really, does it?
Still, if that's your bag, you really couldn't go wrong with Famelix, and that seems a fitting way to end.
Cheerio, or as they say in Brazil: “Tchau!”