Before you are three discs – Leopard (OS X), Hardy Heron (Ubuntu 2008.4) and Windows XP each respectively in front of a whitebox desktop. For those not in the know, a “whitebox” computer is a clone, or generic computer; not a name brand model like Dell or HP. They are the systems you get a computer shows, have built by a local Mom and Pop shop, or build yourself. The task is to install each operating system onto each computer respectively. My point is to debunk the myth that Linux is harder to install than Windows or OS X. This is going to be a bit tough, because it presupposes a person who is going to perform the install already has some experience installing operating systems. Contrary to the first myth, that “Linux is not for the general user because it is too difficult for the general user to install;” we are now moving beyond the general user to a more technical person. A person who has probably installed an operating system or two in the past. Given this, it would be evident that said person be more comfortable installing an OS they have had experience with. Even more, I will add that given past experience with one OS, this experience may hinder the ease of installing a different operating system. But alas, I will do my best to debunk the myth that “Linux is more difficult to install than OS X or Windows.”

Right from the get go we have to nix the idea of installing OS X onto that whitebox. While it is possible, you would have to jump through a lot of hoops, ignore legal barriers imposed by Apple and incant some serious voodoo. Thus, we have to make an exception and call in some Apple Hardware to do the install. But wait, hold on a minute! What happens here? We no longer really have an install of OS X now, do we? Nope, it is more like a system restore than a true install. Sure you will be presented with the option to prepare your disk and whether or not you want to customize the installation, but because Apple controls the hardware and the software and you can only install the software on an Apple system; this is more of a restore than a true install when compared to any other OS. This is like putting that system restore disc you received with your new Dell in and pressing the button to revert the computer back to when you first un-boxed it. Out of the gate this is not really a fair comparison, but we shall keep it in there.

Now one might point out that it is pretty darn easy to install OS X on an Apple product; and to that I would say you are correct. There is the question of partitioning the disk and you do have some customization options. But again, I stress that this is more akin to a system restore disc than an actual installation. Apple controls the hardware stack and has designed the software so their install disc better work without a problem and with minimal questioning. Given the experience at hand, and barring the custom install options where you can choose to add extra software like developmental tools and the X-server (perhaps this is standard now?) you will see that the install of OS X is not much different from that of Hardy Heron.

If you sit down and slip an Ubuntu disc into one computer and a Windows disc, and I will say XP here, into the same model computer next to it you will be presented with two completely different experiences. (I am purposely ignoring Vista because I have never done a Vista install so some of this information may be dated. I do not think it will be, but if it is; flame away). Windows XP will come up with a blue screen and begin trying to load in drivers. Ubuntu will follow a similar path, probing the hardware and such, but hide it behind a logo splash screen. The next step in these installs is radically different.

The Hardy Heron cd is more than an install disc, it is a completely functional live version of Ubuntu ready for work. If you are lucky, all your hardware has been detected and fully functional. If you wanted you could run this as your work environment until you are ready to install or shut the computer down. Firefox is there for web browsing if you have a live internet connection that has been detected, you could check your email with with evolution, create a document with OpenOffice, the sky is the limit. But again, I do realize that for this to be a reality your hardware must be detected by Ubuntu. Should you have a wireless card there is a greater likliehood that via the install cd this may not be working properly. There are a significant number of wirless cards on the market with chipsets that are not fully implemented in the Linux kernel. Broadcom chipsets are a great example. While Broadcom is starting to make inroads and increasing support for Linux, for most of the past the have kept their specifications locked up tight making it almost impossible for the Linux developers to reverse engineer the necessary code.

The first screen you get during the Windows installation is to agree to their EULA. After that Windows eventually presents you with a text based screen regarding partitioning. You have to read this screen closely as it is nothing compared to say using the Ubuntu partitioner which is fully graphical and mouse driven and has been for years now. Again, reading the information at hand it is pretty easy for someone who understands the concept of disk partitioning to continue on. Once you pass the partitioning stage the remainder of the installation commences.

One big difference you will notice here is that with the Ubuntu installation you actually have a better feel for what will be working on your system once the OS has been installed to the hard drive. Remember, you are actually running a full-fledged Ubuntu system off the CD. What ever works there is more than likely going to work once you install it. As for starting the install, it’s a simple click on the desktop icon “Install to Hard Drive.”

I am going to skip past the installation process from here. Suffice to say that Ubuntu and Windows both ask a few questions. Both want to know some regional settings – language, keyboard type, time zone, etc. Windows wants the your product key. Ubuntu has you agree to the terms of the GPL. Both allow you to adjust some networking information and create user accounts. After the software installs and the system reboots you are pretty much good to go.

No wait, you are not with windows. You typcially have at least two reboots before you are good to go. On Ubuntu, the software is installed and your system reboots and you can log into a fully functional system. Now this is where things take a drastic turn.

By fully functional Ubuntu system I mean you have a huge assortment of software all at your fingertips from graphic design applications (inkscape, scribus) and photo managment (gimp) to office suites (OpenOffice.org) and web browsers (Firefox). You can burn cd’s, read your email and play some decent games. You are ready to go with 90% of what most people want to do with their computers.

With Windows, on the other hand, you have a fraction of this software. Sure you have a web browser, email client, text editor and a few games, but aside from that; not much more. On top of that you have to begin the process of updating the system. This is more than likely going to take at least an hour. You will also have to install anti-virus software and spyware protection. Running without those two critical applications is suicidal.

When the hardware is supported natively by Ubuntu or Windows it is a great thing. When it is not, that can be a headache in either system. Ever go to the windows device manager and see a device with a yellow exclamation point next to it? Not a fun endeavor to figure out what this device really is. Sure it might indicate it is a network card or sound card, but really, what is the chipset? Under Linux I can easily type lspci or view the Hardware Devices. This screen tells me the chipset along with other helpful information. I don’t easily have this capability under windows. Given the chipset and manufacturer I can track down the necessary information for acquiring a module and/or learning how to correctly activate the modules. Chances are there is a package already to go for Ubuntu and I will not have to compile the module myself.

Under Windows there is 3rd party software to discover this information or you can pull apart the system and examine the device directly. Once you discover the device chances are you can download a driver from the support section of the manufacturers website. Hopefully it will be a simple run setup – install -reboot and it will be working. More often than not, though, with soundcards, printers, video cards and such they install a whole other suite of software that most people never use, take up system resources, and can potentially conflict with other processes. While it is helpful to know how much ink I may have left in my printer, I can usually tell more accurately by looking at the print quality than by the HP ink monitor that is constantly running in the background.

What it basically comes down to is that installing Ubuntu is no more difficult than installing Windows XP. The end result is typically a more robust, fully functional system you can immediately begin using productively when compared to an install of Windows. Furthermore, my experience with installing either operating system has indicated that in about 45 minutes I have a full installation of Ubuntu complete along with all the updates and additional software I want and I am using it hard core. In that same time I am still installing windows and may be beginning the installation of the service packs. To get Windows XP to the same functional point as Ubuntu is going to take at least another hour or two.

When you are presented with hardware that is not working right out of the box both systems have their pros and cons. Hands down, Ubuntu has more hardware support included with the OS than Windows XP. But if your hardware is not supported right out of the the box, that is where the difficulty can set in. Under Ubuntu I think it is far easier to get the information about your hardware than it is under Windows. On the other hand, once you find out the necessary hardware information there is a greater likelihood that the manufacturer of the hardware will have a driver for Windows XP that you easily download and install from their website.

Sure I am biased towards Ubuntu, but at the very least I would posit that Ubuntu is not more difficult to install than Windows. In fact, you get a more robust, more functional system in a fraction of the time. Comparing an installation of Windows or Ubuntu to OS X is not fair because OS X is more like a system restore process than an actual installation.

Flame away