Esperanto was going to be the language of the future. Maybe it still is, but it seems always to be in the future. In the 1940s, Brazil was described as being "a country of the future", but the tag line was "and it always will be." Clean and plentiful energy from nuclear fusion is the future and is likely to remain in the future for a long time. This has also been applied to soccer, 3-year college degree programs, hydrogen as fuel for our automobiles, and Linux.
As much as I want Linux to succeed because it's inexpensive and open source (two things that I like), it seems always to be in the future. There are good reasons for this. Among them are resistance to change, the inability to run (easily) common Windows and MacOS applications, and the dizzying array of Linux distributions.
Is Ubuntu better or should I choose Linux Mint? What about Zorin and Elementary? Or Suse? Or any of literally hundreds of others. If you're skeptical about that, hop over to Wikipedia and take a look at the list.
Ubuntu is undoubtedly the best known distribution because it has received a lot of promotion. It's a good choice for those who are new to Linux, but it's not the only choice for newbies.
Bear in mind that Linux is just an operating system kernel. By itself, it's useless. To be a functional operating system, Linux needs additional applications that are provided by the many distros. I've used Ubuntu on several computers over the years. It's based on the Debian distro and even Microsoft used Ubuntu when it ported Linux binaries to Windows 10 so that Linux can be enabled within Windows. But there are others.
A Linux desktop may look a lot like Windows or MacOS.
This image is Ubuntu Linux with the task bar (or dock) at the left. It can also be placed on the right, top, or bottom.
The Ubuntu Linux control panel will be understandable to anyone who has used a Windows or Mac computer.
So will the file manager.
There's also a notification panel that tells me that system updates are available.
LibreOffice has an interface that resembles pre-ribbon versions of Microsoft Office.
It's the best office suite for Linux and it has been downloaded millions of times for Windows machines. Without spending anything, users of Windows, MacOS, or Linux can have a highly functional office suite that can read and write Microsoft Office documents.
When you're looking for applications, most version of Linux provide access to some sort of store-like function.
There's a persistent myth that no applications are available for Linux systems, but that's simply not true. In addition to LibreOffice, there's OpenOffice, GNOME Office, Calligra Suite, and WPS Office.
While there's nothing that matches the scope of Adobe applications on Linux, there's no shortage of applications that can be used to edit various kinds of media -- from GIMP for photographs, Audacity for audio files, several video editors (OpenShot, PiTiVi, KDEnLive, and Lightworks), and some typesetting/publishing applications (Scribus, Markup, and even LibreOffice Writer) -- there's probably more than enough for home and small office users.
Several major browsers are available for Linux, from Chrome and Opera to Firefox and Epiphany. For email, there's Thunderbird, Geary, Evolution, KMail, and Claws Mail. If you want to watch videos or listen to music, there's the VLC Media Player, Totem Video, and Vocal. Plenty of good text editors, too, such as Gedit and Kate.
So maybe Linux should stop being the operating system of the future and start being the operating system of the present.
Many Linux distros will run as an application under Windows or you can boot to the CD and run it that way for testing. This is a good way to evaluate the look and feel of the version, but don't expect it to run quickly. Most distros can also be installed to dual boot with Windows so you get to choose the operating system you want to use when you start the computer.
One thing every professional photographer and serious amateur photographer knows is this: What comes out of the camera can be improved. That's not a new concept that came about because of digital photo editing. The old professionals often spent as much time in the darkroom as they did in the field. Today it's just a lot easier and anybody can do it.
My favorite is Adobe Lightroom for organization and overall image correction. Often that's all a photograph needs -- tweaking the exposure or color balance, darkening overly-bright areas, fixing a blemish on a face or on a landscape image. When more exacting changes are needed, the Lightroom can push the image over to Photoshop for final editing.
Photoshop and Lightroom aren't free, but they are reasonable. For $10 per month, you have access to both applications. But maybe you're looking for something less expensive. Well, you can still have Lightroom on your phone for free. The IOS and Android apps work better if they're connected to an Adobe account that has a Photoshop subscription, but even as a standalone the apps are impressive.
Here's a picture from a phone that I'm editing on the phone. One of the most common changes photographers make is cropping. You may try to get the best composition in the camera. Sometimes you'll get it exactly right, but more often you'll realize that the image could be improved by tighter cropping, maybe some slight rotation to get the horizon straight, or even changing the aspect ratio from what the camera produced to something more dramatic.
These functions can now all be done on your phone, even in the free version of Lightroom.
Color and contrast improvements are also common.
The free Lightroom phone app handles this, too, along with creative lighting changes, conversion to black and white, adding effects, and enhancing the image's overall detail
Sometimes adding a vignette to an image will make the center of attention more obvious. A vignette darkens the corners of the image.
This function is also available in the free version for your Android or IOS phone.
Applying a gradient to an image is one function that's not included in the free version of Lightroom. To use gradients, you need to sign in to your Adobe account.
Despite the capabilities that Lightroom offers on a phone, I'm more comfortable importing pictures into the desktop application and working on them there.
If $10 per month is in your budget, you'll not go wrong with Adobe's Creative Cloud program for photographers.
If you'd prefer a free application, there's always The GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) -- a Linux application that was ported to Windows and MacOS systems many years ago. There's even a plug-in that makes it look somewhat like Photoshop.
You may also want to look at the on-line Pixlr Express. It requires Adobe Flash, so you'll have to install that. There's also a version for phones. You'll also have to put up with advertisements that appear on the page. It's a surprisingly complete application with the ability to add layers, make sophisticated adjustments, and use effect filters.
When Google acquired photo software maker Nik, it also acquired Snapseed and a free version is available. You can find information about Snapseed on Google's website, but you'll need to visit a download site such as CNET to download it.
Regardless of which application you use, take a little extra time with your photos. Sometimes just a few moments' work can turn an average image into something spectacular.
Have you ever bought a brand new Wi-Fi router expecting it to outperform the old router in every possible way only to be disappointed when you got it home and installed it? As with real estate, location is critical. A mediocre Wi-Fi router positioned well will outperform a higher-quality router positioned poorly. But there's more.
Maybe the signal throughout your house has been so bad that you've thought about investing in one of those pricey multi-hot-spot devices. Unless you have a palatial estate, though, you probably don't need it. But you should select a router that operates in both the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands.
Specifications for the 2.4GHz band are old and weren't designed very well. This is made even worse by people who think they're doing the right thing by setting up their routers to use a channel other than 1, 6, or 11. That seems reasonable, but using another channel makes everybody's performance worse.
Let's say you choose channel 4 because nobody is using it. The problem with doing that comes from the width of the signal, which will interfere with devices on channel 1 and channel 6. Additionally, the device on channel 4 will have to contend with interference from devices on 1 and 6.
Eventually, most devices will run on the 5GHz band, which is better designed and new technology allows routers to negotiate spacing so that they don't interfere with each other. If you have a Smart television, it probably communicates in the 5GHz band, as do most Wi-Fi enabled cell phones and tablets.
You could spend $400 or more on a multi-device system, but I think it's better to spend less and then pick the best placement for the router.
A decent router in the $100-$200 range will probably work fine for most people.
My router provides more than adequate coverage in the areas where I need it, but if I needed more complete household coverage, there are several things here that could be improved.
It's important to understand that radio waves are degraded when they pass through structures. Think of driving into a tunnel and losing the radio station you're listening to. Distance is also important. The further you are from the source of the signal, the weaker it will be.
A good router will be able to push an acceptable signal out 200 feet or so, depending on what's between the router and where you want the signal. This means that the best location in the house is one where you can see into the rooms where you want to have a signal. For example, don't put the router in a closet on the first floor if you want to have good coverage on the second floor.
The closet walls will absorb some of the signal and routers tend to put out a better signal down rather than up. Second floor locations are better or near the ceiling if it's on the first floor.
If you have a wireless phone, it probably operates in the 2.4GHz or 5GHz range, so it's a good idea to keep some separation between the devices. The same goes for electric motors, electronic devices, and anything made of metal.
Some routers still have internal antennas, but most manufacturers now put them on the outside and you'll probably have at least 2 antennas, maybe more. This is not because of the different radio bands -- both 2.4GHz and 5GHz signals use the same antenna. Having more than one allows you to orient them in different ways. One vertical and one horizontal is a good choice.
Signals are most efficient when the sending and receiving antennas have the same orientation. Notebook computers almost always have internal antennas that are horizontal. Same with tablets and phones, but you might hold these in a way that orients the antenna vertically.
My router installation is shown here. Click the image for a larger view. It's located on the second floor, so that's good, but there are some problems too. Consider what's good and what's not so good:
Coverage is fine where I need it, but I know where to look if I ever want to improve coverage.
The IMac Pro introduced this week is clearly intended to win back some graphics professionals, who have expressed dismay at some of the company's recent offerings. Entry price for the IMac Pro is $1800, but if you're a graphics pro, you'll need more. So then you'll be starting with the $2300 model. It has a 27-inch screen. One. Built in. A graphics pro will need another screen, so figure on another $300 to $1200 depending on the screen's specs.
And you'll probably want to kick the processor up to 4.2GHz from 3.8GHz. There's another $200.
Even at $1800, the computer comes with just 8GB of RAM. Minimally expand that to 16GB for $200, but if you want great performance from graphics applications, go to 64GB for an extra $1400. If you buy the memory from a third party (the same place Apple buys it), you'll pay a third to a half of what Apple charges for just the additional RAM.
The computer comes with a 2TB fusion drive, but you'll want the faster performance of a solid-state drive -- 1TB for $600 extra or 2TB for $1400 more. Never mind that you can buy the same disk drive from Amazon for half of just the add-on price.
So there you are at $5300, plus whatever you pay for another screen. You could save $1500 or more by obtaining your own disk drive and memory, but then you'll have to install them.
There's no question that this is an amazing computer, one that will have a lot of people very excited. That excitement carries a big price tag, though.
