Major news outlets typically make little mention of Linux.  Today, though, The New York Times weighed in one of the state of Linux with an article that is, blessedly, not a total hatchet job.

I was a little leery of the Times talking about Linux, to be honest.  The Times's main technology writer, David Pogue, is a Mac guy and makes no secret out of it (and if there's any one other place where people go after forsaking Windows and sometimes Linux as well, it's the Mac).  This piece, filed under "Technology | Circuits | Basics" and authored by one Larry Magid, doesn't do a bad job at all -- although he does say a few things I take exception to as a matter of course.  On the whole, though, his impressions are positive.

What makes Linux so special? Larry asks.  Freedom -- both in terms of the price tag and the very nature of the OS itself, which is about the answer i was expecting.  This freedom, though, typically comes at the cost of personal effort.  "Linux has always had a reputation of being difficult to install and daunting to use" (he writes). "Most of the popular Windows and Macintosh programs cannot be used on it, and hand-holding -- not that you get that much of it with Windows -- is rare. But those reasons for rejecting Linux are disappearing."

Much of the article is taken up with a discussion of -- what else? -- Ubuntu, which is fast becoming the "ambassador" Linux distribution for the masses.  Larry likes many things -- the way it's actually easier to add or remove software than in Windows, the presence of tons of quality free applications, and the live-CD system.  He isn't thrilled with the fact that you can't work very easily with copy-protected or patent-encumbered music and video formats. His solution for this is to use the Automatix package manager to obtain the needed codecs (instead of a standalone application like, say, VLC).

From this he draws a conclusion that I am not sure I agree with: "...since common tasks like watching a movie or syncing an iPod require hunting for and installing extra software, Linux is best for technically savvy users or for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software."  That makes it sound like there's a vast middle ground of people whose needs are not satisfied by Linux, which from all the feedback I've received and all the things I've witnessed personally simply does not seem to be the case.

But he does say two things I couldn't agree with more:  "... trying Linux -- especially if you boot it from a CD -- is a great way to find out what a lot of open-source adherents are so excited about. And with prices starting as low as free, you certainly cannot complain about the price."