Liking ubuntu linux
 

I outgrew my machine (1.8GHZ, 1GB max ram), and needed an inexpensive upgrade. Picked up a No-OS computer at the local tiger direct for under $300 (4GB ram, intel dual core @ 2.2ghz, 250GB HD) and downloaded and burned the ubuntu ISO onto a disk.

Installation was downright easy, and my laser printer and all-in-one HP plugged right in and worked. And I was able to share them with the rest of the house after a little googling. It has a number of office-like tools built in (outlook clone, word clone, powerpoint clone) + firefox so it is ready to use out of the box. Most all the questions I had (i.e. how to get more than 3 gig ram recognized) have been covered and are a google away. Very slick and well supported, and having the power of unix at my fingertips is both liberating and enabling. It even had remote desktop client with it (rdesktop ) so I could put my old windows box in the closet and drive it remotely from unix whenever I "need" to use pokerstars :) I suppose I will have to try wine at some point, but I'm very pleased with the experience thus far. :thumbup::thumbup:

I too just recently switched to Ubuntu, dual-booting my company-issue Toshiba Tecra M5-S4332 laptop. The only issue I've run into is resuming from suspend (something that Windows has problems with as well.)

A friend is also giving me a 1st gen. eeePC netbook. It comes with a flavor of Linux already, but I plan to mod the heck out of it and want to install Ubuntu on it as well.

I've been on Linux for 10 years now and the only reason I sometimes boot up Windows is because I'm too lazy to install Wine. I'm used to the Fedora flavor, which is on my laptop since FC6 came out a few years back. It also has issues (waking up from hibernation, though stand-by is OK; doesn't see my built-in memorycard reader; didn't like my wide screen so I installed an add-on with correct resolution) which are probably taken care of in the latest versions.

New versions of Linux help you reduce your power consumption with the PowerTop tool.

I prefer SUSE myself. It's much easier to set up as a real Linux system, which is what I want - I just can't work effectively in a Windows-like environment. Ubuntu has always seemed like Windoze for those who object to making Bill Gates richer.

I tried WINE with Outlook (really the only Windows app I need) and the CPU sits at 100%, even though it isn't doing anything. Is that a problem with my settings, or is that a WINE thing?

BTW, I gave up on Fedora. I have a home server (P4M-1.2GHz, 12-13 watts when idle) that I used to install Fedora on, until the version I used was obsolete (i.e. no more security updates) less than 2 years after I installed it. I now use CentOS (rebranded RedHat Enterprise 5) on all my servers.

Ubuntu is definitely the end-user desktop-focused distro, which is why it has two video players, but you have to install traceroute with apt-get. :-)

It definitely seems to play well in a Windows environment, which is what I have at the office, but still can get down and dirty when, say, developing for my webservers. I'll try OpenSUSE on a desktop and see if it picks up where Ubuntu leaves off. (And I would definitely NOT consider Ubuntu Server on any production-related.)

not sure on the exact version that I have, but I have the Asus EEE 9000 that came with linux pre-installed on it and I really like it, of course there are a few odd programs like ones for doing wind maps that just confuse it but everything that came installed on it works great and is easy to use for me, a slightly above average person.

Well, until you learn all the commands for every possible action in every possible program, a GUI is a real nice to have. And ubuntu is definitely "real linux". So far I've installed and run Oracle server, jboss, glassfish, eclipse (plus tons of plugins, i.e. spring framework), mysql, and even got party poker working under wine :) and no noticable resource issues. I've spent enough time at the console to know it is real linux. And the kids can still, in just a few clicks, add music training, chemistry, mathematics, electronics, astronomy or programming software plus tons more. There's a place for text only or headless computers, but not typically in a house.

I think there's room for hardcore geeks to appreciate the gui linux offerings, independent of what MS is doing. Ubuntu is a serious multi-purpose OS AFAIKT, the overhead of the GUI is mostly disk space if you choose to just ignore it, but makes it much more inviting to get started.

I normally run debian stable for my server systems and ubuntu for desktop systems. I have used linux since 0.96 if I can remember back that far correctly, it has made huge improvements in the last 2 years. Until recently I would always tell people linux is great for messing around but has a lot of gaps in functionality. Now it has everything that is needed for most tasks. I am really surprised how fast it is picking up users compared to a few years ago.

But my main computer is still running xp with a couple of linux vmware images to play with. Guess it is something about being lazy:)

just FYI, ubuntu is built on the debian kernel.

It is really interesting, if one were to say "I like windows vista", it would not immediately digress into a vista-home vs vista-pro "real vista" comparison. But such is the nature of linux that it has come so far from it's server oriented roots that you can't talk about any flavor of it without a discussion about hyper-optimizing a closet full of headless linux boxes :) I'm talking about a desktop machine here though, to replace my XP box. Web browsers are kind of hard to use without a graphical display, as are paint programs ;)

I don't think I even need XP for the house anymore since I have a handle on wine, was actually to lazy to move XP to the new box at the time, and decided it was time to revisit linux. Well, I'll probably miss avrstudio, and a few other select programs. I can just power that box up and remote control it if necessary though.

I disagree, because instead of learning/looking up commands, you have to figure out the meaning of some "intuitive" icon, thereby replacing a tedious task with an impossible one. But of course that's a matter of personal taste. The point I was trying to make is that if someone does prefer a Windows-like GUI, then why don't they just use Windows? Only reason I can think of is that they don't like paying money to Bill Gates.

Seriously? That's the only reason you can think of?

I like Linux because it has an easy-to-use GUI interface, and can drop to a shell when I need to do something more complex. Additionally, I can install as little or much as I need. My desktop has a free video player, office suite, games, etc., while my server doesn't need a GUI, so runs in 256MB of RAM (specifically, 144MB used with the web server running, and no swap needed.)

You're turning this into a "hate Bill Gates" argument, which it doesn't have to be. Plus, the "it's not real Linux if it has a GUI" attitude says more about Linux fanatics than it says about Linux.

I am a slackware troll and I don't upgrade software until I get a new pc. I might try ubuntu with the next hardware change but will probably revert to slackware.

I recently burned Ubuntu disc as well as "Damn Small Linux" to play with.
Mostly as my computer is getting older - Dell P4 H/T with 1GBRam.

I ran it from the Live Disc and was nice. Going to install an older HD and set up dual boot. I would "LIKE" to get into the command line aspect of it - i think i will be happier with the more stable platform and ability to keep my machine running a few years longer.

I tried ubuntu for work on my Inspiron 600m laptop. I was impressed with the live disk and the live disk instant install to hard drive. I was also impressed with the "stock" applications. I then deleted it because it couldn't handle hot swapping from the dock with a second monitor and stand-alone laptop... i do that constantly going from my desk to my lab. It also couldn't read a USB key for some reason on the laptop - it worked on my coworker's desktop fine. I always seem to run into a deal-breaker when i try to go linux. I was a big-time computer geek for most of my life, but i have never been happy with linux as a do-it-all. I chalk it up to bad luck,though, not bad linux.

I may give it a whirl again at home because so i can do some circuit board work... end of summer, maybe.

I'm not turning it into anything, I'm just stating an opinion, and asking a question. What other reason is there for having not just a GUI, but a GUI that has been intentionally set up to look and act just like Windows, when there are plenty of window managers out there that accomplish the same tasks without being Windows workalikes?

swivel chair is no fun, and it isn't windows (or mac OS, or xerox), just a graphical veneer on top of debian linux. Do you own a bunch of MS stock or something?

Ubuntu uses GNOME. It's pretty un-Windowslike. Perhaps you're thinking of Linspire?

Ah, yes, that too. If I use the NVidia driver, it doesn't handle the dock well, but with the standard driver, it docks fine... without the 3D acceleration of course. Fortunately I don't use anything that needs it while on the dock.

Either way, the fastest way to figure something out tends to be searching the web, and there are plenty of graphical and command line browsers, so I don't think there's a quantitative difference. All it comes down to is preference.

dcb -

Pretty cool. I should do something like this for my Dad, but with a notebook PC, maybe a refurby.

CarloSW2

Hesitated to reply, but I do so...

Linux, Windows... are tools. These are complex tools you have to learn to know how to use them. A lot of people learned to use Windows as they learned to use a hammer : hit their finger then tried to not hit them again, but never learned correctly, while a carpenter pushes a nail with only a couple hits.

What I love in Linux is the choice. You choose the distribution first. A distribution is a set of programs chosen by a set of distribution developers and a way to manage these programs. Then among these programs you chose the one you want to play with and you can add more of course.

Among the programs you chose, there is the graphical interface. This is often something difficult to understand as with Windows you have the graphical interface from Microsoft and no other one. The graphical interface defines how the windows are handled and how they look. This is one of the most important thing to chose as this will dictate the way you'll have to work with the windows. I'm using enlightenment as I know how to configure it to optimize my work. Now I use a graphical interface to run a couple graphical programs (firefox & openoffice) but also to run tens of text terminals (xterm) permitting me to access remote systems that have themselves a graphical interface or not.

The other important thing is the way the Linux distribution manages the programs. This is generally done through binary packages and dependences. You say which program you want and the system installs all the packages the package you want depends on. But another thing often difficult to understand is that the programs installed by binary packages are compiled as the maintainer of the package decided to. This is why there is some distributions that permit you to decide how to compile things or at least to tune the compilation. I'm using gentoo as this is the distribution that let you the most choices, except the "diy" distributions. With some packages (noticeably with gnome and kde programs) I can decide to depends on tons of other packages (miscellaneous libraries, daemons...) or only a few.

Some distributions are more user friendly than others. Mandriva and Ubuntu are certainly those permitting a newbie to do most things. Then there is some more "professional" distributions with possibilities of professional support. Then there is some more "hacker" oriented distributions such as gentoo and Linux from scratch. Then there is more specialized distributions such as embedded ones, or education oriented ones, or games oriented ones, or...

So never talk about "Linux" as there isn't a single Linux. The single term Linux indicates the Linux kernel that is developped by Linus Torvald and hundred of other programmers. This is the single thing which is common among all Linux distributions, but each one compiles and tunes it differently.

The guy that made me discover gentoo is using it in ways totally different from mine and I certainly can't use his computer without having to tune it as I like to use it.

Talk about a distribution, talk about a graphical interface, talk about a program...
Before all talk about choice because you have the power to choose what you want and how you want it. :thumbup:

Denis.

No, I don't think so. One of the labs I visit occasionally has Ubuntu installed on a bunch of machines, and (to me, anyway) it looks exactly like Windows with a different color scheme. Vista's a sort of aqua/green IIRC, while Ubuntu's orange with a sort of bird-like design, but both have their "desktop" icons, a start button at the lower left, a wierd little button bar along the bottom that pops up irrelevant messages at random times...

Well, I'm using Ubuntu right now, and it isn't anything like Windows (except, of course, for having, you know, Windows and cursors and stuff.)

On the other hand, I was just looking at screenshots of OpenSuse, which uses KDE, which definitely looks like a Windows knock-off.

Another Ubuntu user here. :)

So to the users of Linux - I have started poking around on web for dual boot install but using 2 hard drives ( 1 for windows - and 1 for Linux) everything i have seen so far indicated that it is possable - but can be tricky - any one here do this and have first hand experience?
Steve

I have done a crude version of that where I use the cmos setup to select the boot drive.

I saw that as one of the options.. Kinda shying away from it as this is our home computer and i do not want to disrupt my wife's use of it...

If i could have it defalt to the windows drive - UNLESS i go in and select the other drive it will work.. but i think once i select the 2nd drive in CMOS - that is would remain the "chosen" drive until i re-select the 1st drive...

Err... Since when? You can choose to install KDE, or Gnome, or one of several other options. I use FVWM, and it looks nothing like Windows at all. Though it is customizable enough that it can be made to look like Windows, if anyone should want to.

Doofus M -

Why not just have a removeable hard drive? It sounds like a PITA, but once it's installed, the OS head-banging is no longer a hassle. It's just like having a "big flash drive".

CarloSW2

Primary reason is that i have my Brothers old computer - and it has 80GB HD. So the 2nd HD is "Free".

At some point though - the "Pain" might not be worth it.. I will probably do a normal Dual Boot method on the 1st hard drive and use the second just as additional space...

If your HDs are IDE or EIDE, Set the windows drive as the master and the linux drive as the slave. Then run one of those live CDs to make sure linux recognizes both drives.
The partition program that comes with Ubuntu is pretty easy to use.
For a while there were some problems with writing to NTFS disks in linux. So I recommend putting a small FAT32 partition on the second drive to transfer files between windows and linux.

I haven't tried this with SATA HDs yet.

Update on my experiment with UBUNTU.
My computer HD is SATA (120GB)
The 2nd HD i have from my brother's computer is IDE (80GB)

After some web searching - i figured i would need an interface to get IDE to connect into SATA. But a guy at work suggested "Connect it up and see what happens - Backup first - but you should not damage anything - only confuse the crap out of the computer - then disconnect what you did and all should be as it was"

So here is what i did.
After some poking around with the computer, I have set the IDE drive as MASTER and connected it in the IDE port.
The SATA drive is connected as it was before.
I noticed when i did this that when i enter the Setup screen during boot, i can chose how to boot the comptuer ( like it has the Boot Menu Built IN already)

So i entered the LIVE CD and Booted to Ubuntu.
I selected to INSTALL and it asked me where to install it TO.
the 120GB Sata - or the 80GB IDE.
So i selected the 80GB IDE. ( full install - overright existing partitions ( already tool data off i wanted to))
Install went without a hitch.

Moment of truth - shutdown computer and restarted - hitting NOTHING - just letting it do its thing. Booted to the 120 SATA drive on Windows.

Restarted computer - this time entering the Boot Menu (F12 during startup)
Menu came up and i could Select the Primary IDE Drive to boot to.
BAM - there was UBUNTU.

So when my wife starts the computer - she sees the same things she always has - no change at all ( which is a PLUS)
When i want to boot to Ubuntu - i hot F12 during Boot - and select the other drive - and i get Ubuntu.

YEAH !!!!
So later today i will set up confgurations (wireless network - email - ect)

Steve

I've used classic Red Hat, Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu and Kubuntu. Ubuntu (and its flavors) are what I've used most recently and never had an issue with dual booting on one or two drives using Grub. There's a program for everything, command lines that work as they should, and ran great until my hardware gave out.

I really need to rebuild a second PC for when both myself and fiance are working from home (just using her XP box right now), but for now I'm going to play with each different flavor in VirtualBox until I find the one that best fits my needs.

Sorry, just saw this. I haven't used OpenSUSE, so I was going by the screenshots I saw on GIS. KDE, not necessarily OpenSUSE, looks more Windowslike (i.e. "Start" button in bottom-left.)

Reviving an older thread here with an update.

I have had Ubuntu on the 2nd Hard Drive for a few months now.
Only issues i have had are getting Wine to run some of the windows based games. I just need to put some time into them and work them out.

Lately i have been playing with SLAX - really cool USB bootable system - does not use the hard drive at all. I can take my entire PC on a 2 GB Flash drive. This includes the Office programs - some games - and 800MB of my ripped music.

Our Office Laptops are pretty "secure" with encription and VPN. but with the USB Flash boot - i get "My" computer instead of the work computer.

Still playing with it - but so far it is pretty neat.

steve

That's cool; I've been looking for a good flash-based OS for when I'm working at hotels and such.

I'm thinking about switching from Ubuntu to another OS. I like it okay, I guess, but it has some problems on my Toshiba laptop (sleep doesn't work well, it panics at least once a week, NVidia driver doesn't work properly with the docking station.) Thinking about OpenSUSE or just going back to CentOS, which I already use on all my servers.

I have an AMD Phenom Tri-core 2.6 GHz with 2GB ram,250 GB SATA box with rest of the stuff old as dirt. (have been using the same monitor for ~8+ years). Wanted to switch to Linux so as to avoid the pesky virus problems and constant fear of catching something bad. (no one in this part of the world uses a licensed OS for home use). So downloaded a kubuntu iso, struggled with the broadband settings till I got them right, and when I did get it right, the OS pretty much took care of itself. I am on Jaunty 9.04 now, with whatever the auto-upgrade chooses to download and upgrade as it pleases.

I have hardly thought of the OS since last 15 months, i.e. since I switched, and could get the OS auto upgrade. I see the support structure behind the ubuntu class of OS flavors as the man driver for its success and universal acceptance. In India, one never tires of appreciating the 'free CD shipment' feature of Ubuntu, as organized SW products have been always seen as an exploitative business here in India.

Interesting. Do you mean that pirated Windows is heavily used, or Linux is heavily used?