-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Ubuntu Rules
- Thread starter Mavix
- Start date
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
Be Welcoming to New Users. I've read horror stories of old Linux users yelling at new users to RTFM (or "read the ****ing manual") instead of actually helping. Part of what will make desktop Linux more accessible to new users is an atmosphere that encourages new users to ask questions and not fear being ridiculed or scolded instead of helped. The Ubuntu Forums offered this, and I think there are other Linux distros displaying similar attitudes on their forums.
Contribute. Some new Linux users who get frustrated feel that they are somehow making Linux better by whining about how it's "not ready for the desktop" or "needs" to improve certain features. Well, signing up for a forum account and posting a message to other users doesn't make Linux any better. You can file bug reports (that the actual developers read and respond to), you can contribute code yourself if you're a programmer, you can donate money if you have some to spare, but whining really doesn't improve Linux one bit.
Educate and Be Honest. Recognize that Linux is not a cure-all and is not for everyone. Everyone should have a choice, and there are some times when you have to tell people a Linux distro may not be the best choice for them at this time. There are other times when you have to tell people it's worth a shot. Anyone who, like me, checks email, surfs the web, types documents, listens to music, organizes and manipulates pictures, and designs some websites (albeit poorly... but that's my fault, not Linux's) will be fine with Linux. If you love Lexmark printers, AutoCAD, Adobe Creative Suite, and Flash MX Studio, Linux may not be the best option for you right now. Don't be a crazy evangelist. I was at first, and I think I permanently turned a friend off from Linux. Just remember--one bad experience will leave a lasting first impression. Enjoy it. If people see you having fun with your computer, they may get curious--"Why are you having so much fun with that thing?" On Windows, I can get work done. On Linux, I can get work done, too... and have fun while doing it.
What else is happening?
We users aren't alone in promoting desktop Linux. Companies like Red Hat and Novell are promoting enterprise Linux for businesses. Linspire has targeted schools for some testing of Linux in the classroom. Recently, South Korea decided to create a "Linux city" dedicated to using open source software, and Taiwan declared that government computers had to be Linux compatible. Meanwhile, MIT is working on the OLPC project (One Laptop Per Child)--getting a $100 Linux laptop out to developing countries.
My guess is that there will be no "year of the Linux desktop." This is a myth, wherein one year troves of Windows users who had previously never even heard of Linux will suddenly realize that all usability and compatibility problems have been solved by X distro, and they will begin installing it over their Windows systems. It's not going to happen.
The other myth is that once Microsoft stops offering support for an older version of Windows, those Windows users in large numbers will install Linux instead of upgrading to the newest version of Windows. The truth is that most Windows 98 users will either stay with 98 without the security updates, will buy or pirate a copy of Windows XP and install that, or just buy a new computer with the newest version of Windows preinstalled. There wasn't a flood of new Linux users when Microsoft stopped support for Windows 95. I don't see why there would be a flood now.
There are only a handful of scenarios that I can realistically see making a particular year the "year of the Linux desktop":
People show Dell that Linux laptops are profitable and Dell begins displaying them prominently on its website. "Ordinary" people then start buying Linux desktops. It would really help, too, if around that time a virus hit Windows home users like never before.
Schools making deals with Linspire actually have a "success story" and spread the word to other schools that it cost them less in the long run and their students learned a lot. As the song goes, "I believe the children are our future. Teach them well, and let them lead the way..."
More governments force their employees to use Linux workstations. What you use at work is what you use at home--that's what usually happens. This may happen in Asia and Europe a lot faster than in North America, of course.
The OLPC project fails for its intended purpose (helping developing countries' children) but leaves a surplus of super-cheap computers for the affluent, who then buy it just to try it out ("What's the harm? It's so cheap!"), and you suddenly have a ton of new Linux users.
Why does it matter?
Of course, there are always the old guard Linux users who do not care. Why they would have gotten thus far in my treatise is beyond me. If you don't care, go about your business. Don't read this.
There are two (sometimes related) schools of thought in the I-don't-care Linux desktop camp.
The first camp feels that desktop Linux is fine as it is and will slowly evolve into becoming more popular (the way that it already is). There's no need to rush it.
The second camp feels that desktop Linux is fine the way it is and likes the fact that there are fewer users because it also means there are fewer incompetent or uneducated users. There's a sense of accomplishment and elitism in the idea that the masses should use an operating system for the masses, and the elite should use an operating system for the elite.
Naturally, I disagree with both camps. Sure, desktop Linux's market share will grow naturally. It is already growing. But if it's going to happen anyway, why not make it happen sooner? I certainly don't believe that Linux is the best operating system for everyone, or even for most people. I do firmly believe, however, that more people should be using it than even know it exists. If a restaurant had two menus--the public menu and secret menu--you might not actually like the items on the secret menu, but unless you know the secret menu exists and are able to see what dishes are on it, how can you decide whether you like it or not? How can people properly assess if a Linux distro will meet their desktop needs if they don't even know Linux has a desktop... or that Linux exists at all?
Linux will also improve in its third-party support if it has a larger user base. It doesn't need to be in the majority. Even if Linux desktops make up 10% or 15% of the market, they will be a formidable enough base that Adobe, HP, Epson, et al will not be able to ignore them.
As for Linux being for the elite, that has long since passed. I may be more computer literate than your average user, but I'm no genius. I don't know how to program. I was deathly afraid of the command-line when I installed my first Linux distro. And yet I was able to install and configure many a Linux distro. If I can do it, there's nothing to be elitist about for using Linux on the desktop. It can be a challenge, but even the installation and configuration processes are becoming accessible to the point-and-click ex-Windows power user crowd.
OK. Now my point is made. Im running a Dell Optiplex GX 150, 512MB SDRAM, 2 x 200GB HDD, Ubuntu Dapper Drake. I burn CD RW's in just over a minute. (72 secs on the last 1). Incidentally, I JUST purchased a new PC to run alongside my current 1. It runs XP and is THAT much slower, even though it has more ram, is a Pentium M is better looking etc... Ive just decided to get rid of XP completely. Its just TOO much of a bother. Sorry gentlemen, 1 more post to close off...:
Contribute. Some new Linux users who get frustrated feel that they are somehow making Linux better by whining about how it's "not ready for the desktop" or "needs" to improve certain features. Well, signing up for a forum account and posting a message to other users doesn't make Linux any better. You can file bug reports (that the actual developers read and respond to), you can contribute code yourself if you're a programmer, you can donate money if you have some to spare, but whining really doesn't improve Linux one bit.
Educate and Be Honest. Recognize that Linux is not a cure-all and is not for everyone. Everyone should have a choice, and there are some times when you have to tell people a Linux distro may not be the best choice for them at this time. There are other times when you have to tell people it's worth a shot. Anyone who, like me, checks email, surfs the web, types documents, listens to music, organizes and manipulates pictures, and designs some websites (albeit poorly... but that's my fault, not Linux's) will be fine with Linux. If you love Lexmark printers, AutoCAD, Adobe Creative Suite, and Flash MX Studio, Linux may not be the best option for you right now. Don't be a crazy evangelist. I was at first, and I think I permanently turned a friend off from Linux. Just remember--one bad experience will leave a lasting first impression. Enjoy it. If people see you having fun with your computer, they may get curious--"Why are you having so much fun with that thing?" On Windows, I can get work done. On Linux, I can get work done, too... and have fun while doing it.
What else is happening?
We users aren't alone in promoting desktop Linux. Companies like Red Hat and Novell are promoting enterprise Linux for businesses. Linspire has targeted schools for some testing of Linux in the classroom. Recently, South Korea decided to create a "Linux city" dedicated to using open source software, and Taiwan declared that government computers had to be Linux compatible. Meanwhile, MIT is working on the OLPC project (One Laptop Per Child)--getting a $100 Linux laptop out to developing countries.
My guess is that there will be no "year of the Linux desktop." This is a myth, wherein one year troves of Windows users who had previously never even heard of Linux will suddenly realize that all usability and compatibility problems have been solved by X distro, and they will begin installing it over their Windows systems. It's not going to happen.
The other myth is that once Microsoft stops offering support for an older version of Windows, those Windows users in large numbers will install Linux instead of upgrading to the newest version of Windows. The truth is that most Windows 98 users will either stay with 98 without the security updates, will buy or pirate a copy of Windows XP and install that, or just buy a new computer with the newest version of Windows preinstalled. There wasn't a flood of new Linux users when Microsoft stopped support for Windows 95. I don't see why there would be a flood now.
There are only a handful of scenarios that I can realistically see making a particular year the "year of the Linux desktop":
People show Dell that Linux laptops are profitable and Dell begins displaying them prominently on its website. "Ordinary" people then start buying Linux desktops. It would really help, too, if around that time a virus hit Windows home users like never before.
Schools making deals with Linspire actually have a "success story" and spread the word to other schools that it cost them less in the long run and their students learned a lot. As the song goes, "I believe the children are our future. Teach them well, and let them lead the way..."
More governments force their employees to use Linux workstations. What you use at work is what you use at home--that's what usually happens. This may happen in Asia and Europe a lot faster than in North America, of course.
The OLPC project fails for its intended purpose (helping developing countries' children) but leaves a surplus of super-cheap computers for the affluent, who then buy it just to try it out ("What's the harm? It's so cheap!"), and you suddenly have a ton of new Linux users.
Why does it matter?
Of course, there are always the old guard Linux users who do not care. Why they would have gotten thus far in my treatise is beyond me. If you don't care, go about your business. Don't read this.
There are two (sometimes related) schools of thought in the I-don't-care Linux desktop camp.
The first camp feels that desktop Linux is fine as it is and will slowly evolve into becoming more popular (the way that it already is). There's no need to rush it.
The second camp feels that desktop Linux is fine the way it is and likes the fact that there are fewer users because it also means there are fewer incompetent or uneducated users. There's a sense of accomplishment and elitism in the idea that the masses should use an operating system for the masses, and the elite should use an operating system for the elite.
Naturally, I disagree with both camps. Sure, desktop Linux's market share will grow naturally. It is already growing. But if it's going to happen anyway, why not make it happen sooner? I certainly don't believe that Linux is the best operating system for everyone, or even for most people. I do firmly believe, however, that more people should be using it than even know it exists. If a restaurant had two menus--the public menu and secret menu--you might not actually like the items on the secret menu, but unless you know the secret menu exists and are able to see what dishes are on it, how can you decide whether you like it or not? How can people properly assess if a Linux distro will meet their desktop needs if they don't even know Linux has a desktop... or that Linux exists at all?
Linux will also improve in its third-party support if it has a larger user base. It doesn't need to be in the majority. Even if Linux desktops make up 10% or 15% of the market, they will be a formidable enough base that Adobe, HP, Epson, et al will not be able to ignore them.
As for Linux being for the elite, that has long since passed. I may be more computer literate than your average user, but I'm no genius. I don't know how to program. I was deathly afraid of the command-line when I installed my first Linux distro. And yet I was able to install and configure many a Linux distro. If I can do it, there's nothing to be elitist about for using Linux on the desktop. It can be a challenge, but even the installation and configuration processes are becoming accessible to the point-and-click ex-Windows power user crowd.
OK. Now my point is made. Im running a Dell Optiplex GX 150, 512MB SDRAM, 2 x 200GB HDD, Ubuntu Dapper Drake. I burn CD RW's in just over a minute. (72 secs on the last 1). Incidentally, I JUST purchased a new PC to run alongside my current 1. It runs XP and is THAT much slower, even though it has more ram, is a Pentium M is better looking etc... Ive just decided to get rid of XP completely. Its just TOO much of a bother. Sorry gentlemen, 1 more post to close off...:
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
just read your post BTTB. Im in PMB. Yes, Im on an XP Box at work. Kodak has the mother of all lines installed here. DIRECT cable connection to ISRAEL.. WOOHOO... bring on MMRPGs bro, this is surfing!!!!
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
Ubuntu VS Windows: A comparison...
Installing Ubuntu: A comparison of Ubuntu 6.06 and Windows XP
I installed my new hard drive and set up my computer so that it would dual-boot between Windows XP and Ubuntu 6.06 (Dapper Drake). Given that Debian (the Linux distribution Ubuntu is based on) had taken me days to install and configure, I figured that this might end up being a weekend-long project. It wasn’t; both Ubuntu and Windows XP were fully functioning after less than 5 hours of work.
Since I had to install both Windows and Ubuntu from scratch, this seemed like a perfect opportunity to compare the two operating systems' basic installation procedures. Thus, I tracked the time it took to carry out all installation tasks for both operating systems, and report the results below.
Partitioning plan
As I'm configuring my computer to dual-boot between two operating systems, partitioning the hard drive is not as simple as if I was installing a single operating system. I spent a while planning my partitions, and here's what I decided on
The /data partition is a separate partition I’ll use to hold my /home directory. Most user configuration files in Linux are saved in the /home/username directory, and thus by putting /home on a separate partition, future upgrades (and/or installing other Linux distributions) will be easier (since the entire root directory can be reformatted without losing most user files). However, mounting the partition as /home itself would mean that I could only have one installation’s configuration files in that partition at once (somewhat defeating the purpose); by mounting it as /data I can have multiple home directories in that partition (e.g., /data/homedapper, /data/homedebian) without them affecting each other. To do this, I first installed the entire operating system to the / partition, then later booted into a LiveCD, mounted the two partitions (/ and /data), and moved the home directory from / to /data/homedapper (creating a link from /home to /data/homedapper). Long story short, this partitioning plan makes installing Ubuntu a bit harder, but should make long-term maintenance of the system easier (thanks to metoo from this Ubuntu Forums thread for this plan).
Installation comparison
I started the install shortly after 11:30 pm; by 4:00am I had functioning installations of both Ubuntu and Windows XP. By functioning installation I mean that I had a working operating system, network access, office suite, photo editor, and virus scanner (in Windows) that were all up-to-date on security patches. I did not have to contact support or consult additional resources (outside of what I already knew or had researched) for either installation. My computer is an approximately 3-year-old Dell Dimension 4600, which I've upgraded with additional (non-Dell) memory, hard drives, and DVD drives. For a comparison of the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the installation procedures, see tables 1 and 2.
Table 1: Amount of time (in minutes) specific tasks took while installing either Windows XP (SP2, from CD) or Ubuntu 6.06 (via the graphical installer on the LiveCD). Default options were selected wherever possible.
Task Windows XP (min) Ubuntu 6.06 (min)
Install OS (including partitioning) 51 29
Update OS 13 8 1
Install and run virus scanner 12 0 (not needed)
Install and update office suite 29 2 0 3
Install photo editor, IM client(s), Firefox 10
0 3
Move home directory to new partition
- (not possible attempted) 22
Total install time (start to finish) 120 62
1 Ubuntu's auto-downloading application automatically searched for, downloaded, and installed updates for all programs on the computer.
2 Due to not owning Office XP's version of PowerPoint, I had to install both Office 2000 (for PowerPoint) and Office XP (for Word and Excel). This approximately doubled the install time.
3 Programs were installed by default with the OS.
Installing Ubuntu: A comparison of Ubuntu 6.06 and Windows XP
I installed my new hard drive and set up my computer so that it would dual-boot between Windows XP and Ubuntu 6.06 (Dapper Drake). Given that Debian (the Linux distribution Ubuntu is based on) had taken me days to install and configure, I figured that this might end up being a weekend-long project. It wasn’t; both Ubuntu and Windows XP were fully functioning after less than 5 hours of work.
Since I had to install both Windows and Ubuntu from scratch, this seemed like a perfect opportunity to compare the two operating systems' basic installation procedures. Thus, I tracked the time it took to carry out all installation tasks for both operating systems, and report the results below.
Partitioning plan
As I'm configuring my computer to dual-boot between two operating systems, partitioning the hard drive is not as simple as if I was installing a single operating system. I spent a while planning my partitions, and here's what I decided on
The /data partition is a separate partition I’ll use to hold my /home directory. Most user configuration files in Linux are saved in the /home/username directory, and thus by putting /home on a separate partition, future upgrades (and/or installing other Linux distributions) will be easier (since the entire root directory can be reformatted without losing most user files). However, mounting the partition as /home itself would mean that I could only have one installation’s configuration files in that partition at once (somewhat defeating the purpose); by mounting it as /data I can have multiple home directories in that partition (e.g., /data/homedapper, /data/homedebian) without them affecting each other. To do this, I first installed the entire operating system to the / partition, then later booted into a LiveCD, mounted the two partitions (/ and /data), and moved the home directory from / to /data/homedapper (creating a link from /home to /data/homedapper). Long story short, this partitioning plan makes installing Ubuntu a bit harder, but should make long-term maintenance of the system easier (thanks to metoo from this Ubuntu Forums thread for this plan).
Installation comparison
I started the install shortly after 11:30 pm; by 4:00am I had functioning installations of both Ubuntu and Windows XP. By functioning installation I mean that I had a working operating system, network access, office suite, photo editor, and virus scanner (in Windows) that were all up-to-date on security patches. I did not have to contact support or consult additional resources (outside of what I already knew or had researched) for either installation. My computer is an approximately 3-year-old Dell Dimension 4600, which I've upgraded with additional (non-Dell) memory, hard drives, and DVD drives. For a comparison of the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the installation procedures, see tables 1 and 2.
Table 1: Amount of time (in minutes) specific tasks took while installing either Windows XP (SP2, from CD) or Ubuntu 6.06 (via the graphical installer on the LiveCD). Default options were selected wherever possible.
Task Windows XP (min) Ubuntu 6.06 (min)
Install OS (including partitioning) 51 29
Update OS 13 8 1
Install and run virus scanner 12 0 (not needed)
Install and update office suite 29 2 0 3
Install photo editor, IM client(s), Firefox 10
0 3
Move home directory to new partition
- (not possible attempted) 22
Total install time (start to finish) 120 62
1 Ubuntu's auto-downloading application automatically searched for, downloaded, and installed updates for all programs on the computer.
2 Due to not owning Office XP's version of PowerPoint, I had to install both Office 2000 (for PowerPoint) and Office XP (for Word and Excel). This approximately doubled the install time.
3 Programs were installed by default with the OS.
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
Comparison Part 2:
Windows XP:
Since Windows wants to think it’s the only operating system on a computer, most guides suggest installing Windows first (Windows overwrites the master boot record during its install, which would prevent an existing Ubuntu installation from booting). Thus, I installed Windows first.
This was the first time that I’d installed Windows XP from CD (though I’d installed Windows 98, 95, 3.1, and DOS from scratch before). The installer was simple to use (easier than Windows 98 / 95); other than partitioning the drive, there were no technically complex menus anywhere in the process.
Unfortunately, the Windows XP installer left me without a working network connection or sound. After a bit of searching, I discovered that Windows had not installed drivers for either my network card or sound card (which were Dell defaults); to install the drivers, I had to break out one of my Dell system CDs and fight through some awkward menus to figure out which drivers I had to install. It was a non-intuitive process, partially because the Dell system CD didn't list my computer model in its list of supported computers, but also because Windows never made it clear that it hadn't loaded drivers for the cards.
After installing the operating system, I installed Microsoft Office; this was more complicated than it could have been because the Office XP set that came with my computer lacked PowerPoint (which I use for writing lectures). Thus, I had to install both Office 2000 (which I have PowerPoint in), and then subsequently install Office XP. After installing each version, I had to go to Office Update and download security updates for Microsoft Office. I never got any notice or warning that there were security updates for Office (and, in fact, had to find the Office Update site on my own); I just knew from prior experience that there probably were updates available. Sure enough, both Office 2000 and Office XP had numerous security updates that needed to be downloaded.
To finish the installation I had to install Photoshop from CD, and download and install my instant messenger clients and Firefox. All told, the Windows XP installation took about 2 hours from start to finish.
Ubuntu 6.06:
Ubuntu is a free Linux-based operating system. I obtained the most recent desktop release of Ubuntu from their download page; it's distributed as a LiveCD image, which I downloaded and burned to a CD. This does require a computer with a working CD burner and net connection; however, Ubuntu also ships free CDs to anyone who wants them (and, if you must spend money on an operating system to be happy, you can buy DVDs of Ubuntu 6.06 at Amazon).
The first step of installing Ubuntu is to boot your computer with Ubuntu's LiveCD; this brings you into a fully functioning Ubuntu installation without modifying anything on your hard drive. Thus, you immediately know if Ubuntu doesn't work with any of your hardware, and can figure out how to work around any problems before doing the actual installation. I tried out the LiveCD a few days before doing the installation, and didn't find any hardware recognition issues (the system worked perfectly).
Ubuntu's installation procedure is about as simple as can be; all the questions are well-worded and easy to answer (e.g., what username do you want to use, where are you located, what do you want to call your computer). There wasn't a single question about hardware, which was refreshing.
The most complicated portion of the installation was setting up the partitions, though the partitioner Ubuntu uses (QTParted GParted) was extremely easy to use. As long as you've planned out your partitions ahead of time, you should have no problems at all. And, if you're just installing Ubuntu alone (or don't want to do the wacky /data partition separation I was doing), partitioning should be as easy as it is in Windows XP. The one issue I had with the partitioning process is that it didn't format my small shared space as FAT32. When I set up the partition I selected FAT32 as the filesystem I wanted to use, but then when it came time to format the partition it reported that it was going to format it as ext3. I continued with the process (it did have a “back” button), figuring that I could reformat that partition later as FAT32 (by unmounting the drive and using QTParted once the system was installed). In fact, I'd been waffling between using ext3 and FAT32 for my shared space anyway, so once I'd gotten the system working I just decided to stick with ext3 for that portion of the shared space.
After the installation was finished, the computer rebooted into Ubuntu. At this point the system was working perfectly, and most of the software I wanted was already installed. Open Office 2.0 (an open-source equivalent to MS Office), The Gimp (an open-source equivalent to Photoshop), Gaim (an open-source instant messaging client), and Firefox were all installed (and properly configured) right out of the box. Ubuntu also installed the Grub boot loader to deal with the dual-boot situation; no configuration on my part was required.
Security updates were much easier to manage in Ubuntu than in Windows XP. In Windows XP, the operating system's basic updates were automatically downloaded in two separate chunks (requiring me to install the first batch, reboot, then reboot again later once more had been downloaded). However, updates for Office and other programs were not automatically downloaded (and I was not even notified of their presence). In contrast, Ubuntu's automatic updater application notified me shortly after booting that a number of updates were available; the updater had searched for and found updates for all programs installed on my computer. After reviewing the list of updates, all I had to do was click “OK,” and Ubuntu downloaded and installed all the updates. The system suggested (but did not require) that I reboot after they were installed; after rebooting, the updater application notified me that my system was completely up to date.
From start to finish, the entire Ubuntu install took approximately one hour, including the time it took me to boot into a LiveCD and move the home directory to the /data partition. Assuming that all hardware was recognized and supported by Ubuntu (which would be easy to check via a LiveCD), I have no doubt that a computer novice could easily install Ubuntu by themselves.
Summary
Windows XP and Ubuntu 6.06 were both quick to install; each install was complete in less than two hours. Windows took about twice as long as Ubuntu to install, primarily because of the additional time required to install (and update) non-OS software packages.
The largest potential problem with both operating system installations is hardware recognition (as I encountered with Windows XP). Ubuntu's use of a LiveCD is an advantage here, as it allows new users to test their system before formatting their hard drive. However, more hardware is generally supported in Windows than in Ubuntu, as many manufacturers build Windows-specific drivers (but do not make Linux drivers).
Window's reliance on commercial software adds to the difficulty and annoyance of its install. In Ubuntu, a lot of software is installed by default, and additional packages can be searched for and installed (for free) from an easy-to-use “add/remove programs” menu (note: the primary exception to this are programs to play specific media formats, some of which suffer from patent issues and thus can be more difficult to obtain in Linux than in Windows, though EasyUbuntu and Ubuntu's help pages deal with this). In Windows, many basic software packages (e.g., office suite, photo editing software, IM clients) are not installed by default, and must be downloaded or purchased from a variety of websites or companies. This commercial software also increases the chances of ads appearing on the computer, as happened to me many times during the Windows installation, but never in Ubuntu.
Linux is typically considered to be an extremely difficult operating system to install. I believe Ubuntu challenges that perception.
Windows XP:
Since Windows wants to think it’s the only operating system on a computer, most guides suggest installing Windows first (Windows overwrites the master boot record during its install, which would prevent an existing Ubuntu installation from booting). Thus, I installed Windows first.
This was the first time that I’d installed Windows XP from CD (though I’d installed Windows 98, 95, 3.1, and DOS from scratch before). The installer was simple to use (easier than Windows 98 / 95); other than partitioning the drive, there were no technically complex menus anywhere in the process.
Unfortunately, the Windows XP installer left me without a working network connection or sound. After a bit of searching, I discovered that Windows had not installed drivers for either my network card or sound card (which were Dell defaults); to install the drivers, I had to break out one of my Dell system CDs and fight through some awkward menus to figure out which drivers I had to install. It was a non-intuitive process, partially because the Dell system CD didn't list my computer model in its list of supported computers, but also because Windows never made it clear that it hadn't loaded drivers for the cards.
After installing the operating system, I installed Microsoft Office; this was more complicated than it could have been because the Office XP set that came with my computer lacked PowerPoint (which I use for writing lectures). Thus, I had to install both Office 2000 (which I have PowerPoint in), and then subsequently install Office XP. After installing each version, I had to go to Office Update and download security updates for Microsoft Office. I never got any notice or warning that there were security updates for Office (and, in fact, had to find the Office Update site on my own); I just knew from prior experience that there probably were updates available. Sure enough, both Office 2000 and Office XP had numerous security updates that needed to be downloaded.
To finish the installation I had to install Photoshop from CD, and download and install my instant messenger clients and Firefox. All told, the Windows XP installation took about 2 hours from start to finish.
Ubuntu 6.06:
Ubuntu is a free Linux-based operating system. I obtained the most recent desktop release of Ubuntu from their download page; it's distributed as a LiveCD image, which I downloaded and burned to a CD. This does require a computer with a working CD burner and net connection; however, Ubuntu also ships free CDs to anyone who wants them (and, if you must spend money on an operating system to be happy, you can buy DVDs of Ubuntu 6.06 at Amazon).
The first step of installing Ubuntu is to boot your computer with Ubuntu's LiveCD; this brings you into a fully functioning Ubuntu installation without modifying anything on your hard drive. Thus, you immediately know if Ubuntu doesn't work with any of your hardware, and can figure out how to work around any problems before doing the actual installation. I tried out the LiveCD a few days before doing the installation, and didn't find any hardware recognition issues (the system worked perfectly).
Ubuntu's installation procedure is about as simple as can be; all the questions are well-worded and easy to answer (e.g., what username do you want to use, where are you located, what do you want to call your computer). There wasn't a single question about hardware, which was refreshing.
The most complicated portion of the installation was setting up the partitions, though the partitioner Ubuntu uses (QTParted GParted) was extremely easy to use. As long as you've planned out your partitions ahead of time, you should have no problems at all. And, if you're just installing Ubuntu alone (or don't want to do the wacky /data partition separation I was doing), partitioning should be as easy as it is in Windows XP. The one issue I had with the partitioning process is that it didn't format my small shared space as FAT32. When I set up the partition I selected FAT32 as the filesystem I wanted to use, but then when it came time to format the partition it reported that it was going to format it as ext3. I continued with the process (it did have a “back” button), figuring that I could reformat that partition later as FAT32 (by unmounting the drive and using QTParted once the system was installed). In fact, I'd been waffling between using ext3 and FAT32 for my shared space anyway, so once I'd gotten the system working I just decided to stick with ext3 for that portion of the shared space.
After the installation was finished, the computer rebooted into Ubuntu. At this point the system was working perfectly, and most of the software I wanted was already installed. Open Office 2.0 (an open-source equivalent to MS Office), The Gimp (an open-source equivalent to Photoshop), Gaim (an open-source instant messaging client), and Firefox were all installed (and properly configured) right out of the box. Ubuntu also installed the Grub boot loader to deal with the dual-boot situation; no configuration on my part was required.
Security updates were much easier to manage in Ubuntu than in Windows XP. In Windows XP, the operating system's basic updates were automatically downloaded in two separate chunks (requiring me to install the first batch, reboot, then reboot again later once more had been downloaded). However, updates for Office and other programs were not automatically downloaded (and I was not even notified of their presence). In contrast, Ubuntu's automatic updater application notified me shortly after booting that a number of updates were available; the updater had searched for and found updates for all programs installed on my computer. After reviewing the list of updates, all I had to do was click “OK,” and Ubuntu downloaded and installed all the updates. The system suggested (but did not require) that I reboot after they were installed; after rebooting, the updater application notified me that my system was completely up to date.
From start to finish, the entire Ubuntu install took approximately one hour, including the time it took me to boot into a LiveCD and move the home directory to the /data partition. Assuming that all hardware was recognized and supported by Ubuntu (which would be easy to check via a LiveCD), I have no doubt that a computer novice could easily install Ubuntu by themselves.
Summary
Windows XP and Ubuntu 6.06 were both quick to install; each install was complete in less than two hours. Windows took about twice as long as Ubuntu to install, primarily because of the additional time required to install (and update) non-OS software packages.
The largest potential problem with both operating system installations is hardware recognition (as I encountered with Windows XP). Ubuntu's use of a LiveCD is an advantage here, as it allows new users to test their system before formatting their hard drive. However, more hardware is generally supported in Windows than in Ubuntu, as many manufacturers build Windows-specific drivers (but do not make Linux drivers).
Window's reliance on commercial software adds to the difficulty and annoyance of its install. In Ubuntu, a lot of software is installed by default, and additional packages can be searched for and installed (for free) from an easy-to-use “add/remove programs” menu (note: the primary exception to this are programs to play specific media formats, some of which suffer from patent issues and thus can be more difficult to obtain in Linux than in Windows, though EasyUbuntu and Ubuntu's help pages deal with this). In Windows, many basic software packages (e.g., office suite, photo editing software, IM clients) are not installed by default, and must be downloaded or purchased from a variety of websites or companies. This commercial software also increases the chances of ads appearing on the computer, as happened to me many times during the Windows installation, but never in Ubuntu.
Linux is typically considered to be an extremely difficult operating system to install. I believe Ubuntu challenges that perception.
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
The above is also gleaned from the net. 1 more...
and oh yeah... looks like THIS server runs on Linux... Nice n fast!!
and oh yeah... looks like THIS server runs on Linux... Nice n fast!!
chiskop
Executive Member
Hey online14230, you got a lot to say!
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
Second to last case of Nettheft:
This is from Ubuntuforums.
Jhongy had this to say:
This weekend, I reinstalled XP and Ubuntu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a bit of a rant. Lots of gory details. I have been a die-hard Windows XP convert for years. But MICROSOFT STOLE MY WEEKEND, and I just have to vent.... and sing Ubuntu's praises!
Here's what happenned. I just got a brand spanking new SATA hard disk, and hade come up with a fantastic partitioning plan for Ubuntu and Windows XP to share the disk -- and use the existing two IDE drives for backups and documents.
The plan was, after partitioning, to do what I know best: Install XP. Then: install Ubuntu.
It should've been easy. It wasn't.
I admit, the first time I read guides or "How to's" on getting things done in Ubuntu, I was shocked at all the terminal commands. I didn't believe everyone who tried to say that it was "just different". However, after messing about with a few things, I have quickly found my feet - remembering some of the UNIX commands from uni. helped.
But, installing WinXP really put things into perspective. What should'be taken me an hour, tops, took me a day and a half. A DAY AND A HALF out of my weekend... GONE.
--------------------------------
STEP 1: INSTALLING WINXP
--------------------------------
Again, it should have been sooo simple. Put CD in tray, choose partition to install to, done. But NOOO.
You see, the Windows installer - even the SP2 disk - didn't recognise my SATA controller. To get it to work, I would have to put drivers on a FLOPPY DISK, wait until just the right moment in the install process, and then hit "F6".
A floppy... a FLOPPY... I found a dusty drive in the bottom of the old parts box, plugged it in.... and, as expected, it didn't work. No dice.
Fortunate that I hadn't yet nuked my existing installation, I turned to the 'net. I had to spend hours sorting through disinformation to find what I wanted... and found nLite. Using this tool, I could integrate the drivers onto a new install disk.. Great. After downloading Nero, I created a disk... well two actually, as the first wouldn't boot for some inexplicable reason.
I finally got through to a screen asking me where I wanted to install Windows... Downhill from here, right? No! Windows insisted that I set up a SECOND partition that it could "copy needed files to". It didn't tell me why. I figured that, for some obscure reason, it didn't want to install directly to the SATA disk, and would use the other partition as a file cache. So, obligingly I went back to the OS and fiddled around with the disks to create an empty partition on one of the IDE drives. This process blew away the existing Windows installation... but what the heck, I was about to install a new one, right?
Back to the installer again. After formatting the TWO partitions, it worked... well... kind of.
It appears that, on my first try of nLite, it had turned my "media center edition" CD into a vanilla XP installation.... so, after installing network drivers, I had to spend hours surfing in order to download nLite again, download the .NET framework it needed, figure out what config files I had to change, then make another disk! Not wanting to activate Windows on what was clearly going to be jsut a "temporary" install, I had to jump through BIG FLAMING HOOPS in order to download things I needed.
This time it worked. Or, at least, I thought it had.
After booting my new Windows OS, I realised why it wanted two partitions.... it had installed the boot sector and boot files to the *other* disk. How did I figure this out? I realised it when I nuked that partition. After all, the installer said it only needed it to "copy some files to". It didn't tell me "I inexplicably need the second partition to COPY CORE FILES TO THAT MUST NEVER BE DELETED... EVER!".
Cue several hours sitting at the recovery console. FIXMBR... FIXBOOT.... going into Linux (since the console doesn't even have a text editor!!) and creating Boot.ini files with just about every combination possible, then going back to the recovery console and trying to copy them over. Trying to fix something with only about 20 commands at your disposal is a PAIN. In Ubuntu, I would have done apt-get install Lynx, and surfed for the answer. Not here! It even took me 10 minutes to figure out which partition was which, as they were all mounted - including Linux partitions which it could not even read - randomly. C: was D: and D: was F:. Arrgh! The stupid "recovery" console proved itself to be a complete waste of time that took 10 minutes to load every time I booted into it.
Fortunately the wife had gone out, for I completely wasted Saturday. I had woken up early on Saturday, planning to spend a few hours to get everything sorted. by 5pm, I was still wearing pajamas and had survived on pizza delivery.
In the end, I found a way to fix the problem: Reinstall Windows. Again!!! But with only the SATA drive plugged in. I had to unplug the other drives. <Cue drum roll>..... It worked!!!! This time, Windows only needed one partition. Dinner pizza arrives, and the delivery boy points at my pajamas and notices my bloodshot eyes, and asks if I am sick. I was sick. Sick of the Windows installer.
Of course, having used Windows for years, I thought I was prepared - I knew that when I booted into a new install, there would be no network drivers for my nForce2 board. If I hadn't had those drivers backed up - and slipstreamed them with nLite, it would have been another hoop to jump through.
The rest of Saturday night was spent installing Office, Antivirus, and telling things like printer and webcam driver installers that I wasn't interested in installing IE toolbars and phone-home clients (God help anyone who clicks the "Standard Installation (Recommended)" button!). At least I had them all on CDs, prepared, beforehand. Oh, and there were 49 Windows Updates waiting for me.
---------------------------------
Step 2: Installing Ubuntu
---------------------------------
I inserted the Live CD. I told it my time zone and my name, and selected exactly which partitions I wanted it to install to. While it was installing, I surfed the net.
Upon restarting the computer... it Just Worked. Well, almost. When installing the nVidia drivers, I let them do their autoconfig thing, which borked my xorg.conf. So I had to use the "cp" command to copy over the backup.
I then couldn't figure out how to restart Gnome, so, determined not to have to reboot, I typed apt-get install Lynx, and Googled for an answer. Ahh.. /etc/init.d/gdm restart. It worked!
In other good news: My Audigy 2 worked otu of the box, my printer worked out of the box. I tried Mandrake a few years ago, and this is a massive, massive improvement over that.
I'm beginning to see the power of this. I have a fully-fledged GUI, which, looks pretty good in all its XGL wobbly goodness. But, if I ever find myself at the command line, I'm almost no worse off... I can read full manuals for commands, and even surf for answers!
Total time: About an hour. Two, tops.
Honestly, there are lots of Windows tools and programs I am still reliant on... the webcam integration in Skype, VBA macros, etc etc. There are lots of things in my install I still need/want to tweak. BUT... I have a NEW FOUND CONVICTION..... I'm going to decrease my reliance on Windows, with a view to eliminating it alltogether. I don't play games any more, and I see no reason to sink my money and time into Windows any more.
And I'm about to order 5 Ubuntu CDs for friends and family. Microsoft made me lose my weekend. In return, I'm going to help them lose their customers . And, in the process, those customers will have a BETTER OPERATING SYSTEM BY FAR at their disposal.
So, if you see me around the forums asking scads of newbie questions, please be nice... and help me along with my #1 Goal of Ditching THAT OTHER OS!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Jhongy : July 24th, 2006 at 06:30 AM.
This is from Ubuntuforums.
Jhongy had this to say:
This weekend, I reinstalled XP and Ubuntu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a bit of a rant. Lots of gory details. I have been a die-hard Windows XP convert for years. But MICROSOFT STOLE MY WEEKEND, and I just have to vent.... and sing Ubuntu's praises!
Here's what happenned. I just got a brand spanking new SATA hard disk, and hade come up with a fantastic partitioning plan for Ubuntu and Windows XP to share the disk -- and use the existing two IDE drives for backups and documents.
The plan was, after partitioning, to do what I know best: Install XP. Then: install Ubuntu.
It should've been easy. It wasn't.
I admit, the first time I read guides or "How to's" on getting things done in Ubuntu, I was shocked at all the terminal commands. I didn't believe everyone who tried to say that it was "just different". However, after messing about with a few things, I have quickly found my feet - remembering some of the UNIX commands from uni. helped.
But, installing WinXP really put things into perspective. What should'be taken me an hour, tops, took me a day and a half. A DAY AND A HALF out of my weekend... GONE.
--------------------------------
STEP 1: INSTALLING WINXP
--------------------------------
Again, it should have been sooo simple. Put CD in tray, choose partition to install to, done. But NOOO.
You see, the Windows installer - even the SP2 disk - didn't recognise my SATA controller. To get it to work, I would have to put drivers on a FLOPPY DISK, wait until just the right moment in the install process, and then hit "F6".
A floppy... a FLOPPY... I found a dusty drive in the bottom of the old parts box, plugged it in.... and, as expected, it didn't work. No dice.
Fortunate that I hadn't yet nuked my existing installation, I turned to the 'net. I had to spend hours sorting through disinformation to find what I wanted... and found nLite. Using this tool, I could integrate the drivers onto a new install disk.. Great. After downloading Nero, I created a disk... well two actually, as the first wouldn't boot for some inexplicable reason.
I finally got through to a screen asking me where I wanted to install Windows... Downhill from here, right? No! Windows insisted that I set up a SECOND partition that it could "copy needed files to". It didn't tell me why. I figured that, for some obscure reason, it didn't want to install directly to the SATA disk, and would use the other partition as a file cache. So, obligingly I went back to the OS and fiddled around with the disks to create an empty partition on one of the IDE drives. This process blew away the existing Windows installation... but what the heck, I was about to install a new one, right?
Back to the installer again. After formatting the TWO partitions, it worked... well... kind of.
It appears that, on my first try of nLite, it had turned my "media center edition" CD into a vanilla XP installation.... so, after installing network drivers, I had to spend hours surfing in order to download nLite again, download the .NET framework it needed, figure out what config files I had to change, then make another disk! Not wanting to activate Windows on what was clearly going to be jsut a "temporary" install, I had to jump through BIG FLAMING HOOPS in order to download things I needed.
This time it worked. Or, at least, I thought it had.
After booting my new Windows OS, I realised why it wanted two partitions.... it had installed the boot sector and boot files to the *other* disk. How did I figure this out? I realised it when I nuked that partition. After all, the installer said it only needed it to "copy some files to". It didn't tell me "I inexplicably need the second partition to COPY CORE FILES TO THAT MUST NEVER BE DELETED... EVER!".
Cue several hours sitting at the recovery console. FIXMBR... FIXBOOT.... going into Linux (since the console doesn't even have a text editor!!) and creating Boot.ini files with just about every combination possible, then going back to the recovery console and trying to copy them over. Trying to fix something with only about 20 commands at your disposal is a PAIN. In Ubuntu, I would have done apt-get install Lynx, and surfed for the answer. Not here! It even took me 10 minutes to figure out which partition was which, as they were all mounted - including Linux partitions which it could not even read - randomly. C: was D: and D: was F:. Arrgh! The stupid "recovery" console proved itself to be a complete waste of time that took 10 minutes to load every time I booted into it.
Fortunately the wife had gone out, for I completely wasted Saturday. I had woken up early on Saturday, planning to spend a few hours to get everything sorted. by 5pm, I was still wearing pajamas and had survived on pizza delivery.
In the end, I found a way to fix the problem: Reinstall Windows. Again!!! But with only the SATA drive plugged in. I had to unplug the other drives. <Cue drum roll>..... It worked!!!! This time, Windows only needed one partition. Dinner pizza arrives, and the delivery boy points at my pajamas and notices my bloodshot eyes, and asks if I am sick. I was sick. Sick of the Windows installer.
Of course, having used Windows for years, I thought I was prepared - I knew that when I booted into a new install, there would be no network drivers for my nForce2 board. If I hadn't had those drivers backed up - and slipstreamed them with nLite, it would have been another hoop to jump through.
The rest of Saturday night was spent installing Office, Antivirus, and telling things like printer and webcam driver installers that I wasn't interested in installing IE toolbars and phone-home clients (God help anyone who clicks the "Standard Installation (Recommended)" button!). At least I had them all on CDs, prepared, beforehand. Oh, and there were 49 Windows Updates waiting for me.
---------------------------------
Step 2: Installing Ubuntu
---------------------------------
I inserted the Live CD. I told it my time zone and my name, and selected exactly which partitions I wanted it to install to. While it was installing, I surfed the net.
Upon restarting the computer... it Just Worked. Well, almost. When installing the nVidia drivers, I let them do their autoconfig thing, which borked my xorg.conf. So I had to use the "cp" command to copy over the backup.
I then couldn't figure out how to restart Gnome, so, determined not to have to reboot, I typed apt-get install Lynx, and Googled for an answer. Ahh.. /etc/init.d/gdm restart. It worked!
In other good news: My Audigy 2 worked otu of the box, my printer worked out of the box. I tried Mandrake a few years ago, and this is a massive, massive improvement over that.
I'm beginning to see the power of this. I have a fully-fledged GUI, which, looks pretty good in all its XGL wobbly goodness. But, if I ever find myself at the command line, I'm almost no worse off... I can read full manuals for commands, and even surf for answers!
Total time: About an hour. Two, tops.
Honestly, there are lots of Windows tools and programs I am still reliant on... the webcam integration in Skype, VBA macros, etc etc. There are lots of things in my install I still need/want to tweak. BUT... I have a NEW FOUND CONVICTION..... I'm going to decrease my reliance on Windows, with a view to eliminating it alltogether. I don't play games any more, and I see no reason to sink my money and time into Windows any more.
And I'm about to order 5 Ubuntu CDs for friends and family. Microsoft made me lose my weekend. In return, I'm going to help them lose their customers . And, in the process, those customers will have a BETTER OPERATING SYSTEM BY FAR at their disposal.
So, if you see me around the forums asking scads of newbie questions, please be nice... and help me along with my #1 Goal of Ditching THAT OTHER OS!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Jhongy : July 24th, 2006 at 06:30 AM.
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah I suppose so. See, the thing is: I hate it when people talk CR@P about Linus and Linux in general, and Ubuntu in particular. ESPECIALLY considering my experience. Its been 2 years running since I used my tapedrive, because windows didnt support it and there wasnt a driver available. I switched to Ubuntu and VIOLA! I asked about a driver once. This guy asked me for model number and a few other details, and I had a driver a week later. Right now, to send ANYTHING to it, I have to transfer it to the UBUBOX via bluetooth (Windows will only let me send 5MB at a time) and use Dapper to send it to tape... Its hard when youve got about 1 GB a day to save, and very little time... Its even harder when you have to save it on tape 
Thats why I wanna buy a DVD Writer. Ill use it once a day, 1 DVD a day. Data only. Any ideas? Keep in mind that cash is a bit of a problem... limited budget and stuff cos the wife wants a special hairdo!!!
PMB SUX!
Thats why I wanna buy a DVD Writer. Ill use it once a day, 1 DVD a day. Data only. Any ideas? Keep in mind that cash is a bit of a problem... limited budget and stuff cos the wife wants a special hairdo!!!PMB SUX!
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
Im a Beta - Lover!!! Hes a Ubuman!!!! (or is thatshe???)
It's a he you cheeky bugger !!
I have a server running ubu too.... you gotta love it.
If I wanted to run XP I would run it via VM.....lol.
You should hang out at ubuntu-offtopic on FREENODE... great bunch of people!
I am a rather paranoid user, so I tend to do fresh installs bi-weekly and the install process is such a breeze.
I have a server running ubu too.... you gotta love it.
If I wanted to run XP I would run it via VM.....lol.
You should hang out at ubuntu-offtopic on FREENODE... great bunch of people!
I am a rather paranoid user, so I tend to do fresh installs bi-weekly and the install process is such a breeze.
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
My home desktop: Fresh install, including partitioning
12 minutes 37 secs from pushing power button to login screen. Beat that! Besides, Ive set it up so that all data is on my second HDD, so I dont lose anything... I noticed last night that the CDROM was a bit messy... dropped a new one in. Going to the freedom toaster today too cos I wanna burn the entire repos.... gonna take a loooong time
B.
12 minutes 37 secs from pushing power button to login screen. Beat that! Besides, Ive set it up so that all data is on my second HDD, so I dont lose anything... I noticed last night that the CDROM was a bit messy... dropped a new one in. Going to the freedom toaster today too cos I wanna burn the entire repos.... gonna take a loooong time
B.
Fresh installs are quick aren't they...I thought about timing one or two but it averages about 15 mins for me. All my data goes to the server, I dont keep anything on the workstation unless it's real real current, I like it no strings attached, I don't like to be a slave to the OS, fresh installs anytime anyplace.
Oh and my server is running IDS etc, not on a seperate box for IDS or honeypots just yet.
Oh and my server is running IDS etc, not on a seperate box for IDS or honeypots just yet.
Last edited:
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
now THATS what I need. A server!!!! Solve ALL my problems... just a few hours of net time and no updating EVER again!!!!
online14230
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
I HAVE a non-functioning P3 at home, no monitor. I wouldnt mins setting that one up, but IDS???
You dont have to worry about IDS, but if you want to just grab "snort" from the repos, it's famous and brilliant, just edit the conf with one or two lines and there you go! I just can't help with all the wonderful apps in the repos. Couldn't help but set up my network through a transparent proxy just for the fun of it(tinyproxy).Not to mention the wonderful world of live CD's!!
