Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 17th Mar 2007 00:26 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu During my 8 years of Linux on and off usage I have tried more distros than I have chocolate bars. Each one of my previous encounters meant that I had to spend at least 2 days configuring before I have a desktop that I was somewhat comfortable with. With Ubuntu Feisty Fawn's latest test beta --for the first time ever-- this was not the case. I was up and running with all the niceties I wanted within 2 hours.
Order by: Score:
...
by Hiev on Sat 17th Mar 2007 00:42 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

You didn't mention how responsive it is, can you elaborate about it?

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 00:47 UTC in reply to "..."
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I can't really elaborate on this because my machine is a CoreDuo with 2 GB RAM and is really fast. Most people still use PIII/P4 and it would be unfair to say it's "fast" and then not get the same performance on their computers. So, I don't know.

However, I did notice some things:
1. My other Ubuntu Feisty installation under VMWare on my 3 Ghz P4 desktop is pretty fast, if that's an indication.
2. It displays HD 1080p video without dropping any frames, while my 3 Ghz P4 desktop and my other 2.8 Ghz P4 laptop do drop frames.

But overall, on *my* new laptop computer is responsive, yeah.

Edited 2007-03-17 00:48

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by superstoned on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Linux is generally more responsive compared to windows anyway, and it's getting better. Redraw speed is still slower, as is application startup, but those are being worked on by projects like Cairo for Gnome and Qt4's arthur for KDE 4 in the drawing area, and other optimizations in both KDE and Gnome.

And lower in the stack, X is getting work, as is the kernel in the scheduling area, so expect responsiveness to improve even more in the future.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: ...
by dsmogor on Mon 19th Mar 2007 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

so draw performance, startup (both application and bootup) are worse. I'd add general click to window time and file browser performance.
What's left in this superior responsivity?

Edited 2007-03-19 12:07

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ...
by superstoned on Mon 19th Mar 2007 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Showing menu's and other actions in the applications, switching between apps, and responsiveness on high load - all better in linux. Menu's often don't respond in Windows, and are generally slower than linux. I often click the taskbar menu twice, waiting for a response!
Windows also quickly shuts down when you try to use many apps concurrently, esp if some off them are heavy. Loading several files at the same time (select 10 files, hit enter. Explorer even WARNS you it's not smart to do that - no problem on linux...)

Filebrowser performance differs for several reasons. Explorer seems faster, but just does less - showing previews is much slower, and it doesn't get the filetype right in many cases (linux looks IN the file to determine it's filetype. So for example Konqueror will pretty much identify files correctly, explorer relies on their extension - I hate this when copying files from my linux to windows, as I don't add extensions on linux - why should I?).
But reading this metadata takes time. I know KDE is working on this, I'm actually preparing a blog about this - the new strigi-based KFileMetaData replacement is anywhere between 25% and 80 times (!) faster (depending on cold vs warm cache)...

Also, windows apps themselves freeze much more often than linux apps do. Try adding somebody's agenda to Outlook, and wait until you can use the app again... If the server takes his time, it can take minutes!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by dsmogor on Mon 19th Mar 2007 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I have different experiences on my poor 256M/800Mhz machine. This may have something to do with higher memory consumption or different architecture (more usage of file based data, and executables instead of libs).
Agree CPU interactivity is better on linux, but it's all killed when disk contention appears (between swap, cache dump, excessive seeks during app startup). Windows handles that much better from what I see.
The fact is that while Gnome usability definitely surpasses that of XP it's performance lags in a way that makes a difference to me. (not enough to switch to XP but nevertheless frustrating).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by superstoned on Mon 19th Mar 2007 18:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

well, there are indeed a lot of relevant differences. For one, Gnome uses more memory compared to KDE (approx 25%) so KDE would be more performant on that system. Still, it might need swap - and XP is even less memory hungry, so it works even better at 256 mb. Also, Qt, having a company & money behind it, has better painting performance than GTK. Then there is the linux kernel - versions after 2.6.18 (if I'm right) have a new IO scheduler, giving better performance. Last, as you said, Linux apps use more libraries than a comparable windows app (more duplication on windows, decreasing mem usage of 1 app, increasing it if you start many apps - windows still is a single-app-single-user OS...). And the linux dynamic linker is slower as well, giving longer startup times (a lot is being done in this area, btw). Last, GCC is slower than the compilers used with windows.

Yes, linux has several big disadvantages to windows, in the performance area. But those disadvantages lie in a few area's, and it's better in most areas. Fixing the few problems will speed up linux beyond Windows - and these area's are being fixed, that's why every new linux release (+ libs + X + KDE/gnome combined) is faster than the previous one, while MS can't pull that off.

Reply Score: 3

v Linux
by A.O.K. on Sat 17th Mar 2007 00:45 UTC
RE: Linux
by renox on Sat 17th Mar 2007 19:34 UTC in reply to "Linux"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>Linux is definately ready.

Depends on what you call ready, if you read Eugenia's post, you may have noticed that initially the display was garbled.

She was able to fix it because she is an "expert" in Linux, for a beginner (or someone not interested in wasting his time), this would have been a show stopper..

Myself I failed to intall Kubuntu 6.10 due to a garbled screen, Mandriva 2007 worked. While it's quite nice there are very basic usability mistake..

For example, with Xgl, when I put the mouse in the up-right corner to close a window, quite often the 'Expose' effect kick-in, which is quite stupid (it should have been activated from the low-right corner, the only corner not used).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Linux
by dylansmrjones on Sat 17th Mar 2007 21:18 UTC in reply to "Linux"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The other day? It's before the initial release of Vista ;)

Interesting though.. a chat with Sikosis.. not bad ;)

Reply Score: 2

Nice one
by moleskine on Sat 17th Mar 2007 00:57 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

All this functionality and user-friendliness comes with relatively modest hardware requirements. And if you major on Xfce or, say, Fluxbox rather than Gnome, I'd imagine a P3 and 256 megs would be more than enough - they certainly are for earlier incarnations of Ubuntu on my ancient laptop. In an era of energy conservation, Vista's requirements are about as smart as boasting how few miles to the gallon your SUV manages.

That said, I've had no luck trying to install the Kubuntu test release of Feisty Fawn. It mashes up the MBR and doesn't install grub at all. Ways to go there, I think. So I am keenly waiting on the final version of Kubuntu for 7.04.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Nice one
by butters on Sat 17th Mar 2007 03:31 UTC in reply to "Nice one"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I'm not sure if you mean nice distro or nice preview, but both are true. Excellent preview, Eugenia.

That said, I've had no luck trying to install the Kubuntu test release of Feisty Fawn. It mashes up the MBR and doesn't install grub at all.

This is what gets me about Ubuntu/Kubuntu. I'm also looking to move on from my "hobbyist" phase after using predominantly Gentoo for over 5 years now. I like what I see in the Ubuntu project and its community, philosophy, and ambitions. I think they have a winning formula that's going to carry them past the honeymoon stage and withstand the test of time and growth. As Eugenia and others note, the distribution is really impressive overall, but it's just not achieving the level of quality that I would like to see. Yes, this is a beta release, but the Ubuntu project and the free software desktop in general is too mature to allow installer bugs like undetected display modes on mass market laptops and botched bootloader installations in a public beta.

Don't get me wrong--there is a LOT to like about how Feisty is shaping up. But there's also some unacceptably rough edges. The quality has to rise to meet growing expectations. Linux desktops have always been a matter of tweak a little here, clue-bat a little there, and it's great. The definition of "great" is completely different idea today than it has been in the past, as a well-setup Linux desktop compares favorably with the industry leaders in terms of features and usability. But the nudging, poking, and prodding has got to stop. Slow down just a touch, and let's try to avoid all those sticky forum threads with simple workarounds for ridiculously common issues.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Nice one
by proftv on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice one"
proftv Member since:
2006-01-01

What you are saying would be perfectly understandable if we where talking about the final release, but Feisty is still in alpha, not beta. You may want to wait and try the final release before you give your opinion of the distro as a whole.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice one
by sbergman27 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice one"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Don't get me wrong--there is a LOT to like about how Feisty is shaping up. But there's also some unacceptably rough edges. The quality has to rise to meet growing expectations. Linux desktops have always been a matter of tweak a little here, clue-bat a little there, and it's great.
"""

While I agree, I'm afraid that progress on some of the problems may be reaching a point of diminishing returns.

For example, shortly we're not even supposed to *need* and xorg.conf file on our systems. Rah! Rah! Rah! But I've had too many monitors that lied about their capabilities to think that I'm not going to have to keep tweaking the frequencies in a config file.

Hardware vendors sometimes don't seem to care that much about what their hardware reports... as long as they get it right in the .inf file they send to Microsoft, Dell, and HP.

Until they start caring more about getting things right with Linux Kernel and Xorg, before they release the hardware in question, we'll continue to be at a disadvantage. Particularly on new hardware like Eugenia's shiny new treasure.

In this way, preinstalls by companies like Dell would actually benefit all of us, if the fixes percolated back upstream before the hardware hit the market.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice one
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 05:32 UTC in reply to "Nice one"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

//That said, I've had no luck trying to install the Kubuntu test release of Feisty Fawn. It mashes up the MBR and doesn't install grub at all. Ways to go there, I think. So I am keenly waiting on the final version of Kubuntu for 7.04.//

I too have had endless problems installing Kubuntu from the liveCD. For me, the disk partioner qtparted kept crashing. This has been the case even since edgy. I filed a bug report (because this was a showstopper bug for getting Kubuntu installed), but it was ignored. I filed it again for a beta of Kubuntu feisty, and as far as I know it is still being ignored.

Having said that, I am running the beat of Kubuntu Feisty right now. What I did was get the beta of Xubuntu (the one with the lightweight Xfce desktop), install that (since it uses gparted not qtparted), then once it was installed I used synaptic to install the kubuntu-desktop package. That worked for me.

Apart from the qtparted crash when installing from the Kubuntu liveCD, I have to say that otherwise Kubuntu feisty is looking pretty good.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice one
by fignew on Sat 17th Mar 2007 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice one"
fignew Member since:
2006-09-06

Agreed, the new installer is complete rubbish.
I recommend the "Alternative" installer instead... Just look for the .iso with "alternative" in it. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice one
by superstoned on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice one"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

afaik, qtparted is being replaced by the same system ubuntu uses (but with a qt gui) so your problems should be solved. Try the latest flight, and ping riddell on #kubuntu-devel (irc) if you still have problems. I'm sure he will help you. He's way too nice to ignore people, unless they are reall reall dicks (and then still, he's pretty polite, where others would look for their gun).

Reply Score: 3

Graphics
by Mr. Tan on Sat 17th Mar 2007 01:09 UTC
Mr. Tan
Member since:
2005-07-08

Curiously though, you're using an intel integrated video card for your new laptop right? When you first entered Vista Home is it using aero glass? Have you tried beryl/xgl on your ubuntu setup?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Graphics
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 01:14 UTC in reply to "Graphics"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Yes, my Home Basic came with Aero (minus the visual tricks) -- composite was enabled by default on Vista. There was hardware acceleration, shadows etc.

I only tried Compiz on Ubuntu though, and I didn't stay on it very long because I found some major problems with it. I didn't try Beryl in there because I don't want to screw up the system between AIXGL/XGL and Compiz/Beryl. I will just follow whatever Ubuntu decides to use as their default, although my personal preference is AIXGL/Beryl (just without these silly-loaded pref panels). Beryl moves forward faster than Compiz /me thinks.

Edited 2007-03-17 01:21

Reply Score: 1

RE: Graphics
by budword on Sat 17th Mar 2007 02:25 UTC in reply to "Graphics"
budword Member since:
2006-06-18

I am running beryl on edgy with all the bells on a thinkpad t30 with 512MB of ram, and a 2ghz proc. Runs just fine, and looks damn cool. I haven't and won't install vista on any machine I own, but I bet aero would choke on these specs, and beryl looks fantastic.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Graphics
by Mr. Tan on Sat 17th Mar 2007 15:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Graphics"
Mr. Tan Member since:
2005-07-08

what's the video card you're using in your laptop?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Graphics
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Graphics"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Intel 945G.

Reply Score: 1

My experience with Feisty
by chrono13 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 01:17 UTC
chrono13
Member since:
2006-10-25

~15 Minute easy install. Add/Remove sort by popularity, add Nvidia and some players and other popular software
On-attempt-to-play install of most codecs (automagic MP3 and most video support without fuss). With my extra software, some video players/codecs didn't work. I clicked the help icon and followed the easy instructions. Everything just worked.
3d Effects simple as a light switch. I was greedy and wanted beryl. Three lines because I was lazy. I probably could have figured a way to do it entirely GUI.

So, since AIXGL is in by default, and restricted software is visible/easier to install. I had a wonderfully set up system in little bit a half-hour. With some really excellent "the most popular" software (Amarok, K3b, Firefox, Open Office, VLC, MPlayer, Gxine, wine, etc).

Then the test... updates. Alpha/Beta updates on an already configured system? I've been through several updates now, including three xorgs, two kernel, and other major updates and nothing has broken. Not bad for alpha software. I was expecting breakage because the packages were still being updated and changed. Nope. Everything works.

Meanwhile, in Windows this week, I'm running Regmon, Filemon and some other testing, bug catching and monitoring software to find a nasty freeze (I suspect it is the LCD apps I'm running). Already took care of a blue screen that hit last week (video codecs).

For those very familiar with Linux *and* Windows many have found Linux easier for quite some time.

Feisty I believe will tip that scale for the novice. Want to walk your mom over the phone through XP install, activation, antivirus, firewall, software installs, configurations, drivers... Keeping in mind it was a virus or spyware that nuked her system the last two times?
Or... Ubuntu Feisty with a less than half hour setup depending on what she needs?

I can honestly say that for me, Linux has become better than Windows.

Easier to use, set up, and certainly more enjoyable.

Reply Score: 5

RE: My experience with Feisty
by Bending Unit on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:33 UTC in reply to "My experience with Feisty"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

And what will you do when she needs to troubleshoot and repair Linux? Teach her the UNIX command line? How to calculate and add new modelines in xorg.conf? RTFM?

Linux may be easy as long as things just work but when things break or you need to do something that isn't covered by GUI tools the user is totally lost. And getting help with a highly complex system with such few users is not going to easy.

Convert people to Linux and you will probably be their computer tech for a very long time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: My experience with Feisty
by raver31 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE: My experience with Feisty"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

And Windows is "really" easy to fix when it gets broken.....

what was your point ?
apart from flamebait.





Edit as my E key did not seem to work. ;)

Edited 2007-03-17 11:03

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: My experience with Feisty
by rtfa on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE: My experience with Feisty"
rtfa Member since:
2006-02-27

I've never has to mod xorg.conf for my screens.

What do you do to fix Windows - reinstall anything from a driver or application of the whole OS to fix it. You should stop quoting hearsay and learn about other systems. Some systems don't "just stop working" like Windows system do.

"Convert people to Windows and you will be their computer tech for a very long time." is the true statement hence the large Windows support teams in large organisations. I am forever fixing windows systems for family and friends.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: My experience with Feisty
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE: My experience with Feisty"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{And what will you do when she needs to troubleshoot and repair Linux? Teach her the UNIX command line? How to calculate and add new modelines in xorg.conf? RTFM?

Linux may be easy as long as things just work but when things break or you need to do something that isn't covered by GUI tools the user is totally lost. And getting help with a highly complex system with such few users is not going to easy.

Convert people to Linux and you will probably be their computer tech for a very long time.}


Firstly, I would probably tell such a user to install an easy-to-use Linux in the first place. One built for newbies.

Then I would point them here:
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/HomePage

... and if they were having a problem with hardware setup, I would direct them here:
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/PclosControlCenter
... and then here ...
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/AddUpgradeHardware

... and if the problem was setting up X, I would point them here:
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/ChangeResolution

... and have them go nowhere near a command line.

If they were using SuSe, I would direct them to the GUI control-panel equivalent for video settings, which is part of yast.

If they had a Kubuntu system, well that isn't quite as friendly as many systems, as it really isn't for newbies. Nevertheless, I would direct them to this page:
http://www.kubuntu.org/docs/kquickguide/C/ch03s07.html
... then here ...
http://www.kubuntu.org/docs/kquickguide/C/ch03s07.html#sect-display

There is, I'm sure, a similar arrangement for Ubuntu.

Then they could still fix their video hardware problem without using a GUI.

It is a myth that you must use then command-line in Linux. It is less of a myth for Ubuntu systems than it is for some others, but it is still a myth.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: My experience with Feisty
by siki_miki on Sat 17th Mar 2007 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My experience with Feisty"
siki_miki Member since:
2006-01-17

If someone asks you to help them with screwed Windows system, usual answer will be reinstall application -or- reformat a hdd (in fact just reinstall the OS), or maybe use system restore and loose all settings with installed programs.

In Linux it means running package manager with some commands and backup/restore of home directory with possible creation of a new user.

Reply Score: 2

Ubuntu is missing too much stuff...
by rklrkl on Sat 17th Mar 2007 01:24 UTC
rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

Until Fedora 7 final comes out, I decided to install Ubuntu Feisty Fawn Herd 5 on my brand new Core 2 Duo Acer laptop and ran into an immediate problem with the screen resolution. It was stuck in 1024x768 until I downloaded the "915resolution" util and configured that to get it into 1280x800.

What I found out with Ubuntu is that it's "missing" stuff in its default desktop install that I'm used to having on the Fedora install DVD. No NFS client support (need to install portmap and nfs-common) which is appalling for a desktop release, no XMMS player, no Azureus, no decent terminal fonts (where's Ludica Typewriter - easily the best monospaced font out there!), non-working "Desktop Effects" (blank windows and no focus made the effects unusable), no sshd, no easy way to run 32-bit Firefox (I just install the 32-bit Firefox RPM on Fedora) on a 64-bit system, very buggy GNOME Terminal (I updated it, which improved things a little, but still buggy) and I've no doubt just stratched the surface there.

So hours and hours of tweaking and downloads later and I've muscled Ubuntu into a half-usable system, but I wasn't massively happy after that and I'll be going back to Fedora in a few months. I must say, though, that the live Ubuntu CD is great for just playing with the laptop when I first got it last week and doing backups and re-partitioning.

Reply Score: 5

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

rklrkl, Ubuntu only comes in a single CD. Fedora is several CDs. Therefore, on Ubuntu you will find ONLY the packages that most of the *home desktop* users will need (I never needed an NFS client for example, while there is an SMB shared-folder panel available by default). For the rest of the packages, there is the easy to use add/remove application which has Azureus and XMMS etc.

I feel that the *only* applications that are missing from Ubuntu for a *desktop* system is the Bluetooth Obex server for Gnome, Brasero and maybe Liferea. Everything else that is needed, is already there (including a simple Gnome Bittorrent client compared to the loaded Azuereus that could put off a lot of home users just by the looks of it).

Edited 2007-03-17 01:32

Reply Score: 1

fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

Therefore, on Ubuntu you will find ONLY the packages that most of the *home desktop* users will need (I never needed an NFS client for example, while there is an SMB shared-folder panel available by default).

I have to agree with the OP. SMB is all fine and good for Windows users, but you're in Linux-land now. Lack of ability to share files over NFS in a default install is quite ridiculous.

Reply Score: 5

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

As I said, never in my life needed NFS. However, many-many times I needed SMB. I think Ubuntu just went with whatever most people use.

....

Just wait a second!! I just checked again the "Shared Folders" admin panel and that takes care of BOTH NFS and SMB!! When you load it for the first time it asks you if you want them and it takes care of installation and service-loading. That's how it should be and that's how it is.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
"I have to agree with the OP. SMB is all fine and good for Windows users, but you're in Linux-land now. Lack of ability to share files over NFS in a default install is quite ridiculous.
"""


I was reading an interview with either Andrew tridgell or Jeremy Allison a while back. I can't remember which. But the person in question stated that making CIFS, with the posix extensions, the de facto standard across the board was a goal of theirs.

He made the excellent point that it is silly to have some machines use CIFS, some use whatever version of NFS, and some use... whatever Apple uses these days, when all these machines can just talk CIFS and be done with it.

I tend to agree. NFSv2/3/4 are not so wonderful that it makes sense for us to take an NIH attitude and perpetuate the fragmentation. NFS has never been what I'd call one of Unix's crown jewels. We've mainly used it because it was what we had. And cifs with the unix extensions is quite serviceable now.

Reply Score: 2

fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

If that's what works for you, go for it. Personally I've much better things to do with my life than screw with configuring a rebadged SMB. I also prefer not to have the monstrous overhead that comes with SMB or CIFS.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Personally I've much better things to do with my life than screw with configuring a rebadged SMB
"""


This comparison page:

http://tinyurl.com/3aluny

at linux-nfs.org, no less, is somewhat less dismissive of CIFS.

Don't forget the extensions that make it integrate nicely with posix filesystem semantics, and the other things it brings to the table, like file locking that actually works, oplocks, and real posix acls.

I see no compelling advantages to any of the NFS versions, including v4, over CIFS for a Linux environment. In fact, CIFS is arguably a better fit for Linux than is NFS. And I see big advantages for a mixed environment.

By that I don't necessarily mean a mix of Windows and Linux... but a mix of pretty much any OSes and platforms one might have a need to support.

I was resistant to this line of thinking, at first. But then I realized that I was letting my bias against Microsoft effect my rational judgment.

Reply Score: 4

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

And that is Ubuntu's major problem imho. I dislike Gnome, much preferring KDE, yet *out of the box*, Ubuntu does NOT give me choice. Some say that that's to keep it simple, I honestly think it's bad for Linux. Everyone keeps saying 'but Linux gives you choice!!!' - strange that Ubuntu doesn't. How hard would it for Ubuntu to release a DVD instead of a CD and include the most popular desktop environment in Linux land?

Don't give me the Kubuntu bullshyte, cos that's just baloney. It gets far less attention, and has far less developers, resulting in a shoddy system. What we are seeing here is blatant favouritism for Gnome, rather than letting the end user choose what they want/prefer.

Until Ubuntu decides to support KDE properly, I won't use it, nor will I recommend it.

In fact, these days I don't use GNU/Linux at all, since several things I use aren't supported:

1. Photoshop CS2 (WINE/Cedega/CrossOver Office do not support it, not even with nasty hacks)
2. Neat Image (full of bugs under WINE, haven't tried Cedega/CrossOver office)
3. Capture One Pro (WINE says v3.6, although it has bugs, not sure on v3.7)
4. Canon EOS 1D DSLR - gphoto2 doesn't support this *major* pro camera whatsoever. Disappointing. Asking me to get off my a$$ and code drivers for this baby is what I consider elitist and a very unreasonable demand on the end user. It's one thing that gives GNU/Linux zealots a very bad name in the real world.

I have a Windows based PC, which is what I primarily use these days because Photoshop and Neat Image are Windows versions (I didn't have a Mac at the time of buying both software pieces). I love the Mac (older PowerMac G4 1ghz running 10.3.8), but until I have Mac versions of my software I won't switch totally.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

From what I can tell kubuntu is not any worse/better than other KDE based distros. If you have any special needs perhaps you should tell them.

The rest of your problems unfortunately relates to market share and development costs. So why complain that your favorite programs doesn't run in wine or some wine derivate. Why not complain that they are not ported to native Linux to the company that made them, In this case Adobe and Canon.

Microsoft isn't even close to provide drivers for as many devices that Linux supports out of the box. Yet it is always a fault of Linux when some device doesn't work under Linux, and the fault of the device manufacturer if it doesn't work on Windows. We need to be careful to place blame where blame belongs.

Today the Linux desktop is easier to use, and looks better than current versions of Windows. What is holding it back is lack of applications that people are used to use. E.g. Gimp may be a good editor, but if you have used Photoshop half a lifetime it is unlikely that you will be prepared to relearn, at least not until Gimp is significantly better than Photoshop. Currently this is not the case.

Preloaded Linux would be nice too, but it is not as important to get commonly used apps ported. The main advantage with preloaded Linux, as I see it would be that there would be less machines that ship with windows. Modern Linuxes are so easy to install that everybody can install provided the hardware is supported.

Reply Score: 4

robertojdohnert Member since:
2005-07-12

" From what I can tell kubuntu is not any worse/better than other KDE based distros. If you have any special needs perhaps you should tell them. "

If you want a better KDE based Ubuntu derivative besides Kubuntu I suggest SimplyMEPIS. Maybe Freespire or Linspire are better but I havent used Linspire much.

" Microsoft isn't even close to provide drivers for as many devices that Linux supports out of the box. Yet it is always a fault of Linux when some device doesn't work under Linux, and the fault of the device manufacturer if it doesn't work on Windows. We need to be careful to place blame where blame belongs. "

If you want Linux drivers from hardware manufacturers make your voice heard. Speak up. This is not a blame game. After working in both the hardware and software side of the business I can tell you this. A company is not going to do anything if it doesnt make A) Financial sense or B) there isnt demand for it. But its a give and take, if you want the device and app support you must be willing to abide by and follow the licensing terms of the manufacturer. Adobe at one time had Framemaker on Linux and they didnt follow through with it because when the community was polled Linux users wanted it for free or wanted Adobe to Open Source it.

" Today the Linux desktop is easier to use, and looks better than current versions of Windows. What is holding it back is lack of applications that people are used to use. E.g. Gimp may be a good editor, but if you have used Photoshop half a lifetime it is unlikely that you will be prepared to relearn, at least not until Gimp is significantly better than Photoshop. Currently this is not the case. "

I disagree. I like the Windows Vista look. Windows isnt as customizable out of the box as KDE or GNOME but Microsoft has the look down. if people want Photoshop on Linux until a native port is done I can testify that Photoshop works very reliably with Wine in its current version.

" Preloaded Linux would be nice too, but it is not as important to get commonly used apps ported. The main advantage with preloaded Linux, as I see it would be that there would be less machines that ship with windows. Modern Linuxes are so easy to install that everybody can install provided the hardware is supported."

The current plan for preloading is offering choice. either Linux or Windows. People will go with what they know. Linux needs the wow factor and when people find out that they may need to do more work to get a Linux machine up and running than they do a Windows machine whats the point?

Reply Score: 1

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Eh? Excuse me? I've probably used Linux a whole lot more than you, and probably know a lot more about it. So, don't talk about my 'special needs'.

An operating system has to do what I need it to do. If it can't, then it's not suitable - period. At the moment, Linux continues to fragment. Whilst this is good, and offers choice to the user, the downside is that it doesn't encourage software vendors to port their software to Linux.

I'm not going to blame Canon, etc. I've done my bit, I've asked for them (previously) to support GNU/Linux. I can ask, but that doesn't mean I'll get what I want. If it makes you feel a bit better, an engineer at Canon Australia told me that they're looking to natively support Canon cameras in the near future for Linux. Adobe? I'd love Adobe to port Photoshop, and I honestly don't think that it'd be that hard for them. If they can get it running on OS X, then they can it with Linux as well. Unfortunately, I can't make Adobe port it. You could have a million emails go to Adobe, requesting that Photoshop be ported, in the end, they won't do it unless they feel that they have to. Photoshop is their baby, and they'll do what they please. Until Linux has an equally powerful, and usable Photo editing/imaging application, there'll be no pressure on Adobe to port. Plain and simple.

I can from the GIMP to Photoshop btw. I don't mind the GIMP, but it's simply not intuitive, and it doesn't let me do the things that I need to do, as a photographer. Plain and simple. Photoshop does. If Adobe ports to Linux, and the other pieces of software that I rely on are ported, I'd switch back in an instant. I prefer GNU/Linux, I prefer the GPL. Early in 2006 I needed to make a distinction - stay with Linux and be hampered as a photographer, or move back to Windows (or OS X) and grow as a photographer. I chose the latter.

You're not telling me something I don't know (drivers, etc), I've used Linux long enough and extensively enough to know what I'm doing. I'm not some newbie troll who has no idea what he's talking about.

Anyways, to me, Ubuntu doesn't give me choice, real choice. If it offered the 2 major desktop environments, I'd consider it. Until then, I can't honestly recommend Ubuntu. If it pleases you, 3 of my friends have tried Ubuntu and all have been unimpressed, with an attitude of "what's all the fuss about?". One much prefers Mandrive, another Fedora, and another Mepis.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Melkor, my husband is a prosumer photographer (Canon 5D) and he as well can't use Linux to do what he needs to do as a photographer (samples: http://www.geocities.com/jbqueru/ ). There is no secret there.

However, this is how it is, and I suggest you use Windows or OSX to do your job. Use the best tool for the job, and for your line of work, that's Win or OSX.

Use Linux if you just want a desktop aside from your work.

Edited 2007-03-17 06:20

Reply Score: 1

Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

If it offered the 2 major desktop environments, I'd consider it.

Ubuntu (and Debian) rely on the repositories more than providing options during install. It makes for a trimmer install and empowers the user to make their choices as they use the system.

1) the desktop installed initially or "sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop" if you use the server install.
2) sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop
3) sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop
4) sudo apt-get install fluxbox
5) sudo apt-get install fvwm
etc....

You are not some newbie troll, but anyone who has been at OSNews for more than 2 days has heard the argument about missing Photoshop. It has been beat to death. If you need Photoshop use OS X or Windows. Linux is not a fit for every user's needs. Nor is Windows.

Reply Score: 5

Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Adobe won't ever release their apps on Linux, at least I don't believe so.

Why? It's because they know hardly anyone would buy it. Many poeople may tell Adobe they would want to USE Photoshop on Linux, but how many people would actually BUY Photoshop if it was released for Linux? People who use Linux, where everything is free, would just crack a trial version and be knowledgeable enough to stop any product activation from 'phoning home'. Adobe know this... so does every other large software co. that won't release Linux versions.

Businesses won't pay for it... they already purchased Macs for their design departments or have the Windows versions. I don't believe there could be very many 'businesses' for Adobe to target on Linux, certainly not enough to make it worth the development costs.

Edited 2007-03-17 10:57

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Adobe on Linux
by ubit on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ubuntu is missing too much stuff..."
ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@@.3bc1d4af/0

"Chris Cox:
Is the time approaching when Linux has standards for fonts, color management, printing, etc.?

Is the time approaching when Linux has standard APIs beyond POSIX? (in other words: Linux is just the kernel, it's all the other stuff that makes it useful. But all that other stuff varies from distribution to distribution.)

Is the time approaching when Linux has standards for a GUI? (anything based on X WIndows does not qualify... Been there, bought the T-shirt, still got the books, but ain't goin back)

Is the time approaching when Linux has real desktop applications and not just command line apps, one-off ports and server products?

And most importantly: is the time approaching when Linux desktop users are willing to pay for commercial software?

Let me know when you have a serious answer.
"

I'm not sure about the argument that people don't pay for Linux, considering Red Hat/Oracle(proprietary)/Suse/IBM(proprietary). Honestly it seems to me like a red herring. I know most students already pirate Photoshop anyways.

Edited 2007-03-17 11:08

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Adobe on Linux
by chris_dk on Sat 17th Mar 2007 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Adobe on Linux"
chris_dk Member since:
2005-07-12

Actually, that thread pretty good shows why Adobe doesn't port Photoshop to Linux:

* Lack of standardisation and good APIs
* Lack of market

I am a pro-Linux, but I see a lot of limitations in the platform as well.

I think that it will take a least 5 years until Linux has matured enough to port something like Photoshop.

Reply Score: 2

rtfa Member since:
2006-02-27

"People who use Linux, where everything is free, would just crack a trial version and be knowledgeable enough to stop any product activation from 'phoning home'."

this is a Microsoft windows issue - The only pirated software is Windows Based software done by Windows users who don't want to pay for Photoshop etc. The biggest music pirating is done by Windows users.

Stop spreading blatent lies about Linux users, the FREE part means freedom and it happens in most case that the software is free in cost as well.

I know loads of Windows users using the "free" versions of software such as AVG so who are the freeloaders then?????

Reply Score: 1

udi7 Member since:
2007-03-18

People who use Linux, where everything is free, would just crack a trial version and be knowledgeable enough to stop any product activation from 'phoning home'.

Hahaha, are you really that naive? People who use Windows do it all the time. I can assure you that the majority of the software installed in PCs with Windows in the world is pirated. And that "People who use Linux" thing is really hilarious. I think people who currently use Linux don't need Photoshop. Otherwise they wouldn't be Linux users, would they? So, we can say that most designers are Windows or OSX users. Some of them would be willing to switch to Linux if Adobe ported Photoshop. If those designers are honest people who choose to buy original software (even thought getting a cracked version is the easiest thing in the world) they will keep doing it in Linux. Honesty is not determined by the OS you use, is it?

Reply Score: 3

pcdoctor Member since:
2007-03-05

You're quite right in that many Windoze users pirate software. To the max.
Even my version of eXPee is a pirated hacked copy
(and it works well, and takes Auto-Updates!)
My Photoshop is a pirated version...I don't usually pay for Windows software (maybe once or twice,avoiding such whenever possible) - my AVG is free, as are all other diagnostix...in fact I make a small living outa making house calls to my PC friends, (pre-loaded with PC freeware that I don't pay one cent for) and everything works.
Bill Gates is yet to get one single red cent outa my pocket and it's been six years,now!

Yours Truly,
Pirates of The Caribbean!
________________________________________________

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{People who use Linux, where everything is free, would just crack a trial version and be knowledgeable enough to stop any product activation from 'phoning home'.}

<sarcasm>
You know, you are 100% correct.

After all, as an example, Linux Genuine Advantage ...
http://www.linuxgenuineadvantage.org/
... has already been cracked!
http://www.alienos.com/articles/2007/02/02/linux-genuine-advantage-...

</sarcasm>

{ Adobe know this... so does every other large software co. that won't release Linux versions. }

So what about the large software companies that do release Linux versions of proprietary applications? Including, BTW, the largest such company, IBM?

Seriously, it won't be long before Adobe lose any opportunity to establish a market for Photoshop on the Linux platform, as Krita in KOffice 2.0 under KDE4 (which will be available on Windows as well as Linux) catches up then passes it by.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krita
http://www.koffice.org/krita/

Edited 2007-03-18 10:16

Reply Score: 2

ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

I am a serious photographer (with exhibited work) so I cannot help but comment on the claim that GNU Linux is not useful for serious photographers. Professional photographic workflow software exists that runs on GNU Linux, e.g. Bibble Pro, but there are also others. I use Ubuntu to take RAW files off my camera, categorize by date and immediately backup to multiple hard drives (using python scripts I have written myself), Bibble Pro to convert the RAW files into 16 bit TIFFs, and then I use Photoshop CS2 to convert those TIFFs to jpegs in a variety of sizes. I run Photoshop in VMware or under dual boot. I agree that Photoshop is currently superior to the Gimp for photographers for a number of compelling reasons, but I would say they are related to features rather than the user interface. The UI of both programs have their pluses and minuses.

I am also a student currently doing my MA, and here too while I use Ubuntu all the time (I'm using it now), there is specialized software that only runs under Windows (or Mac) that makes the life of a student far easier. Endnote is one of these programs (bibliographic management). While I have high hopes for Zotero, Endnote is a great time saver, again for a number of compelling reasons. Dragon NaturallySpeaking (voice recognition, Windows only) can also be extremely useful for producing papers. Fortunately VMware player does the trick in this situation, meaning I can run Ubuntu while at the same time having access to Endnote and NaturallySpeaking.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Re: Ubuntu and photographers
by melkor on Tue 20th Mar 2007 02:07 UTC in reply to "Re: Ubuntu and photographers"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

I'm not going to fork out more money for VMWare. And I've tried Bibble Pro, in all honesty, the quality of the files aren't that great, and it's UI is shocking.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

VMWare server is free and will work nicely for your need to run Windows on a Linux box.

Reply Score: 1

Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

I can from the GIMP to Photoshop btw. I don't mind the GIMP, but it's simply not intuitive, and it doesn't let me do the things that I need to do, as a photographer. Plain and simple. Photoshop does. If Adobe ports to Linux, and the other pieces of software that I rely on are ported, I'd switch back in an instant. I prefer GNU/Linux, I prefer the GPL. Early in 2006 I needed to make a distinction - stay with Linux and be hampered as a photographer, or move back to Windows (or OS X) and grow as a photographer. I chose the latter.

Ever heard about Cinepaint? It is the second image editor used not only by professional photographers but also movie studios after Adobe Photoshop.
http://www.cinepaint.org/

Edited 2007-03-17 21:33

Reply Score: 2

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Yes, I've heard of Cinepaint. Photoshop CS2 works just fine for me. I'm not saying Cinepaint is bad, I'm simply saying that I'm financially committed to Photoshop and I'm happy with the way that it works, and what I can do with my images.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

tsk tsk. I'm quite competent at using GNU/Linux thank you very much.

I didn't say that Ubuntu sucked for everyone, I said that it doesn't suit my needs and that Linux in general doesn't work for me because of a variety of current issues (and that I hoped that those issues would get solved, so that I could return to using GNU/Linux).

Photoshop CS2 is not arcane, I'd wager a solid bet than more people use Photoshop than use GNU/Linux ;-) Other software such as Canon's DPP, or Capture One Pro are lesser used, although a lot of people have Canon digital cameras these days (DPP is also used with Canon digital compacts, not just DSLRs).

I personally detest Microsoft Windows for a variety of reasons, so please don't make me out to be a Windows troll, which I am most certainly not. If you want to be a Linux troll, go for it, I need a good laugh from time to time :-)

Dave

Reply Score: 1

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I dislike Gnome, much preferring KDE, yet *out of the box*, Ubuntu does NOT give me choice... Everyone keeps saying 'but Linux gives you choice!!!' - strange that Ubuntu doesn't.

Part of the choice is that there are around a dozen major distributions to choose from. Ubuntu is merely one of these choices.

How hard would it for Ubuntu to release a DVD instead of a CD and include the most popular desktop environment in Linux land?

Not very hard, but they might as well release a CD for users who prefer GNOME and another for those who prefer KDE... which is what they do. I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from on DE popularity. I have a feeling that GNOME is currently more popular than KDE, but I think this is a cyclical thing. KDE used to be more popular, then GNOME reinvented itself and became more popular, and now we see KDE reinventing itself and gaining momentum.

Don't give me the Kubuntu bullshyte, cos that's just baloney. It gets far less attention, and has far less developers, resulting in a shoddy system. What we are seeing here is blatant favouritism for Gnome, rather than letting the end user choose what they want/prefer.

I'm not going to disagree with you. Kubuntu and Ubuntu share a great deal of development effort, but yes, Kubuntu tends to trail Ubuntu in overall polish. Remember, Linux is about choice. Ubuntu chooses GNOME. Who are you to deny them their right to choose?

There is no shortage of high-quality KDE-oriented distributions. Try MEPIS or PCLinuxOS, for example. The former is a relatively close derivative of Ubuntu with a focus on KDE and simplicity. The latter is a fork of Mandriva that uses APT tools to manage RPMs, which is unusual, but it seems to work really well.

Look, man, everybody's different. It isn't feasible for everybody to develop their own distribution, so we only have like four hundred and change to choose from. Most are really small niche projects that probably aren't what you're looking for. There's certainly no conspiracy to keep you from using a KDE-oriented distribution.

In fact, these days I don't use GNU/Linux at all, since several things I use aren't supported:...

You're preaching to the choir. We all would like to see those seemingly irreplaceable Windows apps become available on Linux and other free software platforms, but nobody here at OSNews or over at the Ubuntu project can help you with this. Maybe write a letter to Adobe if you think it's worth your time, because it isn't a matter of Linux not supporting Photoshop, it's Adobe not supporting Linux. Same thing with hardware. Canon could have implemented the USB mass storage standard if they cared about compatibility, or they could have been more forthcoming as to why our reverse-engineered PTP driver in gphoto2 works with my PowerShot but not with your EOS.

Asking me to get off my a$$ and code drivers for this baby is what I consider elitist and a very unreasonable demand on the end user. It's one thing that gives GNU/Linux zealots a very bad name in the real world.

I have sneaking suspicion that you get this response from the Linux community because we feel you're placing unreasonable demands on us. Your points are valid, but your energy is misdirected. Unfortunately for those who don't like to code, that's how software is created and improved. We invite you to participate in our projects in a variety of capacities including but not limited to programming, but of course participation is not required.

I think that Linux "zealots" get a bad name because much of the "real world" believes in a culture of entitlement. Look at everybody living life with a chip on their shoulder, blaming everyone else for their problems and scoffing at the notion that they take responsibility for their own situation. Somewhere along the line we stopped believing in opportunity as a means of realizing our dreams and began to foster the idea that we're entitled to our expectations. In "Linux land," we believe that the opportunity to participate in our information society is fundamental to our inherent desire as human beings to better our situation and control our own destiny.

Of course, money can make just about any dream come true. Mark Shuttleworth, for exmaple, invested $10 million to help make the Ubuntu project a reality. But years ago my great-grandmother told me the story of how my family came to America with nothing but the promise that here they would find a land of opportunity. This is the same promise we make with free software. This isn't elitist, this is egalitarian.

Edited 2007-03-17 05:34

Reply Score: 5

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{In fact, these days I don't use GNU/Linux at all, since several things I use aren't supported:

1. Photoshop CS2 (WINE/Cedega/CrossOver Office do not support it, not even with nasty hacks)
2. Neat Image (full of bugs under WINE, haven't tried Cedega/CrossOver office)
3. Capture One Pro (WINE says v3.6, although it has bugs, not sure on v3.7)
}

What a strange person.

Those three points are no fault of Ubuntu nor Linux, but rather are the fault of the OEM software vendors (Adobe, Nik Software et al) for not writing a Linux version.

Windows can't run Linux binary software packages at all, BTW, so why would you expect Linux to be able run all Windows binaries?

The fact that WINE/Cedega/CrossOver Office suppaort any Windows binaries at all is the remarkable thing.

If you want even better support for running Windows binaries under Linux, then try this:

http://www.win4lin.com/index.php/content/view/64/125/

... or you can go the full way and use vmware or virtualbox (http://www.virtualbox.org/) virtualization software.

Reply Score: 3

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Until Ubuntu decides to support KDE properly, I won't use it, nor will I recommend it. "

I think it's possible to install KDE afterwards and switch to it then. Can someone confirm?

"In fact, these days I don't use GNU/Linux at all, since several things I use aren't supported:

1. Photoshop CS2 (WINE/Cedega/CrossOver Office do not support it, not even with nasty hacks)
2. Neat Image (full of bugs under WINE, haven't tried Cedega/CrossOver office)
3. Capture One Pro (WINE says v3.6, although it has bugs, not sure on v3.7)"


As it has mentioned before, just write a letter to the vendors of these software products. Tell them you paid some money to them, but their programs do not work in Linux properly.

To get serious again: Software support is not a lack of Linux or Wine. It's the fault of the software vendors. For Linux, specifications, APIs and frameworks are well documented, the libraries and the compilers are free (due to the GPL), so why do they refuse to use them in order to make a great product working on Linux?

BTW, I'm a photographic enthusiast myself and I never found any reason to use one of the products you mentioned. There are very capable alternatives available, just try them and see how you can work with them. Remember, even the Gimp's interface has improved and is ready for Joe Q. Sixpack.

"4. Canon EOS 1D DSLR - gphoto2 doesn't support this *major* pro camera whatsoever. Disappointing."

I agree, that's a real problem. But it's Canon's problem. There are standard specifications that Canon could have used, but they simply didn't, because they don't care. So, if your EOS had a standard USB mass storage system, a /dev/da?s1 file would be available to be mounted via the -t msdos command. No problem! There are other free standards that could have been used. But if Canon decides to be proprietary, I won't buy this product.

A simple workaround could be to eject the storage media from the camera and put it into a drive (internal or attached via USB). So access to the files would be possible.

I for myself own a Canon EOS-50 (without D) because digital SLR's quality is not worth the money at the moment. Letting a photo CD being made is possible as well, and is enough for my needs at the moment.

"Asking me to get off my a$$ and code drivers for this baby is what I consider elitist and a very unreasonable demand on the end user."

Inform developers that are able to. How does someone who you would call "elitist" to write a driver for your camera? He even would not use it, so why should he do such work?

It would be better to inform Canon itself that you want to use their great camera with Linux, but you can't because they don't support it. So you won't buy or recommend their products...

The easiest alternative: Hardware vendors and software vendors, use existing standards or publish new ones to the public!

"It's one thing that gives GNU/Linux zealots a very bad name in the real world."

Per definition, zealots have a bad name, if they defend Linux or MICROS~1 or whatever. I won't worry. Nobody cares about them.

Reply Score: 2

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Quote: "I think it's possible to install KDE afterwards and switch to it then. Can someone confirm?
"

Oh, it is. The thing is that most people will simply stick with the default desktop environment - Gnome. What Ubuntu has done is nothing more than favouritism. I also don't agree with distributions like Mepis shipping with KDE. I think these types of distributions do a disservice to GNU/Linux by not offering both major desktop environments and letting the user choose.

Quote: "As it has mentioned before, just write a letter to the vendors of these software products. Tell them you paid some money to them, but their programs do not work in Linux properly."

Already tried this, I'm sorry, but 2% of the population isn't a big enough warcry for these corporations to hear us. They're responsible to their shareholders to maintain and increase profits, spending money developing software that only a very small percentage will use is not financially viable in their eyes I suspect. I wish it was different, but alas...

Quote: "BTW, I'm a photographic enthusiast myself and I never found any reason to use one of the products you mentioned. There are very capable alternatives available, just try them and see how you can work with them. Remember, even the Gimp's interface has improved and is ready for Joe Q. Sixpack."

I guess it really depends on what you want to do. Since you're shooting film, something like Capture One Pro wouldn't be much good to you (since it's used to process RAW files). Same with DPP. Neat Image and Photoshop could be used by film shooters of course.

Quote: "There are standard specifications that Canon could have used, but they simply didn't, because they don't care."

Please do your homework first. Canon's 1D uses FireWire - that's the ieee1394 *standard*. They chose that at the time, because USB 2 wasn't ratified by the ISO. There's an official Canon interview somewhere that explains it.

Quote: "But if Canon decides to be proprietary, I won't buy this product."

Unfortunately, competitor's products do not meet my photographical needs. They come first.

Quote: "Inform developers that are able to. How does someone who you would call "elitist" to write a driver for your camera? He even would not use it, so why should he do such work?"

That is indeed true. But, given that, then I'm quite free to bag the gphoto project for not supporting a *major* camera. Sure, they don't have to, but I don't have to say that their project is any good either, based on my needs/requirements. Sure, I could use a memory card reader, but the point is that I *shouldn't have to*.

Quote: "I for myself own a Canon EOS-50 (without D) because digital SLR's quality is not worth the money at the moment. Letting a photo CD being made is possible as well, and is enough for my needs at the moment."

I beg to differ. Digital has surpassed film in critical areas now in all honesty. And I've shot film for near 20 years. I was very late to convert to digital, in fact I bought my first digital SLR in January 2006. The new 1D Mark III has noise at ISO 3200 that is probably better than film grain at ISO 800. That is a MASSIVE improvement. Even my 5 year old 1D has better noise than the eqivalent film speed, and the 1D is reknowned for being very noisy.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Funny you should mention that, since one of the biggest reasons why I'm not installing Ubuntu (I did install it a couple of times, just to try it out) is because their KDE implementation isn't very good.

No offense to the Kubuntu team, but the last time I installed Kubuntu (I think almost a year ago though), things were confusing, I had crashes (kicker, I think?) even after applying the updates and the polish left a lot to be desired.

OpenSuSe boots slow, applications start rather slow, but at least their KDE desktop is 'class'.

I've got nothing against Gnome, but KDE is the best fit for me. And Ubuntu, interesting as it is, can't win me over without a highly polished and stable KDE.

Reply Score: 2

rklrkl Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, but the lack of NFS client support means that if you have two machines with Linux on and one is to share the files to the other, then by default, you *can't* on Ubuntu. It took a bit of Googling to realise that portmap and nfs-common were needed - the average user of Ubuntu would have no clue about this and think it was impossible to set up an Ubuntu box to use NFS (as either a client or server). Saying that SMB shares are available is a complete cop-out - this implies that the only way an Ubuntu user can share files on their local network is to have a Windows box as a fileserver!

Problem with saying that you can use Synaptic to install stuff is that I was sick and tired of running it over 20 times to fill in the gaps shockingly left wide open by Ubuntu. No secure shell daemon installed - oh, you can't log inbetween Linux machines on your network then. No Azureus meant downloading Sun's Java (from java.sun.com - the Ubuntu version didn't work for me) and the Azureus package - the Speed Scheduler plugin is essential for me (and *many* users) because I'm quotaed during peak times and I must have automatic throttling at certain times of the day.

Got to say that claiming some obscure Bluetooth server was missing isn't that essential - not being able to run the Flash plug-in, Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in or Java plug-in in Firefox on a 64-bit Ubuntu system easily is way more important a problem. Ubuntu should make it easy to install 32-bit versions of apps that rely on 32-bit libraries onto 64-bit systems (and before you say that 64-bit is "scarce" - it isn't, a *lot* of new systems are 64-bit capable) - at the moment, it's too hard to do so on Ubuntu, which is a big negative in my books. I'd like to see Synaptic include a 32-bit/64-bit option (i.e. add an architecture column and let you choose which bitness you want for a particular app [for apps, you can probably only have one or the other, but for libs, you should be able to install both, assuming the install paths don't clash].

Reply Score: 2

ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

Ubuntu doesn't come with smb or nfs by default. Like Eugenia said, you open up the networking config tool and it prompts to install nfs and/or smb. You don't "need to realise that portmap and nfs-common" are needed, unless I'm misreading something.

Edited 2007-03-17 12:23

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{ Ubuntu doesn't come with smb or nfs by default. Like Eugenia said, you open up the networking config tool and it prompts to install nfs and/or smb. }

That is what I did. I just went to the Kubuntu "System Settings"
http://www.kubuntu.org/docs/kquickguide/C/ch03s07.html
... then to "internet & network" and then "sharing"
http://www.kubuntu.org/docs/kquickguide/C/ch03s07.html#sect-sharing
... and clicked "administrator mode" ... and Ubuntu told me I needed NFS and Samba to be installed, and then after I allowed it to, Ubuntu automatically downloaded and installed them both for me.

Reply Score: 1

zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

Why wouldn't you use fish or scp to share files?

Reply Score: 1

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Because it has extremely poor performance on large dirs and requires mutual ssh passwordless login setup which is far from user friendly.
Besides, no support for discovering computers in your neighborhood exits.
By the way, is there an easy way do integrate nfs/gnome vfs with avahi to have shares discovery?

Reply Score: 1

apt-get support for diff lists
by siimo on Sat 17th Mar 2007 01:29 UTC
siimo
Member since:
2006-06-22

apt-get in debian etch supports diff package list updating. So when you apt-get update it will be the full list the first time 4-5MB like the article says. And then next time it only needs to download around 100kB .diff's to it.

Has this feature not included in Ubuntu?

Reply Score: 4

RE: apt-get support for diff lists
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 01:32 UTC in reply to "apt-get support for diff lists"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

AFAIK, I don't think so. When I use the "main US server" I get about 5 MBs of download for all the repos.

Reply Score: 1

thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

APT supports it and Debian uses it by default (with Etch that is).

Ubuntu decided not to use this feature because they update their repository several times per day, while Debian updates it once a day.

Reply Score: 4

r3m0t Member since:
2005-07-25

...So what? They can just automate the creation of the diffs. Instead of people downloading a few 100kB diffs, they'll download a megabyte of diffs, perhaps? Better than 4-5MB every time I run apt-get update.

Have they really run an analysis that says redownloading everything will be faster?

Reply Score: 3

Interdite Member since:
2007-03-17

That part of your post struck me as inaccurate, too.

I have been using Ubuntu since Dapper (currently on Edgy), using the Canadian repos, and "apt-get update" always fetches updates that are a few kilobytes in size, nowhere near 5 MB.

If you're getting 5 MB every single time you update, something is wrong (or strange, at least).

Reply Score: 1

GOOD DISTRO!
by Supreme Dragon on Sat 17th Mar 2007 01:38 UTC
Supreme Dragon
Member since:
2007-03-04

Ubuntu Feisty Fawn looks like a good distro, but they should offer codecs and graphics card drivers as an option during installation.

Reply Score: 1

RE: GOOD DISTRO!
by robertojdohnert on Sat 17th Mar 2007 05:18 UTC in reply to "GOOD DISTRO!"
robertojdohnert Member since:
2005-07-12

If they did they would have to pay licensing fee's to the respective owners. The way it is now, a third party supplies those packages and the Ubuntu team stays "clean". Feisty is shaping up to be a pretty good desktop not BeOS good, but on par with Windows and Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 3

bcm43xx
by Snifflez on Sat 17th Mar 2007 01:45 UTC
Snifflez
Member since:
2005-11-15

"Please note that Ubuntu mistakenly loads the BCM43xx driver for my Broadcomm/Dell 1390 WiFi card and that resulted in a lot of errors in the terminal by the system. I had to blacklist the BCM43xx driver before I could successfully install ndiswrapper and finally get WiFi support."

That's a bit strange. bcm43xx driver in 2.6.20 kernel should be the default driver for what is known as Dell 1390 WiFi cards, so it's surprising to me that it didn't work. It's possible, of course, that the firmware either wasn't included in this beta, or what got included had a wrong version number.

Reply Score: 1

RE: bcm43xx
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 01:47 UTC in reply to "bcm43xx"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Yes, the problem was the firmware. I was getting this, just like many other users from what I learned:

hostname kernel: bcm43xx: Error: Microcode "bcm43xx_microcode5.fw" not available or load failed.

Reply Score: 1

My Experiences
by konfoo on Sat 17th Mar 2007 02:26 UTC
konfoo
Member since:
2006-01-02

I've been using Linux since SLS first came out (15 years ago). Feisty is definitely IMHO the best distro currently out there for desktop usage. I could make some blunt yet true comments about other distros out there but that serves no purpose but to ignite the fanboys.

Regarding performance, I am running the current build using Gnome desktop on a speedstepped (600Mhz-1.6Ghz) Pentium M laptop with 1280x800 16-bit display and 1Gb RAM and the system is quite responsive (even having to use the Radeon driver under the onboard 9200se with 32Mb RAM). Yes with Beryl (albeit some effects such as window zoom are turned off since they really serve no purpose but to increase CPU load and drain the battery).

Edited 2007-03-17 02:27

Reply Score: 3

Re: Ubuntu
by aGNUstic on Sat 17th Mar 2007 02:55 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

I'm impressed with Ubuntu. I have a Intel-based Mac Mini and for the sake of doing it I booted it with a Kubuntu-flavored Ubuntu Live CD. It recognized everything, including the Bluetooth. It was fast even for a live CD.

NFS is insecure and I never use it. SMB when I am connected to a McSoft network. Ubuntu does an extremely good job of recognizing McSoft networks.

Most of the time I just adjust my ssh port to a non standard port and use encryption and compression to move or secure copy files.

Edited 2007-03-17 02:56

Reply Score: 3

BCM43xx
by Poningru on Sat 17th Mar 2007 03:24 UTC
Poningru
Member since:
2007-03-17

Dont have much gripe with this article, just one mistake:
you dont need ndiswrapper for bcm43xx chips, all you need to do is add the firmware:
sudo apt-get install bcm43xx-fwcutter

The reason for not having the firmware is ofcourse that broadcom does not allow for the firmware to be distributed with linux distros.

edited: reason for missing firmware

Edited 2007-03-17 03:26

Reply Score: 2

RE: BCM43xx
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 03:27 UTC in reply to "BCM43xx"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

This package is already installed but it does NOT work with my chipset. The 1390 card is pretty new, not sure if it works out of the box with the bcm43xx.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: BCM43xx
by sbergman27 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE: BCM43xx"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Eugenia,

Does lspci tell you the exact broadcom chipset used?

The 4318 still has substantial problems even with 2.6.20, though some previous models received some pretty substantial fixes in that release. The fix for the 4318 is not a trivial one, apparently, but they are working on it. (Something to do with "power transmission", I think.)

I've spent many an hour trying to get my 4318 stable using the bcm43xx driver, just as a matter of principle, but with very limited success.

The standard advice is still to just use ndiswrapper for now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: BCM43xx
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BCM43xx"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

It is a BCM45xx one I think.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: BCM43xx
by elsewhere on Sat 17th Mar 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE: BCM43xx"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

This package is already installed but it does NOT work with my chipset. The 1390 card is pretty new, not sure if it works out of the box with the bcm43xx.

It does, sort of. They had issues with it since the 1390 is PCI-e based, there was no support for that initially but it is in the current kernels.

The bigger issue is that they had problems with throughput, it was limited to fairly low speeds.

A patch was recently put into -mm for inclusion in 2.6.21 that addresses this, I'm not sure if it will be released in time for Feisty though.

I can say, though, that after 6 months of pounding my head against the wall and futilely playing with various git pulls of wireless-dev, I do finally have the 1390 (it's really a bcm 4311) running natively at full speed with bcm43xx currently under 2.6.21-rc3-mm2.

Until it's formally released though, I'd agree that ndiswrapper is simply an easier and stabler solution.

Reply Score: 2

laptop responsiveness
by broch on Sat 17th Mar 2007 03:49 UTC
broch
Member since:
2006-05-04

"Feisty boots in 40 seconds on my laptop,..."
that is really slow for laptop. Whole idea of portability is that I can take laptop boot it up in short time and start presentation. Unless this is really desktop replacement and kept on.
"scratchy" sound, no AAC support, copy/paste from Firefox does not work if Firefox is then closed down, Bluetooth not working, issues with touchpad.
None of this is an issue, but it does not make Ubuntu competitive distro/OS.
At the end all can be tweaked but all these will worh with Arch or Slackware and at the end box will be faster.

Ubuntu targets mainstream market (in contrast to Slack or Gentoo or Arch). Judging from your review Ubuntu failed: neither it is ready to go nor fast.

Reply Score: 3

RE: laptop responsiveness
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 03:56 UTC in reply to "laptop responsiveness"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Sorry, but I don't agree with you. I am one of the oldies in the Arch/Slackware userbase, and to get working all the stuff that ubuntu has given me out of the box, have taken me up to a week of headaches in some instances with arch/slack! With ubuntu it was a matter of 2 hours to find solutions for the much fewer inconveniences that has given me and are described in the review.

So overall, as a desktop, I prefer Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: laptop responsiveness
by broch on Sat 17th Mar 2007 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE: laptop responsiveness"
broch Member since:
2006-05-04

I have Arch on HP Pavilion dv5000. It took me 1 day to make everything work. More or less as much time as average user needs to customize OS to her/his liking.

I am not advertising Arch or Slack (this is only response to sidenote about difficulties wih KISS distros), whole point is that Fiesty is not "plug-and-play". In contrast to let's say Slack, Ubuntu wants to compete on with windows for the same mainstream group of users. Concluding from your review, Faisty simply failed.

I installed first BSD in 94-95' and first linux (RH) in 96'. I don't think that this matters. Ubuntu is targetting users with no experience.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: laptop responsiveness
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: laptop responsiveness"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

> It took me 1 day to make everything work.

I have high needs for my OSes, so 1 day is simply not enough for a geek distro. The first time I installed Arch, it took me a week to get everything the way I wanted it to, because simply it was as much work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: laptop responsiveness
by broch on Sat 17th Mar 2007 05:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: laptop responsiveness"
broch Member since:
2006-05-04

shrug,
all my hardware works, software too. In 2002 most linux distros had a lot of problems with a lot of hardware. Nowadays this is not the case (mostly).
Problems listed make Ubuntu still "enthusiast OS" not mainstream.


Again, it is not how much you or I spent on Arch configuration, but about Feisty for average user. I doubt that average user will be pleased with scratchy sound not to mention other problems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: laptop responsiveness
by superstoned on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: laptop responsiveness"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

I agree with you, Eugenia. I have arch on my main system, cuz I like to play with it. But there is suse on the laptop of my girlfriend, and kubuntu on my own.

Reply Score: 2

RE: laptop responsiveness
by proftv on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:09 UTC in reply to "laptop responsiveness"
proftv Member since:
2006-01-01

What you are saying would be perfectly understandable if we where talking about the final release, but Feisty is still in alpha, and not even beta yet. You may want to wait and try the final release before you give your opinion of the distro as a whole.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: laptop responsiveness
by pcdoctor on Sat 17th Mar 2007 17:21 UTC in reply to "laptop responsiveness"
pcdoctor Member since:
2007-03-05

____ April 19th.

Is it April, yet?
Sheesh, it's not even MARCH 19th. yet
and I hear ppl expecting Feisty to work flawlessly!

Give it a break, okay?
Try some patience, will ya?

Reply Score: 2

Very good, another article, please :-)
by ngaio on Sat 17th Mar 2007 04:08 UTC
ngaio
Member since:
2005-10-06

Hi Eugenia, thanks very much for your overiew of your experience with the latest Ubuntu. I am also have a positive experience with it (I just wish it would handle a shared /boot/grub/menu.lst with Ubuntu 6.06 LTS better!).

I would like to show it to my non-technical friends who are considering using Ubuntu instead of Windows Vista. However I realised that is not really the audience for this article, as you assume (quite rightly) a technically sophisticated audience. This is reflected in what you talk about and how you load up your example screenshots with a lot of windows.

In addition to this audience, have you considered a different OSNews article for the non-technical user who is interested in similar goals (a simple, secure, elegant and easy to maintain system) but who would intimidated or overwhelmed by obscurity like compiz vs beryl? I imagine you could cover things like protection from threats like viruses and crackers, how to watch DVDs, how to exchange documents with windows users, how to watch streaming media on the internet, etc, and how Ubuntu compares to Vista in these respects. What do you think?

Reply Score: 2

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

These issues have been discussed before on many tutorial pages and blogs I am afraid. ;)

Reply Score: 1

shots of latest 'herd'
by lqsh on Sat 17th Mar 2007 04:14 UTC
lqsh
Member since:
2007-01-01
Wireless
by computrius on Sat 17th Mar 2007 05:07 UTC
computrius
Member since:
2006-03-26

I tried it recently as well. You'll never guess what didnt work, even with proper ndiswrapper drivers, etc. Wireless. I installed slackware, and it worked the first time. Perhaps maintainers of ubuntu should stop and take a look at why they have the distro with the absolute worse wireless support.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wireless
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 05:11 UTC in reply to "Wireless"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Then you were doing something wrong. ndiswrapper works here fine. And Ubuntu is the distro with the most wifi firmwares shipping with:

eugenia@inspiron:/usr/lib/firmware/2.6.20-11-generic$ ls
acx/
aic94xx-seq.fw
atmel_at76c502_3com.bin
atmel_at76c502_3com-wpa.bin
atmel_at76c502.bin
atmel_at76c502d.bin
atmel_at76c502d-wpa.bin
atmel_at76c502e.bin
atmel_at76c502e-wpa.bin
atmel_at76c502-wpa.bin
atmel_at76c503-i3861.bin
atmel_at76c503-i3863.bin
atmel_at76c503-rfmd-0.90.2-140.bin
atmel_at76c503-rfmd-acc.bin
atmel_at76c503-rfmd.bin
atmel_at76c504_2958-wpa.bin
atmel_at76c504a_2958-wpa.bin
atmel_at76c504.bin
atmel_at76c504c-wpa.bin
atmel_at76c505a-rfmd2958.bin
atmel_at76c505-rfmd2958.bin
atmel_at76c505-rfmd.bin
atmel_at76c506.bin
atmel_at76c506-wpa.bin
dvb-fe-or51132-qam.fw
dvb-fe-or51132-vsb.fw
dvb-fe-or51211.fw
dvb-ttpci-01.fw
dvb-usb-avertv-a800-02.fw
dvb-usb-dibusb-5.0.0.11.fw
dvb-usb-dibusb-6.0.0.8.fw
dvb-usb-dtt200u-01.fw
dvb-usb-umt-010-02.fw
dvb-usb-vp702x-01.fw
dvb-usb-vp7045-01.fw
dvb-usb-wt220u-01.fw
ipw2100-1.3.fw
ipw2100-1.3-i.fw
ipw2100-1.3-p.fw
ipw2200-bss.fw
ipw2200-ibss.fw
ipw2200-sniffer.fw
ipw3945.ucode
isl3877
isl3886
isl3887usb_bare
isl3890
isl3890usb
iwlwifi-3945.ucode
ql2100_fw.bin
ql2200_fw.bin
ql2300_fw.bin
ql2322_fw.bin
ql2400_fw.bin
rt2561.bin
rt2561s.bin
rt2661.bin
rt73.bin
v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw
v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw
v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg
v4l-cx25840.fw
v4l-pvrusb2-24xxx-01.fw
v4l-pvrusb2-29xxx-01.fw
zd1211/

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wireless
by r3m0t on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Wireless"
r3m0t Member since:
2005-07-25

Why are you blaming it on him? He just has a different wireless card, and Slackware detected it when Ubuntu did not. What's wrong with that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wireless
by computrius on Sat 17th Mar 2007 18:38 UTC in reply to "Wireless"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

Nope, definitly not doing anything wrong. As I said, I did the exact same thing in slackware, and had it working in 15 minutes. Things that should work in ubuntu dont. It doesnt give me any error or anything in ubuntu, it just doesnt create a wlan0 device (or any other network device). (kernel logs dont show any errors either)

Edited 2007-03-17 18:42

Reply Score: 1

Much Better?
by christianhgross on Sat 17th Mar 2007 07:12 UTC
christianhgross
Member since:
2005-11-15

I use Ubuntu myself and do like it quite a bit. But the article did stretch things a bit. Here is what the article ends with.

"Ubuntu is a distro that obviously has paid attention to detail (and everyone who knows me from my past writings knows how much I can bitch about "defaults" and "details") and has found a good middle ground between hard core Linux users and new users from the Windows/OSX land."

Yet the article starts with.

"There was a problem though and X11 would crash on load -- and the graphical safe mode would not work either (confirmed bug). The 915resolution hack was not needed for my Intel graphics card, but I needed to have more information for my laptop's LCD. By manually entering the vertical and horizontal sync in the xorg.conf file it fixed the problem for my 1440x900 screen and I was able to load the LiveCD and finally install Feisty on the hard drive."

Sure this is a beta, but if a new user from Windows or OSX has to start twiddling with an xorg.conf file there is a problem. Again not knocking Ubuntu because I personally have never had problems with drivers. Though I also recognize as nice as Ubuntu is, there is still a long way to go as a desktop operating system. This is not the fault of Ubuntu, but the fact that nobody is producing commercial for purchase software for Linux.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Much Better?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 07:36 UTC in reply to "Much Better?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{Sure this is a beta, but if a new user from Windows or OSX has to start twiddling with an xorg.conf file there is a problem.}

You can't be serious.

A new install of Windows is likely to be 640x480 VGA 16 colours no 3D, because Windows doesn't have the video card driver at all. You have to find the CD that comes with your video card to get a driver. More than likely that will be an XP (or older) driver that doesn't work with Vista, so forget about upgrades.

OSX won't run at all with the vast majority of desktop hardware out there.

Linux is immeasurably better than both Windows and OSX at a new install for the significant majority of desktop hardware.

Edited 2007-03-17 07:42

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Much Better?
by henrikmk on Sat 17th Mar 2007 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Much Better?"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

You can't be serious.

A new install of Windows is likely to be 640x480 VGA 16 colours no 3D, because Windows doesn't have the video card driver at all. You have to find the CD that comes with your video card to get a driver. More than likely that will be an XP (or older) driver that doesn't work with Vista, so forget about upgrades.


Well, this doesn't have much to do with fiddling with complex config files, does it? It is, in fact, easier for the end user to grab a CD with a driver and click Next a few times in the installer dialog box, than it is to learn the syntax and read manuals on how to change X.org configuration.
And yes, I've seen X.org's on consumer machines that magically stop working, stop with a blinking cursor at a console after reboot due to a configuration error during an upgrade, rendering the machine useless. The user has absolutely no idea how to fix this, other than to reinstall the whole thing. In Windows, at least you can still point and click. :-)

But this wouldn't have to be a problem if the complexity and fragility of X.org was completely removed and replaced with a simpler and much more robust graphics system.
Something that is guaranteed to start up in graphics mode, even when all options fail, so users at least see something familiar. 99% of consumers do not require the nifty networking features of X.org to do work.
It seems that even after so many years of work developing X, it's still possible and relatively easy to screw up configuration in ways that are unique to X.

Edited 2007-03-17 07:57

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Much Better? / BulletProofX
by ubit on Sat 17th Mar 2007 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Much Better?"
ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

BTW, does anyone know if BulletProofX is still going into Feisty? https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu shows the status as "unknown". It's understandable if they don't do it because of Xorg 7.3 coming soon though, just like they're waiting on 7.3 before including any graphic X configuration tools.

Reply Score: 3

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

There are perfect graphical X config tools, been there for years, in Kubuntu (and you can of course install them on Ubuntu, they're called Guidance).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Much Better?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Much Better?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{ Well, this doesn't have much to do with fiddling with complex config files, does it? It is, in fact, easier for the end user to grab a CD with a driver and click Next a few times in the installer dialog box, than it is to learn the syntax and read manuals on how to change X.org configuration. }

You must compare apples with apples. In this case, you are talking about an ordinary user installing the OS. Most ordinary users trying to install Windows wouldn't know that they had to put in the driver CD for a video card, they wouldn't even know that default 640x480x16 wasn't the best resolution that their computer was capable of. Even if they did know about it all, they wouldn't be able to find the CD that came with the video card, and they probably wouldn't even know that the computer even had a video card.

Windows out-of-the-box will fail to install some drivers for most hardware configurations. Most drivers for Windows aren't written by Microsoft. Most users would be unable to rectify such an installation problem, and they are almost certainly guaranteed to encounter one.

On the other hand, Linux will install correctly at the correct resolution for most hardware. It is only the odd configuration that has a problem, and Linux can use the Vesa-modes fall-back just as easily as Windows can.

Finally, many Linux distributions offer a live CD version. You can boot the live CD, and tell instantly if Linux has drivers for all your hardware, even before you try to install. There is nothing like this sort of ease-of-install available for Windows.

Linux is easily miles ahead of Windows when it comes to ease-of-install.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Much Better?
by superstoned on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Much Better?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

True, though he's right about the problem you get when X doesn't start anymore. Some distributions (like suse) then automatically bring you to the configuration tool for X, to solve the problem, but not all distro's have that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Much Better?
by Doc Pain on Sat 17th Mar 2007 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Much Better?"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Still today, users have PC composita of the most impossible parts that they expect to work properly. Wrong cables, incompatible GPUs, CPUs overheating, defective RAM modules. Linux (and UNIX) deal fine with it (note ECC diagnostics in Solaris), while "Windows" just does bluescreens that do not help the user.

"You must compare apples with apples. In this case, you are talking about an ordinary user installing the OS."

I may tell you from how this is handled in Germany: The users don't install any OSes. The OS is preinstalled on the PC. If it's not working, the PC is returned to the shop or a new one is bought.

If it's neccessary to install an OS, another person is adviced to do it, usually someone from the office or a neighbor who can be bothered with it. He comes along with a pirated copy of "XP professional". Furthermore, he has to identify the hardware by extracting it. Then, he has to google around and download all the drivers needed because the OEM CDs coming with the devices do not exist anymore.

"Most ordinary users trying to install Windows wouldn't know that they had to put in the driver CD for a video card, they wouldn't even know that default 640x480x16 wasn't the best resolution that their computer was capable of."

Therefore, some MICROS~1 OSes start at 1024x768 @ 32 bit, 90 Hz and blast older CRTs into heaven. :-)

The usual printout is something like (translated) "Press the imput key to continue." The novice user does not know what an "input key" (german: Eingabetaste) is and where it's located. (It is the enter or return key on the keyboard, not on the mouse.) So he's completely confused and cries for help.

"Even if they did know about it all, they wouldn't be able to find the CD that came with the video card, and they probably wouldn't even know that the computer even had a video card."

Yes, the basic knowledge is not present. Even schools do not teach basics, they teach outdated crap like "Powerpoint" instead.

"On the other hand, Linux will install correctly at the correct resolution for most hardware. It is only the odd configuration that has a problem, and Linux can use the Vesa-modes fall-back just as easily as Windows can."

That's true. So it would be great to have this fallback implemented by default, instead of presenting an X server error.

"Finally, many Linux distributions offer a live CD version. You can boot the live CD, and tell instantly if Linux has drivers for all your hardware, even before you try to install. There is nothing like this sort of ease-of-install available for Windows. "

That's an interesting point. While Linux distributions allow the user to test them in order to find out if they work and if the users come to like it, "Windows" does not do this. It comes preinstalled, without giving any choice. Even if a user buys a new "Windows", he cannot test it. If it does not work, he may not return it to the shop. If he insists on testing it, he's forced to wipe off his old installation (or use another HDD / partition) to install it. He has to confirm the restrictions MICROS~1 imposes on them. And he has to register (if he does not have a crack or pirated serial number).

I think especially with its liberate license Linux will step forward on the home market. Allthough users do not care in using pirated software, they can avoid punishment by law if they use free software. For the usual home user, Linux is what he needs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Much Better?
by BluenoseJake on Sat 17th Mar 2007 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Much Better?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"A new install of Windows is likely to be 640x480 VGA 16 colours no 3D, because Windows doesn't have the video card driver at all. You have to find the CD that comes with your video card to get a driver. More than likely that will be an XP (or older) driver that doesn't work with Vista, so forget about upgrades."

It's been years since I have seen that behaviour, seeing as radeon and Nvidia drivers come with Vista and XP, and you don't need to find the CD if it does happen, because Windows update will have drivers, or you can download them from the manufacturer's website

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Much Better?
by lemur2 on Sun 18th Mar 2007 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Much Better?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{{"A new install of Windows is likely to be 640x480 VGA 16 colours no 3D, because Windows doesn't have the video card driver at all. You have to find the CD that comes with your video card to get a driver. More than likely that will be an XP (or older) driver that doesn't work with Vista, so forget about upgrades."

It's been years since I have seen that behaviour, seeing as radeon and Nvidia drivers come with Vista and XP, and you don't need to find the CD if it does happen, because Windows update will have drivers, or you can download them from the manufacturer's website}}

Windows will not recognise your video card correctly out-of-the-box if either: (1) your video card was made after the install CD image for your version of Windows was made, or (2) your video card ceased production before the install CD image for your version of Windows was made.

I personally have three or four video cards that have had to be scrapped for no other reason than video drivers were no longer available for Windows, because the card was out of production (this was before I discovered how easy Linux was to install).

Yes, if your situation is category (1), you can typically go on-line and get drivers, but that is the very thing that Windows fanboys like to try to bash Linux about. If your situation is case (2), you are out of luck with Windows, and your only option is to install Linux. Mac OSX won't work at all if your hardware isn't Mac.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Much Better?
by BluenoseJake on Mon 19th Mar 2007 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Much Better?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You would be correct, if you use an XP gold CD, sure that's what you'll see. It's pretty easy to make a slipstream cd with SP2, or two buy a copy. Perhaps that's why I don't see it, I use a less than ancient copy of XP to do my installs

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Much Better?
by kristoph on Sat 17th Mar 2007 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Much Better?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

You can't be serious.

I think the comment is a fair one. In Windows XP you can at least install the OS before you hunt for a driver that you then install graphically. In most cases, if you know who made your card, you can be a general novice and do this.
Eugenia had to hack config files before she could install the OS which means she had to know which config file and how to hack it. That's _way_ beyond 99% of home users.
So having said that, in general, and let's be honest here ... Ubuntu may be ready for the average user, once configured, but it is far beyond the average user to install and configure.
]{

Reply Score: 3

best allround distro
by netpython on Sat 17th Mar 2007 07:49 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

I was suprised to see Eugenia in fact fact give praise to Ubuntu.In addition yet again not because Ubuntu is listenening well to its users and it's simply a very well build distro.

Reply Score: 2

Xorg 7.3
by ubit on Sat 17th Mar 2007 08:21 UTC
ubit
Member since:
2006-09-08

RE: henrik73 Remember that X11 for a long time languished as XFree86, and only recently X.org has made some huge advances in compositing, drivers, modularity, etc.

Xorg 7.3 (slated for this summer/fall) is said to bring auto-configuration/hotplugging/easy dual-monitor setup/etc to X11. Ubuntu is also working on a way for X to be safe, called BulletProofX: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BulletProofX

The current failsafe driver however is vesa of course, easily accessed in debian systems with dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg

In fact I think there's a package known as "envy" which delivers some failsafe X features for NVidia binary driver installations.

Edited 2007-03-17 08:29

Reply Score: 5

RE: Xorg 7.3
by Doc Pain on Sat 17th Mar 2007 22:06 UTC in reply to "Xorg 7.3"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Xorg 7.3 (slated for this summer/fall) is said to bring auto-configuration/hotplugging/easy dual-monitor setup/etc to X11."

I'm looking forward to see these improvements, they are what the newbie and average users are expecting. But I would also like to see X's ability to be maintained by SSH command line dialog keeping alive. Especially for older hardware, you often need to override malfunctioning autodetection, i. e. setting monitor frequencies, resolution and color depth by hand, so in /etc/X11/xorg.conf. So it would be great to have a choice, such as command line options to force the use of a certain configuration file, or a command line option for having everything autodetected.

BTW, I prefer xdm (instead of gdm and kdm). This is just a security issue: If you enter a password, kdm displays ****** making it possible to know the password's length; xdm displays nothing, just like the standard login program. As it should be. Furthermore, kdm can be used to override security barriers (users without password, auto login user without password etc.), but that's exactly what Joe Q. Sixpack wants to have at home. Of course, he does not own a multi-user system.

As it has been mentioned somewhere before, /usr/X11R6 will be merged into /usr/local, so all installed applications that do not come with the OS are inside /usr/local, while the rest is just the OS itself (excluding mountpoints and /home partition(s) here).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Xorg 7.3
by NeoChaosX on Sun 18th Mar 2007 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Xorg 7.3"
NeoChaosX Member since:
2005-07-06

BTW, I prefer xdm (instead of gdm and kdm). This is just a security issue: If you enter a password, kdm displays ****** making it possible to know the password's length;

Just FYI, but KDM has an option to show either one star, three stars, or show no echo at all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Xorg 7.3
by Doc Pain on Sun 18th Mar 2007 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Xorg 7.3"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Just FYI, but KDM has an option to show either one star, three stars, or show no echo at all."

I think I've heard of this before, but that's not the default setting, isn't it? "Secure by default" (such as "enable on demand" or "closed at first installation") are good concepts. But I can imagine why ***** are displayed: The user is expecting something to appear. My boss did, too: "I cannot login, it won't accept my password!" So I told him to enter login name and password, without looking at the screen. "Wow, it works! I haven't tried the password, in fact, because it wasn't shown at all." As he knew about why there is no echo on the screen, he understood, and now he can login for himself. :-) Linux has come a long way to make the novice user Joe Q. Sixpack feel comfortable. Some security barriers are falling, as I explained before. It's okay for home use, but it's to be avoided in a setting where unauthorized personnel is looking from behind when you're sitting on the administrative system.

Reply Score: 2

Desktop search?
by azoele on Sat 17th Mar 2007 08:35 UTC
azoele
Member since:
2007-03-17

I have just one question about Ubuntu.
Is beagle active by default?

I tried linux for many, many years, always reverting back to windows (even now), but it gets always more entriguing.
Last install was OpenSuse 10.2 with the magical search active by default.
Only, it is way too slow when using gnome, everything took ages... (still, better than the 10.1, which was unusable on the same hardware (Centrino 1.3, 768Mb laptop)

If Beagle search (a must for me) is enabled by default, or as easy as installing some software, I'll give Feisty a try, it looks very very cool.
Linux looked very very nice with beagle and Exposé like graphics!

Btw, somehow, the tide is moving somehow.
Even hard cored windows using friends of mine are considering a switch, some to OSX, and some, surprisingly, to Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Desktop search?
by Eugenia on Sat 17th Mar 2007 08:43 UTC in reply to "Desktop search?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Libbeagle is installed, but the gui is not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Desktop search?
by pcdoctor on Sun 18th Mar 2007 12:33 UTC in reply to "Desktop search?"
pcdoctor Member since:
2007-03-05

Yes, there's a switch happening.
It's now 2007, and Operating Systems (all of them) are maturing and refining themselves to the point where almost any average user can install and use them with little problem.
DOS is dead, Command Line is arcane and becoming un-necessary,
and Ease-of-Use is now paramount if you want any kinda market share.
Yes..the vote is being split, and even I am fooling around with Linux(Ubuntu!) SUCCESSFULLY,
after much dabbling and returning to Windoze: that says a LOT.
Look for more switching as Ubuntu refines itself, and as Freespire gets advanced.
Linux is on the brink of Arriving - it's about bloody time, dontcha think?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Desktop search?
by Doc Pain on Sun 18th Mar 2007 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Desktop search?"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Command Line is arcane and becoming un-necessary, "

In oppisite to any GUI solution, the command line is fully programmable. Complex operations can be solved using the command line, commands can be combined in many ways. GUIs only offer what its inventor / designer has thought of. Furthermore, the oppisite, i. e. operations without any complexity, are usually easier to be solved using a CLI.

Have read / written a manual today? You need to describe pictures (or show them, using much space on the paper), instruct the user how to click (left, middle, right, double, with dragging etc.) on what little pictures, and train them to recognize similar functions with different icons. Sometimes, believe me, it's easier to tell some newbie just to open Konsole and input a few words. (BTW, using the CLI is usually called "writing" in Germany.) Hell, he even can copy & paste the commands! But he cannot copy & paste mouse clicks.

I had this trouble with my uncle wanting to initialize a new hard disk with KDE. He didn't get it, allthough he tried two hours. So I told him to enter "newfs -U /dev/ad2" in Konsole and the work was done. Because I don't know his "pictures" (how the GUI looks like), I could not tell him where he would have found the proper GUI tool for this operation. Please get me right, I'm sure KDE has such a tool, but I'm not a living KDE manual. That's complicated to explain to newbies if they get confused because you as a professional don't know where the icons on *their* system are located and how they look like and what they do.

Allthough I agree that the many good GUI solutions on Linux (KDE, Gnome, XFCE etc.) will gain them more and more usage share (and my oh holy "market share"), CLI still is a *must have* for professional system administrators and operators. If everything fails, /bin/sh is still there to help you. :-)

Reply Score: 5

Ubuntu has to many cons
by sledgehammer89 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 08:44 UTC
sledgehammer89
Member since:
2006-02-02

pros:
- really fast booting
- nice theme
- my Nokia E61 (with updated firmware) works without problems as a memory drive

cons: (compared to Fedora 6)
- older packages than FC6! (apache, vdr, postfix, amavis...) some features (especially as a system wide spam server) are missing with these older versions. Only Gnome is up2date
- universe/multiverse doesn't have every proprietary packages (for example: ffmpeg with aac)
- yes, even with universe/multiverse: missing packages (whatmask, incron...)

And Feisty doesn't have the newest Nvidia driver like Dapper or Edgy, when they come out.

Compiz/Beryl works better with the older FC6 than with this brand new Feisty Relese Candidate. FC6 lacks only with Firefox 2.0, but this is minor. You can install it from /testing or compile this srpm yourself.

Reply Score: 3

I agree with Eugina and robertojdohnert
by blitze on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:05 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

Feisty 64 has been the Linux distro that has cemented 80% of my home computer usage. It does things right, the development process has been painless on my part and where an issue bug reports submitted with resulting fixes.

I use it for Audio and video playback as well as basic office and internet duties. It does this well, requires no maintenance and I can also use Cedega on it to play RedOrchestra, the about only game I play, although I do dabble with Quake 4 and it runs native on Feisty better than under XP.

Feisty is shaping up to be a great Linux Distribution. Not a BeOS but definately up there with Windows and OS-X, maybe better. If I could run Reaper on it natively with my VST's, then I wouldn't run Windows at home.

At work, we have to wait for Adobe to get their shit together and then I would change in a flash. Less time wasted hand holding Windows is more time to make money for me and my business.

Reply Score: 1

It is the stupid little issues
by deathshadow on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:07 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

That still keep linux from breaking through... As put in the article, stupid little ussues that "Should not be there"

Like having to STILL FUTZ with the xorg.conf for modelines on plug and play monitors that report their rates and modes properly. X is STILL the only system that has EVER 'required' this nonsense... Sure, the option to manually futz with them is cute, but beyond the skills of most beginners and the patience of many old hats.

Combine this with the total BULL that is video drivers and getting base functionality Windows and MacOS had a decade or more ago, and the result is something that makes Windows 3.0 look polished and refined in terms of how video modes are handled.

DPMS/P&P monitor info has worked reliably for over a decade, when in blazes is X going to catch the hell up?

Reply Score: 4

RE: It is the stupid little issues
by blitze on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:11 UTC in reply to "It is the stupid little issues"
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

X-org will catch up with the next main release from what I understand. Then it will not only catch up to Windows and OS-X but surpass.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It is the stupid little issues
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:52 UTC in reply to "It is the stupid little issues"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

//Like having to STILL FUTZ with the xorg.conf for modelines on plug and play monitors that report their rates and modes properly. X is STILL the only system that has EVER 'required' this nonsense... Sure, the option to manually futz with them is cute, but beyond the skills of most beginners and the patience of many old hats. //

Both PCLinuxOS ans SuSe (at least) have GUI "control panel" equivalents for video driver parameters adjustment.

The one in PCLinuxOS/Mandriva is called XFdrake.

The one in SuSe is part of Yast.

There is at least one xorg.conf GUI editor for Ubuntu ... it is called xorg-edit.

http://www.cyskat.de/dee/progxorg.htm

AFAIK this utility is not part of the default set of Ubuntu packages.

Reply Score: 2

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

you can also just use the Kubuntu tools for this, configuring X has been no problem in Kubuntu for years. Ubuntu is sometimes behind in weird ways (eg I couldn't live without a decent CD burning tool like K3B, or a menu editor). The new gnome also catches up in the security area, finally offering encryption & signing of files and emails. It's getting better, and ahead of windows anyway ;-)

Reply Score: 2

slight Member since:
2006-09-10

Install brasero or gnomebaker from the main repos for a k3b-like CD burner. Also there is a menu editor, right click the applications menu and select 'edit menus'.

Reply Score: 2

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

I know there are tools for these things now, though they might not yet be up to KDE standards. I was just pointing out Gnome has been behind in this (and more) for years, not saying it still is. And it's not like there is nothing in Gnome which isn't in KDE, as that's simply not true. It's just weird how very basic stuff can be missing in Ubuntu...

And in case of the Gnome menu editor, Gnome did have an editor a long time ago, but it went unmaintained and it got removed. With all these ppl being paid to work on Gnome, I wonder how that did happen?

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Both PCLinuxOS ans SuSe (at least) have GUI
>> "control panel" equivalents for video driver
>> parameters adjustment.


Which is all fine and good if you can even get X STARTED in the first place (GUI app less X = /fail/ at life) - which with the increase in off-aspect resolution (aka widescreen) displays, is increasingly unlikely.

Sorry, TRY AGAIN.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

>> Both PCLinuxOS ans SuSe (at least) have GUI
>> "control panel" equivalents for video driver
>> parameters adjustment.

{ Which is all fine and good if you can even get X STARTED in the first place (GUI app less X = /fail/ at life) - which with the increase in off-aspect resolution (aka widescreen) displays, is increasingly unlikely.

Sorry, TRY AGAIN.
}

True.

However, it is far more likely that you won't be able to get your GUI started on a fresh install of Windows, especially Windows Vista, than it is on Ubuntu.

Also, Ubuntu Fiesty is a liveCD install. You put in the liveCD, and if X starts (as it will in 99.9% of cases), then you have no problem. If X doesn't start, then you are no worse off than before you put in the liveCD. Take the liveCD out, and either throw it away and give up, or go online with your existing setup and seek help in Ubuntu user forums. In a day or so, someone is likely to be able to tell you how to get X up & running, or tell you that it doesn't work in Feisty, perhaps you should go with PCLinuxOS for your hardware? (or some similar advice).

Sorry, TRY AGAIN.

PS: I know that some Linux distribution liveCDs will allow you to enter boot parameters to use VESA modes, or even fall back to VESA modes if your display setup fails for X, but I'm not sure if Ubuntu does this or not ... as I've never had a problem myself.

PPS: If you really, really want Ubuntu, and in the unlikely event that no-one on user forums can tell you how to get it going, then run another liveCD that does configure X correctly (try KNOPPIX, MEPIS or PCLinuxOS), then once that liveCD is running on your target machine, copy the file /etc/X11/xorg.conf to a USB stick, then re-boot your target machine with the Ubuntu liveCD in text mode. Then copy from your USB stick back to /etc/X11/xorg.conf, and follow by typing 'startx'.

Edited 2007-03-19 10:49

Reply Score: 2

Still Not Ready
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:42 UTC
ride01
Member since:
2005-09-23

removed

Edited 2007-03-17 10:52

Reply Score: 1

oh my god
by leibowitz on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:57 UTC
leibowitz
Member since:
2006-10-17

[cleared]

Edited 2007-03-17 10:59

Reply Score: 0

re: lemur2
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:57 UTC
ride01
Member since:
2005-09-23

Linux still has major "ease of use" issues.

I tried installing Mint Linux yesterday. Mint Linux is just Ubuntu with features that 99% of users will want, such as the simple ability to play MP3 files. (It is difficult to figure out how to install MP3 functionality on Ubuntu currently)

I was hoping that Mint Linux was the final proof that Linux was "ready for the desktop", but I was sorely disappointed.

If you want to install Mint Linux on a partition (or disk) other than your computer's "main" drive/partition, and you do not wish GRUB to overwrite your current boot manager (such as Windows XP, BeOS, or any other third party solution) the obstacles are great.

The Mint Linux installer (same one used by Ubuntu) assumes that the user only has Linux installed on his machine, and will try to install GRUB on the first partition/drive. If the user chooses not to do this, he is presented with a text field in which he is to enter the desired install location for GRUB.

He is NOT given a choice of existing drives/partitions, with helpful information, such as NAME or even partition size.

Instead, the user is forced to type in a location manually.

I made a partition on my hard drive for Linux. (Actually, I had to go back and make TWO partitions for Linux. This is another "ease of use" obstacle in my opinion)

The TWO new partitions I made were the fifth and second partitions on my drive.

The Mint-GRUB installer had "(hd0)" pre-typed into the path text field. Because I did not want GRUB to erase my existing boot manager, I had to cancel the 10-minute install procedure, boot back into Windows, and look this up on Google.

I have searched for a few hours on this subject. I still do not know the correct information to type into this stupid GRUB text field.

Some Google evidence suggests that I should type in "hda5" or "(hda5)". Other sources state that GRUB refuses the "a" character, and needs "0" instead.

(I would have never known what "hda" meant without searching Google, btw. Also, LINUX operating systems use this designation to mean "Hard Drive 0". HOWEVER... GRUB does NOT!!")

HEY! THIS IS EASY AND WONDERFUL!!!!!

Ok, so maybe I should type in "(hd05)". ???

BUT... Yet another Google source states that in LINUX!, EXTENDED partitions start at "4", and logical partitions start at a different number... (AWESOME!!!!)

I have tried several times to install this thing, and it is just too much trouble.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: re: lemur2
by leibowitz on Sat 17th Mar 2007 10:59 UTC in reply to "re: lemur2"
RE[2]: re: lemur2
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE: re: lemur2"
ride01 Member since:
2005-09-23

I just wanted to thank you for attempting to help me. That was a very nice thing to do.

I may or may not attempt to use the information you have given me.

(I would have to print it out to read while I attempt the 10 minute install for the fourth time, as well as assume it is 100% correct)

As for your question: "Why do you think you need GRUB at all?"

The answer: The Mint Linux installer demands it. I tried typing in "/". I also tried deleting all text from the text field in the second install attempt.

In both cases, the Mint installer showed a "fatal error" due to a bad GRUB path. This conveniently occurs at the end of the 10-minute installation procedure.

I hoped that GRUB was not needed at all, and that perhaps I could just boot to my new Linux partition(s) anyway.

I re-ran my BeOS bootloader, which found all partitions by size AND name.... (Why is this SO hard for linux?)

After rebooting, I selected the Linux boot partition (named "Linux" by the friendly BeOS GUI), yet Linux would not boot.

I searched Google. All sources I have found regarding Ubuntu state that GRUB, in fact, MUST be installed on some partition, in order for Ubuntu to boot.

So basically, GRUB needs to be there. There is no good GUI provided to accommodate this. Searching Google, the Mint forums, and the Ubuntu forums, turns up too many complications, that occur too many hours into the install attempts.

It just shouldn't be this hard.

Some day soon, it will NOT be this hard. We are just not there yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: re: lemur2
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re: lemur2"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{So basically, GRUB needs to be there. There is no good GUI provided to accommodate this.}

For Ubuntu/Kubuntu, I think that is correct.

For a newbie-friendly Linux like PCLinuxOS, there is a GUI for GRUB.

http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/LiLoGrubInfo

The help here is applicable to most installations of GRUB.

http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/BootloaderFAQ

BTW, getting back to apples-for-apples comparisons, GRUB can boot Linux and it can boot Windows, and it can also boot other OSes such as BeOS and ReactOS, whereas the Windows bootloader can only boot Windows.

So you are, of course, therefore far better off with GRUB.

Just install GRUB to the MBR of the primary HD drive (which is named either hd0 or hda) using the standard Linux GUI installers and you should be fine.

It isn't hard at all.

Edited 2007-03-17 11:54

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: re: lemur2
by pandronic on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re: lemur2"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Why is this guy modded down? It's clear that he felt frustrated with the way partitions are named in Linux. Everyone who comes to the Linux world learns to cope with frustration until they get the hang of things, and even then there is an occasional incident that perplexes you.

I know, for me, it was hard to understand the whole hda, hdb stuff and the concept of mounting and I sympathize with this guy.

Actually, even now, after messing for some time with different Linux distros, I don't understand why you can access partitions like directories instead of drives (like in Windows). It sure seems more logical in Windows, even though I have to admit that Linux's way of doing things, even if it's more messy, offers more flexibility.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: re: lemur2
by superstoned on Sat 17th Mar 2007 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: re: lemur2"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

You're just used to the way windows has 'drives' and not just directories. The latter is imho more clear and works better... Like more things in linux. Often windows users (like I was, btw) are just used to the windows way, so when they see the linux way, it confuses them - even though the linux way is often superior. Don't underestimate the power of habit.

I once thought the whole layout in / was seriously messy. Now I don't even get the system windows has - apps can be found everywhere and nowhere. It seems they have a logical place (Program Files) but they don't - they also put files and things in other places, while you won't be able to start all apps from the commandline cuz it's pretty much impossible to adjust the %PATH for each installed app. Not putting binaries in one place is a serious mess, imho.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: re: lemur2
by DeadFishMan on Sat 17th Mar 2007 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re: lemur2"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

People tend to think of GRUB (and on the old days, LILO or even loadlin - does anyone here remember that one? ;) ) as a simple bootmanager such as those found on other OSes but it is actually required to bootstrap Linux.

So in order to use another bootmanager, you will have to resort to what is called chainloading on Linux. You most likely need to install GRUB on the same partition that you installed Linux and then configure the other bootmanager to bootstrap that partition. GRUB will take care of the rest.

As for the nomenclature for the disk drives and partitions, I'll have to agree with you. Never understood why GRUB uses its own and unique naming scheme and don't really care for the reasons; it is confusing. I still think that LILO was much better than GRUB in this regard (It was much simpler to use and understand!). But you can safely follow the tips that the parent poster gave to you. That should fix your problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE: re: lemur2
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:23 UTC in reply to "re: lemur2"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{ If you want to install Mint Linux on a partition (or disk) other than your computer's "main" drive/partition, and you do not wish GRUB to overwrite your current boot manager (such as Windows XP, BeOS, or any other third party solution) the obstacles are great. }

... whereas, if you want to install Windows Vista on a partition (or disk) other than your computer's "main" drive/partition, and you do not wish the Vista bootloader to overwrite your current boot manager (such as Linux Mint, BeOS, or any other third party solution) then you are utterly out of luck.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: re: lemur2
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE: re: lemur2"
ride01 Member since:
2005-09-23

touché ;)

You are 100% correct.

I have no idea if any version of Windows will install and/or boot if unable to write to the MBR.

In fact, my understanding is that if Windows XP is installed AFTER Windows 98, it may be impossible to get Windows 98 to boot. This is a very crappy thing, and Microsoft deserves great criticism for it.

(Any other boot/partition/other-OS/installation issues that Windows may have also deserve criticism)

This does not free Linux from the same criticism.

Perhaps I am spoiled from using BeOS.

BeOS is incredibly easy to install. One can even install it to a "virtual drive"(file), on any existing drive/partition, then easily transfer it to a partition/drive of his choice.

The GUI that allows this (as well as the normal installer), lists drives and partitions by: volume name/overall size/size used/size available.

(Windows/MacOS can do this as well. I look forward to the day when Linux can)

The user is also given the option to make a boot floppy which will leave his existing boot manager alone, yet allow him to boot to BeOS when he places the floppy in the drive.

ALSO, any BeOS boot floppy or bootmanager will "search" existing partitions and drives for BeOS installations, listing them by volume name, allowing the user to boot to them. This process takes milliseconds on even the slowest of machines.

I am used to installing three operating systems:

1. Windows:

a. Make a new partition (if needed) before or during installation. All drives/partitions are listed IN THE INSTALLER GUI by volume-name/overall-size/used-size/free-space.


2. MacOS 8x-9x:

a. Make a new partition (if needed) before or during installation. All drives/partitions are listed IN THE INSTALLER GUI by volume-name/overall-size/used-size/free-space.

b. MacOS was far SUPERIOR to Windows, in that every OS CD was a liveCD, and that one could have twenty MacOS installations on the same machine. The OS had an easy GUI for choosing which installation to boot to.

3. BeOS:

a. a. Make a new partition (if needed) before or during installation. All drives/partitions are listed IN THE INSTALLER GUI by volume-name/overall-size/used-size/free-space.

In contrast, here is what Linux does:

Linux(Ubuntu):

a. Make a new partition (WILL BE needed*) before or during installation. Now make a second* partition. Now make sure the second partition is a different format than the first. Now make sure the second partition is twice the size of your system RAM (The GUI will NOT tell you this. You will have to spend a while in Google to figure this out. Also, the Mint installer will try to make a THIRD partition. The only information you are given as to why this is happening are words such as "/dev/", "/dev/home/root", and "'swap'".

(What is "dev"? Why not use human-talking-language, such as English?)

Then, the installer will attempt a GRUB install. (How am I supposed to know what "GRUB" even is?)

It will then present a dialog window with the pre-filled entry "(hd0)". This information would mean nothing to me, had I not been loosely following Linux for the last several years.

What if I want GRUB on another partition or drive? I have to manually type something in with NO CHECKS whatsoever. The installer will simply run for ten minutes, and then crash at the very end with "fatal error" if I make a mistake.

My only point is that Linux-Desktop is not "easy" yet. It will be, and it will be soon. It is not "easy" now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: re: lemur2
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re: lemur2"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{Linux(Ubuntu):

a. Make a new partition (WILL BE needed*) before or during installation. Now make a second* partition. Now make sure the second partition is a different format than the first. Now make sure the second partition is twice the size of your system RAM (The GUI will NOT tell you this. You will have to spend a while in Google to figure this out. Also, the Mint installer will try to make a THIRD partition. The only information you are given as to why this is happening are words such as "/dev/", "/dev/home/root", and "'swap'".}


I'm not really a fan of Ubuntu, and I agree that installing (and re-installing) GRUB using Ubuntu is not intuitive.

Having said that, let me point out that the Ubuntu liveCD "install Ubuntu to hard disk" doesn't even ask any questions ... it just gets it right and if the system already has Windows it will automatically install GRUB with a correct dual-boot menus for Ubuntu and Windows.

The GUI provisions for installing and re-installing GRUB in PCLinuxOS, Mandriva and SuSe are all better than is the case for Ubuntu, however.

If you are a newbie to Linux, go with PCLinuxOS would be my recommendation. That is the easiest one by quite a margin.

If you want an Ubuntu-derivative, then perhaps go with MEPIS or even (when it comes out) Freespire 2.0. These will both give you access to CNR.

IMO, Ubuntu still has some rough edges that aren't very friendly for newbies.

{My only point is that Linux-Desktop is not "easy" yet. It will be, and it will be soon. It is not "easy" now.}

It IS easy right now if you choose the best easy-to-use-even-for-newbies distribution, which is PCLinuxOS.

http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/HomePage

That one is the easiest and best desktop Linux for Linux beginners.

Edited 2007-03-17 12:26

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: re: lemur2
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: re: lemur2"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

I found herd 4 created a dual booting machine that worked fine, herd 5 broke the windows 2000 install, running MS's fdisk /mbr fixed it, so I assume it's the way they've moved the loader to the mbr not the first Linux partition, I'm going to spend some time trying to install GRUB to (hd0,2), as I've got 2 windows partitions.

Well I say spend, that's spend more on time in addition to the what, 2 hours I spent the night before yesterday? And the 3 hours trying to fix the Windows partitions boot into BSD, when it was of course the changed from herd 4 to 5...

And before anyways says anything, I know the whole of Grub dosn't fit into the MBR, you know what I mean.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: re: lemur2
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: re: lemur2"
ride01 Member since:
2005-09-23

It IS easy right now if you choose the best easy-to-use-even-for-newbies distribution, which is PCLinuxOS.

Thanks lemur2, I appreciate that. I will research this.

I am spoiled by BeOS and MacOS 8. I loved the fact that my MacOS installation CD was a live-cd. In contrast, the Windows installation CD boots to a weird command-line-like interface that is NOT intuitive.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, MacOS had a simple drop-down menu that allowed you to choose boot drives. You could just plug in a hard drive with a MacOS install on it, select that hard drive from the drop-down menu, and it would boot.

BeOS has similar abilities.

I think I hold "Linux" to a higher standard than Windows. I like Windows XP. It works well, it is fairly fast, supports my hardware, and it is not all-together horrible looking. (Theming/icons/etc work fairly well)

I want Linux to be BETTER than Windows. I don't want it to be "just as good". I already have "just as good as Windows" in Windows. ;)

Linux's strength is Open-source. Open-source that allows change and advancement. Linux is advancing, and in wonderful ways.

I just want conditional GUI's for everything. Everything intuitive. Everything easy. Everything snappy. Everything fast.

Actually, I just want to be able to easily install it on a non-0/0 hard drive/partition ;)

Edited 2007-03-17 14:06

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: re: lemur2
by stestagg on Sun 18th Mar 2007 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: re: lemur2"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

I read somewhere that this is being worked on. Currently, in ubuntu, you are given the option of using gparted (a graphical partition manager) on installation (although this has a tenancy to break, see below), OR you can just leave it up to the installer to get it right.

People are now working on rolling their own ubuntu-installer based partition manager that will nicely integrate into the installer and not break. Hopefully this new GUI partitioner will be as friendly as you want.

Reply Score: 2

What?
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:09 UTC
ride01
Member since:
2005-09-23

I am still just dumbfounded that someone could actually claim that Ubuntu is somehow easier to install AND more likely to support hardware than Windows XP/Vista.

I read OSnews.com every day. I do this because I am interested in operating systems.

I am not obsessed with Microsoft in any way. I actually prefer the user experience of BeOS and the various Apple operating systems.

However, to claim that Linux is "easier" to deal with than Windows Xp/Vista is just intellectually dishonest in every way.

If you want to be a Linux evangelist, talk about security, servers, or attempt to explain some kind of open source philosophy.

Just be honest, please. If you lie, people will not listen to you.

Reply Score: 4

RE: What?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:31 UTC in reply to "What?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{ I am still just dumbfounded that someone could actually claim that Ubuntu is somehow easier to install AND more likely to support hardware than Windows XP/Vista.

...

However, to claim that Linux is "easier" to deal with than Windows Xp/Vista is just intellectually dishonest in every way.
}

Not at all. I have installed both OSes onto blank systems many many times.

Invariably the Windows install is far far more difficult ... even just for the bare OS install.

With a recent Linux liveCD install (such as PCLinuxOS, MEPIS or Ubuntu/Kubuntu) it takes just one (1) liveCD and perhaps 30 minutes, and you end up with a complete system plus desktop applications such as an Office suite (and it does not depend on the particular x86 system you have).

To get to the same state starting with the exact same blank system and a Windows install CD ... it will take far longer, it will require entry of many keys, several reboots and "activation" ... and you will need a lot of additional third-party CDs that are not from Microsoft, and many of them will be specific to the computer you are trying to install on. And after all that fuss you will still not have hardly any actual applications installed for all your effort.

Point out even one (1) incorrect fact in the above and you will win the prize.

Installing Linux (from nothing) is far, far easier than Windows. There is simply no question about it.

Edited 2007-03-17 11:39

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: What?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Perhaps replying to myself is a bit strange, but I have been accused of lying and intellectual dishonesty here, and I object strongly to that.

So, to back up what I am saying, here is a complete set of screenshots from an Ubuntu Edgy Eft install to hard disk from a liveCD:

http://www.debianadmin.com/ubuntu-edgy-eft-desktop-installation-wit...

If you have a blank system, you do not even have to worry about partitioning ... just accept the default (as you would for Windows install on a blank system).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What?
by superstoned on Sat 17th Mar 2007 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, imho you're entirely right. I don't understand how someone can honestly say linux is more complex than windows... Ok, in some area's, it can be. But in many, windows is just a mess compared to linux...

It does depend on what you try, on the apps, on the DE, but overall - linux is ahead.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What?
by ride01 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
ride01 Member since:
2005-09-23

Invariably the Windows install is far far more difficult ... even just for the bare OS install.
With a recent Linux liveCD install ... it takes just one liveCD and perhaps 30 minutes..


Installation time is the same.

To get to the same state starting with the exact same blank system and a Windows install CD ... it will require entry of many keys

Windows requires only one key.

several reboots

You can get free operating system updates if you choose to. This is also true of every other OS, including Linux. Doing this is incredibly easy.

and "activation" ...

If connected to the internet, this occurs automatically when you enter your key. If not connected, you may have to call a free 1-800 number. This could be seen as an annoyance.

However, it is not "difficult" to do this. The GUI tells you exactly what to do. Activation could be seen as annoying, but not difficult.

plus desktop applications ... Office suite

The only application you mentioned was an Office Suite. OpenOffice is very easy to download for Windows if one chooses to. I typed "free office" into Google and got this: http://tinyurl.com/3xya55

More importantly, if one chooses to purchase and install Microsoft Office, this as an incredibly easy process as well.

It is almost always far more difficult to seek out and install software on Linux than it is on Windows.

and you will need a lot of additional third-party CDs that are not from Microsoft

Why?

and many of them will be specific to the computer you are trying to install on.

I'm not sure I understand this. I think I once bought a CD drive that came with a free OEM copy of Nero, though. ;)

And after all that fuss you will still not have hardly any actual applications installed for all your effort.

I didn't see any "fuss" noted, save the entering of a single CD key. You will have a very good email program, internet browser, MP3-enabled audio player, video player, and many, many other programs needed for normal computer use.

Your computer will "just work", as well. You will be able to do simple OPERATING SYSTEM tasks such as changing your monitor's resolution and refresh rate. You will be able to listen to MP3's, your network/wifi will work, and video card hardware acceleration will work.

Linux is just more difficult to get working than Windows. Because I make this statement, does NOT mean that I think "Linux sucks" or even that "Windows is better". I LIKE Linux, and I want it to progress. It has progressed EXPONENTIALLY in just the last few years.

Edited 2007-03-17 13:52

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What?
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{If connected to the internet, this occurs automatically when you enter your key. If not connected, you may have to call a free 1-800 number. This could be seen as an annoyance. }

It is more than an mere annoyance. This *cough* feature combined with WGA, if someone else uses your key or installs some malware it is possible that you will be locked out of your own computer!

{ and you will need a lot of additional third-party CDs that are not from Microsoft

Why?

and many of them will be specific to the computer you are trying to install on.

I'm not sure I understand this. }

Obviously you have never installed Windows on a blank machine.

You will likely need a separate install CD (other than the Windows disk) for each of: your printer, your video card and your sound. It is possible you will need an install CD for your network card, and you certainly will if you have a wireless connection. You might even need a CD or other media for something as simple as your modem, your mouse or your monitor!

{ I didn't see any "fuss" noted, save the entering of a single CD key. }

That is not accurate. If you put in just the Windows CD (and only the Windows CD) and one key, you are likely to have VGA-resolution video, no 3D acceleration, and no sound. You may not have any network card, and you won't have any wireless. You certainly won't be able to print anything. If you do get connected to the net, you would be compromised in less than a few minutes without a decent firewall and virus scanner. You won't get any significant applications without entering yet more keys.

{ Your computer will "just work", as well. }

Typically, no it will not. Not right away. Not without feeding in half-a-dozen extra CDs (apart from the Windows CD, and each extra driver CD specific to your hardware), and you will utterly bork your system if you put in an install CD for the wrong motherboard, or something like that.

Typically, however, it will "just work" after installing a modern Linux from an install CD.

{ You will be able to do simple OPERATING SYSTEM tasks such as changing your monitor's resolution and refresh rate. }

No. Sorry, typically that is not so. On Windows, you will have to get the install CD from the manufacturer of your video card, and install the drivers from there, before you can do this.

On Kubuntu, PCLinuxOS and SuSe Linux you can however do this very operation straight after the install from liveCD.

{ You will be able to listen to MP3's}

This is true also for PCLinuxOS. For Kubuntu and SuSe, you have to set an extra repository in your package manager. Even if you have to do this, i is far easier to do than the half-dozen extra CDs and phonecall to Microsoft that are required for a successful Windows install on to a blank machine.

{ your network/wifi will work, and video card hardware acceleration will work }

Typically, no they won't. All of these typically each require additional install disks (other than the Windows CD) before they will work. If you happen to get the wrong CD (say you have more than one machine, with a different motherboard or video card) then you will scramble the Windows install and you will have to start over again.

{ Linux is just more difficult to get working than Windows. }

Sorry, that is just not so. Unlike Windows, Linux is a one-disk install without any keys, activation steps, registration phone calls, or required additional components (lest it be compromised), and there is no threat of viruses or malware or failing WGA checks that will make it not work.

{ Because I make this statement, does NOT mean that I think "Linux sucks" or even that "Windows is better". }

Fine. Because you make that statement, doesn't make that statement correct, either. What you think is simply not relevant to the reality.

Edited 2007-03-17 15:24

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: What?
by oomingmak on Sat 17th Mar 2007 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
oomingmak Member since:
2006-09-22

"Invariably the Windows install is far far more difficult ... even just for the bare OS install."

I agree (and that's coming from a Windows user).

While Linux distos aimed at desktop users do still have many problems and annoyances, installation is certainly not one of them, and it has now reached the point where it is easier to install Linux than it is Windows (for default installations at least).

The one area that I personally do find lacking is the section for specifying mount points. This could be made much more user friendly and intelligible, because even Linux beginners sometimes want to specify what goes where (to be sure that existing data does not get touched).

But other than that, I'd say they have the installation problem pretty much licked.

Edited 2007-03-17 15:46

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What?
by kristoph on Sat 17th Mar 2007 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

I am sorry lemur2 but I have to disagree (and agree with the parent). I also have experience with installing Windows 2000 / XP, Linux (Slackware / RHEL / Ubuntu), and Max OS X.
Needless to say Mac OS X is by far the easiest. Windows 2000 / XP is much easier on random hardware than Linux. Linux is fine if all your hardware is supported by the distro 'out of the box' but if it's not the process of installing an configuring Linux is MUCH harder than Windows 2000 / XP.
]{

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What?
by unoengborg on Sat 17th Mar 2007 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What?"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I think installation is hard for any OS when the hardware isn't supported by the installation media.
I would say that windows would be harder than most in this situation.

The reason why MacOS-X is easy to install. Apple controls the hardware, so you are at least very likely to get the installed system to boot right away.

Linux supports more devices out of the box than any version of Windows, so statistically, installation on Linux should be easier on random hardware.

However, Linux usually have difficulties with brand new hardware as drivers are often developed after that the device have hit the market due to lack of information from the hardware vendor.

So if you "randomly" select your hardware from new devices you may be right, in that, Linux is harder to install. On the other hand, if you buy a new PC, then why not buy hardware that you know works.

When you judge what OS is the most difficult to get installed, you also have to factor in at what software that actually gets installed. In windows you end up with notepad and paint. In Linux you usually end up with a full office suit, a fairly good image editor and if you check a check box or two more, over the default install, you will also have a mail server, and a very good enterprise level database.

Reply Score: 3

RE: What?
by rtfa on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:38 UTC in reply to "What?"
rtfa Member since:
2006-02-27

"I am still just dumbfounded that someone could actually claim that Ubuntu is somehow easier to install AND more likely to support hardware than Windows XP/Vista." perhaps try a little more research and then try to comprehend what they are saying. You not read any reports in the press about a lack of drivers for Vista???? I never have to insert a manufacturors disk with drivers into Linux - it just works.

"However, to claim that Linux is "easier" to deal with than Windows Xp/Vista is just intellectually dishonest in every way." - No virus/malware/registry, no reinstallation of drivers/apps/OS to cure problems - perhaps you are the one with the issue as you don;t know enough about Linux/Windows to comment.
I have to show people how to reinstall drivers in windows when their printing suddenly stops (HP drivers on XP) to save me regular trips for support.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: What?
by superstoned on Sat 17th Mar 2007 13:08 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Offtopic: just stop supporting windows. It's a waste of time, and you're just holding linux back by solving the problems MS has created!

Reply Score: 3

RE: What?
by NxStY on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:40 UTC in reply to "What?"
NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

I have some relatives that have absolutely no clue about computers. I can't remember how many times I've had to get over there to fix their computer, git rid of some virus/spyware/adware, update windows, fix some problem or even reinstall. That was until last time when I just installed ubuntu instead and they've been quiet since.

Yes, windows is more difficult than modern Linux distributions simply because there is so much maintance work. Especially since you also have to deal with antivirus, firewalls etc. Ubuntu basically handles itself.

And for the drivers, since most drivers are open source you get tyhem with the distribution rather than having to use a bunch of CDs from the vendors. Kind of difficult for a person who doesn't even know what a driver is.

If it wasn't for the not perfect hardware support and problems with proprietary drivers and codecs, that might require manual tweaking, Windows wouldn't have any usability advantages over Linux. And at least the later problem is already solved in feisty.

Edited 2007-03-17 12:43

Reply Score: 5

Can't Install as Dual Boot
by ravichhabra on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:15 UTC
ravichhabra
Member since:
2005-08-12

Has anyone tried installing it as a dual boot between Windows and Ubuntu? Coz the partioner won't let me do anything nor see even if I create Ext3/SWAP partitions before hand. I think this bug is documented and the fix didn't make it into Herd5. What solution do I have, anyone had any luck?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Can't Install as Dual Boot
by rklrkl on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:25 UTC in reply to "Can't Install as Dual Boot"
rklrkl Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, I've done it, but watch out for horrible Vista installer bugs (I'm assuming you're installing Vista and not XP) related to partitions! What I did was this:

* Boot into the Ubuntu live CD and run the GNOME Partition Manager.
* Wipe off all the partitions that currently exist (I'm assuming you don't want to keep your original Windows install here).
* Create a small (32MB? Maybe less?) NTFS partition at the start of the disk. I marked it as bootable just to be on the safe side.
* Create a second NTFS partition right after the first one to place your Vista install into - I'd recommend a bare minimum of 10GB, but really you want 30-40GB.
* Create third partitions (and more...) for Linux (ext3, swap, whatever - you'll probably have to go into extended partitions) after the two NTFS ones.
* Boot into the Vista install DVD - when you get to the partition list, it only listed from partition 2 onwards ! Yep, some bizarre "feature" there [maybe it wants to install the boot stuff in the first partition?].
* Select the second partition and install Vista on that.
* Boot into the Ubuntu live CD when you're done with Vista and install Ubuntu onto the 3rd partition onwards - on the next reboot, you'll get a GRUB menu that also includes Vista.

One further Vista installer bug - it will *not* reformat ext3 partitions to NTFS! It used to be able to do this in the early betas of Vista, but they "broke" it (deliberately?) in the release candidates and final version. Hence, you must do your repartitioning/formatting beforehand for best results.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Can't Install as Dual Boot
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 12:34 UTC in reply to "Can't Install as Dual Boot"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

//Has anyone tried installing it as a dual boot between Windows and Ubuntu?//

Yes. Just install Windows first to a blank hard disk, but do not use the whole disk ... leave about 30 GB unused (or at least 8 GB) for a decent Linux install.

Once you have gone through the painful Windows install process, then install Ubuntu from a liveCD, and select the option "install to unused space of hard disk" during the install sequence from the liveCD. You will automatically end up with a correct dual-boot installation.

Reply Score: 2

partman
by gfx1 on Sat 17th Mar 2007 11:19 UTC
gfx1
Member since:
2006-01-20

Did they change partman? I have some serious problems in getting the previous version (feisty4) installed.. 6.06 and 6.10 worked, in everything feisty partman seems broken...

Reply Score: 1

Yay! Way to go Eugenia!
by negativity on Sat 17th Mar 2007 13:15 UTC
negativity
Member since:
2006-02-23

I've been using Ubuntu almost exclusively for the past 2,5 years or so, and while it's not perfect, it works! And it's great to hear that it works for you because your needs are higher than mine currently, which means that once I need something more complex, the support will be there as well.

What a change from you!

Reply Score: 1

RawMustard
Member since:
2005-10-10

Was running Diaper before I got my new system just last week. Thought to myself, I'll try herd5 and see how it goes on this new beast of mine. Well no show for me, partition manager is broken, just hangs at selecting use free disc space(I got a free spare disk just for Ubuntu). Tried diaper again, same thing ;) OK then, tried diaper live cd, kernel panic at loading. Hmmm download herd5 live cd seeing as my hardware is pretty new. Same again, kernel panic at loading linux. Oh well, maybe next version will work ;)

Asus P5N32-SLI Premium mobo
4gig Kinmax ram
E6600 Core2 duo cpu
Nvidia 8800GTX GPU
2 sata drives not raided
1 dvd/cd burner

It's all suppose to be linux compatible, I purchased it that way and linux drivers exist for all of it. I'd hate to see people try and install on systems that weren't linux compatible. XP installed without incident incase your were wondering(It's what 6 years old FFS!)

I'm told other dists install just fine on same system exactly, pitty, I like Debian based more - Oh well!

Oh and tried all the criptic boot params, noapic and such...

Reply Score: 1

Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

I have an almost identical system

Asus P5N32-SLI
4GB Corsair RAM
E6400 Core2Duo CPU
Nvidia 7900GT
3 sata drives (no raid)
2 dvd/cd burners

The only significant difference seems to be the built in wireless on your board. You might try disabling that? I never tried Dappper on it, but Feisty installed just fine without any boot parameters. A couple of suggestions:

I had the same problem with partitions you did. I pre-partioned the available space into the sizes I wanted using gparted. Then during install specified what to map each partition to. This worked fine whereas trying to create the partition during install failed (bug filed).

The onboard gigabit does not work by default. They get mapped to eth0 eth1 but do not connect. It is easiest to do an alt-f2 during boot before getting to networking. Then add the following line to your /etc/modules.conf using nano

options forcedeth msi=0 msix=0

That way you can actually connect to the repositories during install which makes life easier. (bug filed)

I also had a problem w/ grub, but in my case it was self inflicted. Other than that everything went just fine.

The Ubuntu install process is not without some pains, but in general I have had few to no problems once it was installed.

NOTE: The 2.6.20 kernel added/fixed support for a number of components on that board (IDE is the one that sticks in my head though I might be wrong). That is why I went straight to Feisty.

Reply Score: 1

Very informative & well written review
by desNotes on Sat 17th Mar 2007 14:37 UTC
desNotes
Member since:
2006-05-26

Thank you Eugenia for the articulate and detailed review. You shared advantages and problems during the installation and usage process but kept emotion out of the article, which is rare in other author's reviews regarding Linux, Windows, Macs, et al. You explained what worked for you and why. I find that much more helpful than someone writing a review claiming their findings are good for all.

It would be beneficial for OSNews and its readers to see more reviews of this type.

desNotes

Reply Score: 1

Photoshop
by Kokopelli on Sat 17th Mar 2007 15:47 UTC
Kokopelli
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not a graphics guy. For my extremely limited needs Gimp works just fine. So I really do not know the advantages/disadvantages of various graphics programs... That said, has any one tried this:

http://www.xaraxtreme.org/

I do not remember where I got the link, but it looks interesting. From a graphics professional standpoint I would say that Photoshop skills are needed simply from a resume standpoint if nothing else. I wonder if this might be a usable replacement for photoshop for non-professional power users though.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Photoshop
by ngaio on Sat 17th Mar 2007 17:43 UTC in reply to "Photoshop"
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

"I am not a graphics guy. . . . From a graphics professional standpoint I would say that Photoshop skills are needed simply from a resume standpoint if nothing else."

Indeed, you are not a "graphics guy" if you make a statement like this. Take one attribute of photo enhancement -- sharpening. Sometimes it's very useful to sharpen in the lab channel, especially if you don't want the blemishes on a person's face to appear worse than they really are. The Gimp does not yet have that mode. Photoshop does. This is a small but important example of why a program like Photoshop is useful for photographers and why unfortunately the Gimp is not yet sufficient.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Photoshop
by Kokopelli on Sat 17th Mar 2007 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Photoshop"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

Thank you for the reply and the pointers... Though no thanks for the attitude. I apologize for asking a polite question and retract the attempt at education.

EDIT: I meant that even if there were a suitable substitute, which I have on multiple occasions said there is not, from a professionals standpoint the need to know Photoshop is important. But don't bother with polite recourse, it might actually prove useful to someone.

Edited 2007-03-17 18:26

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Photoshop
by ngaio on Sat 17th Mar 2007 19:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Photoshop"
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

Kokopelli, if you want to ask a question about Photoshop or any other program outside your acknowledged areas of expertise then go ahead and ask. But if you make a sweeping generalization that indicates people who master it do so mainly for their resume / CV, then expect to be corrected.

Personally, I hope one day GNU Linux has a software system that caters for all the needs of serious photographers--it is getting there, just as it is in so many other fields. I am sure you feel the same way, so let us leave it at that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Photoshop
by Kokopelli on Sat 17th Mar 2007 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Photoshop"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

Except I did not make that sweeping generalization. You made that assumption. And I did ask a question, you simply did not bother reading the whole message.

Let me break my original message down into more verbose language so that you can perhaps comprehend:

[translation]
I do not do much work in graphics and therefore I have little experience in the varying options out there. Gimp works for my modest needs but I am under no illusions that it would be the preferred tool for professionals or even power users.

Given my admitted lack of knowledge on the subject has anyone tried the alternate product called xara extreme? It is not a photo manipulation application, but seems to have some capability for mid level use. Has anyone used it and what is your opinion,

I do not think this is an alternative for photoshop for profressionals. Skills in photoshop are needed if you want to get a job in professional graphics. However perhaps for power users with less demanding needs it will do.
[/translation]

So do you consider the fact that photoshop skills are an important asset in someone seeking employment as a graphics designer to be false? The irony is that the comment about photoshop was tnagential to my question. It does not matter though, it is not worth getting an answer for if I have to deal with elitists who take one sentence in a message and turn it into a personal affront.

Edited 2007-03-17 20:04

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Photoshop
by ngaio on Sat 17th Mar 2007 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Photoshop"
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

A miscommunication has occurred.

"Skills in photoshop are needed if you want to get a job in professional graphics" is an unambiguous statement. Here I would agree with you.

Your original statement was: "From a graphics professional standpoint I would say that Photoshop skills are needed simply from a resume standpoint if nothing else." This is ambiguous, and can easily be read as saying "Photoshop skills are necessary only for the look they give a resume". That is obviously how I read it.

Reply Score: 1

ubuntu....somewhat overhyped
by orfanum on Sat 17th Mar 2007 16:10 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

Here in PPC land one is grateful for any distro that still supports this architecture. However, having tried to load FF Herd 4 recently and failing because of blank screen problems, and then going to 6.06 LTS, and encountering the same difficulty (tabbing for different options did not work either) I can only say that Ubuntu for me has been a disappointing experience.

For overall polish and functionality from the get-go I am almost tempted to build an x86 box just for Sabayon Linux. Or Just wait until Mandriva comes up with the latest PPC goods.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ubuntu....somewhat overhyped
by netpython on Sat 17th Mar 2007 16:45 UTC in reply to "ubuntu....somewhat overhyped"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

PPC is a dead bird

Reply Score: 2

Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Incorrect, PPC architecture is still alive on IBM zSeries, Nintendo Wii and Gamecube, Cell processors (an supercharged version of PPC) used on Sony Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and embedded devices.

Reply Score: 2

miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

None of them are desktop computers, that's the Ubuntu's main target.

Reply Score: 2

Dear Team Ubuntu ...
by kadymae on Sat 17th Mar 2007 16:36 UTC
kadymae
Member since:
2005-08-02

By manually entering the vertical and horizontal sync in the xorg.conf file it fixed the problem for my 1440x900 screen and I was able to load the LiveCD and finally install Feisty on the hard drive.

You've known about this issue for 18 freeking months.

It's a regularly asked question in the forums.

This is a bog standard chipset that shows up in a lot of laptops and desktops. The 1440 x 900 resolution is a very populuar option on Dell laptops because it's a very cheap upgrade and it makes the colors on screen look so much better and brighter.

Please pull your heads out of the sand and fix this so that it works out of the box.

(Because sending a n00b to edit a config file on day one is an excellent way to give them the [wrong] idea that Linux is a half-baked pile of glop.)

Thank you.

PS. I'll paypal you the cost of two deluxe pizzas, a bucket of buffalo wings and a case of Sam Adams as soon as I get the final version installed on my laptop.

Reply Score: 3

What's wrong with this picture?
by richardstevenhack on Sun 18th Mar 2007 00:41 UTC
richardstevenhack
Member since:
2006-12-30

"I needed to have more information for my laptop's LCD. By manually entering the vertical and horizontal sync in the xorg.conf file it fixed the problem for my 1440x900 screen and I was able to load the LiveCD and finally install Feisty on the hard drive."

"Compiz is now part of Ubuntu although turned off by default because it still has major problems."

"installing new apps is now a breeze. Although Ubuntu has 5 GUI applications that are package-related and that can create some confusion..."

"I manually installed libdvdcss because this is not included in the restricted list and Totem now refuses to playback any DVD if you try to load it via Totem's menu"

"Please note that Ubuntu mistakenly loads the BCM43xx driver for my Broadcomm/Dell 1390 WiFi card and that resulted in a lot of errors in the terminal by the system (missing firmware?). I had to blacklist the BCM43xx driver before I could successfully install ndiswrapper and finally get WiFi support. [Update: I installed the bcm43xx-cutter package and installed the required firmware and WiFi now works with the open source driver which unfortunately is not stable (I lose connection after a minute or so)"

"Another fine moment is that Ubuntu supports suspend-to-RAM (sleep) on my laptop out of the box, although I noticed that once every 5-6 wake ups some stuff can get screwy (e.g. X dying, network card not responding etc)"

"There were very few the times that I had to pop to the terminal to carry out an important action."

"Some of these problems include: the i810 driver would not playback HD video (Xv crashing) if I would not add the Cachelines option in the Xorg.conf, copy/paste from Firefox does not work if Firefox is then closed down (this was fixed last year for Gnome apps, time to fix Firefox too), Gossip does not connect to anything else but jabber.org (e.g. no gtalk), digicam's RAW files open by default with the wrong applications (only Cinepaint and UFRaw can handle these but they are not set as defaults for the RAW mime types), I have bad AC97 "scratchy" sound with most SDL games (e.g. Neverball, LTris etc), Bluetooth would not work at all here if you don't run "hcitool hci0 reset" before loading the service, there is no option in the gnome-mouse pref panel to disable tap-to-click on touchpads (gsynaptics is really buggy so I prefer to not mess with it), HAL is not built with libsmbios and so the new Gnome "brightness applet" does not support any DELL laptop, FFmpeg is built without AAC (so it's not possible to encode videos for my cellphone) etc. However, these are not problems that I can't live with or not find workarounds."


Excuse me, folks, but this is a litany of screwed up stuff nobody should have to tolerate on ANY OS - even Windows.

Why is it that the distros STILL do not have a database of every commonly used monitor with an effective method of detecting - or EVEN ASKING THE USER - to identify the monitor and installing the correct horizontal and vertical sync? I mean, I can understand it that my old ViewSonic 6 isn't detected properly in every distro, but the latest monitors? NOBODY can get the proper HV sync figures into the hardware database? C'mon!

Why does Ubuntu need FIVE package management programs? That is just ridiculous...I thought Fedora Core 5 was braindead for having TWO! What, we can't get ONE program to function properly, so we cover that up by installing FOUR MORE?

WHY is Totem, the least competent media player, the default? Why is Kaffeine demoted when it obviously can play encrypted DVDs without hosing itself just because libdvdcss is installed?

Why are so many obviously crippled and not ready for primetime packages being included in so many distros - like Compiz? Is it just because of "featuritis" inherited from Microsoft?

And we see that Wi-Fi and laptop hibernation STILL do not work properly? What is this, rocket science? Linux finally got the printer problem licked so that now you just select the printer and everything works with CUPS. Why can't the distros get a straightforward, automated way of installing WiFi support? It's not even a driver issue, since the drivers (if only through NDISWrapper) are there. It's the setup problem again - nothing is detected, the user isn't asked, so nothing works! This is ridiculous!

Copy/Paste from Firefox doesn't work if Firefox is closed down? Is there something about the notion of a CLIPBOARD that people at Ubuntu or GNOME or KDE just don't GET?

This is not a positive review. This is a litany of incompetence that demonstrates why xBuntu is not a competent distro. Sure, there are bugs in ALL the distros - and for the same reasons - lack of manpower or the will to do adequate testing as opposed to slapping in new "features" because they're "cool", like 3D eye candy - while allowing basics like installation and software update to be loaded with bugs.

I definitely will not be upgrading my Kubuntu to the next release. Instead, I will make the relatively painful effort to switch back to Mandriva 2007 or perhaps PCLinuxOS - whose developers apparently spend more time testing and tweaking to make sure things work than they do eye candy - and yet, look, PCLinuxOS even LOOKS COOL!

Reply Score: 5

negativity Member since:
2006-02-23

The excuse for the bad handling of issues is because we lack so much in skills and yet the problems compound themselves when they need to be handled simultaneously.

Hey, but PCLinuxOS, Mandriva and KDE will fix all the problems themselves, so no need to worry, right? I want to see a thorough review of Mandriva as well, and how it will handle all the problems out-of-the-box for their users. No need to think. Any grandma will be able to install and use it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What's wrong with this picture?
by lemur2 on Sun 18th Mar 2007 09:51 UTC in reply to "What's wrong with this picture?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{Why is it that the distros STILL do not have a database of every commonly used monitor with an effective method of detecting - or EVEN ASKING THE USER - to identify the monitor and installing the correct horizontal and vertical sync? }

Most distros do have exactly that.

This problem is an identified bug with just the Ubuntu distro in particular, with just that screen.

Do not mistake a bug with one particular screen on one particular distro with a problem for all Linux distros.

Reply Score: 2

gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

This problem is an identified bug with just the Ubuntu distro in particular, with just that screen.

Yeah right, this is a problem with X so it is in all linux flavours.
My radeon x800 card is never recognised properly by X, I always have to edit xorg.conf to change ati to radeon
to stop it from crashing at boottime.

BeOS handled this better 9 years ago.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{ My radeon x800 card is never recognised properly by X, I always have to edit xorg.conf to change ati to radeon }

You have listed one problem, and Eugenia has listed another.

I personally have a collection of no less that six video cards that have had to be scrapped because there was no driver for them for the only available versions of Windows.

Windows Vista shipped to the public without properly working nvidia drivers, and a longish list of other driver problems.

http://www.playfuls.com/news_06594_Missing_Drivers_And_Security_Hol...

My list trumps yours.

Reply Score: 2

gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

I personally have a collection of no less that six video cards that have had to be scrapped because there was no driver for them for the only available versions of Windows.

Try the site of the manufacturer of the card or chipset.
But maybe those cards are over ten years old with an ISA or EISA interface? and can't even produce a decent picture on a 1024x768 monitor.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

//Try the site of the manufacturer of the card or chipset. //

One example, early chipset is Rendition Verite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_Verite
Vérité V2x00

Card was: Diamond's Stealth II S220. V2100-based

3D capable, PCI.

Manufacturer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Multimedia

Website here: http://www.diamondmm.com/

PCI graphics cards are here: http://www.diamondmm.com/PCI-Graphics-cards.php

Search reveals:
http://www.dmmsupport.com/index.php?action=kb

"Search Stealth II S220

No results found."

... nothing.

Google reveals:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Stealth+II+S220%22+dri...

... windows 95/98 drivers appears as good as you are going to get.

However, there is some promise that it was supported (by someone) as late as Windows 2000.
http://members.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=6147

I never had Windows 2000 installed. The card does not work in Windows XP.

If a video card has gone out of production, and Windows goes up a version or two, you are out of luck.

Mind you, there is no driver for Linux either.

Next card is a Nvidia Riva TNT M64. There is an XP driver for this card, but it doesn't work.

http://members.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=6147

The next card is a nvidia M440 SE.

This card has problems with AGP on recent motherboards, and so no 3D acceleration works any more anyway.

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/1386/

The next card is an ATI Radeon 9250. This has the same or similar issue with the AGP driver.

There are several other cards, all obsolete now due to driver issues, but these four are the only ones that were originally 3D capable.

I can probably get the nvidia M440 SE working on an older motherboard. I do have the ATI card still in use, but only because it is installed in a AMD Duron 1GHz machine that is quite venerable. I expect to have to scrap this card if I update the motherboard.

All of the above cards originally worked in 3D at 1024x768. The ATI Radeon 9250 was supposedly "hot" (albeit at the tail end of the market) as recently as 2004.
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=576
Apparently, you can still buy one of these cards:
http://www.amazon.com/ATI-RADEON-9250-Video-Upgrade/dp/B00062N5AE

BTW, none of these video cards have a prayer in Vista.

Edited 2007-03-18 12:43

Reply Score: 4

gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

If a video card has gone out of production, and Windows goes up a version or two, you are out of luck.

Yes that's called progress. Lack of drivers isn't microsofts problem but if the manufacturer doesn't want to update their drivers than their customers are out of luck.
All the cards you list are either old, or have bugs, have very limited onboard memory and a ramdac that makes your eyes water.

You don't have to upgrade every old computer to Vista...
besides the hardware requirements are pretty high.

Reply Score: 2

chris_dk Member since:
2005-07-12

I think you can find problems in all distros.

What I am worried about is the lack of resources to take care of those bugs.

I think that Ubuntu needs to pay more developers to fix those bugs.

In the beginning Ubuntu developers were quick to solve bugs but now there are more users and more bugs get filed.

I left Mandriva because of poor QA.

Reply Score: 2

Only an aclaration
by nisanio on Sun 18th Mar 2007 15:38 UTC
nisanio
Member since:
2007-03-18

Excelent review, only one comment: 33 years is NOT older, ok?

Reply Score: 1

Again
by superman on Sun 18th Mar 2007 17:45 UTC
superman
Member since:
2006-08-01

The current buzz around Ubuntu seems to be the same buzz around Mandrake some years ago.

Reply Score: 1

Ubuntu rules!
by Luposian on Sun 18th Mar 2007 18:36 UTC
Luposian
Member since:
2005-07-27

How do I know? It allows me to Fold on my Athlon64 X2 4800+ system with SMP Cores that net me over 1,700 points per day!

I'd install Feisty Fawn, but Edgey Eft is good enough for me. Unless... of course... Feisty Fawn would allow me to Fold even faster! (even if by just a few seconds!) Can anyone confirm this?

Sure, I don't use "Athlonica64" for ANYTHING else, except Folding (she was meticulously hand assembled, specifically for this purpose), but what else is there (more important) to do with all this processing power?

If that's not reason enough to love Ubuntu, I don't know what is...

Luposian
"Must... Fold... FASTER!!!"

Edited 2007-03-18 18:39

Reply Score: 1

Upstart
by Darkelve on Mon 19th Mar 2007 07:46 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

Is Upstart in there by default, or easily configurable?

And for the ones who use it, what sort of improvement do you notice over init?

Edited 2007-03-19 07:47

Reply Score: 2

RE: Upstart
by Eugenia on Mon 19th Mar 2007 08:59 UTC in reply to "Upstart"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

What is Upstart?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Upstart
by Darkelve on Mon 19th Mar 2007 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Upstart"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

In short, it's an event-driven replacement for (sysv)init.

From http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

"Upstart is an event-based replacement for the /sbin/init daemon which handles starting of tasks and services during boot, stopping them during shutdown and supervising them while the system is running.

It was originally developed for the Ubuntu distribution, but is intended to be suitable for deployment in all Linux distributions as a replacement for the venerable System-V init."

It's got a lot of advantages, but the one that I'm concerned most about is: it should give faster boot time B)

Edited 2007-03-19 09:18

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Upstart
by Eugenia on Mon 19th Mar 2007 09:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Upstart"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

As I already wrote in the article, ubuntu starts much faster than in older versions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Upstart
by Darkelve on Mon 19th Mar 2007 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Upstart"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

"As I already wrote in the article, ubuntu starts much faster than in older versions."

Yes, but what I wanted to know is whether this is thanks to Upstart (meaning: upstart is the default), or because of other improvements to the boot process (meaning: upstart is not the default).

And aside from the boot time, upstart is supposed to have other advantages such as when working with removable devices.

Edited 2007-03-19 09:44

Reply Score: 3

One distro market
by Southern.Pride on Mon 19th Mar 2007 12:48 UTC
Southern.Pride
Member since:
2006-09-14

I find it amazing how this is the only distro that is basically rehashed over and over. Being a Red Hat advocate since 1999 Fedora Core is available and it is a excellent choice for the desktop. Plus several others to many to mention with stronger points than Ubuntu it is so biased towards this distro. Are they paying for ads on this site or is it hyping it up to become the only 'one' or NO other choice in a Linux distro.

Ubuntu to me is just another Windows it has Gnome as the standard forcing the user to use it or try installing KDE and hoping for the best when something does not work.

Reply Score: 1

RE: One distro market
by dindin on Mon 19th Mar 2007 13:16 UTC in reply to "One distro market"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

I have not seen any adds for Ubuntu but I swtiched long before there was so much new about it. Its simply a good distro. I was a Redhat user before the fedora thing, but never 'felt' comfortable with it after starting to use Ubuntu. But then again, neither one of them is as good as FreeBSD ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: One distro market
by Eugenia on Tue 20th Mar 2007 21:55 UTC in reply to "One distro market"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I fail to see how the same does not apply to Fedora too.

Reply Score: 1