Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Technology/Computers  > Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 subtlecaffeine
Joined: 5/23/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?Page 1 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
There's no simple answer for your question.

For the most part...Ubuntu is pretty easy. Programs are added by the Synaptic package manager which is easier than the old way of downloading "tarballs" and compiling from source. You just simply search for what you want, click install, and it will download everything needed and run all the installation processes for you.

As far as hardware...that's really a crapshoot. Not all hardware is supported by Linux...but a good majority of it is these days. You've got a pretty good chance of your hardware working, although it may require proprietary drivers you have to activate..or you may have to install a thing or two to get it working. Usually it's wireless networking that puts up the biggest hassle. I know on my laptop while it was supported out of the box, I had to run an additional installation process to make the card actually usable.

Using the OS isn't any more difficult than using Windows...and the software that comes installed will meet almost any internet users requirements....but the repositories (where packages are stored) have a pretty good selection of almost anything you could need to do and instalattion is a click away.

You're likely to be disappointed in some small way...you're likely to be extremely happy. The install CD doubles as a liveCD....an environment that boots off the CD and allows you to try the OS without actually installing anything to your hard drive. You really won't know if it'll work for you untill you try it.
 bowlerguy08
Joined: 6/4/2009
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 7/15/2009 11:47:14 AM
When I tried it not too long ago it seemed pretty easy to use. I might post a followup later in the week/month because I'm about to install it on my new system.
 NurbyDriver
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 7/15/2009 1:54:01 PM
I used Ubuntu for several years but I got tired of the Dist-upgrades always breaking X or something, switched to PC Linux OS about 2 years ago and haven't looked back.

Ubuntu is not bad, and has a millionaire backer but I have been more than pleased with PCLOS.
 DigiMonster
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 5
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 7/15/2009 3:45:44 PM
It was easy enough, however no matter what I tried it would NOT play my dvd movies :(
 DigiMonster
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 7
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 7/15/2009 5:21:00 PM
Don, I had asked so many times in the forums & spent many hours googling to find a solution & never found anything that didn't break Ubuntu (I became an expert at reinstalling it >_>) ... I might consider reinstalling Ubuntu on a spare Drive.

New question since I want to install it again... How do I get my computer to boot to a screen that I get to select which OS to load up? XPpro will be on my SATA HDD & Ubuntu will be on an IDE HDD.. Thanks :)
 subtlecaffeine
Joined: 5/23/2007
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 7/15/2009 5:47:42 PM
X Breaking is GENERALLY related to video drivers. The biggest problem with using a binary-only video driver is when you do something like upgrade your kernel...since that driver was configured for the previous kernel, sometimes it pukes. 9 times out of 10...it's a driver conflict during upgrade...I've run a few dist-upgrades on here and the only thing it's broken is wireless.

As far as dual-booting...If you're installing Ubuntu with an existing XP installation...Grub will handle all that for you. Ubuntu will install it to the MBR so it'll boot before anything else...then you can pick what you want. You think that's fun? I'm triple booting (Ubuntu AMD64, Win7 x64, XP Pro x32)....i had no problems.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 10
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 7/16/2009 4:38:04 PM

It was easy enough, however no matter what I tried it would NOT play my dvd movies :(


More then likely you need the libcssdvd2 plugin. It is used to decrypt encryption on DVD's. Most distributions don't come with it because they are afraid of legal issues that might come up with coming preinstalled. Google it and go from there.
 PlanelyCrazy
Joined: 10/27/2008
Msg: 13
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 7/17/2009 12:43:12 AM
My mom (now 70) has been running Linux for almost a decade (Internet, email, Open Office). I moved her to Ubuntu L.T.S. a few years back, and she finds Gnome a lot easier to navigate than the Debian/KDE desktop. I installed Ubuntu L.T.S. on my niece's first computer a few years back as well. She's done the vast majority of her school reports, etc. on it with no problems. In both cases, the best part has been that I've needed to perform almost no system administration after initial setup. Linux is a thousands times more secure than Windows for everyday Internet/Office Document use. Once set up properly, spam, viruses, worms, active-X attacks and everything else just bounce off the system with no harm done.

Ubuntu becomes difficult for someone when said someone expects to just walk into Staples, purchase a game or cheap hardware doohickie, and just plug it in without having to engage the brain. If you're that sort of someone, buy a Windows or Mac box.
 needsomefemz
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 17
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 7/26/2009 8:24:50 AM
I tried Ubuntu. While it was easy on the eyes, it became a little to technical for me. I'm sure one day I'll try to dive into it again.
 LinuxD
Joined: 12/6/2008
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 10/14/2009 7:51:38 PM
Ubuntu is an awesome OS IMHO. I love it.. My whole net work is *nix, all my systems are dual,triple and even quad booted with various combo's of M$ and *nix OSes. Wireless configuration seems to be the biggest issue but after a while its not really a problem. It seems most people complain about Command Line. My bet is most of the people that mutter about it have never seen a DOS prompt... I love the good old days of computing and running strictly from a prompt so much thats how i have a few of my systems set up! LOL I've revived quite a few old machines and put Puppy Linux or Damn Small Linux on them and gave them to families that wanted a PC but couldnt afford one.. Sure.. they cant play WoW on it but would not be able to even with windows! and the service calls or questions i get when it is from those individuals are very limited.. they are happy with the OS. You can't beat FreeNAS for building a NAS.. I built one out of a 450 mhz P2 system with software RAID and 8 drives in the machine, max cpu usage has been 27 % and down time is 0%.. it just sits there and runs headless 24/7 on 128 MB Ram been that way now for over a year without a reboot and stream music for me holds all my info and movies.. swwet setup.. check it out.. Linux will definately make serious inroads in the next 5-7 years i think.. people will warm up to it and more support will be provided.. i just hope it doesnt become the POS that M$ has put out.. Just my thoughts.. oh BTW.. M$ runs *nix servers themselves.. Happy computing!
 testing0987
Joined: 10/12/2009
Msg: 31
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 10/17/2009 11:02:31 AM
Ubuntu is fairly easy for people that have a history with computing, especially Unix. Ubuntu can look difficult for beginners, especially those who do not know Windows or Mac very well. Impatient people should stick to only the operating system they already are familiar with.

I use Ubuntu/Debian, CentOS/RHEL exclusively. I also use Windows XP/7/2003/2008. Both the family of Operating systems (GNU/Linux and Windows) does all I want.

Now, some detail. Linux was developed by a Finnish guy called Linus Trovalds. Linux was just a smart program that was generally used with other software such as a terminal (think of DOS screen, commands etc). People started to like the product and developed applications around Linux. Today, there are so many applications that Linux program (called Kernel) has become a full fledged operating system with icons and fancy windows etc - all of that is much better than Windows or Mac. Different people applied different application to Linux kernel and built their own new shiny Linux. To differentiate the program Linux and the full fledged new shiny Linux, the new shiny gets to be called GNU/Linux. Ubuntu is one such advanced GNU/Linux.

Installation of Ubuntu: Ubuntu is very easy to install. Beginners should be slighly careful and patient, and install it with an open mind. Ubuntu can be run directly from the CD or can be installed on to the computer from the CD. If you already have Windows, Ubuntu will guide you with options so that Windows will remain as it is and Ubuntu will be installed side by side. When you reboot, you would be asked to choose if you would like to boot Windows or Ubuntu. This is called Dual-booting. There are plenty of tutorials that help you. Type ubuntu installation guide in youtube's search to find ample videos. Get familiar with them so you know what to expect. I have a history of Unix and BSD behind me and therefore Ubuntu was a piece of cake. My friends who came from a strong Windows background found it a breeze installing Ubuntu. My clients, who were OK with computers, also had no trouble as long as I had someone there to help them guide through questions. So, my recommendation is that you should find someone who can assist you if you have questions. If you can install Windows independently from scratch, Ubuntu should be easy.

Adding new software: Ubuntu comes with a fantastic package manager called Synaptic. It makes installation of Adobe Flash, Java, etc very easy. It is mostly point-and-click, search, choose, Apply to get things installed. Now, is your quickbooks going to work with it? No. Is your photoshop going to work? No. So what good is Ubuntu? There is an application called WINE that allows you to run Windows-based programs (including games) within Ubuntu. There are tutorials on youtube for those as well. There are many applications that act as replacements to Windows applications. Instead of Photoshop, I use GIMP on Ubuntu. Intead of Quickbooks, I use GnuCash. Instead of iTunes, I use --nothing-- because I don't own an iPod and am not much of a music fan; but one could use Songbird or Rhythmbox.

Removing software: You can use the same Synaptic Package Manager to remove software.

There are more than 500 flavors of GNU/Linux. Ubuntu is one. KUbuntu is another. RedHat, CentOS, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo etc... are some others. I have worked with Slackware (a tough one for newbies) and Ubuntu (easy one for newbies). I like Ubuntu better for laptops and desktops because the company that makes/supports Ubuntu is doing development rapidly. On servers, Ubuntu server edition is great but in that regards, I prefer Slackware/Gentoo/CentOS or Debian. An interesting fact is that Ubuntu is derived from Debian distribution. CentOS is derived from RedHat Enterprise Linux. Just so you know...

I like Ubuntu because it provides you with a safer environment by default. My parents, who are Windows literate, can get in trouble by clicking on advertisements that could potentially install a malware. Under Ubuntu, I have no trouble even if they end up clicking on advertisements leading them to a malware-loaded site. Ubuntu is relatively virus-free. Ubuntu comes with Firefox as the standard browser, which does not support ActiveX. So that makes the browser a little more safer than the older versions of Internet Explorer that are installed by default on Windows using a 3-4 year old CD. Finding files is a lot easier with Ubuntu. There are tons of applications that new users find interesting. Math geeks like the fact that Chess is installed by default. There are many other benefits. You will just have to look up the web to get some more details.

Now, is Windows better or GNU/Linux (such as Ubuntu)? That entirely depends on the user, I think. While Ubuntu has its share of safety, power of Linux kernel and loads of other features, Windows has its good things too. There is absolutely nothing bad about Windows if a user knows how to handle it well.

I will, however, encourage you to try Ubuntu as long as you have someone to talk to regarding your questions. If you have friends or Linux User Group (google it for your area) who you can call when you need answers, you will enjoy the benefits of Ubuntu.

Enjoy.
 Ticketoride
Joined: 6/3/2004
Msg: 33
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/9/2009 11:01:12 PM
Dude Do NOT TRY UBUNTU AT ALL.

I have Ubuntu and its a nightmare. My first problem I had was just installing it. I had 2 harddrives I put it on one Hard drive. And it wouldnt boot. After 3 hours I realised I had to change the boot order of my harddrives for it just to work. Like OMFG

Then try and emulate some programs using something called WINE . Is so FAIL nothing works I hate Ubuntu its so horrid to use unless you have a high tech skill. Programs like ventrilo do not even work. There is no linux ventirlo. Meh its just a nightmare.

I recommend commiting suicide before using it. Its truely that bad.

This cannot be overemphasized.

Is so FAIL nothing works I hate Ubuntu its so horrid to use unless you have a high tech skill.

I have never ever in my Life ever wasted more Time trying to set up any flavour of Linux than even the worst Headache with Windows. Furthermore, every imaginable Piece of Software is grossly inferior compared to what is available for Windows, endless Harrassments for a Variety of Permissions, Hardwares that do not function properly, psychotic Directory Structures, Bootloader Issues, Solutions which require Tons of Code only God knows what it is pasted into Terminal Windows instead of checkboxing Settings, ad infinitum.

I don't think I ever got done fixing the endless Plethora of Bugs that presented themselves.

What a beautiful Swan Song is presented here about Linux ... any ordinary User should actually go to any of the Linux Forums and read up on all the Bugs people are having, and esp. those Threads that go unanswered for Weeks if not Months and see if that all makes any sense to you. If it does, then by all Means install it. If you have 1,000's of Hours to commit for a Linux Learning Curve Hobby, then by all Means go for it.

Better than 70% of Clients at one Time requested Linux be removed after only 1 Week from their Computers and Windows re-installed even when Linux seemed to be working fine.

It'll be at least another Decade before it even remotely approximates the Status of "User Friendly".
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/10/2009 8:50:51 AM
Computers are very like cars. There are 2 types of cars.

1) There is the mechanical approach, where you get a car that is quite simple and ingenious in design. You can fix it and customise it yourself, quite easily. But you need to read up on it on how to fix it. But, if you take it to a mechanic, he'll say that he doesn't generally deal with those cars, and if he would fix it, it would cost a lot to get it done.

2) There is the automated approach, where you get a car from a car showroom, that is all gleaming, and works when you take it for a test drive. But after a few months, it stops working. When you attempt to fix it, the inside has a label that says that if you open it up, you break the warranty. Even if you do, it's designed as a complete unit, that is a nightmare to fix yourself. If you take it to a mechanic, he'll say that it will require a whole new engine, and will cost a ton of money for a whole new engine.

If you have a lot of money but you don't want to learn anything about cars, then you get the automated car, and when something goes wrong, you pay the mechanic to fit a new engine.

If you have little money but don't mind spending the effort reading up on how cars work and fixing it yourself, then when you get the mechanical car, and when something goes wrong, you fix it yourself.

The mechanical design where you fix it yourself is the linux type of car.

The automated design where you pay to have it fixed is the Windows type of car.

It's that simple. You choose how to maintain your car, or your operating system, and you pick the one that suits you the best.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 39
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/12/2009 2:38:41 AM

Endless Harrassments for a Variety of Permissions


It is a small price to pay for security and why most viruses/malware/spyware does'nt work very well in a Linux enviorment. Because even if one gets established in ones Linux computer, for the most part, it will wipe out a users account without taking out the rest of the computer with it.

Windows on the other hand is always in administrators mode, without having to use a password. And the main reason why its so vunerable to attack. Never had to worry about virus scanners/malware remover ect.

And I don't really buy the market share theory ( Linux does not have many viruses because it's not worth it for hackers to develop them as not as many use it. )



psychotic Directory Structures


Not psychotic, but different. If you mean never having to defrag my hard drive agian, then yes, thats psychotic...



Threads that go unanswered for Weeks if not Months and see if that all makes any sense to you.


As just like on here, people don't do thread searches first, and people get tired of answering the same questions over and over agian.

On a few occations I've seen software bugs fixed litterally over night, with downloads available the next day.

90% problems I've had with linux were fixed with online forums or a google searches without even having to post on a linux forum. Yes it takes time occationally.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/12/2009 2:00:12 PM

Linux is for the hobbiest, not the average every day user.
That's a truth. It's just not the WHOLE truth.

1) I worked on Windows for over 10 years. The one thing you can expect from Windows users, is that even people who run multi-million dollar companies, who have degrees, and are very smart and very astute, will reguarly phone technical support to complain that their computer does not work, when the problem is simply that it isn't plugged in to the electricity.

If someone said his TV wasn't working, and the problem was that it wasn't plugged in, most people would say that person was a moron. But that's exactly how Windows users behave.

You would not believe the number of times that people would tell me that the business application they were working on had a massive problem and that it produced a message that there was a serious problem and to contact the administrator, but when I asked them what the message was, they couldn't remember, and when I asked them what they did, they couldn't remember either, not even a little bit.

It's like Windows users took the part of their brains that they use with computers, and set it on fire.

So when you're programming for Windows, you have to program it for a moron.
When you're supporting Windows apps, you have to imagine you're dealing with a literal moron, someone who would tie their shoelaces together if someone didn't do it for them.

With a mentality like that when it comes to computers, you're right that Linux isn't for the average every day user. It's not for morons, or for people who behave like they are.

2) Windows started out for the hobbiests. The founders of Microsoft used to belong to a computer club for hobbiests, and that's where a great deal of the things on Windows come from. However, eventually, all those hobbiests made enough stuff they shared freely with each other, that some of them realised if they put a lot of this free stuff together, and packaged it to look pretty, then some people would buy it, rather than get it for free. "Oh, look, shiny, shiny, costs $1000. Buy! Buy shiny thing"

Linux, on the other hand, developed from Unix, which itself developed from the work of a collaboration of engineers, physicists, mathematicians and computer programmers from MIT, AT&T Bell Labs, and General Electric. The project was allowed to be used non-commercially, and it developed from collaborations of academics and experts from all over the US, and then, the world. However, it wasn't being used commercially. So it wasn't packaged to look pretty, and it wasn't redesigned for morons. The assumption with Unix and with Linux, that if you had the brains to get something that developed from professional R&D, and remained being developed by that level of expert, that you were not a moron, and you'd be expected to learn how to use it properly, as a moron would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get a single product with anywhere near that level of expertise, and that if you really were smart enough to value really powreful tools, that you didn't really care too much about looks.

Windows started out being for hobbiests. Now it's sold to people who are told they are smart, but haven't read a page on how to use it.

Linux started out being for pros. Now it's given freely. But for many years, it was only used by people who were smart enough to know that you have to read a manual to know how to use things, and you have to LEARN how to use something to use it well, just like you need to LEARN how to drive a car to use it well.

Is Linux for the hobbiest? Only to people who consider CPR "a hobby", or self-defence classes "a hobby", or learning a foreign language because it will put your earning potential into 6 figures "a hobby".

Don't get me wrong. I worked with Windows. But that's because of the same reasons as most Windows programmers. 80% of the market are suckers.

As long as 80% of the market users are suckers, that's where things will be aimed, and Linux will just be far too complicated for their half-a-neuron. (Sorry, did I say "neuron"? I meant "brain cell". Even I forget just how little my customer base knows.)
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 44
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/12/2009 3:12:46 PM

Ok out of those four programs (just four off the top of my head that I have been working with) 75% of them have been nothing but a hassel to get up and running without issue. SEVENTY FIVE percent.


Looks like someone beat me to the punch already. Linux is NOT windows. Windows programs do NOT natively run in Linux & vice versa. There are workarounds like wine & virtual machines but sometimes it still may not be supported.

How about the programs that were designed to run in Linux? Do those run ok?


The four example programs I just listed as the very same type applications a typical computer user would want and need. Do you really think they're going to have the patients to sit around for three days trying to get the to work, when they can do so with Windows in a matter of minutes?


Agian, Linux is not windows. If you really need to run all those windows programs, you should be sticking with windows in the first place, instead of expecting all of them to run flawlessly in Linux.


With Windows? Pop in the disk, install and off you go. With Linux? Try to install, keeping trying, ok got it installed, now tweek this and tweek that, change this config file, change that config file - and most of the time it'll still run buggy as hell.


I've installed linux on many computers & never taken more then 20 minutes, often easier to install then windows. On my sons computer a Vista install took 50 minutes. Same computer 15 minutes Linux install and already on a desktop and with a 25 second boot time!



Linux is weak, it's always been weak. That comes with it being utter fragmented with 100's of variations.


If there was one word to describe Linux, it would not be weak. A better file system, better memory management, better security. As you can see with all the different distributions available, far more flexible too.



The point I have been trying to make is that until Linux becomes more user friendly - and don't give me this "most people just want to check email anyway, because that's total bunk" it'll never make a dent in the market place.


The idea is not to dumb down the operating system so people can use it, but increase peoples knowledge on how to use it.

It already has made quite a dent so far. 60% in the server market. Universities & colleges, Render-farms for animation and special effects studios. Most of the supercomputers use it. You will be surprised on the amount of home users run it. I have a video-chat show & constantly talking to different people who use it.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:19:29 AM

The reason I say it appears to be easy to use is because for most users their employment of their PC doesn't end with checking a web page here and there or reading an email. It extends far beyond that. They want to use Quiken, iTunes, Photoshop, et al.
Those are programs written specifically for Windows, and ONLY for Windows. You cannot expect a game written in German to do well in the US. The problem here, is that Linux traditionally had so little of the market, that makers of popular commercial programs didn't even bother with a port to Linux, even though it was often as simple as just recompiling the source code. However, if enough people use Linux, they will offer a Linux version, and then the problem is no longer a problem.

There is another problem, in that Microsoft have regularly put things in their OS that meant that if you were writing a program for Windows, you couldn't easily port it to other platforms. The main enemy of Microsoft was the Apple Macs. But Linux got swept up in the same strategy. This problem is so bad, that Microsoft have been hauled into court over it several times. It's pretty hard for people to consider moving to Linux when Microsoft are seen to be acting like gangsters. You wouldn't change to Linux if it meant Gates would shoot your girlfriend, would it? But you would not blame Linux for that. You'd wonder why the Justice Department didn't put Gates in prison, or at least rip Microsoft apart like they did with Ma Bell.

Likewise, someone mentioned a slew of free games for Linux - the problem is that most people who are going to attracted to an OS like Linux aren't going to settle for those type of 'generic' games. They want Everquest, they want WoW, they want EVE Online, etc etc etc. Installing those games takes a good amount of time and is a never ending task of tweeking and configuring. Of course Envy has made it easy to install video card drivers, but even then you have a ton of work to do.
Again, the problem is that game developers and video card makers don't even bother offering a Linux version, even when it is really easy to do so.

It is also difficult to learn the bash - tons of commands to memorize. Naturally this comes with time, but most people aren't going to be willing to put in the time to memorize them.
I actually hated the fact that Windows didn't have a bash shell, because it made writing scripts for Windows an absolute nightmare. Sure, the manual looks complicated. But you can treat the bash shell just like a Windows DOS prompt. The only difference is that if you want to do more complicated things with the bash shell, you can.

Commands make it difficult to use too. sudo apt-get install xyz.xxx. Dealing with repositories, so on and so on.
That's deliberate, to ensure that you don't log in as a super-user and mess up the system files. Something that happens easily and often on Windows.

Basically, the point of this huge write up is that at first glance Ubuntu is simply and easy... but when it really counts it can be a total PITA.

Of my personal complaints with the apps and the help system is that too many people make too many assumptions. When a nOOb asks for help the replies are often confusing, because the author of the remark makes too many assumptions of what the user knows or doesn't know. They get half-asnwers to their questions. Or answers that leave out important steps because the author assumes the reader already knows how to do this or that.
That's a problem that I've seen in every avenue of life, from dating, to American football, to basketball, to shop. People always assume too much. Like you did (What's a nOOb?). What are you to do, when you're doing the very thing you're complaining about?

The complaint I have with some of the developers of Linux apps is that too make too many assumptions. Although it's really hard to truly 'complain' about something that's free - the purpose of Ubuntu is increase the ease of use and to indirectly attract more users. With that said, when you write an app, write it so that it can be installed and used without having to recompile, tweek config files and everything else. Don't assume the user of the app is a long time Linux user from the days of early Red Hat releases.
On Windows, you would simply have the choice of installing the Ubuntu app or not. On Linux, you have the option of installing the Ubuntu app, the Red Hat app, or the Debian app, or the SuSE app, and you'd even have the option of downloading the source code and recompiling yourself to the exact setup you want. Can you see Microsoft giving you the source code to SQL Server? Would you complain if your local supermarket started offering 10 brands of coffee, and even offered making your own? They do that now. Is that bad for you? Would you want to go back to only being able to buy ONE brand?

I would love to get rid of Windows completely. But, until I can install a game, an app, or whatever in a few minutes (with WINE if necessary) and it work out a hitch I'll be forced to keep that damn 2 gig virus installed on a seperate partition. And,yes I realize that it is often not the fault of Linux that mainstream companies refuse to write or port their products for Linux compatability - I get that. But, the more user friendly... I mean truly user friendly Linux gets the more popular it will become and the more market share it will take. With that these companies will start porting over their products to meet the growing demand. I would gladly pay for a Linux comp. version of Photoshop. It keeps people employed and I know I'm getting a quality product that works.
So would everyone. We are all waiting to see games like Halo on Linux. But we know that a certain software company makes billions by not only selling its OS, but by selling all its development tools to Windows developers. If that company didn't do everything it could to stop people going to Linux, it would lose billions. Why isn't it going to fight to its dying breath? You want to kill the bull, you cannot just wait for it to die. You have to put it out of its misery, and everyone else's too.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 48
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/13/2009 7:16:48 PM

they'll have totem installed and ready to play a limited number of media file types


Usually if Totem has a file that it does not have a codec for it automatically brings up a window and gives you a few choices of what codec to use. A few clicks and your off playing your video. It uses a lot of the gstreamer plugins that work well.


But, the problem is, as those of who use Ubuntu (or any other distro) know that these free apps are not as powerful as the "real thing" - real thing being those over-the-counter products.


The majority of users will never use Photoshop to its full potential, if at all, so Gimp is usually more then enough. Still a few of these more powerful programs are available for linux, like Maya, Lightwave 3D, Houdini master. Mostly 3D graphics software

There are still some commercial software that is available for linux just like you have in windows...Firefox, Opera, Skype, Realplayer...ect. But not nearly as much though.


Of course Envy has made it easy to install video card drivers, but even then you have a ton of work to do.


If the video card is ATI or Nvidia, installing or setting up drivers are pretty much a non issue. Ubuntu automatically detects it, gives you a few choices and recommends the best driver for your system. A few clicks, its installed, then just reboot and your done. You even get a pretty good video card control app where you can change resolution, set up dual monitors and even overclocking. ( Yes, you have to do a bit of text editing )


Commands make it difficult to use too. sudo apt-get install xyz.xxx. Dealing with repositories, so on and so on.


Every operating system has its command line, even though you may never see it. Linux has almost a GUI application for nearly everything now, so you can use command line, Application/launcher or combination of both.

A command line has saved my butt more then a few times if an app locks up ( Or even the whole window-manager for that matter ) Drop to a command line to kill the offending app, and back to a graphics display.

Of course "sudo apt-get install" is just a command line version of Synaptic package installer gui. Its the users choice what to use.


I would love to get rid of Windows completely. But, until I can install a game, an app, or whatever in a few minutes (with WINE if necessary) and it work out a hitch I'll be forced to keep that damn 2 gig virus installed on a seperate partition. And,yes I realize that it is often not the fault of Linux that mainstream companies refuse to write or port their products for Linux compatibility - I get that. But, the more user friendly... I mean truly user friendly Linux gets the more popular it will become and the more market share it will take.


You don't have much to choose from to get away from windows. You could go to Apple MacIntosh, but as I'm finding out it has its limitations too.

Key point its pretty easy to use once you get use to the interface. But even with gaming you are still limited on the selection. They have some good games ported over to it. I just bought mac version of UT2004. I could not get past the installer screen. Turns out I had to download an updated installer and once I did no problems at all.

I thought by going Apple, I would have more software choices then Linux, but in many cases, not so.

I've been finding out many of my commercial software I enjoy in Linux is not available for the Mac.
 seekerInSeattle
Joined: 7/22/2007
Msg: 50
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/14/2009 10:17:15 PM
Hi:
At the risk of entering this debate, (which I really choose NOT to..but I will get to that in a minute..: ), I would like some of you highly adept Linux types to guide me in the right direction, since I have seen some good examples of what I perceive some knowledgable Linux folks..: ). I have a desktop with Ubuntu 9.04 on it, and want to get it up on wi-fi.
It has been fairly a battle, which I do NOT fault Linux/Ubunu for. I know enough to know that with Linux it just takes
a bit of work/effort. (Will get to that later too : ). I would like recomendations to find an "out of the box" wi-fi card that
wont need a lot of search & delvelopment to install. I.e. I want to get the card (OR a "dongle") that I can just plug in and use. And as well where to buy it in the Seattle area. (I am willing to do Ebay but prefer not to. Just go to store, pay, go home & install and surf away to my hearts content please! : ). I know enough that it isnt a certain brand, but more like a certain brand/model. I know it's out there that it exists. I tried a D-link DWL 520 and the help of a well versed Linux user, and we coudlnt get it to work, and he advised me to go search some more, and that is why I am asking well versed Linux people here! : ) I look forward to any reply in this forum, or email me internally at POF and put something in the subject referring to Linix or Wi-fi. If this doesnt work I likely will consider getting a wi-fi bridge, but want to give a card another try.

Now about this debate, I know enough to know that if I go to a Linux meeting or am in a cafe with a bunch Linux users, that one thing that I would NOT do, is to ask the (relatively) DUMB question "which is the best distro?". THAT would engender a debate that might go on for DAYS (or more!..: ). Its just like cars. SOME need more "tinkering" than
others. Some people want to drive off the lot and never have to see the service shop ever, except for scheduled service
or updates. OTHERS instead love getting under the hood, turning the wrench and getting the upTEENTH
micro increase in horse power. Its all choices we get to enjoy in the western world. I do note that a number of
European countries are switching to Linux, I can only say..I wonder if M/S is scared....? : ) (Yet! : ).

I look forward to any reply from anyone here. Please feel free to guide me to the best unit you know of for
Unbuntu 9.X or as well forum/user support/YouTube video. : ) Thanks ahead of time for your help..

Now let the battle continue on and rage again. I am entering this message here as I didn't want to open a new
thread for such a small matter.

seeker (My email available upon request. :)
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/15/2009 9:31:24 AM

My biggest gripe with Linux is really the gaming aspect. If I could get EQ II to work flawlessly I'd have no need for a Windows drive.
Games depend on good-quality graphics. The Open Source community made the OpenGL standard, which Linux uses. Microsoft developed an entirely different strategy called DirectX. Games can be built using either Open GL, or DirectX, or both. Microsoft provided much the same as OpenGL but deliberately wrote the DirectX model to use different function names, slightly different parameters, and work slightly differently. So for games developers to supply games both for Windows and Linux, they have to write for DirectX and OpenGL, and that would double their costs. Since most gamers use Windows, games developers save 50% of their costs by coding only for DirectX.

Of course, when someone invents a standard that supports both, then games developers will be able to code for both.

However, in 1995, someone tried to do just that with standard programs. It was called Java. Microsoft proceeded to write their own version of Java, which did the same thing, but again used different function names and slightly different parameters, making the same problem.

As long as most people use Windows, every time someone tries to bridge the gap, Microsoft will try to widen it again.

You'll have to wait until at least half the world uses Linux. It's coming, but awfully slow, because they keep getting held up by M-soft.

But I cannot blame M-soft. They're in it for the money. They're just following the example of free-market capitalism as set by the bankers.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 54
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/15/2009 3:00:21 PM
As far as wireless...

Keep in mind manufacturers often use different chipsets for the same device. So while a card is known to work in Linux, if they switch chipsets to a different one, it may not work. So version numbers might be important.
 seekerInSeattle
Joined: 7/22/2007
Msg: 55
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/15/2009 11:44:33 PM
Don:
Point in mentioning what Cooldude just said, What level of reliability does this product
have, in relation to what Cooldude just said? Do I just have to take my chance and try it in
person to find out. I only hope & assume that their return policies take this into account.
And as well, I appreciate your 2nd posting due to the fact that I am in the "chicken & egg"
situation trying to get on the net. If I am unable to get a card to work I am also considering
a wi fi "bridge" device. Its a bit more powerful as my run to the wireless router isn't that
far, but I do run as low as 5mb/sec usually around 11mb. I have walked just 20 feet closer
to the router and get 20 mb. : ) So please respond to these comments please. I have the
windoze driver for the D-link unit but took the whole computer to my linux meeting and
the guy helping me said that it MIGHT work. I think I will investigate the SMC unit.
Thanks again.

(Note to moderator, I chose to make this request in this topic, but if you prefer that I
move it elsewhere, just say so).

seeker

(And to the folks pooh poohing Linux, see how helpful Linux folks can be? : )
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 57
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/16/2009 3:01:49 AM
Not saying they do it all the time, but it does happen. I found that out after I was searching for a wireless card for my own desktop. One well know brand an earlier card was supported before they changed to a different chipset.

The one I'm using is the Linksys Rangeplus PCI wireless card ( Model WMP110 ) It uses the new wireless-n protocol but is backward compatible with wireless-g ect. Walmart had them on sale for $40.00, wish I bought two while I had a chance.

I just put it in and it automatically installed drivers. It detected several access points so I picked my wireless router and I was good to go.

Oh, I also use Ubuntu 9.04 too, so that might be helpful.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 59
Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?
Posted: 11/16/2009 5:01:07 PM

Only if they change the version # or model name...They do not make Wifi Adapters with the same exact name but different chipsets.


http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/wireless/?p=128

Unfortunately, manufacturers, including Belkin, sometimes vary the chipset on the same model Wi-Fi card. Since discovering the Belkin card, I have visited three different Walmart stores and found three different versions. Version 5100 contains the Atheros chipset. The version number is printed on a white sticker located to the right of the barcode, see Figure B. I have tried other versions of the Belkin Wireless G Desktop, but all have failed. If your local Walmart doesn’t carry this specific version, I have also found the card at Staples.

Another good example is my Belkin PCMCIA Model F5D7010 wireless card. At least two versions are available with the exact same Name & model number. One that uses a Broadcom chipset the other a Atheros chipset that is supported in linux.

I'm getting indications other wireless manufactures change chipsets without changing the name such as Linksys and Dlink.
 seekerInSeattle
Joined: 7/22/2007
Msg: 61
Ubuntu Linux.....wi-fi card struggle : )
Posted: 11/16/2009 11:24:17 PM
Don:
That goes over my head just a bit, but I am sure that I would do better if this were in person and someone guiding me. For now I think I am going to pursue the SMC card for the time being. Trying an wrapper move like this might be a bit much for me at this time. : ) Am going to go check that mail I sent to SMC about geting one. : ) Will keep in touch with you & this forum.

seeker
Show ALL Forums  > Technology/Computers  > Ubuntu Linux.....Easy -or- Difficult ?