As announced in the Tavern, I'm getting a new hard drive through the mail next week. One of my plans with this hard drive is to make the switch over to dual booting with Linux and Windows (most likely, XP).
Before I make the switch, though, I'd like to hear from this community what their thoughts are on Linux. Who uses it? Who doesn't? What distro do you use? Do you have any advice, suggestions, warnings?
Talk :)
I am also seeking Linux advise. I am much in Sdragon's situation and would like to hear some suggestions.
Have you decided yet on what distro you want?
Nope. I was down to 2 or something a while ago, but I completely forgot about them, and have no idea which ones they were. I think one may have started with a "G".
The latest version of Ubuntu, I think, is called Gutsy Gibbon. Is that it?
And by the way, one bit of advice is to stay away from Damn Small Linux, unless that's the only thing your computer can handle. Which, in this day of computer tech, I sincerely doubt.
No, it was one word. I want to stay away from Ubuntu. And if my setup can handle Crysis, it can handle Linux.
You're probably thinking of Gentoo. It is not a very good distro for beginners, because you have to compile just about everything yourself, and compiling binaries yourself invariably never goes as smoothly as you want.
What distro you pick depends largely on the answer to the question: Why do I want to use Linux?
If the answer is "because it's cool," then stop right now. :P
Otherwise, Ubuntu tends to be good for desktops, Red Hat for servers.
Try getting Live CDs/DVDs for various distributions and try them out. You need not install the distro; instead you can run it off of a CD or DVD (or even a USB thumbdrive, for some distros.)
I personally use Fedora.
Ubuntu installs flash at the click of a button now. In linux terms, i'd say that's
pretty much magical.
Really though, i'd say you just have to be willing to uninstall and try a different distro if the one you're using isn't working for you.
QuoteAnd by the way, one bit of advice is to stay away from Damn Small Linux, unless that's the only thing your computer can handle. Which, in this day of computer tech, I sincerely doubt.
I've had very little success with Damn Small Linux. It booted up slow and then didn't recognize my harddrive. Puppy Linux has the same goals (small linux distro that can run on anything) but Actually Worked. The only trade-off is that it's much, much tackier. (seriously, the desktop background is a photo of someone's dog)
Slow for it's requirements, maybe, but I wouldn't say it was exceptionally slow. Then, I'm not really an expert on these matters, so it could've been slow and I just didn't realize it. It didn't recognize my hard drive, either, though.
I haven't tried Puppy Linux, and most likely won't, but I saw quite a bit of tackiness, too. The "commercial" for it looked pretty cheesy, as well as the site, so I expect that's relfected in the OS itself.
Also, I agree with live distros. They make things a LOT easier. I'm just nervous that an actual install might be much more difficult, and I want to try to limit difficulties as much as possible.
Where can I find the CDs and DVDs?
I've used Ubuntu on an older laptop. It worked pretty well for me. It was slow but that was probably because the laptop was an old iBook, lol :D
Quote from: Higgs BosonWhere can I find the CDs and DVDs?
I had this recently explained to me, so hopefully I can help. Apparently, if you go to the website of the distro, there should be a FTP section where you can actually download the CD/DVD. These come in special files called ISO files, an they're "disc images". It's almost as if the computer has a special camera that managed to take a photograph of the data that's actually on the disc itself (as opposed to the programs and files that it would ultimately translate out to). Once you have the ISO file for the distro you want, you should be able to use just about any burning software to burn the file as an image (remember, this is an image of the data on the disc itself, not the files that the data translates to; you do
not want to burn it as a file), and you'll have the disc for that distro.
If that's too advanced, I know some distros offer to send you a free disc through snail mail (Ubuntu does this), so it's possible you could get a copy that way. If you're not comfortable yet burning disc images, and the distro you want doesn't give away free discs, I'm pretty sure there's some sites that sell discs for very cheap, usually only a buck or two (USD), just enough to cover the costs of materials, labor, and running the site.
Also, I have Vista on the first hardrive on my computer, would I need to do anything special to add a second hardrive running a Linux distribution? Also, for burning as an image, the only option was to "Send to CD Drive." I then get a message saying the file is waiting to be written to the CD. Should I click "Write this file to CD"?
A lot of times you can get a book for beginners to Linux with a CD bundled in. It costs a bit more, but this is often very helpful as an all-in-one solution, as you don't have to scrounge the net for isos and tutorials and such things.
So would my above method work for making a CD to boot from?
I think it should. If you want, you can check your help files to be sure, but that sounds like it might work. Even if it doesn't, though, it's only a ten-cent expense for your new coaster, and at least you'll know that method doesn't work.
Either coaster, or microwave fun!
Quote from: Higgs BosonEither coaster, or microwave fun!
Either way, it's ten cents well spent!
Quote from: Sdragon1984As announced in the Tavern, I'm getting a new hard drive through the mail next week. One of my plans with this hard drive is to make the switch over to dual booting with Linux and Windows (most likely, XP).
Before I make the switch, though, I'd like to hear from this community what their thoughts are on Linux. Who uses it? Who doesn't? What distro do you use? Do you have any advice, suggestions, warnings?
Talk :)
One thing I'd like to suggest: stay the hell away from dual-boot, unless you
absolutely need it. It's cumbersome, slow, and an outdated method of running two different operating systems. My advice would be to use virtualization. With programs like VirtualPC (if using Windows as the base) or VMWare Player/Server (if using Windows or Linux as the base) you can run other OSs from within your normal system "in a window".
If you use your computer primarily for gaming, it is highly recommended to use Windows as the base (or host) as virtualization cannot currently access modern graphics hardware. This means that games and other applications accessing your graphics card must run on the host. Everything else (browsing, office, programming, etc) can be done inside the virtual machine.
I'm writing this post on Windows XP that runs in a virtual machine in VirtualPC under Vista Business as host. It works like a charm. The only drawback is that the virtualized system is not as responsive and reactive as the host, which most likely stems from me using TrueCrypt's harddrive encryption. But I disgress.
The advantages of virtualization are imho striking:
- no need to mess with the partitioning of your HDD
- whole installation can be "back-up"ed by copying the virtual harddrive file of the virtual machine (instead of reinstalling or using timeconsuming backup software)
- you can try different setups in a "sandbox" environment without compromising your base system (like when you install some shareware tool only to have your antivirus program sound a spyware alert, or something)
However, it's ultimately your decision.
Oh, and regarding what Linux distribution to use: they basically work all. So far I've tried
- Mandriva 2007
- Fedora 7 and 8
- SuSE 10
- Ubuntu
and never had any serious problems.
However, back on my old system when I still was using an ATI graphics card, SuSE and Fedora were bitching around with the ATI drivers, and none of those distributions would recognize my old USB wlan stick, so I had to mess around with the Ndiswrapper tool to get the windows driver working under Linux. But that's what you get from using non-standard hardware and Linux. ;)
So you're running two OSes at once? I'd imagine that would be much slower then just running one at a time. This virtualization thing sounds like it would be ideal for sandbox type stuff, but I just spent a decent amount of time figuring out how to dual-boot, and I'd rather not consider that time wasted.
By the way, I've already pretty much settled on using Freespire for my distro. It's based on Ubuntu 7.04, and it seems like the only one to fit all of my more immediate needs (wireless support, MP3 compatibility, etc.) out-of-box. Granted, I haven't tried that many, but still...
Quote from: Sdragon1984So you're running two OSes at once?
Basically yes. However, one of those OS is "trapped" inside the virtual machine. The OS and any applications running on it will think they are running on a seperate, dedicated machine. I'm not to knowledgable about VMWare's tools, but in MS VirtualPC you can drag'n'drop between the guest (as the virtualized system is called) and the host (as the base system is called) or use "shared folders" (on the host it's just a normal folder, on the guest it appears as a net drive).
Quote from: Sdragon1984I'd imagine that would be much slower then just running one at a time.
Depends on what you want to do with the virtual machine. Most currently available computers should have enough power to handle the host and the guest at the same time. Just think about it: do you really use both systems
at exactly the same time? And browsing and office stuff really doesn't require that much performance. Additionally, you can always configure how much of your computer's power the VM gets. Again, speaking only from working experience with VirtualPC, you can setup that the VM gets
- equal share
- minimal share
- no share if minimized
of the CPU time.
Therefore, when you're using the guest to do some typing or basic drawing (no "1GB images in PhotoShop" stuff :P ) you probably wouldn't realize it's a VM. When you minimize the VM window and start a game, the VM will get no power and you probably wouldn't realize a VM's running.
The exact performance, however, greatly depends on your harddisk. I've noticed that VirtualPC requires quite alot of HDD access, which makes it sometimes a bit "unresponsive" when the host is also doing a lot of read/write stuff on the disk. But as said, it depends on what you're going to do with the system. ;)
Quote from: Sdragon1984This virtualization thing sounds like it would be ideal for sandbox type stuff,
Yes, it's predestined for that kind of thing. My personal setup is like this: Vista Business as the host, and XP Pro in a VM. I only use the VM for surfing, downloading, etc, so the chances of me catching some sort of spyware are even less than normal. Also, before I copy anything to the host, I scan it for viruses, and if it's only the patch for some game from the official homepage. In case I should indeed have the VM system compromised, I can easily erase the current virtual hdd file and just copy back an old one.
Quote from: Sdragon1984but I just spent a decent amount of time figuring out how to dual-boot, and I'd rather not consider that time wasted.
Imho dual-boot is too cumbersome to be of any (real productive) use. Booting and shutting down the various OSs if you want to try something just killed my nerve with dual-booting. I must admit that I had a dual-boot Windows/Linux earlier, too, but then got rid of it when I realized how much easier and simpler stuff was with virtualization.
Also, if there are any special applications you want to use that come with your Linux distribution, many of them are also available for other OSs (which is something not all people know ;) ).
Quote from: Sdragon1984By the way, I've already pretty much settled on using Freespire for my distro. It's based on Ubuntu 7.04, and it seems like the only one to fit all of my more immediate needs (wireless support, MP3 compatibility, etc.) out-of-box. Granted, I haven't tried that many, but still...
Hmmm, Freespire, I messed around with that one too. But it didn't last too long. :P My old hardware was just too exotic (yeah, customized USB wlan stick from my ISP that wouldn't be recognized by anything! :-/ ).
Hope it works better for you than it did for me. :)
Running Linux om my new hard drive right this very moment, and it's going pretty good so far. One minor compaint is that I don't like the current font, but I'm sure that can be change. Also, Freespire has recognized all my hardware, including my video and wlan cards. Yay! :)
Quote from: Higgs BosonAlso, I have Vista on the first hardrive on my computer, would I need to do anything special to add a second hardrive running a Linux distribution?
I know this is a slow response to this question, but I only now figured out the answer, myself. Apparently, there
is something special you need to do. Fortunately, it's not that hard (although, I'm using XP, and Vista may or may not be a bit fussier). All I needed to do was go into the BIOS (if you don't know how, watch your boot screens closely; one should say something like "press [button] to enter setup", or something similar to that), and make sure that the drive running windows had a higher priority in the boot options then the Linux drive does.
Though, again, I did this with Linux and XP, so your milage may vary :)
Quote from: Sdragon1984I know this is a slow response to this question, but I only now figured out the answer, myself. Apparently, there is something special you need to do. Fortunately, it's not that hard (although, I'm using XP, and Vista may or may not be a bit fussier). All I needed to do was go into the BIOS (if you don't know how, watch your boot screens closely; one should say something like "press [ button ] to enter setup", or something similar to that), and make sure that the drive running windows had a higher priority in the boot options then the Linux drive does.
Though, again, I did this with Linux and XP, so your milage may vary :)
Please don't take this personal, but... ARGS! Using the computer's BIOS as a "boot manager" is one hell of a crime, and makes the computer science student crinche inside me. :P
Seriously, you don't do that. All of today's common Linux distributions (SuSE, Mandriva, Fedora, (X|Ed|K)Ubuntu, and so on) include a software boot manager (usually LILO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LILO_%28boot_loader%29) or GRUB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GRUB)) that allows selection of the OS to be booted at startup.
Ok, a simple example: let's say you've got a computer with two harddisks, one running Windows XP and the other one empty. Now you get yourself a Linux distribution and want to set up a dual-boot system. You just boot from the Linux CD/DVD and go through the steps of setup until you come to the point when you are asked where Linux should be installed. At that point you must select the other (empty) drive and check an option like "create linux partitions on selected drive" or somesuch (
NOT check the option called "clean disks and create default linux partition" or something like that - it would erase your Windows installation). After that step, you usually are taken to a screen where you can configure the bootloader and it should say something like
[1] Fedora 8
[2] Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2
On that screen you can usually also configure the bootloader's default timeout (the time after which it automatically starts a preselected OS), and which OS should be booted by default.
If you are unsure of your selections, the Linux distributions FAQs and Wiki pages should offer more help on install options and parameters, and you can always cancel the setup process (with the exception of creating/deleting partitions) before hitting the "Install" button on the last setup screen.
Happy installing. :) ;)
Quote from: Ra-TielPlease don't take this personal, but... ARGS! Using the computer's BIOS as a "boot manager" is one hell of a crime, and makes the computer science student crinche inside me. :P
Seriously, you don't do that. All of today's common Linux distributions (SuSE, Mandriva, Fedora, (X|Ed|K)Ubuntu, and so on) include a software boot manager (usually LILO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LILO_%28boot_loader%29) or GRUB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GRUB)) that allows selection of the OS to be booted at startup.
No, no! I'm not using the BIOS as a boot manager (Which I guess I technically
could do, but I don't see the point), I was simply changing the boot priority of the two drives. I still use GRUB, but Windows wouldn't load when the Linux drive had priority over the Windows drive. If I selected Windows from GRUB, it would just say it was loading, and not get any further. Now that Windows has a higher priority then Linux, it's loading from GRUB perfectly.
The analogy I use to help myself understand it is that the OSes on a multi-boot system are like first-graders that are all lined up so the teacher can choose a preferred student. Windows is the student that insists on being at the very front of the line, thinking that will make it more likely to be chosen.
[spoiler=My suspected technical analysis]
I suspect that the reasoning behind this has something to do with Windows' drive allocation system. Windows allocates the first hard drive as C, apparently based on the boot priority. Windows also assumes that it's on the C drive (whatever drive that may be), and looks for it's own information on there. If the Linux drive is higher on the boot priority list, then, according to my suspicions, loading Windows through GRUB will just make Windows try to find all the Windows system information on the Linux drive.
To extend my analogy, Windows insists on being the "kid in the front" because it blindly assumes that "kid in the front" is Windows. Therefore, when the kid "second in line" is asked what his name is, Windows will ignore it completely, but when "kid in front" is asked what his name is, Windows won't react until "kid in front" says his name is Windows, and that he's from Redmond. This causes problems when "kid in front" is really that weird foreign exchange student with straight A's and a name nobody can agree on pronouncing.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Sdragon1984No, no! I'm not using the BIOS as a boot manager (Which I guess I technically could do, but I don't see the point),
Oh, ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :(
Quote from: Sdragon1984I was simply changing the boot priority of the two drives. I still use GRUB, but Windows wouldn't load when the Linux drive had priority over the Windows drive. If I selected Windows from GRUB, it would just say it was loading, and not get any further. Now that Windows has a higher priority then Linux, it's loading from GRUB perfectly.
Hmmm that shouldn't be necessary. And what exactly do you mean with "priority"? The order in which the drives are listed for checking for a MBR? Or the drive which is the default boot device?
I think something's messed up in your GRUB config, because the way you describe it you'd need to have 2 different boot sectors (which is the whole point of preventing with a boot manager). Could you give some more information, please?
Quote from: Sdragon1984The analogy I use to help myself understand it is that the OSes on a multi-boot system are like first-graders that are all lined up so the teacher can choose a preferred student. Windows is the student that insists on being at the very front of the line, thinking that will make it more likely to be chosen.
Lol! Nice analogy. :D
Windows (XP) is indeed kinda egoistic, and always writes its own boot instructions into the drive's MBR. That is the reason why you always install Windows XP before installing another OS like Vista or Linux. Those newer OSs do recognize the old Windows XP bootloader and can modify the MBR accordingly so that a nice menu pops up asking you which OS you'd like to start. Windows XP does not recognize any other bootloader and just replaces it.
Quote from: Sdragon1984I suspect that the reasoning behind this has something to do with Windows' drive allocation system. Windows allocates the first hard drive as C, apparently based on the boot priority. Windows also assumes that it's on the C drive (whatever drive that may be), and looks for it's own information on there. If the Linux drive is higher on the boot priority list, then, according to my suspicions, loading Windows through GRUB will just make Windows try to find all the Windows system information on the Linux drive.
The drive naming of Windows has really very little to do with that. If you take a look into the Windows Registry, you'll see that the drive names in the Windows Explorer ("C:", "D:", ...) are just aliases shown to the user. Internally, Windows uses a similar system to what Linux uses ("hda0", "hda1", ...). As mentioned above, Windows always writes its own bootinstructions into the drive's MBR. Because of that, it's pretty much unimportant on which partition (when partitioning a single drive) or drive (if using multiple drives) you install Windows. As long as the drive you installed Windows on is checked for bootloaders Windows will start. Which causes me even more confusion about your problem of booting Windows from a "lower priority" drive. :?:
Quote from: Sdragon1984To extend my analogy, Windows insists on being the "kid in the front" because it blindly assumes that "kid in the front" is Windows. Therefore, when the kid "second in line" is asked what his name is, Windows will ignore it completely, but when "kid in front" is asked what his name is, Windows won't react until "kid in front" says his name is Windows, and that he's from Redmond. This causes problems when "kid in front" is really that weird foreign exchange student with straight A's and a name nobody can agree on pronouncing.
:D :D :D
Is it possible to compress a file as just *.*.gz, instead of *.*.tar.gz?
gzip compresses/uncompresses a single file.
For a list of files, i don't know. You can probably do it in x-windows just fine, but i don't see a way in the command line.
try:
tar cfz archive.tgz [list_of_files_or_dirs]
The z option creates a compressed archive, equivalent to piping the tar output to gzip. Most shells will recognize the .tgz extension as equivalent to .tar.gz.
The archive can then be unpacked with:
tar xfz archivel.tgz
I want *.*.gz, not *.*.tgz. The reason for this is, I want to try making a splash screen for GRUB, but it says it can only read *.xmp.gz files. Oddly enough, though, it's not reading any of those, either....
Well, for just one file, what brainface said:
gzip file.xmp
Will replace file.xmp with file.xmp.gz.
If you want to leave the existing file in place:
gzip -c file.xmp > file.xmp.gz
Either can be unpacked with:
gunzip file.xmp.gz
or
gzip -d file.xmp.gz
As to why it isn't working with grub, I just couldn't say. You are getting far beyond my limited knowledge there.
*sigh*
Okay, Ra-Tiel, you win on the virtualization/dual-boot debate! Well, kinda. I'm running Kubuntu with Virtual Box, with Vista as the host. I Figured it would be a good way to test installing XP (I only have an upgrade disc, so I need to install 2000 first, then upgrade to XP), and decided that, since I'm already toying with a virtual machine, I mgith as well try running Linux.
I do have a few complaints with Virtual Box, and they might possibly apply to all virtualization programs, but there's a few cool things about this, too. Ultimately, I think I'm going to label the debate under "personal preference".
As a side-note, my 2000 install disc isn't working properly, so I couldn't install XP. I guess it's a good thing I tested it virtually first, huh?
My review of virtualization:
pros:
BSoDs (for the OSes that have it) aren't nearly as bad. Just go back to your host, and exit out of the guest OS as if it was a normal program that crashed.
Great sandboxing. You can run multiple OSes all at the same time, and easily switch back and forth between them. Also, if you decide against an OS *coughvistacough*, you can always delete the "hard drive" that it's on.
Cons:
As far as I can tell, the host OS has to be the most reliable, have the smallest amount of CPU usage, and have driver support for all of the devices you want to use as a guest. At that point, why bother?
I find it's actually too easy for me to switch between OSes. I'm typing this on my host OS (XP), but I keep switching from this to Kubuntu. In between working on these two OSes, I'm toying around ith yet another. If I was doing something productive in all three, that might be fine, but I'm not. The other OSes are actually becoming a bit of a distraction.
Quote from: SDragon[...] The other OSes are actually becoming a bit of a distraction.
I know exactly what you mean. :( Either that, or you neglect certain VMs to an unhealthy degree (as I'm doing with my WS2k3 installation) because you've got a lot to do.
Why can't I use ./configure?? I've installed the build essential deb package, but I just can't figure this out!
What I'm trying to install, by the way, is several different desktop environments, so that I can try them out. Once I get this figured out, I shouldn't have much of a problem with Linux for quite awhile.
One thing I'd like to see a little more of from Linux:
Standards, standards, standards! (okay, so that's three. So sue me.)
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every single distro should use the same Desktop Environment, or the latest version of Firefox, or anything like that. I just don't think that the user should have to start learning from scratch every time they decide to try out a new distro.
One example is installing programs--
Freespire Linux:
"We suggest you try CNR for new programs and applications. That said, we are Ubuntu-based, so you can always try a Debian package if that doesn't work. If you can't find a Debian package of what you're looking for, we also support Red Hat packages, too! Of course, should any of those fail, there's always compiling from source, although you'll have to install the applications needed to do that. For that, we suggest you try CNR! That said, we are Ubuntu-based, so..."
Windows:
"Got the Executable file? Good. Now run that, and follow the instructions in the Install Wizard. Odds are, the default options will already be filled in, so all you really need to do is just click Next until it turns into Finish. Yes, this Just Works for everything."
Of course, Linux's biggest strength is, ultimately, in it's variety, but this shouldn't mean a complete rejection of standards. The general Linux (slash Open Source) community, more so then many tech communities, should realize that standards are more suggestion then law, anyway; "standard" should be best in most general situations, however, if you feel that non-standard is Better For You, then there is nothing keeping you from being Free to use non-standards. Isn't that the spirit Libre is all about, anyway?
Considering the history of Linux (http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/511/44218linuxdistrotimelinis1.png), you can be happy to only see three primary package manager systems in that OS (.DEB, .RPM, and .TGZ). :P
Also, you primarily use the appropriate distribution's package management systems (APT-GET, YUM, YAST, or whatever that is called for your distribution). You don't download and install some "setup binary" like you do on Windows. The problem is that Linux and Windows are completely different in that regard:
* Windows: each setup is self-contained and includes all files necessary to run the installed program
* Linux: each package comes with a list of dependencies (other files in specific versions) that need to be met to run the software
Therefore, it's best to use the package management system to install software under Linux, because the manager can automatically check and (very often) correct and download all required dependencies. The downside is that it's pretty much impossible to install anything on a Linux system that's not connected to the internet. A positive side effect, however, is that you (usually) don't have redundant files or a messed up system (*cough*dll-hell*cough*).
To be honest, I wished Microsoft would have had the balls to make their own package management system. After all, MS already has their own installer format (.MSI), and introducing a package manager would have made life a lot easier for both end users and administrators. The big advantage of Linux systems is that you can generally keep the whole system including any installed software updated with only a few mouseclicks, something which currently is impossible on Windows. At best, you can use workarounds like UpdateStar, FileHippo UpdateChecker, or that Secunia PSI tool, but downloading and installing the latest versions is still a royal pain in the ass. :-/
Realistically, though, how big of an issue are file redundancies and DLL hell to the average user?
Why can't Linux have a standardized, self-contained setup system (like Windows does) that checks for already existing dependencies? It would solve the issue of installing without an internet connection (self contained means being able to put on a CD), it solves the issue of redundant files (checking before installing), and it Just Works, no matter how many different distros you try out.
Quote from: SDragonRealistically, though, how big of an issue are file redundancies and DLL hell to the average user?
Don't underestimate the problem. The dll hell was a major problem in pre-WinXP days, where the Windows OS didn't include mechanisms to allow multiple versions of the same dll to be installed at the same time. Installing one program could render many others unusable if the installer of the new program replaced one critical library. Just read the Wiki entry on dll hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dll_hell) and shudder in horror. ;)
Also, while today's harddisk sizes make the issue of file redundancy seem laughable, it still is a problem. Unnecessarily replicating files across the system causes an increased load on the OS, making indexing the disk for effective search or scanning the computer for viruses/malware take much longer. It's not a problem when we're talking about dozens of files - it becomes a big one when we're talking about hundreds or thousands of files.
Quote from: SDragonWhy can't Linux have a standardized, self-contained setup system (like Windows does) that checks for already existing dependencies?
That's about the equivalent of asking Mac OS X to run Windows executables. :D Seriously, there are already projects that try to unify the different package management systems under a single system, if only to make the various distributions a bit more compatible with each other. They just need more time - and with that I mean several more years until the various distributions can agree on what management system to use.
Quote from: SDragonIt would solve the issue of installing without an internet connection (self contained means being able to put on a CD), it solves the issue of redundant files (checking before installing), and it Just Works, no matter how many different distros you try out.
While being a good idea, it wouldn't work. The problem is that many components are continually improved and released in new versions, and other components require those newer versions. This creates a chain of dependencies you couldn't resolve without internet access. The installer you'd put on the CD would have
no idea what versions of what packages were already installed on the target system, and the moment you try to install something dependend on something that's dependend on kdebase or kdelibs you'd have to put the whole desktop environment on the installer to compensate for any possible dependencies.
Quote from: Ra-TielSeriously, there are already projects that try to unify the different package management systems under a single system, if only to make the various distributions a bit more compatible with each other.
Which tells me I'm not the only one who thinks some standardization isn't so bad of an idea.
QuoteWhile being a good idea, it wouldn't work.
And yet you still seem dismissive of the idea.
Installing new applications will be the most technical thing many-- if not most-- users will ever do. Windows does a decent job making it fairly easy for the user, but Linux doesn't. Various Linux distros are already tackling the issue of OEM Linux machines. It seems ease of installation is the next big hurdle Linux has to tackle.
Dude... I think you need to stick with a distribution that's more mainstream. Like, really... installation is trivially easy, easier than windows, on Fedora or Ubuntu in my opinion. Really, what does windows have that is anything like yum or apt-get/synaptic?
Most of the trouble you can run into is mostly due to legalities. (For instance, getting DVD playback is a sun-of-a-bitch because it may not actually be legal to freely distribute a CSS-reading DVD-player program in the US. This is not a problem companies can easily solve without buying out congressmen or paying license fees for every free download :()
To be honest, I'm really not sure what you're doing where you can't find a deb file, can't find an rpm, but have to compile? :/ That's usually... pretty fringy stuff. As in... version 0.3 free 3d fantasy rpg fringy. I've been there, but i don't know that I could blame linux?
Quote from: SDragonWhich tells me I'm not the only one who thinks some standardization isn't so bad of an idea.
Well, the system already
is standardized - it's just not cross-compatible. Slight difference. ;) Once you got the hang on how installation works on Fedora, or Ubuntu, or Suse you'll know how it will always work on that distribution.
Quote from: SDragonAnd yet you still seem dismissive of the idea.
I did give reasons, didn't I?
Quote from: SDragonInstalling new applications will be the most technical thing many-- if not most-- users will ever do. Windows does a decent job making it fairly easy for the user, but Linux doesn't. Various Linux distros are already tackling the issue of OEM Linux machines. It seems ease of installation is the next big hurdle Linux has to tackle.
And exactly this is the reason why your idea wouldn't work. What's more confusing to the technically inept user?
[blockquote=#1]Please connect to the internet to install application X[/blockquote]or
[blockquote=#2]Please insert disc or specify path containing packages
* kdebase-3.5.8
* libkusr-1.7.1
* appcvtr-9.7.21
to install application X[/blockquote]
Standalone installers wouldn't just work because of the dependency chains, which I explained earlier (you install application A, which needs a new version of application B, which needs a new version of library C, which needs a new version of system component D, which needs a new version of desktop environment E, etc. etc.). It's a different approach than what Windows does, and has some advantages and some disadvantages compared to the "setup.exe" approach.
Also, once you learned how to use YAST, YUM, or APT-GET (with the appropriate graphical frontends), it's actually quite easy. Open the manager frontend, wait for the repositories to be loaded, search for the application you want to install, click "install", and let the manager do the rest. ;)
I haven't figured out how to get RPMs to work in Freespire. CNR, the default system, doesn't have some applications available for Freespire (XFCE, for example, is only available for Linspire, and an earlier version of Freespire), and Synaptic seems to have gone a little haywire; apparently, the only things it offers are either already on my system, or not installable.
Well dude, at this point i blame freespire then. It seems like your problem is that you're trying to get the great installer from the other distro to work in this separate alien distro. Seriously, get fedora or ubuntu dude. There's probably a reason everyone talks about them and not freespire. :)
I'm trying Xubuntu, but I can't get that to install at all, let alone to get programs on. Kubuntu has some problems, too, although I can't think off the top of my head what they are right now. I'm shying away from Ubuntu and Fedora because, to be perfectly honest, the appearance of GNOME confuses and intimidates me. I'm sure it's quite nice once I get used to it, but it's still too alien to me.
Considering how close Freespire claims to be to Ubuntu, I don't expect Ubuntu to be much better. According to the website, "Freespire 2.0 begins with Ubuntu (Version 7.04) as its baseline and then adds software from six broad categories, further expanding Freespire's capabilities[.]"
Dude... i don't know. Like... freespire's installion problems are its alone--it uses a package format apparently unique to itself, so if no one's made it in that format, it doesn't exist for freespire.
And Xubuntu isn't hard to install, i've done it like 5 times with no trouble--and i've intalled ubuntu like i don't know a dozen frigg'n times? If you tell me exactly what's causing the problem, I might be able to help?
It tells me to select my language (English), then it gives me that initial screen asking me if I want to run it live (why would I, on a virtualized machine?), or if I want to install Xubuntu. Everything is standard up to this point, but once I select an option (any option), it freezes. That's it. I know it's not a bad disc, since I'm running straight from ISO, and not from a disc.
I know it
shouldn't be hard to install, and I know this isn't a standard problem. I honestly have no clue what's going on.
By the way, I'm blaming this virtualized version of Freespire for the difficulties, and not Freespire in general. When I was dual-booting Freespire (from the very same Freespire disc I used for this version), I had absolutely no problem at all. I think I had a problem with some obscure DE, and installing NVidia drivers was a little tricky, but other then that, not a single problem.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Basestandarization in Linux[/url] since making my complaint.
QuoteThat's it. I know it's not a bad disc, since I'm running straight from ISO, and not from a disc.
absolutely[/i] have a bad iso, and hence a bad (fake) install disk.
Also, what virtualization software are you using? and what version?
How do I do that?
Also, I tried changing the graphics drivers in my virtualized Kubuntu install, but now it won't run at all. Is there any way I can run the ISO live to change the graphics drivers back to what they were?
1: download a program that checks md5sums, and compare it to the md5sum listed at the xubuntu download page. (it should be obvious). finding a windows program that performs md5sums is an exercise left for you and google =D. It'll probably be command line though.
As to kubuntu--what do you mean won't run at all? Does it crash with a lot of error messages when x windows system starts, or are you just getting a black screen?
If you get a bunch of messages, you need to go to the terminal and revert your xorg.conf file (etc/X11/xorg.conf) to where it's not using those drivers. HOPEFULLY there should be a file there called xorg.conf.bak or something.
A black screen probably means you're screwed. :/
It starts to load, and gets to a point where it says it's "running local boot scripts (/etc/rc.local)", X tries to load, it goes back to saying it's doing the boot script thing, and it more or less freezes there.
As for the whole md5sum thing, I don't even know what a md5sum thing is...
dammit my cat just deleted my post. like, how do they fight the exact key to screw everything? every time?!
you run an md5sum on a file and it generates a long hash that looks like a cd-key. the same file will always generate the same hash. Often sites (apparently not xubuntu.com) list md5sums beside large files. If a bit gets lost on the intertubes, the md5sum you generate on the file won't match the one on the website (because it's a different file, you see?) But let's forget that for now!
I need you to try something: load up your vm, restart it, and hit esc when grub is loading (this is RIGHT after it starts to boot). You'll see a menu of differnt things. select the top-most "recovery mode". wait a bit. select "xfix" from the menu. let it run. select "resume". Let me know if that fixed anything.
Ultimately, all I want is to run Kubuntu at a resolution higher then 800x600...
But yes, that did work. Thanks a ton, really!
if that doesn't work, like, take a screenshot for me? Really though, you're probably better off asking ubuntu/kubuntu forum guys, reinstalling, or giving up in a fit of rage :(
But it did work...
So now that Kubuntu is running again, is there any way to get the resolution higher then 800x600? I tried the control panel, but it says that's the highest resolution.
I know other virtualized OSes, including at least one distro of Linux, allowed higher resolutions, but Kubuntu and Fedora aren't.
yeah, it's possible. it's complicated though. (generally, getting nvidia/ati drivers working would enable the resolutions).
I'll work it up in a bit.
edit--damn, xorg.conf doesn't work like it used to. I'm not sure how to enable other resolutions dude. It's definitely a driver/config file issue though, not the distro.
That really sucks, because half the stuff anybody does nowadays requires a better resolution... Hell, you can't even use Yahoo Mail at 800x600 anymore...
try these steps in this order
open the terminal, run
sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg
for all the keyboard questions pretty much hit enter. if it asks for screen resolutions, set them. You'll have to restart X (the simplest way is to reboot).
If that doesn't work, or it doesn't ask about screen resolutions, try running krandrtray This will put an icon on your... desktop panel? it looks like a <---> at a 45 degree angle. Try clicking on that and seeing if you can change resolution there. You apparently may have to set font sizes and such. (Look for... settings, themes, something like that.)
I didn't see anything about resolutions with the first option, and the second option said that 800x600 was the highest possible, which is what it's been telling me...
Seems all the other distros I try allow different resolutions. Odd.
Anyway, I got a laptop for christmas. A used laptop. That hasn't had the drive defragged or checked for errors in... 5.6 years. It's running on Win98. I'm thinking of either keeping it for historical signifigance, or wiping the drive (four whole gigs of hard drive space!) clean and installing Linux on it. With the right distro, it might be able to squeeze out a bit of usefulness. I'm looking into DSL (I know, I dismissed it awhile ago, but it doesn't seem as bad as I thought it was), Puppy (not caring for the lack of auto-configuration at boot), and Feather (the best-looking option so far), but I haven't made a decision yet.
Hmm. I've been considering switching my laptop over to Linux from XP. Ultimately I want to eliminate dual boot (as quickly as possible really,) so long as I can run the few apps that are only available for Windows that I really want - most of my serious stuff is freeware that runs better under LInux anyway: Firefox, OpenOffice, GIMP, etc.
My biggest concern is a smooth transition w/out any data loss of my files and hopefully an easy conversion of the apps (rebuilding all my add-ons to Firefox and OpenOffice manually would be a bitch. . .) Is Ubuntu doing this readily, and can it be done just with downloading the distro or do I need to have them send disks for the whole thing?
Unless you're dealing with virtualization, it really can't be done just by downloading, but yes, it can be done by downloading. What you download, in a way, is the disc, just not the physical plastic-n-shiny part of it. If you have a burner and some blank plastic-n-shinys, then you don't really need to have them send a disc, just have a burn program that allows you to burn "images" (of the disc, not drawings and photos). If this is too technical for you (I don't think that there's a member of this community who wouldn't be able to work out how to burn images), then you still have the option of requesting actual physical discs. You don't need to send them anything.
If pretty much everything you're using is open source anyway, I would think all you have to really do is just make backup copies of the files you want to save, then once you have Linux installed, transfer the files over to it. I can't say how well the add-ons will transfer, though. Maybe they'll be a bitch, maybe they'll go smoothly.
Um, why do you need a disk? Can't you simply install from the download if it's all there to begin with?
As far as I know, no. In my experience so far, operating systems install differently then other types of software. With, say, Open Office, you can find, download, install, and run the program all through, say, Windows. Unless you have a virtual machine, you can't run one OS through another like that (virtual machines seem to get around this only by tricking the OS into thinking it is on it's own computer). Near as I can tell, you can't install an OS through another, either-- or at least not with the same drive it's being installed on.
If this seems confusing at all, maybe somebody with more technical knowledge can explain it better, but simply, the download isn't an install file, but a digital "image" of the actual disc, which you will need. Hopefully this isn't too intimidating.
Not intimidating - my basic thought was that it would get installed onto the clean partition from the Windows - but it has to get downloaded into the Windows partition, which means running Windows to install it, or at least read it off the partition, hence the problem. Windows is capable of reading data it doesn't understand and writing it to disk - kind of like an actor reciting lines in a foreign language he doesn't understand and simply learned to repeat phonetically (or an American Buddhist chanting the Heart Sutra in Japanese. . .) The install disk would then be taking over, bypassing Windows and loading/running a bootstrap of the Linux OS (like an old hacker starting a box with his own boot disk in the drive, a keyboard error to go into setup and make the system boot from the floppy to bypass start-up security) which then runs itself to further install itself - makes sense if I sit and think about it for a bit.
Right, exactly. In fact, the install disc actually
is a boot disc. Since it has to go on a blank drive/partition anyway, it seems to assume that there's nothing on the drive to boot from in the first place. In the case of Linux, it can also install a boot manager (like LILO or GRUB), just in case you wanted to try dual-booting.
On a sidenote, if you change your mind and decide to dual-boot, remember that Windows can't see the Linux partition (the file system, you see), but many distros of Linux can see the Windows partition. Turns out Bill Gates didn't see any marketable reason to support a competitor's formats, but most Linux software, being Free, doesn't have that sort of limitation.
Quote from: Snargash Moonclaw...(like an old hacker starting a box with his own boot disk in the drive, a keyboard error to go into setup and make the system boot from the floppy to bypass start-up security)...
Not that you're speaking from personal experience or anything here, right? :p
I may need to dual boot at first, but basically I want to port files from one partition to the other and expand the Linux partition into the old Windows partition as I go until it takes over completely.
Experience - only in crash recovery - when playing with settings in Command.com and Config.sys (usually memory management and trying to find a working load sequence of multiple TSRs that wouldn't play nice w/each other) it was pretty common to render the system inoperable when you would reboot to see how the changes worked. So you needed a boot disk w/a bare bones version of DOS (DRDOS was preferred over MS for tighter code and some useful, unique commands as well as general principals) along with some diagnostic and file tools from the old Norton Toolbox to reboot from and restore the backup versions of the modified files. These toolbox disks were almost identical to the ones used for less legitimate purposes. (I stacked mine using suggestions in "2600: The Hacker Quarterly," which appears to still be published. I wonder if it's still as good as it was then.) The techniques, of course, were essentially the same as well. . .
Quote from: Snargash MoonclawI may need to dual boot at first, but basically I want to port files from one partition to the other and expand the Linux partition into the old Windows partition as I go until it takes over completely.
You should be able to access your Windows partition from your Linux partition, so an easy way to transfer files would be to dual-boot (making both partitions about the same size), go into the Linux side, simply copy and paste any files you want, and resize the Linux partition to take up the entire drive. You wouldn't need any external hard drive or disks and, depending on which distro you have, there should be a handy resizing utility that will do most of the work for you.
Quote from: Pair o' Dice LostQuote from: Snargash MoonclawI may need to dual boot at first, but basically I want to port files from one partition to the other and expand the Linux partition into the old Windows partition as I go until it takes over completely.
You should be able to access your Windows partition from your Linux partition, so an easy way to transfer files would be to dual-boot (making both partitions about the same size), go into the Linux side, simply copy and paste any files you want, and resize the Linux partition to take up the entire drive. You wouldn't need any external hard drive or disks and, depending on which distro you have, there should be a handy resizing utility that will do most of the work for you.
I think he said he's going for Ubuntu, which comes with a very handy partitioning program (I forget the name both off the top of my head, but I know it's what my live partitioning disc uses, and I know it's a GNOME program). I think it needs to be coupled with NTFS support (at least, if you're editing a NTFS partition), though, and I forget off the top of my head if Ubuntu comes with that or not. I think it does, but if it doesn't, that might be a small issue.
Speaking of GNOME, I'd like to throw some advice out there for the new users: You may come to a point, eventually, where you have to choose what Desktop Environment you'll want. Microsoft makes that decision for Windows (if I'm not mistaken, I think Windows actually started out as a DE for DOS), and I think Apple might make it for MacOS, so it's possible you may never have had to make this decision before. The two main Desktop Environment are GNOME and KDE. While both have a high degree of reconfigurability, I think the default setup for KDE is much closer to Windows then the default setup for GNOME. You're obviously welcome (and even encouraged) to experiment with both, and decide for yourself which you prefer, but if you're a Windows user who simply wants as much instant familiarity with their DE as possible, KDE might be the way to go. There are countless other DEs, too, so don't feel like you
have to be limited to these two. There's plenty of people who have decided they prefer Fluxbox, or XFCE, so there certainly seems to be reasons to like some of the Lesser Known DEs.
Quote from: Halfling FritosI think he said he's going for Ubuntu, which comes with a very handy partitioning program (I forget the name both off the top of my head, but I know it's what my live partitioning disc uses, and I know it's a GNOME program). I think it needs to be coupled with NTFS support (at least, if you're editing a NTFS partition), though, and I forget off the top of my head if Ubuntu comes with that or not. I think it does, but if it doesn't, that might be a small issue.
Speaking of GNOME, I'd like to throw some advice out there for the new users: You may come to a point, eventually, where you have to choose what Desktop Environment you'll want. Microsoft makes that decision for Windows (if I'm not mistaken, I think Windows actually started out as a DE for DOS), and I think Apple might make it for MacOS, so it's possible you may never have had to make this decision before. The two main Desktop Environment are GNOME and KDE. While both have a high degree of reconfigurability, I think the default setup for KDE is much closer to Windows then the default setup for GNOME. You're obviously welcome (and even encouraged) to experiment with both, and decide for yourself which you prefer, but if you're a Windows user who simply wants as much instant familiarity with their DE as possible, KDE might be the way to go. There are countless other DEs, too, so don't feel like you
have to be limited to these two. There's plenty of people who have decided they prefer Fluxbox, or XFCE, so there certainly seems to be reasons to like some of the Lesser Known DEs.
[/quote]
Also, there are versions of Ubuntu like Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc. that either have put their own twist on existing DEs or have made entirely new ones, so if your interface is a priority, you might want to look into one of those versions.
i figured out how to get Kubuntu to the full resolution in Virtualbox. Turns out, there's an ISO file that comes with Virtualbox that allows better host/guest integration called Guest Additions. All I really had to do was unmount the current CD drive, mount the Guest Additions ISO as a drive, and run the installation file in BASH.
If anybody needs more details for this process, I found out about it here (http://ubuntu-utah.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=620828), along with some info on Guest Additions.
Problem: I have Damn Small installed on that laptop I mentioned getting for Christmas, but I can't figure out how to use NDISWrapper to get my wireless card working. My card is a Linksys wpc11 v4, and I have the driver files in /home/dsl/Linksys Drivers/[some weird folder name]/.
What am I supposed to do from here?
Edit-- by the way, the machine is an i586, if that helps at all.
I don't know man. I haven't messed with DSL or crazy wireless cards enough to even guess.
About the only thing I can recommend is to make sure you got the most up to date versions of your distribution.
And uh, honestly, the one time I DID use DSL I wasn't much impressed with it--it looked nice, but random Very Important Things didn't work right. It didn't want to detect my laptop harddrive and took forever to boot IIRC. I wound up using Puppy Linux, which looks like CRAP but actually worked. YMMV.
I'll have to try my puppy disc, then. Is it just me, or does Puppy seem to be based on Damn Small? They're both micro distros partially based on Knoppix, and they seem to share quite a few applications...
Edit- Can't find my Puppy disc, so I'm making due with Feather while Puppy is burning (god that sounds so cruel). Apparently Feather was the one I was thinking of with my previous statement...
Puppy gives various hangups when booting from CD :/
Here's a blog I found with entries on installing Linux on the laptop in question: http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2007/09/06/resurecting-compaq-presario-1240-with-damn-small-linux/