| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| natty |
Making the switch to linux- thinking maybe Ubuntu?Hi all,I'm thinking of leaving microsoft since its way too expensive to get it installed on my home computer and laptop. having been using open office and firefox for a while anyway I'm thinking of going to linux (i think that's right?) and i see Ubuntu was recommended. I was wondering... 1. how difficult is it to use? ( i have basic computer knowledge) 2. are there any compatibility problems? Would I be able to use other software such as NVIVO7 or SPSS, endnotes, virus checkers- or does everything have to be open source? Any suggestions would be helpful before I mess up my home computer and lose all my files! |
||||||||
| jema |
Basically you will not be able to use window software, there is a windows emulator, but you have to know what you are doing to use it.
If Ubuntu successfully installs which it probably will, then you will have software like: Firefox for the web. Thunderbird for email. OpenOffice for word processing etc. Gimp for graphics editing. and so on. Unless your application is quite special, then there is a free Linux alternative. But it is not all plain sailing, printer drivers, video drivers, in fact all drivers may be more of an issue than with windows XP. |
||||||||
| vegplot |
Software for Linux doesn't have to be open source but an awful lot is. Do you have a spare hard drive for the home PC which you could lay your hands on? My thinking is that you could take out the existing drive replace with the spare and install Linux on that for testing. If it doesn't work out just swap disks back (as long as you haven't changed hardware). | ||||||||
| happytechie |
I've just gone to ubuntu and it's great.
there is a menu that pops out of the task bar with all the apps on it. OO.org, firefox, the gimp for images it's all installed by default and any other applications are installable from the menu. I can sync my iPod, burn CDs, browse the internet, write documents, write code (not in visual studio though) and do everything I used to do when the laptop had XP on it. To be honest getting and installing ubuntu was less painfull than the last time I installed windows. It even has solitaire and minesweeper! |
||||||||
| natty |
Would there be any issues with broadband?
and by drivers I assume you mean printer?- but could it have issues recognising MP3s or memory chips? I don't have a spare hard-drive lying around here- but I think its a good point to have a trial run on something first.- may have an old computer at parents house-... Is there a way to back up everything in case I want to go back or am I screwed if i remove windows completely? |
||||||||
| happytechie |
I bought a new hard drive and stuck that in to install on, less that £20 for a 120Gb thingy. I then got a USB adaptor for my old hard drive so I could get the files off it.
The CD Rom from ubunto is a 'live' CD so you can boot from it and test your wireless adaptor, printer etc. and see if you can get on with the interface. I don't use a printer on my laptop but it may be worth making sure your printer will work first? Most printers can deal with postscript directly so they should be open source printer drivers available. I access my broadband over 802.11b wireless and it worked out of the box, once I enabled roaming (which took a wile) entered the network password and I was on the net. What do those apps you mention do, there may well be an open free alternative, if there isn't wine allows you to run most windows apps that are not to graphically intensive. MP3's can be read but you might need to install a codec for them as there are some licensing issues with the mp3 file format. FLAC or ogg are better options anyway, just re rip your CDs. MS Publisher files are not readable by open office so save them as PDFs or word documents if you do the publisher thing. |
||||||||
| James |
you can install extra media packages to handle mp3's with no trouble.
Not only that, but packages to create & convert audio files easily and with high quality. And video editing in all sorts of different formats. Routers will work out of the box, I've not heard of much trouble with wireless, apart from some laptops. USB modems can be a little tricky. When I started using Ubuntu I had a Speedtouch USB modem- it took me a few hours to figure out what to do, then it worked. I've not yet come across any functions that there is not a package for. This is all for free, via Ubuntu's "repository": a kind of online library of programs that you download as you need. Its got everything (really...everything). Its not all plain sailing, but its great! I feel in control of my computer in way that I just didnt using microsoft. Having said its not plain sailing, its a lot easier than you expect, and very, very rewarding. Ubuntu is a very 'polite' operating system to install- it wont bugger up your existing system, so if you dont like it, you've not burned your bridges. you've got 3 options if you want to test run it but stil go back to windows. Firstly, bung the CD in and boot from that. It'll run straight of the CD without touching your exisiting system at all. Secondly, run it from within windows (I dont know much about this, but ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron" has this capacity- best check out the website for more info), thirdly empty a chunk of hardrive by shrinking an existing partition and install it onto this empty space (if you dont have a disk partitioner, dont worry, there's one in ubuntu!). After installation, Ubuntu will setup a boot manager that'll give you the option of starting Ubuntu or starting windows. |
||||||||
| natty |
wow this is really great info- very extensive. I feel more confident about giving it a go now i know I can go back and understand a little bit more about what I'd be doing. this is really fantastic- looks like thsi is going to be my weekend project- thanks all. 
|
||||||||
| Chez |
I've just spent today tweaking my set-up, natty - I've got firefox, thunderbird and music player with all my XP settings imported in and have been playing with Open Office.
I understand that you need to be careful whether you're machine will actually RUN it - there are one or two threads about this from a while back - but I didn't have any problems and am running alongside XP, which I will still need to use for one or two things. |
||||||||
| jema |
And the good news is that whilst windows may have a new version in 2010, Ubuntu is making major strides each 6 months 
|
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Apart from technies, would anyone else actually want a new operating system every 6 months? And whereas Ubuntu has a relatively small user base of relatively technical users, Windows has a massive user base from home users to major corporates with sophisticated desktops, so any upgrade is an order of magnitude more complicated than the next release of Ubuntu. Personally I don't want another release of Windows any time soon, the one I have is fine thanks! Having said that, I have been interested to dabble with Windows Server 2008, and the rumoured "minimal Windows" could be a step in the right direction. All these companies, Microsoft and open source, tend to add more and more functionality and bloat to their products over time, not necessarily in the interests of their user community. | ||||||||
| oldish chris |
The problem with MS is too little choice - you can have big (emotive word = bloated) and expensive or very big and more expensive.
The problem with Linux is far too much choice - enough to totally confuse anyone who is thinking of dipping their toe in for the first time. However, there is a version of Linux that is right up your street out there somewhere! There are some versions ("distros" in linux-speak) that are deliberately slimmed down to run at an acceptable speed on an old PC, Xubuntu for example, just as there are versions with every imaginable bell and whistle (I think Suse and Mandriva fit into this category). My advice is to dip in on the magazine "Linux Format", now and again they have comparisons of the major or more esoteric versions. About once every two years I swap my hard drive with an old redundant one and try out a different version, and then swap back and carry on with life, the universe and the internet. (I'm not a techie - I can get dozens of programmers to certify that I'm ignorant  )
Most versions of Linux are not only free, but will run from the CD drive, using only RAM and a bit of spare disk. You can see what it looks like without altering anything on your computer. A no risk free trial! |
||||||||
| jema |
I point to the upgrades as an acknowledgment that Linux does need upgrades, and with Vista not doing well for the uses, so it seems does windows!
But I do agree that people don't want upgrades for the sake of it, in fact really an operating system should be a matter of fact thing that is simply there doing a job. I'm hoping that Linux will get a big boost by all the low power PCs coming out with there associated much lower (but sill very fast) speeds, these PCs cannot run Vista! |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
That would be a natural fit, but it'll only happen if the Linux community can get its act together and get it pre-installed by the manufacturers. |
||||||||
| James |
point 1: your right, you dont need a new OS every 6 months. But linux upgrades tend to be more stable and more efficient. Consequently my Ubuntu 8.04 boots slightly faster than 7.04 did on the same laptop. This cannot be said for windows upgrades (from Xp to Vista for example) That being said, I didnt use 7.10 at all. Having tested it out, I found very little advantage, and infact the sound didnt work as well. So I didnt upgrade & kept with 7.04 until 8.04 came out. I know that 7.04 is stable and works well on my hardware, so I keep this version handy. The repositories are maintained for it. There's no-one forcing you to upgrade if you dont want to. point 2: with open source, you can build exactly what you want, no more, no less. I used the latets ubuntu 8.04 kernal to build my OS from a comand line upwards, I have less bloat now than when I started using ubuntu, which is much less than when I used XP. and only have the programs installed that I need, nothing else. I know this is slightly nerdy, but I actaully have one ubuntu installation that I've built purely for sound recording only. It has a very light weight windows manager (openbox) and no programs installed other than a removable device manager, a file manager, and a sound recording package (why? less bloat = cleaner sound.) Open Office does seem to get bigger with every update though. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
I don't think anyone uses Windows because they want something stable and efficient. Neither do they want something where they can build components and recompile kernels. They use it because it is there, and because it mostly works and does the day job - even Vista runs very well on a modern PC (so efficiency is not really an issue) ... plus it is very good for games!
I find the best way to use Linux is within Windows, running under the (free) MS Virtual PC. That way I can have the best of both worlds. I would recommend this to anyone who wants to try Linux without having to mess around with dual-booting or live CDs. I think if MS have any sense though, they will be looking at a cut-down no-bloat minimalist Windows where "efficiency" and speed *are* given top priority. That of course is rather counter to their whole corporate ethos, although the Visual Studio Express Editions (cut-down from the full bloated main VS) are excellent, so they can do it if they try! |
||||||||
| vegplot |
It's much more the slightly nerdy, it would be excetionally difficult for a home user to get their head around this concept. Linux is excellent insomuch it allows people like yourself to build your own specific system but that is not the market where Linux needs to penetrate. While it caters for the technically adept it still fails to address the issues where it could really make a difference and that is to strip away the nerd label and make it very easy to install and maintain on a PC. This problem will not go away while there are a confusing multitude of Linux distributions and vendors web sites which needs a degree in computing science to understand. It's slowly getting better but the longer it remains where it is the more difficult it will be to get out of the hole it's made for itself. My view, and quite in opposition to the Linux/OpenSource community, is that to succeed Linux needs to embrace proprietory software with the same enthusiasm as OpenSource. Without doing so the market drivers just won't be there for Linux to become dominant. The Linux community is somewhat overprotective of it's baby. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
A very nice summary vegplot. | ||||||||
| James |
thats extremely true, coupled with the fact that every piece of hardware you buy on the highstreet is windows compatible- plug it in & off you go.
thats also very true. Ubuntu has made great strides in this, to the point were it really is almost a "stick the CD in and press enter". installation But people are extremely lazy and want things served up to them with no effort whatsoever, and until linux does this, it cannot compete with MS on a home PC level. With comercialisation come two advantages: lots of money for marketing, and competive, focused development. Linux could do with a healthy dose of both. How to do this while remaining open-source and accessible to the cash-strapped developing world is tricky...not something I'm going to tax my brain on now. |
||||||||
| jema |
Most people when they buy a PC will not change any bits.
So all that matters to someone buying an Eee PC or some other new low energy little PC is that the drivers are effective for the bits already installed. Maybe shortly the choice on the shelves for someone after a non games cheap PC will be: 1) £150 for a box that will run Linux fast and silent and use 30watts. 2) £200 for a noisier more energy consuming box using XP a system Microsoft don't want to support. |
||||||||
| vegplot |
I note on the ubuntu site it says "Ubuntu is designed with security in mind. You get free security updates for at least 18 months on the desktop and server. With the Long Term Support (LTS) version you get three years support on the desktop"
What happens after those first 18 months? |
||||||||
| James |
you install the update
yeh, I see what you mean, and I know I said that no-ones forcing you install any updates. But updates dont mean you need more computing power, it doenst cost anything, and if you install an off-the shelf installation, it'll do it automatically. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Correct.
All that matters is that it works - who is interested in drivers?
"Will" run Linux or "does" run Linux - because if it is not pre-installed it is unlikely the owner will upgrade (or downgrade) to Linux.
Not sure why it needs to be noisier, but a bigger PC will probably use more energy - and be faster and be capable of doing more stuff too. It might even be running Linux. |
||||||||
| James |
I think the Eee Pc's that jema's talking about come with Linux installed (but I may be wrong there...) |
||||||||
| jema |
I am talking about pre-installed PCs.
If low power becomes popular and it may, as the designs can be smaller and they will run without fans, then there will be quite a cost differential between an XP machine and a Linux machine, as Linux can run on a lower spec than xp, especially if it is a preinstalled version with a kernel designed for that machine. |
||||||||
| vegplot |
So you get 18 months after each update? Sort of continual extension? |
||||||||
| jema |
Ubuntu cycles between 18 month support versions and LTS long term support versions.
In practical terms I'd expect people to be keen to update after 18 months anyway, as the project is moving fast, and an upgrade is just a few mouse clicks. |
||||||||
| vegplot |
So if you don't update after 18 months you don't get security updates? |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
I can certainly see a market for this kind of thing, but I am not convinced about the cost differential between Windows and Linux. Dell have been selling desktops and laptops with Ubuntu 7.1 for some time and I don't think there is much - if any - price differential. |
||||||||
| jema |
But windows is far from free even at the big OEM level and so there is a cost difference and one that can be amplified if the Linux PC can say have less memory.
If the open source community made a stand against bloat and went for speed I wonder just how low a spec you could have! |
||||||||
| vegplot |
No doubt very small but it wouldn't satisfy everyone. Bloated software is in response to user needs, perceived or real. People always want more and the way to gain popularity is to give them more. If the opensource community made stand against bloated software then its user base would shrink into niche markets. |
||||||||
| jema |
But most bloat is just bloat that is only needed by a very few people.
If a bloat free PC meant a notebook that was incredibly cheap small and light and had a battery life of 24 hours then I know I'd want one. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
But Linux is also not free at the OEM level. The bottom line is that Dell charge the same for Windows or Linux. |
||||||||
| jema |
Where do you hear that Linux is not free to OEMs? | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
Because you have to support it, make sure it works on your hardware, train staff etc etc. | ||||||||
| jema |
Which you have to do with windows as well. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
You were suggesting there is a big cost difference between a Windows PC and a Linux PC. I've suggested there isn't, since Dell charge the same for both. Since we agree Windows is not free, it follows that Linux is also not free - unless you are hoping that Dell are going to subsidise their Linux costs from their sales of Windows PCs. | ||||||||
| James |
I presume you can manually download the updates for each package. |
||||||||
| scoop |
XOIf the XO "buy one give one" was expanded to cover the UK I would buy one tomorrow. 2W power consumption, a built in hand generator and open source software. And help a child in the third world in the process.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1 scoop |
||||||||
| skedone |
all updates on ubuntu are free for life its support that is not given as in after 9 years u will have to upgrade but then again must linux user upgrade there os ever year to latest version anyway
ubuntu is very good if you like gnome i use kubuntu my self as i prefer kde let me know if u need help i have got rid of widows completely now as wine is so good it now even has direct x 8 and direct x 9 next week |
||||||||
| jema |
Just for the hell of it I just installed a windows program on Linux via Wine, and ran it. Fonts are not good, but aside from that it was totally painless. Linux treats a windows .exe as something that needs wine and uses it. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
I must have missed that section in "Linux for Dummies" ... or maybe I need "Linux for Alcoholics"? |
||||||||
| skedone |
its coz u need to copy the fonts to the fonts folder mate from windows do that and your fonts problems will be over | ||||||||
| James |
I tried running excel via WINE. After starting up perfectly well (and quite fast..), an error box pops-up saying
"Microsoft Excel has not been installed for the current user. Please run setup to install the application". When I click OK, it shuts down. I preffere the graphing capabilities in excel to that of OO |
||||||||
| JB |
So excel is probably working as it expects to but probably falls over when microsoft try to check some registry installation thing (which of course isn't there). I would expect open source stuff to work much better as it's not as incestuous as MS software, e.g. you won't find your word processor suddenly falls over just because you haven't got IE installed. I'm just moving over to OO under Ubuntu 8 now. Last time I tried it wasn't quite up to the job (too many glitches on copying documents from windows systems) but now it looks perfectly adequate. The MS versions still look that bit slicker but for the advantage of not having a small juggernaut of software bolted to the back when all I want is a bicycle it will do for almost everything that I need. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Yes, the bloat is the big problem for MS at the moment. I really wish they would do some cut-down "lite" or "express" versions of Office - like they do for some of their development and database tools, but Office just gets bigger and bigger. |
||||||||
| JB |
The thing that irritates me about it is the way that most of the improvements are anything but. For example word will automatically highlight web site addresses in documents in a different colour and make them active. So if you print the document the address isn't as legible and if you try to edit the address suddenly you're in the middle of your browser and not editting anything. I honestly think that have been almost no useful enhancements to word since version 6. |
||||||||
| jema |
I'd seriously question whether for the average user, there has been any advances in a word processor since say AmiPro3 from about 1993? To my mind that was far more productive for the normal user than any version of word. | ||||||||
| JB |
I put it at word 6 simply because that was the first word processor I used which had a usable wysiwyg view. Everything else that changed is just a mass of features most of which are used by only a tiny percentage of the users and which annoy everyone else. Never tried amipro so I can't judge on that. | ||||||||
| jema |
I was an AmiPro user that made the switch to Word6 and found that common actions were far clumsier in Word6. e.g. even then there was feature bloat for someone with simply needs, even for the more esoteric needs like label printing AmiPro was easier! | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
I found AmiPro clunky, not really an improvement on the DOS Manuscript it was supposed to replace. Word 6 was not great either IMHO but Word 97 was very good, had everything you could need ... it has been downhill since then. I find Word 2007 to be OK, better than the preceding 2000, 2003 etc. It is still overkill though - although I use it in preference to OO Writer as it is a bit slicker. I have never tried OO on Linux though. | ||||||||
| earthyvirgo |
AmiPro, before Lotus got their hands on it, was brilliant. Fast, easy to use and intuitive. Then for some reason Lotus made it clunky and slow.
Whoops posted as Ev. Vegplot |
||||||||
| jema |
I wonder if OrangePippin is thinking of AmiPro3 which I recall was Lotus, but far from the last version of AmiPro. I concur that it was fast, easy and intuitive, not clunky at all. In fact I found Word much more clunky. It is hard to keep the version numbers straight when we are talking 15 years ago. | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
Yes, I was referring to the Lotus version now I think about it. It was a long time ago! | ||||||||
| James |
do they still do MS Works? That was a pile of sh*t though. |
||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Well, I'm another Ubuntu user now. The install was reasonably painless although I was a bit confused by having to download the installation package and then the install seemingly downloading everything again while installing. Anyway, it seems easy enough to set-up and most things work very well. Had a little problem with Firefox that I only managed to cure by installing an update. I'm impressed that my Canon camera connected without any problems and downloaded fine.
I've a few things to sort out, I'm not keen on the fonts which seem a bit more blurry than Windows no matter what I change. I would also like to remove my windows partition and boot direct to Ubuntu (I installed it from Windows) but it doesn't seem obvious how to do it. |
||||||||
| jema |
You can install the windows fonts to Ubuntu, and you can also get real sneaky and recompile the font engine with a different (and slightly illegal switch).
I have the windows fonts and that does the trick for me. |
||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
So it's not my imagination then? Thanks for the tips it'll give me something to go on. | ||||||||
| jema |
I do note that my firefox is using:
Verdana and monospace. both of which are Microsoft fonts. |