vB Easy Archive - To Linux or Not to Linux?

Pages: 1

To Linux or Not to Linux?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Urban Strata

So I've been playing around with desktop Linux for the past few days, Xubuntu to be specific (a variant of Ubuntu). I'm mostly interested in Linux for two reasons:

1) The "survivalist" in me likes the idea of trying to live without Microsoft, though the realist in me knows that a) as a matter of professional necessity, I will never truly extricate myself from Microsoft applications; b) as a matter of personal preference, I really like Vista; and c) as a matter of just-plan-stubborness, I really like Microsoft and their stuff.

2) I want to buy an Eee PC and flash it with Xubuntu.

Okay, so far I'm impressed. Xubuntu is pretty awesome; in fact, I'm posting from it (and Firefox) right now. But is it better than Vista...? Hmm... I'm among those (of a small minority?) who think Vista is incredibly slick; Xubuntu, based on Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon, is nice, but it's no Vista.

So any tips to change my point of view? Any suggestions for Windows Mobile integration? (I'm starting at ground zero.) Any other ideas, thoughts and observations about Linux? Thanks.

Posted by: richy240

I say go for it. What's it gonna cost? $400? That isn't too bad...

Posted by: pen25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Strata

So I've been playing around with desktop Linux for the past few days, Xubuntu to be specific (a variant of Ubuntu). I'm mostly interested in Linux for two reasons:

1) The "survivalist" in me likes the idea of trying to live without Microsoft, though the realist in me knows that a) as a matter of professional necessity, I will never truly extricate myself from Microsoft applications; b) as a matter of personal preference, I really like Vista; and c) as a matter of just-plan-stubborness, I really like Microsoft and their stuff.

2) I want to buy an Eee PC and flash it with Xubuntu.

Okay, so far I'm impressed. Xubuntu is pretty awesome; in fact, I'm posting from it (and Firefox) right now. But is it better than Vista...? Hmm... I'm among those (of a small minority?) who think Vista is incredibly slick; Xubuntu, based on Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon, is nice, but it's no Vista.

So any tips to change my point of view? Any suggestions for Windows Mobile integration? (I'm starting at ground zero.) Any other ideas, thoughts and observations about Linux? Thanks.

been tempted myself to do this same thing but IMHO you have a perfect dualboot machine as it is. with either a 16gb cf disk in the slot or thumbdrive or in the hard drive itself i think you would be more well served unless you want another toy.

Posted by: richy240

There's an 8GB model with 10" screen coming out sometime this year... Maybe it's worth it to wait for that?

But when you can get a 14" laptop these days for under $500, as cool as it is, is the Eee PC really worth it?

Posted by: sabesh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Strata

<snip>Any suggestions for Windows Mobile integration? <snip>

Try VM Ware

After running Solaris (prime), Windows and Linux for years, I switched to Mac late last year. Awesome O/S - Machine integration. I'm running Vista via Parallels in Coherence mode: Really no need to dual-boot.

Posted by: Kichigai

Quote:

Originally Posted by richy240

There's an 8GB model with 10" screen coming out sometime this year... Maybe it's worth it to wait for that?

But when you can get a 14" laptop these days for under $500, as cool as it is, is the Eee PC really worth it?

Yes. The Eee PC is a totally solid-state, stripped down, super-portable, super-light, barebones laptop. Some people want a sub-notebook for just web browsing, some note taking, and maybe a little Skype. They don't want a media machine, they don't want anything huge, they don't want anything fragile, and in a lot of cases, they especially don't want Vista. And there are a LOT of positive reviews of the Eee PC. If I wasn't such a power user, and in need of a new production machine, and had some extra money, I'd buy one. ...or an XO-1 (mostly because I like playing with super-custom, unusual computer set-ups)

Posted by: Urban Strata

I ended up getting the Eee PC 4G and am using Xandros in Advanced Mode on the SSD and eeeXubuntu on an SDHC card. It's great! I'm happy to post photos comparing it to my Fujitsu U810 if anyone is interested.

Side note: As fun as it is hacking and tweaking Linux, it really makes me appreciate Windows a lot more. Not that I didn't appreciate it before, but Windows -- and Vista in particular -- is really surprisingly easy and intuitive to use. We take it for granted because it's so commonplace and we're so familiar with its issues and shortcomings, but Microsoft really does a nice job.

It's tough to make an intuitive OS! Linux proves that point every day.

Posted by: pen25

awesome US. do you have the pcie slot?

Posted by: Urban Strata

Quote:

Originally Posted by pen25

awesome US. do you have the pcie slot?

I think only the 8G version ($499 USD) has a PCIE slot, but I could be wrong about that...

Posted by: pellgarlic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Strata

I ended up getting the Eee PC 4G and am using Xandros in Advanced Mode on the SSD and eeeXubuntu on an SDHC card. It's great! I'm happy to post photos comparing it to my Fujitsu U810 if anyone is interested.

glad to hear it

i think the eee is a really cool little machine, and i intend to get one for myself soon... and i'm glad you're testing the waters with linux - it's a very cool os, and i think you'll be surprised the more used to it you get, how capable and powerful it actually is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Strata

Side note: As fun as it is hacking and tweaking Linux, it really makes me appreciate Windows a lot more. Not that I didn't appreciate it before, but Windows -- and Vista in particular -- is really surprisingly easy and intuitive to use. We take it for granted because it's so commonplace and we're so familiar with its issues and shortcomings, but Microsoft really does a nice job.

It's tough to make an intuitive OS! Linux proves that point every day.

i have to disagree with you here - i believe that the only reason people think that windows is "intuitive", is because they have known little else, and the reason that they think linux is "unintuitive", is because they have had little exposure to it, and it does things differently (nb - "differently", not "worse") than windows. do not forget that you once had to "learn" windows too - you have only had to make minor adjustments to each increment of windows, because very little changes.

the ethos of linux is freedom and choice, and for me, this is far more important than the gloss and packaging of windows. sure, there are things that windows does better, but there are things that linux does better - particularly when it comes to having freedom to backup your own music and movie collection for example. this choice can also be part of the problem though - newcomers are often overwhelmed by the choices available in linux - different distros, desktop environments, window managers, etc (although this is also what draws me to linux, and gives it its value). this is where good, modern distros like ubuntu (and it's derivatives - xubuntu, kubuntu etc) come in - they are almost as pre-packaged as windows, but have the advantage of the flexibility of being linux.

if you want more out of your pc, and are prepared to put a little more work in, linux is very rewarding. windows has its place, but it is to linux as an automatic car is to a manual car - less to think about, less to do, but not as much control. it's about how much control is put in the hands of the end-user, and how much is kept in the hands of the os provider, and in that respect, linux has a clear advantage.

for me, being able to completely change the appearance of my window manager is important, being able to kill a hung program without killing the whole gui is important, being able to get a program to do anything i might want to do for free 99.9% of the time is important, and having to do a little more work to get these things is a fair compromise to me.

i'm not saying "use linux, cos it's great, and everything else is rubbish!", i'm saying "i use linux because i find it flexible, powerful, responsive to my needs and expectations of an os". if you don't find it to be that, and you find the windows way better (less effort, but more restrictive and proscriptive), i'm happy for you, and wouldn't think of criticising you for that. i am as pedantic as you can get though, so i couldn't let the "unintuitive" comment go

(p.s. - i use linux as my personal os, but also have a windows xp virtual machine for some things, and a "windows mobile" pocket pc (fujitsu siemens pocket loox 720), and am looking to purchase an htc tytn ii, which is also a windows mobile device, and also use windows on my living room "htpc", so i am certainly not a pro-linux, anti-microsoft zealot - i just prefer linux to windows, and want to give it a bit of support whenever i can

)

Posted by: richy240

I agree with pellgarlic. I would argue that Windows is more intuitive because you've been using it for so long and you've grown accustomed to it's "habits".

I just started using a Mac a few months ago, and although I like the OS overall I find myself comparing it to Windows regularly. There are some features that I can't decide whether I like Windows because I'm used to it, or I like Windows because it's actually a better way of doing things. Then there are other features that I like better in OS X.

I personally DON'T like Linux, but that's just because I find it too disorganized to be useful as a desktop operating system. Maybe I'm just not as adventurous as I used to be, but I need my OS to be useful and effective without any issues to iron out first. These recent customized Linux releases are a good step forward for the OS in general I guess, but they're still not being used at the desktop level. Obviously it's easy to see Linux's place at the server level though.

But that's just me.

Posted by: pellgarlic

actually, there aren't that many "issues to iron out" with linux nowadays - from a fresh install, there is probably less extra work involved than with windows - you almost always get a full complement of applications (office, internet, multimedia) and the only stuff you really need to sort out is the "proprietary" stuff like graphics card drivers, and video and audio codecs. in the most recent release of ubuntu, this has become incredibly easy

whereas with windows, you not only need to install the required drivers, you also need to install all the stuff that is included by default with linux (the aforementioned office, internet, multimedia etc applications). you can get a fully-functioning linux desktop up and running much quicker than you can a windows one...

a big problem is when someone comes across a problem - in windows, they have become accustomed, through experience, in how to attempt to deal with it. when linux is new and unfamiliar, it can be frustrating, and difficult. once you learn more, it's great

the ubuntu forums are an excellent source of information and advice - a quick search will usually uncover the answer to any problem you may come across, and if not, you can always ask for help.

i personally use linux as my desktop os full-time, and rarely (0.1% of the time) need windows for anything, and it's almost always for a work-related issue. everything else works fine - i browse the internet, watch dvds, listen to music, rip movies (for backup purposes of course

), do email, word processing and most everything else without any difficulty. linux IS a capable desktop os. it's not perfect, but neither is windows or mac. again, it all depends on what you prefer, but i think it's more about ethos and style than capability - try the live cd of the recent ubuntu release, and you might be pleasantly surprised

Posted by: richy240

That's probably true. The last few times I've tried to use Linux on the desktop (or, more appropriately, my laptop) the only issue I had was loading drivers for my wifi card. It would seem that there are a lack of supported drivers for Broadcom wireless cards, which is what I had installed in my Compaq laptop. But that was the straw that broke the camel's back, and I was forced to go back to Windows on that machine. (I have since given it to my girlfriend, so...)

Unfortunately, now, the only laptop I have is a MacBook, and my desktop machine is a dedicated Windows 2003 SBS server - I won't be installing ANYTHING on that which would disrupt its current role. I'm not sure how well Ubuntu will work on the MacBook (driver issues and the like), but I'm willing to download and run the Live CD just to check it out. I haven't yet though.

I guess my negative attitude about Linux should be the same for OS X: it isn't Windows, so all the things I used to do in Windows need to be re-learned, and there are going to be incompatibilities that can be dealt with. Trust me, I know Linux, or I used to anyway - I haven't used it for a few years, and I'll admit, it has grown by leaps and bounds since I used it aggressively. I've even got a couple Linux certifications for server-level support of the OS.

Ultimately, I'll agree that Linux is rock-solid and capable once installed and configured correctly. I've just always had problems getting that one last thing working (whatever it was), which caused me to scrap the whole project and continue using Windows.

And just to disclaim it, I'm no Windows fan. I just find Microsoft products to generally work well with minimal configuration, even more advanced software and services. Plus there's a huge market for Windows admins, so I primarily use it at work.

Posted by: richy240

I just tried the Ubuntu Live CD on my MacBook, and as in the past on various HP and Compaq (basically the same, I know) laptops, my wireless network card was not supported. And this is exactly what I don't want to deal with: trying to fix problems that shouldn't be problems in the first place.

I know there are a myriad of reasons why the drivers, codecs, software, etc. aren't included (especially on the MacBook), but these solutions will need to be built in before people truly adopt Linux on the desktop (or the laptop, in my case).

If you've got the time and patience to fix the problems yourself, you're GOLDEN. If you don't, you'd better hope your hardware is supported or Linux came preinstalled from the manufacturer. If these conditions aren't met, I don't see too many normal users (non-technical individuals, home users, etc.) flocking to use it. That's all I'm saying.

Posted by: pen25

Quote:

Originally Posted by richy240

I just tried the Ubuntu Live CD on my MacBook, and as in the past on various HP and Compaq (basically the same, I know) laptops, my wireless network card was not supported. And this is exactly what I don't want to deal with: trying to fix problems that shouldn't be problems in the first place.

I know there are a myriad of reasons why the drivers, codecs, software, etc. aren't included (especially on the MacBook), but these solutions will need to be built in before people truly adopt Linux on the desktop (or the laptop, in my case).

If you've got the time and patience to fix the problems yourself, you're GOLDEN. If you don't, you'd better hope your hardware is supported or Linux came preinstalled from the manufacturer. If these conditions aren't met, I don't see too many normal users (non-technical individuals, home users, etc.) flocking to use it. That's all I'm saying.

i havent had an issue with any of my thinkpads or my hp laptops when i run ubuntu. but i have to admit that the livecd's do sometimes cause issues. usualy its other little things like graffics or sound

Posted by: richy240

Quote:

Originally Posted by pen25

Yeah, I think it's because of my Broadcom wifi cards that came preinstalled in the laptops. I guess Broadcom has not released Linux drivers for their wireless cards, so there are no native drivers available - just workarounds, that I have not yet gotten to work. I've since sold my HP, and gave my Compaq to my girlfriend so it's really a moot point now.

But that's what I've been talking about: due to issues like this, Linux will be hard pressed to go mainstream, unless people start to see the value of, instead of paying for their OS, hiring someone to make sure it's set up properly.

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. It's just not there yet, and without organized development it won't ever make it mainstream.

Posted by: aktopshooter

I have linux installed on my dell laptop. I also have the virtual box installed runnign windows on it. One key feature I would like to have as an option is to link my wm devices or even symbian devices to the linux os. Is there any way to do this? I figured if anyone would know you guys would know. Using linux is just fun for me as its something different and I am learning. Also I am going to pick up a wifi card (PCMIA) and see if I can get better results than I do with my unboard broadcom wifi device. It will cost me $20.00 and I should have my answer. Will report back and let you guys know how it goes.

Posted by: pen25

Quote:

Originally Posted by aktopshooter

I have linux installed on my dell laptop. I also have the virtual box installed runnign windows on it. One key feature I would like to have as an option is to link my wm devices or even symbian devices to the linux os. Is there any way to do this? I figured if anyone would know you guys would know. Using linux is just fun for me as its something different and I am learning. Also I am going to pick up a wifi card (PCMIA) and see if I can get better results than I do with my unboard broadcom wifi device. It will cost me $20.00 and I should have my answer. Will report back and let you guys know how it goes.

i bought a zonet card for my old t22 and worked well under linux.

Posted by: richy240

Quote:

Originally Posted by aktopshooter

Also I am going to pick up a wifi card (PCMIA) and see if I can get better results than I do with my unboard broadcom wifi device. It will cost me $20.00 and I should have my answer. Will report back and let you guys know how it goes.

What's the model of your Broadcom device, and how'd you get it working? I have yet to get a Broadcom wifi card working with Linux, and I'm not willing to sit around and tweak the "NDISWRAPPER" fix to get it working.

Posted by: pen25

http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-g...w-features.html

looks like 7.10 works well with broadcom chips.

Posted by: richy240

I'll have to try that. I think the last time I tried Ubuntu was the previous version.

Anyway, I sold my HP, and I gave my Compaq laptop to my girlfriend so I can't install it on that machine. But I guess I could run the Live CD and see if that works.

Thanks!

Posted by: aktopshooter

Yes I am running the new unbuntu 7.10 with my restricted drivers engaged and seem to have no problem accessing my wifi card. You wont have to use the undiwrapper etc. I experienced that what a pain. The only problem with the restricted drivers and use on linux is that it doesnt seem to allow the chip to operate at its full power other than that is fine. I still have yet to make it to the store and pick up a pcmia card I will have to do this and see if the speeds differ. However like I said as of right now I have no gripes

I might check out an eee pc one day however I dont like the fact that the harddrive has a life expectancy which it is soldered to the board not a simple replacement unless skilled. However I am sure they will update it soon to an easy accessible upgrade. I am loving right now running windows within linux on virtual machines. I also will take a toy around with the mac os on it. One thing is really bothering me which is not being able to sync my device anyone else had any luck with this?