Windows 8 is a fucking nightmare. I build and repair PCs for a living, and I'd love to start selling Linux boxes, but unfortunately the Linux community seems to build for geeks, not the average user. Has anyone here encountered a Linux build that can be used by the typical clueless Windows user, without having to use Terminal or an emulator?
Ubuntu for user experience all day long!
Ubuntu or Mint. If you go with Ubuntu, you may want to install another interface so you dont have to use Unity. Of course, it may not be possible to install on your computer thanks to secure boot. Thank MS.
RFT! (Run From This). Giving linux to typical windows end users who are paying you for your services is a sure fire recipe for disaster that will lose you customers so fast it will make your head spin. Linux is not ready for prime time when it comes to typical windows users. If you sell it to them, they will hate it. And then they'll hate you. Tell them Windows 8 is a poorly designed product and sell them on Windows 7 instead and leave it at that.
Keep macs in mind too. If they're at all interested, encourage them to make the switch and then sell them tutoring for learning the new os. I used to make a ton of money from that and all of my clients loved me and recommended me to others. A goldmine that.
I really do think pretty much anyone can handle Mint: Its designed entirely for non-technical users. Having said that though, ordinary users tend to be extremely resistant to change. I would stick with Windows 7 If I were you, at least with the boxes you sell. Now for your own personal system though...
Quote from: "_Xenu_"I really do think pretty much anyone can handle Mint: Its designed entirely for non-technical users. Having said that though, ordinary users tend to be extremely resistant to change.
Yeah that's it exactly. Linux is like dark beer. Its one of those things you will only enjoy if you decide to try it on your own. If you're only trying it because someone else talked you into it, there is simply no way you will ever like it.
Ubuntu is super-easy to use, install, maintain, is very stable, etc. Not to mention totally free. It also runs quite well on older HW, so it's a great choice for an affordable PC for college students and such. There is also a large online repository of all sorts of SW, especially educational.
I agree that the Unity desktop leaves a bit to be desired, but it's not all that bad. That said, it's really not difficult to change the desktop environment to Gnome or KDE. And once you do that, there are free custom desktop themes based on them that looks and functions almost exactly like Win7, if that's what makes you comfortable.
There are extensive online support communities as well. I run Ubuntu on one of my home PCs, and so far I haven't had a problem to which I could not find a solution via Google search.
The only thing that kept me anchored to Windows for years was PC gaming (and the lack thereof on Linux). However, with the rise of consoles like Xbox 360 and PS3 (and soon to be PS4), PC gaming has become a relatively small niche, and far less of a reason to stay on Windows that it used to be.
QuoteLinux is not ready for prime time when it comes to typical windows users.
Ironically, neither is Windows. But at least it's $$. And given the functionality of Win8, a more accurate name would be "Window".
Quote from: "Seabear"Ubuntu is super-easy to use, install, maintain, is very stable, etc. Not to mention totally free. It also runs quite well on older HW, so it's a great choice for an affordable PC for college students and such. There is also a large online repository of all sorts of SW, especially educational.
I agree that the Unity desktop leaves a bit to be desired, but it's not all that bad. That said, it's really not difficult to change the desktop environment to Gnome or KDE. And once you do that, there are free custom desktop themes based on them that looks and functions almost exactly like Win7.
This is all 100% true. But as easy as it is, it still requires WAY more effort to install, configure and maintain than typical end users want to invest. And before you disagree, you need to remember that if you even know what linux is, you're NOT a typical end user.
Iphones and ipods have only one button for a reason. That's what typical end users want. They want it to work and they only want to have to push one button to make it happen. That ain't linux. That will never be linux.
I think my dark beer analogy was good. Another good analogy is Tom Waits. Linux is the Tom Waits of operating systems.
Linux and Windows are both operating systems. There is a reason one is more commonly known than the other.
Tom Waits and Justin Bieber are both musicians. There is a reason one is more commonly known than the other.
Quote from: "Johan"RFT! (Run From This). Giving linux to typical windows end users who are paying you for your services is a sure fire recipe for disaster that will lose you customers so fast it will make your head spin. Linux is not ready for prime time when it comes to typical windows users. If you sell it to them, they will hate it. And then they'll hate you. Tell them Windows 8 is a poorly designed product and sell them on Windows 7 instead and leave it at that.
Yeah, I was afraid that might be the answer. It's fucking annoying, since Mac OSX is a Linux build, proving that a Linux OS for idiots is possible.
QuoteKeep macs in mind too. If they're at all interested, encourage them to make the switch and then sell them tutoring for learning the new os. I used to make a ton of money from that and all of my clients loved me and recommended me to others. A goldmine that.
interesting. I've stayed away from recommending Macs because the goddam OS doesn't fuck up all the time like MS, thus making me obsolete. But teaching folks to use a Mac is a real possibility.
I seriously wish Apple hadn't stopped making their OS available as a standalone.
Quote from: "Johan"Iphones and ipods have only one button for a reason. That's what typical end users want. They want it to work and they only want to have to push one button to make it happen. That ain't linux. That will never be linux.
Except it
is Linux, at least the version of Linux that Apple put out.
QuoteI think my dark beer analogy was good. Another good analogy is Tom Waits. Linux is the Tom Waits of operating systems.
Linux and Windows are both operating systems. There is a reason one is more commonly known than the other.
Tom Waits and Justin Bieber are both musicians. There is a reason one is more commonly known than the other.
As a musician and a homebrewer of dark beers, I'll take the dark beer analogy, but not necessarily Tom Waits. I'm more of a Beatles/Pink Floyd/Yes/Spirit/Led Zep kind of guy, myself. :wink:
Quote from: "Davka"Yeah, I was afraid that might be the answer. It's fucking annoying, since Mac OSX is a Linux build, proving that a Linux OS for idiots is possible.
Actually, OSX is a fork of Free BSD. In other words, actual UNIX.
Windows takes just as much as effort, if not more, to install and maintain. The ONLY difference is that it comes pre-installed on virtually every new PC, so the "average" user never has to deal with it.
Which is EXACTLY what the OP is proposing; pre-installing and configuring the OS. So stipulating that the average end user won't be installing or configuring the OS in either scenario, doesn't that eliminate that advantage of windows, really?
Every argument I ever hear for windows amounts to little more than an appeal to tradition. Windows is just what everyone is used to. That doesn't make it better, and it sure doesn't make it simpler. Or cheaper.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "Davka"Yeah, I was afraid that might be the answer. It's fucking annoying, since Mac OSX is a Linux build, proving that a Linux OS for idiots is possible.
Actually, OSX is a fork of Free BSD. In other words, actual UNIX.
Really? I wasn't aware of that. Dammit, I'm such a *nux nooblet. :oops:
If you're new to the *nix world, install Ubuntu and use it. (but do yourself a favor and get rid of Unity- it takes two minutes) Your knowledge will increase over time. Having said that, you are correct to point out that OSX is a user friendly version of *nix. The difference in market penetration comes down to marketing and simple economic principles.
Linux users tend to solve our own problems, so there's not much money to be made from us in terms of charging for support. Same thing on the software front: Why should I pay for anything when there's almost certainly a free alternative in the repos? And Linux doesn't tend to push hardware sales either. To the contrary, it keeps systems running and useful long after they would be obsolete by Windows standards. In the end, its just not profitable to cater to us, so companies largely don't. Because there's little money to be made, Linux doesn't tend to get any marketing support.
Quote from: "Davka"interesting. I've stayed away from recommending Macs because the goddam OS doesn't fuck up all the time like MS, thus making me obsolete. But teaching folks to use a Mac is a real possibility.
Trust me its a real goldmine. The Apple customer by definition is someone who feels spending more money generally equates to getting more value. And Steve Jobs and Johnny Ives are(were) both absolutely in love with buttons/functions that aren't labelled or otherwise obvious to the uninitiated. Which equates to tons of billable hours for typical windows users who convert to OSX.
How do I add a new contact to my address book? How do I delete a contact from my address book? How do I install Chrome? How do I delete Chrome? Goldmine. Trust me.
Quote from: "Davka"QuoteI think my dark beer analogy was good. Another good analogy is Tom Waits. Linux is the Tom Waits of operating systems.
Linux and Windows are both operating systems. There is a reason one is more commonly known than the other.
Tom Waits and Justin Bieber are both musicians. There is a reason one is more commonly known than the other.
As a musician and a homebrewer of dark beers, I'll take the dark beer analogy, but not necessarily Tom Waits. I'm more of a Beatles/Pink Floyd/Yes/Spirit/Led Zep kind of guy, myself. :wink:
Nah, the Tom Waits analogy is spot on. You will only love Tom Waits if you decide on your own to see what this Tom Waits guy is all about. If you try to listen to Tom because your music geek friend told you how awesome he is, you'll hate every minute of it and you'll never listen to advice from that friend again. You have to come to it on your own. That's the only way it ever works. Linux is the same way.
So by this analogy, Budweiser must be the best beer in the world.
Quote from: "Seabear"Windows takes just as much as effort, if not more, to install and maintain. The ONLY difference is that it comes pre-installed on virtually every new PC, so the "average" user never has to deal with it.
When was the last time you installed Windows 7? It's a breeze. One-click installation, or damned near. Finds all the drivers for you, if not on install then on your first update.
QuoteWhich is EXACTLY what the OP is proposing; pre-installing and configuring the OS. So stipulating that the average end user won't be installing or configuring the OS in either scenario, doesn't that eliminate that advantage of windows, really?
Not really. Everything out in Hello World-land is configured for Windows. Try installing or updating Flash in a Linux build, compared to Windows. Or running an off-the-shelf program like Office. Or any other action an end-user with zero comprehension of computers is likely to try.
QuoteEvery argument I ever hear for windows amounts to little more than an appeal to tradition. Windows is just what everyone is used to. That doesn't make it better, and it sure doesn't make it simpler. Or cheaper.
It's not just tradition, it's compatibility.
Quote from: "Seabear"Windows takes just as much as effort, if not more, to install and maintain. The ONLY difference is that it comes pre-installed on virtually every new PC, so the "average" user never has to deal with it.
If anything, Linux is much easier to install and does much better with hardware. Microsoft is beyond lazy in this area, and Windows has to be packaged with certain hardware by the OEM.
Quote from: "Seabear"Which is EXACTLY what the OP is proposing; pre-installing and configuring the OS. So stipulating that the average end user won't be installing or configuring the OS in either scenario, doesn't that eliminate that advantage of windows, really?
Only partially. Users still have the learn the Linux way of doing things and the majority simply dont want to.
Quote from: "Seabear"Every argument I ever hear for windows amounts to little more than an appeal to tradition. Windows is just what everyone is used to. That doesn't make it better, and it sure doesn't make it simpler. Or cheaper.
I firmly believe Linux would blow Microsoft away if they weren't so firmly entrenched. They don't compete on quality and never did, but endlessly scheme up ways to lock people into their ecosystem instead.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Davka"QuoteI think my dark beer analogy was good. Another good analogy is Tom Waits. Linux is the Tom Waits of operating systems.
Linux and Windows are both operating systems. There is a reason one is more commonly known than the other.
Tom Waits and Justin Bieber are both musicians. There is a reason one is more commonly known than the other.
As a musician and a homebrewer of dark beers, I'll take the dark beer analogy, but not necessarily Tom Waits. I'm more of a Beatles/Pink Floyd/Yes/Spirit/Led Zep kind of guy, myself. :wink:
Nah, the Tom Waits analogy is spot on. You will only love Tom Waits if you decide on your own to see what this Tom Waits guy is all about. If you try to listen to Tom because your music geek friend told you how awesome he is, you'll hate every minute of it and you'll never listen to advice from that friend again. You have to come to it on your own. That's the only way it ever works. Linux is the same way.
I've listened to plenty of Tom Waits because I wanted to. He just starts sounding all the same after the tenth song or so, even if he
is a brilliant lyricist.
Quote from: "Seabear"So by this analogy, Budweiser must be the best beer in the world.
"Best"? Fuck, no. Most popular, maybe - but that's only in the USA. Globally, it's probably some Chinese swill.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"I firmly believe Linux would blow Microsoft away if they weren't so firmly entrenched. They don't compete on quality and never did, but endlessly scheme up ways to lock people into their ecosystem instead.
Windows is the OS for the average idiot. And there are a
fuckload of average idiots out there. I'd be out of a job if there weren't.
Quote from: "Seabear"So by this analogy, Budweiser must be the best beer in the world.
To some people it is. To me, it isn't beer at all. But to some, its the best money can buy. Who am I to argue?
Quote from: "Davka"I've listened to plenty of Tom Waits because I wanted to. He just starts sounding all the same after the tenth song or so, even if he is a brilliant lyricist.
Of course he does. He's Tom Waits. Everything he does is going to be Tom Waits. But the point still stands. You listened to him because you wanted to. No one and I mean no one becomes a Tom Waits fan at the advice of someone else. You come to it on your own or you don't come to it at all. Just like Linux.
Open Office is free and runs great on Ubuntu. Did I mention its free? How much does M$ charge for Office these days? And BTW, office runs just fine in Wine (Windows Emulator, a Linux application that let's you run Win exe's for those who may not be familiar).
Updating Flash is super easy too, your Chrome or Firefox browser takes care of that for you, just like in Windows. No different.
Basically, you are just making excuses in an attempt to make Linux sound way worse than it really is, and to make Windows sound WAY better than it actually is.
I also notice that while I am referring specifically to the ease of using Ubuntu, you keep referring to "Linux" in general terms, as if all Linux-based systems were the same. Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, Slackware, Gentoo... All the same in your broad-brush fallacy. Ubuntu gives special consideration to ease of use.
You don't EVEN want to get into a discussion comparing and contrasting the technical merits of Windows compared to Linux. Windows resource management is laughable. Disk defrag lately? Update your antivirus? Clean your registry? Run CCleaner? There is a billion-dollar software industry that has evolved to fix the technical fuck-ups with which M$ has saddled unsuspecting consumers. But we should definitely stick with it. After all, its what we are all used to. And god knows, MS is counting on the fact that we are mostly all too lazy to learn anything new.
Quote from: "Seabear"Open Office is free and runs great on Ubuntu. Did I mention its free? How much does M$ charge for Office these days? And BTW, office runs just fine in Wine (Windows Emulator, a Linux application that let's you run Win exe's for those who may not be familiar).
Office does indeed run fine in wine. But the moment you've mentioned the need for wine in order to run office, you've lost 99% of the end users. Did I say 99%? That's wrong. Its 100%. They don't know nor do they want to know. Period.
QuoteBasically, you are just making excuses in an attempt to make Linux sound way worse than it really is, and to make Windows sound WAY better than it actually is.
No, I'm explaining what the typical end user expects and will put up with from a computer. Linux is great. Typical end users are not. But typical end users are what pays the bills. Linux does not.
QuoteI also notice that while I am referring specifically to the ease of using Ubuntu, you keep referring to "Linux" in general terms, as if all Linux-based systems were the same. Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, Slackware, Gentoo... All the same in your broad-brush fallacy. Ubuntu gives special consideration to ease of use.
You're correct, not all brands of linux are the same. But all brands of typical end users are the same. And none of them are good candidates for any brand of linux.
QuoteYou don't EVEN want to get into a discussion comparing and contrasting the technical merits of Windows compared to Linux.
You're right, I don't. This isn't about windows vs linux. Its about the typical end user and what's good for the business of providing tech services to said end users. Linux ain't it. Period.
Linux really is best suited to hobbyists and servers. While it makes a great OS in the right hands, most people just can't appreciate it. In any case, we might as well prosper from their stupidity.
I have used Ubuntu a lot and agree with those that suggest it.
Lubuntu is better though, it is a trimmed down version with a better UI.
Wow, Ubuntu is easy to install. After reading this thread earlier this morning I installed it on my computer alongside Windows 8 and it seems to be running fine. I'm using it right now. Very cool.
Quote from: "moog"I have used Ubuntu a lot and agree with those that suggest it.
Lubuntu is better though, it is a trimmed down version with a better UI.
You registered in 2004 and only have 413 posts? Wow man. Having said that, Lubuntu shouldn't make a bad choice. I'm in Xubuntu right now.
Quote from: "Jack89"Wow, Ubuntu is easy to install. After reading this thread earlier this morning I installed it on my computer alongside Windows 8 and it seems to be running fine. I'm using it right now. Very cool.
If you're happy with the interface, go ahead and keep it. If you want another one, let us know. Also, the very first thing you should do with an Ubuntu installation is to bring up and terminal, and paste this in:
"sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted-extras"
This will automatically download and install pretty much every codec you'll ever need straight from the repositories. This is how you install software now.
Yes, or you can use the package manager.
Hint: Steam has released their Linux version. Just saying :-)
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "moog"I have used Ubuntu a lot and agree with those that suggest it.
Lubuntu is better though, it is a trimmed down version with a better UI.
You registered in 2004 and only have 413 posts? Wow man. Having said that, Lubuntu shouldn't make a bad choice. I'm in Xubuntu right now.
Quote from: "Jack89"Wow, Ubuntu is easy to install. After reading this thread earlier this morning I installed it on my computer alongside Windows 8 and it seems to be running fine. I'm using it right now. Very cool.
If you're happy with the interface, go ahead and keep it. If you want another one, let us know. Also, the very first thing you should do with an Ubuntu installation is to bring up and terminal, and paste this in:
"sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted-extras"
This will automatically download and install pretty much every codec you'll ever need straight from the repositories. This is how you install software now.
Thanks
I guess it's about time to give Ubuntu another try. Haven't messed with it for a few years, so WTF - let's play!
Have fun. Unetbootin can install from a USB if you don't happen to have any blank DVRs around.
Ok. My WinXP (yes, XP) machine seriously needs a reload. I've been toying with the idea of Linux for a good while. Breaking the ties with MicroShaft is a very appealing idea. The one piece of the puzzle that I haven't researched yet is security. What anti-virus and firewall are best for the Linux environment and (since most hackers are computer geeks running Linux) are they even necessary?
On a side note, how easy is it to mod the OS appearance in Linux? It's insanely easy in Winblows with a very small hack that disables the requirement that *.msstyle files be signed by M$ giving you an amazing variety of looks. Certainly not a deal breaker as I've always considered functionality vastly more important than aesthetics, but it would be nice.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Ok. My WinXP (yes, XP) machine seriously needs a reload. I've been toying with the idea of Linux for a good while. Breaking the ties with MicroShaft is a very appealing idea.
Many Linux distributions will run quite comfortably on XP hardware, which is really only obsolete in the Windows world. You might want to try Xubuntu, which is meant to be lightweight.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"The one piece of the puzzle that I haven't researched yet is security. What anti-virus
None at all, unless you're afraid of passing something to a Windows machine. Linux is much more resilient because nothing can write outside your home directory without root(admin) permission. Besides, virtually all your software comes from the repositories, so its been looked at.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"and firewall are best for the Linux environment and (since most hackers are computer geeks running Linux) are they even necessary?
I'm behind a wireless access point, so I never personally felt any need for a firewall. Having said that, I'm sure you could find something in the repositories.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"On a side note, how easy is it to mod the OS appearance in Linux? It's insanely easy in Winblows with a very small hack that disables the requirement that *.msstyle files be signed by M$ giving you an amazing variety of looks.
Extremely. You can add new graphic shells with a single CLI command, then just log out.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/230284/d ... stead.html (http://www.pcworld.com/article/230284/dont_like_ubuntus_unity_try_one_of_these_desktops_instead.html)
Theres no real hack needed.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Certainly not a deal breaker as I've always considered functionality vastly more important than aesthetics, but it would be nice.
I don't know how much you can change with the *.msstyle trick, but Linux interfaces tend to be vastly more configurable than what Windows users can usually do.
My suggestion - install 8, but configure it to boot to Desktop (//http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-desktop-windows-8-skip-start-screen) and install Start Menu 8 (//http://www.pcworld.com/product/1252525/start-menu-8.html).
I can't see myself willingly installing Windows 8. 7 maybe, but not 8. What I really want to do is get away from any software maker that assumes every one of it's customers are thieves, which means most of them.
Unfortunately, it will not be linux for a while. Making my current hard drives Linux friendly is not something that's going to happen soon. They're wayyyyy too big (2x2TB) with wayyyyy too much shit on them and Linux doesn't play well with NTFS (unless something has changed drastically, very recently).
So, I guess I'll be re-loading Win XP. It's not that my machine has trouble running it (built it after Vista came out but stayed the hell away from that crap), it's just been running on this install for about three years and has gotten bogged down with crap as Windows typically does. Maybe I'll spring for 7 but I really want to get away from M$.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"So, I guess I'll be re-loading Win XP. It's not that my machine has trouble running it (built it after Vista came out but stayed the hell away from that crap), it's just been running on this install for about three years and has gotten bogged down with crap as Windows typically does. Maybe I'll spring for 7 but I really want to get away from M$.
If you're going to back it and whack it, I would go with 7 rather than xp at this point. Its only a matter of time before you'll run into something that won't run or that you can't do because its just not supported on xp. If the machine runs ok with xp, it will do just fine with 7. If you were happy with xp, you won't be sorry about going to 7.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Unfortunately, it will not be linux for a while. Making my current hard drives Linux friendly is not something that's going to happen soon. They're wayyyyy too big (2x2TB) with wayyyyy too much shit on them and Linux doesn't play well with NTFS (unless something has changed drastically, very recently).
It depends on what you want to do. Linux is able to read and write to NTFS partitions. If all you want to do is access content on those drives, it shouldn't be a big deal. Simply create a logical partition on one of your existing drives for Linux(format to ex4), or install another drive and format the same way. Install Linux to the partition/new drive and mount the NTFS drives.(once installed, I think Ubuntu automatically lets you access the drives under 'Places,' but that was before Unity) You should be able to read the contents.
Besides, Im not sure why your hard drives would be Linux unfriendly. Ext4 can have individual
files of up to 16 T. And if you're going to install Win 7, I doubt it will even ask you about preserving your existing data. Ditching Microsoft might be more feasible than you think.
I'd try a good registry cleaner before reinstalling the OS. CCleaner (//http://ccleaner.softm8.com/?gclid=CJ6x0b-r_bUCFQrqnAodG08Ayw) would probably give you a lot of the old snap back.
Quote from: "Colanth"I'd try a good registry cleaner before reinstalling the OS. CCleaner (//http://ccleaner.softm8.com/?gclid=CJ6x0b-r_bUCFQrqnAodG08Ayw) would probably give you a lot of the old snap back.
People using registry cleaners on their PC's used to account for about 1/10th of my billable hours every year back when I was doing it for a living. If you're going to fix it, fix it right. If the registry is so far gone that a registry cleaner would improve performance, just back your data, format and install everything fresh. If you're going to do it, do it right.
If you're doing it right, don't install crapware in the first place. Well-written software cleans up after itself. (Of course Windows itself is crapware, but that's another discussion.)
Quote from: "Colanth"If you're doing it right, don't install crapware in the first place. Well-written software cleans up after itself. (Of course Windows itself is crapware, but that's another discussion.)
This. Of course in the Windows world, crapware is difficult to avoid. There's no one screening the Internet for quality assurance. In Windows, you should always back up your registry as soon as you have your most common and trusted programs installed. Of course, there's a way not to have a registry at all...
Quote from: "Johan"If you're going to back it and whack it, I would go with 7 rather than xp at this point. Its only a matter of time before you'll run into something that won't run or that you can't do because its just not supported on xp. If the machine runs ok with xp, it will do just fine with 7. If you were happy with xp, you won't be sorry about going to 7.
I use 7 at work and am terribly underwhelmed. The features I liked best about 2000/XP have been dumped, broken or otherwise crapped upon. I may still do it to get to 64-bit (since WinXP64 sucks major ass), but Linux will get me into a 64-bit environment at a much better price point without treating me like a thief as
every legal version of Windows (including my current install, damn them) for home use will. Of course then there's the idea of giving M$ more of my money. Something I really don't want to do. As for something coming along that WinXP won't run/can't do, I'm not terribly concerned at this point. Unlike the change from Win 3.11, 16-bit to Win 95, 32-bit M$ did not force the issue, therefor software developers have been forced to make their software 32-bit compliant. Besides, if I do run into something I can always upgrade or (more likely) jump ship to something else at that point with nothing more that a few hours on a weekend spent.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"It depends on what you want to do. Linux is able to read and write to NTFS partitions. If all you want to do is access content on those drives, it shouldn't be a big deal. Simply create a logical partition on one of your existing drives for Linux(format to ex4), or install another drive and format the same way. Install Linux to the partition/new drive and mount the NTFS drives.(once installed, I think Ubuntu automatically lets you access the drives under 'Places,' but that was before Unity) You should be able to read the contents.
Besides, Im not sure why your hard drives would be Linux unfriendly. Ext4 can have individual files of up to 16 T. And if you're going to install Win 7, I doubt it will even ask you about preserving your existing data. Ditching Microsoft might be more feasible than you think.
Making the drives Linux friendly is more about getting them partitioned to a Linux native format (yes, I know about ext4. and it's large file friendliness, me likey) and not an M$ proprietary format. Yes, Linux
can read and write to NTFS, but the risk of data corruption is too high for me to be comfortable with. But, after further review, I currently have less than 2TB (barely) total data on the large drives (system runs on a 32gig SSD and application/working files on a 500gig drive). Moving stuff about so that I can completely strip down and re-partition the large drives (one at a time, of course) is do-able. Now I just have to consider the time investment of moving, essentially, 3.5-4 TB of data around on top of a clean install.
Win7 won't ask about saving my old data but that wouldn't be a concern since it would be going on the SSD anyway.
There are a couple of other issues of switching to Linux that give me pause, but most of them can be handled by my old clunker if I can't find reliable Linux methods.
Anyone know how big a pain in the ass getting dual screens running in Ubuntu is and are more than two possible? I've heard it can be "challenging." That is the one thing I will absolutely not give up. No-way, no-how! Multiple monitors are my greatest (computer geek related) weakness and if I had the desk space I'd have three, four or even more. :-D
Ubuntu, especially since Vale is making sure Steam and Steam games are being made compatible with it.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Making the drives Linux friendly is more about getting them partitioned to a Linux native format (yes, I know about ext4. and it's large file friendliness, me likey) and not an M$ proprietary format. Yes, Linux can read and write to NTFS, but the risk of data corruption is too high for me to be comfortable with. But, after further review, I currently have less than 2TB (barely) total data on the large drives (system runs on a 32gig SSD and application/working files on a 500gig drive). Moving stuff about so that I can completely strip down and re-partition the large drives (one at a time, of course) is do-able. Now I just have to consider the time investment of moving, essentially, 3.5-4 TB of data around on top of a clean install.
Win7 won't ask about saving my old data but that wouldn't be a concern since it would be going on the SSD anyway.
Sounds like you have a good plan. If you want, you can even combine your drives into a single logical one, but I have another suggestion since you seem a bit paranoid about your data. Since you have two disks of the same size, and you're only using about half of your storage capacity, you could try out RAID 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1)
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"here are a couple of other issues of switching to Linux that give me pause, but most of them can be handled by my old clunker if I can't find reliable Linux methods.
Can you be more specific? The built in functionality of Linux will blow your mind if you're used to Windows. And you can easily add more features from the repositories at no charge.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Anyone know how big a pain in the ass getting dual screens running in Ubuntu is and are more than two possible? I've heard it can be "challenging." That is the one thing I will absolutely not give up. No-way, no-how! Multiple monitors are my greatest (computer geek related) weakness and if I had the desk space I'd have three, four or even more. :-D
I have heard it can be difficult, but it doesn't matter unless you need to look at multiple screens simultaneously. Almost every version of Linux has something called "workspaces." You can shift between them by pressing control + alt, then the left or right arrow key. This emulates having multiple monitors.
QuoteI have heard it can be difficult, but it doesn't matter unless you need to look at multiple screens simultaneously. Almost every version of Linux has something called "workspaces." You can shift between them by pressing control + alt, then the left or right arrow key. This emulates having multiple monitors.
Of course you need to look at multiple screens simultaneously, that's the main advantage of having two monitors :P
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Anyone know how big a pain in the ass getting dual screens running in Ubuntu is and are more than two possible? I've heard it can be "challenging." That is the one thing I will absolutely not give up. No-way, no-how! Multiple monitors are my greatest (computer geek related) weakness and if I had the desk space I'd have three, four or even more. :-D
I have heard it can be difficult, but it doesn't matter unless you need to look at multiple screens simultaneously. Almost every version of Linux has something called "workspaces." You can shift between them by pressing control + alt, then the left or right arrow key. This emulates having multiple monitors.
Workspaces is a great feature and I use it all the time on my shop computer which runs ubuntu. But it ain't the same as multiple monitors and I would not install linux on any multiple monitor setup I had unless I knew beforehand that I would retain support for multiple monitors afterward.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Sounds like you have a good plan. If you want, you can even combine your drives into a single logical one, but I have another suggestion since you seem a bit paranoid about your data. Since you have two disks of the same size, and you're only using about half of your storage capacity, you could try out RAID 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1)
Thanks for the link, but I'm already quite familiar with raid arrays. It's not that I'm paranoid about my data. I just don't want to put that data at an unnecessary risk and running NTFS in a Linux environment does that. Believe me, that drive pace
will get used!
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Can you be more specific? The built in functionality of Linux will blow your mind if you're used to Windows. And you can easily add more features from the repositories at no charge.
I phrased that poorly. It's not built in Linux functionality that I'm concerned with, but applications that I currently use that don't have a Linux counterpart. Adobe "Digital Editions" is a good example. I love borrowing eBooks from the local (and not so local) libraries but most of them require Digital Editions if I want to transfer them to my Nook and there is no Linux version. Again, this really is a non-issue as I have an older PC that is more than up to these tasks.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"I have heard it can be difficult, but it doesn't matter unless you need to look at multiple screens simultaneously. Almost every version of Linux has something called "workspaces." You can shift between them by pressing control + alt, then the left or right arrow key. This emulates having multiple monitors.
Quote from: "Plu"Of course you need to look at multiple screens simultaneously, that's the main advantage of having two monitors :P
This!
Quote from: "Johan"Workspaces is a great feature and I use it all the time on my shop computer which runs ubuntu. But it ain't the same as multiple monitors and I would not install linux on any multiple monitor setup I had unless I knew beforehand that I would retain support for multiple monitors afterward.
And really this!
Learning a new OS doesn't bother me. I do that every second or third M$ release anyway. Finding Linux versions of my current software or new software packages that do what I want doesn't bother me. I do a lot of that as well. Not having a multi-monitor set-up is an absolute deal breaker. From my understanding, it can be done, it's just a pain in the ass.
I have a dual monitor setup and running linux with "extended" desktop is pretty easy. Only need to adjust a few settings in your video options.
Quote from: "wolf39us"I have a dual monitor setup and running linux with "extended" desktop is pretty easy. Only need to adjust a few settings in your video options.
What flavor of linux are you running and what video hardware are you using? That can make a big difference in how easy or hard or impossible it is to get dual monitors to work.
About to take the plunge. Ubuntu 12.10, here I come!
Wish me luck, guys.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"About to take the plunge. Ubuntu 12.10, here I come!
Wish me luck, guys.
You would be well advised to stick to the latest LTR, in this case 12.04.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"About to take the plunge. Ubuntu 12.10, here I come!
Wish me luck, guys.
You would be well advised to stick to the latest LTR, in this case 12.04.
Now you tell me. :-D
Oh well, not gonna bother at this point. If I have issues, I have an install disc for 12.04 as well.
I've got some learning to do but I've already got the dual monitor thing figured out. I love the interface. Stuff that I had to lean in to read is now crystal clear at the same monitor resolution.
So far, Ubuntu freakin' rocks!
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"About to take the plunge. Ubuntu 12.10, here I come!
Wish me luck, guys.
You would be well advised to stick to the latest LTR, in this case 12.04.
Now you tell me. :-D
Oh well, not gonna bother at this point. If I have issues, I have an install disc for 12.04 as well.
I've got some learning to do but I've already got the dual monitor thing figured out. I love the interface. Stuff that I had to lean in to read is now crystal clear at the same monitor resolution.
So far, Ubuntu freakin' rocks!
Excellent. Makes me think its finally time to upgrade my shop computer that runs ubuntu. I built the machine a few years ago. Not sure what version its running but its whatever was current back then, 10.something maybe?
I've been putting off upgrading because I use a couple of desktop enhancement apps that I really like and I've been afraid of losing them if they weren't supported on the newer versions. I'll have to look up the names of the stuff I use and see if they're still supported or if there is something equivalent.
EDIT: Nevermind. Just did a youtube search. Compiz appears to still be supported in 12.10. I will be upgrading in the next week or two.
Ok, the file structure of Linux is going to take some serious getting used to. the DOS/Windows C: is certainly simpler. That and the lack of support for dual screen wallpapers (the image is centered on each monitor instead of centered between them) are the only two drawbacks I've found so far. Neither is a deal breaker so far, but I have a small system drive and haven't yet figured out how to mount the larger ext4 drives or if it possible to get software installed somewhere other than the system drive.
On the other hand, Calibre (e-book library program) seems to run faster on Ubuntu than it did on Windows, but that could also be the result of a fresh install.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/XineramaHowTo (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/XineramaHowTo)
This should help
I would like to toss linux on a machine sooner or later, I'm not going to do that with this machine right now because I need it for school and if something goes wrong with a linux install I'd be pretty much screwed up the poop shooter.
Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Ok, the file structure of Linux is going to take some serious getting used to. the DOS/Windows C: is certainly simpler.
Actually, the Windows way of dealing with that is horribly obsolete. It worked fine when you had a floppy drive, a hard drive, and maybe a cd-rom, but these days it barely works at all because the drive letters constantly change when you insert new media. Linux will automount USB sticks or whatever to your desktop, so you don't really need to worry about that sort of thing.
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I would like to toss linux on a machine sooner or later, I'm not going to do that with this machine right now because I need it for school and if something goes wrong with a linux install I'd be pretty much screwed up the poop shooter.
Unless you're studying programming, it won't make much of a difference unless you're dependent on MS Office. I went through college using Linux and never had a problem except for my C++ class, which taught about the Windows API. Overall though, it will actually make things easier if you're studying computer science or something similar.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "NitzWalsh"I would like to toss linux on a machine sooner or later, I'm not going to do that with this machine right now because I need it for school and if something goes wrong with a linux install I'd be pretty much screwed up the poop shooter.
Unless you're studying programming, it won't make much of a difference unless you're dependent on MS Office. I went through college using Linux and never had a problem except for my C++ class, which taught about the Windows API. Overall though, it will actually make things easier if you're studying computer science or something similar.
I think you're missing the point of Xenu was trying to say. Its not so much a concern for compatibility and productivity. Its a concern for what happens when shit breaks.
Windows and Mac are pretty tried and true and well known. If something breaks and machine will no longer boot or connect to the network, most people will either be able to fix it themselves or will know someone who is knowledgable enough to fix it if its running Windows or Mac. I myself am not knowledgable enough to fix my Linux install when it stops booting or connecting to the net on my own and I am the only one in my particular circle of friends who even knows what Linux is. So when my Linux stops working, I have to lookup the symptom or error code on google in order to figure out how to get it working again. Its hard to search google for how to fix a machine that won't connect to the net when your only machine won't connect to the net.
I never recommend Linux to people who only have one computer. If you're not a Linux expert, you should only try it if you can run it on a second non mission critical machine. For the uninitiated, doing otherwise would be suicide.
If you want to play around and try various versions without impacting on anything use VirtualBox.
http://www.virtualbox.org/ (http://www.virtualbox.org/)
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "GalacticBusDriver"Ok, the file structure of Linux is going to take some serious getting used to. the DOS/Windows C: is certainly simpler.
Actually, the Windows way of dealing with that is horribly obsolete. It worked fine when you had a floppy drive, a hard drive, and maybe a cd-rom, but these days it barely works at all because the drive letters constantly change when you insert new media. Linux will automount USB sticks or whatever to your desktop, so you don't really need to worry about that sort of thing.
?? Seriously? I've got a usb flash reader that is persistantly A: on my 7 machine at work and U: on my (formerly and apparently soo to be again) XP system here at the house. CD/DVD/Blu-rays are always X: Y: and Z: respectively and never change. Don't know why yours are, but they sure don't have to.
Ok, so I'm really not loving Ubuntu much this morning. Dual monitor function is gone, drives still won't mount properly, unity won't do shit (running KDE right now). Seriously, I could probably track down the issues, but it seems likely that I'll spend as much time hacking at the OS as I do using it. As a secondary PC, maybe I'd keep it around but right now, probably not. Gonna give it the old college try, but it looks like M$ will be getting my business back. Linux just ain't ready for prime time.
Good luck then. Try again in a few years.
Well you gave it a shot. That's more than most people would do. Sorry it didn't work out.
Quote from: "Johan"Well you gave it a shot. That's more than most people would do. Sorry it didn't work out.
Yep, and I'm not giving up on it. I just don't know enough about Linux right now. Fortunately I do have another PC just begging for an OS install that I can drop it on as a learning environment. Then, after I've gotten better at trouble-shooting it, I can give it another go on the main PC.
One thing about the KDE desktop environment I absolutely loved was the ability to give each monitor the same background, different backgrounds or have them cycle through a slide show and each could be pointed at different directories. Doubt you ever see that in the Windows environment.
For now I'm stuck back in the world of Winblows, but I will not be here forever!
I was running ubuntu 10.???? on the shop computer. I had gotten it to the point where it did almost everything I needed it to do and was fairly reliable. But the clock was running out on support so I figured it was time to upgrade.
I downloaded 12.04 and installed it this morning. I think I made a huge mistake. It boots and connects to the net. I was able to install chrome on it. Then I tried to connect to the desktop in my office so I could grab some photos to use for the desktop wallpaper. It found the workgroup on the LAN. It saw my desktop and let me open the shared folders. I could see the photo I wanted and I could click on it and open it in a previewer. But when I tried to copy it, it said I didn't have permission and would not let me copy it no way no how. I did some googling to figure out how to allow file transfers over the LAN and found some references that told me to make some changes to a few line in one of the system files.
I found the system file, opened it, made the changes, then it would not let me save it. Same thing, you don't have permission. I looked up how to open the file so I would have permission to edit it, tried command I could find. Not one of them worked. Then I logged into my desktop remotely and emailed the photo to myself. I could open the email on the Linux machine and see the photo. But same problem. It absolutely would NOT allow me to save it to the local disk. No way no how.
So now I have a machine that boots and runs but will not allow me to transfer files nor will it allow me actual root access to edit any system files and make changes. And I can't find any references that can tell me how fix these problems.
I know the Linux heads get their panties in a bunch whenever someone says Ubuntu isn't ready for average users, it is absolutely true. I am a way above average user and I'm about to give up and put windows 7 on the machine. At least it will work and let me access my own damn files.
Quote from: "Johan"I was running ubuntu 10.???? on the shop computer. I had gotten it to the point where it did almost everything I needed it to do and was fairly reliable. But the clock was running out on support so I figured it was time to upgrade.
I downloaded 12.04 and installed it this morning. I think I made a huge mistake. It boots and connects to the net. I was able to install chrome on it. Then I tried to connect to the desktop in my office so I could grab some photos to use for the desktop wallpaper. It found the workgroup on the LAN. It saw my desktop and let me open the shared folders. I could see the photo I wanted and I could click on it and open it in a previewer. But when I tried to copy it, it said I didn't have permission and would not let me copy it no way no how. I did some googling to figure out how to allow file transfers over the LAN and found some references that told me to make some changes to a few line in one of the system files.
I found the system file, opened it, made the changes, then it would not let me save it. Same thing, you don't have permission. I looked up how to open the file so I would have permission to edit it, tried command I could find. Not one of them worked. Then I logged into my desktop remotely and emailed the photo to myself. I could open the email on the Linux machine and see the photo. But same problem. It absolutely would NOT allow me to save it to the local disk. No way no how.
So now I have a machine that boots and runs but will not allow me to transfer files nor will it allow me actual root access to edit any system files and make changes. And I can't find any references that can tell me how fix these problems.
I know the Linux heads get their panties in a bunch whenever someone says Ubuntu isn't ready for average users, it is absolutely true. I am a way above average user and I'm about to give up and put windows 7 on the machine. At least it will work and let me access my own damn files.
So, it wasn't just me being a Linux newbie. Sounds like Ubuntu needs a little more work under the hood. Ironically, the only non-system drive I
could write to was my one remaining NTFS volume and even that failed after a while.
Say what you want about Apple and Microsoft. I don't like 'em either, but their shit
works and at the end of the day, that's what I need.
Now, if I can just talk our IS guy out of a Win7 install disc. *evil laugh*
Seriously, I like the Linux interface and I'm sure I could learn the files system but if I can't get the permissions to let me set the permissions so I can have permission to write my own data to my own drives then... :rolleyes: Frustrating, to say the least.
Quote from: "Johan"I was running ubuntu 10.???? on the shop computer. I had gotten it to the point where it did almost everything I needed it to do and was fairly reliable. But the clock was running out on support so I figured it was time to upgrade.
I downloaded 12.04 and installed it this morning. I think I made a huge mistake. It boots and connects to the net. I was able to install chrome on it. Then I tried to connect to the desktop in my office so I could grab some photos to use for the desktop wallpaper. It found the workgroup on the LAN. It saw my desktop and let me open the shared folders. I could see the photo I wanted and I could click on it and open it in a previewer. But when I tried to copy it, it said I didn't have permission and would not let me copy it no way no how.
Did you try saving it as a different file on ext4? Or just copying the image to your clipboard?
Quote from: "Johan"I did some googling to figure out how to allow file transfers over the LAN and found some references that told me to make some changes to a few line in one of the system files.
I found the system file, opened it, made the changes, then it would not let me save it. Same thing, you don't have permission. I looked up how to open the file so I would have permission to edit it, tried command I could find. Not one of them worked. Then I logged into my desktop remotely and emailed the photo to myself. I could open the email on the Linux machine and see the photo. But same problem. It absolutely would NOT allow me to save it to the local disk. No way no how.
Did you try using sudo? You're not supposed to be able to alter system files without it. But there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to write to your home folder. No offense, but I think there's something you're not doing right here. Where exactly did you try to save the picture to?
Best linux for noobs is Linux Mint based on ubuntu it has an large repository and it is super user friendly
http://www.linuxmint.com/ (http://www.linuxmint.com/)
An Interesting site,that keeps track of most popular linux distros: http://distrowatch.com/ (http://distrowatch.com/)
Some news about linux: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/ (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/)
http://www.linuxtoday.com/ (http://www.linuxtoday.com/)
QuoteDid you try using sudo? You're not supposed to be able to alter system files without it. But there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to write to your home folder. No offense, but I think there's something you're not doing right here. Where exactly did you try to save the picture to?
Of course he's doing something wrong. That's not the issue here, though. The issue is that he can't figure out
what he's doing wrong, which means the program isn't user-friendly enough for him to use.
It's not just a problem with Linux, it also seems to be a problem with a lot of it's supporters :P Often, instead of saying "yeah, we could make this easier" they will just say "yeah, you'll have to memorize these 60 commands and do them on the command prompt. Oh, and memorize all the flags while you're at it"
(Not aimed at anyone here directly though; just something I observed with linux help forums and people using it)
Quote from: "_Xenu_"[Did you try saving it as a different file on ext4? Or just copying the image to your clipboard?
I did both. I first one, then other. Fail and fail. It would not let me move or copy the file because I didn't have permission. It seemed to allow me to copy the image to the clipboard but when I tried to paste, the clipboard was empty. Fail. Fail.
Quote from: "Johan"I did some googling to figure out how to allow file transfers over the LAN and found some references that told me to make some changes to a few line in one of the system files.
QuoteDid you try using sudo? You're not supposed to be able to alter system files without it. But there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to write to your home folder. No offense, but I think there's something you're not doing right here. Where exactly did you try to save the picture to?
I tried sudo. I tried gksudo. I also tried a couple of other commands I found that people claimed would fix this problem right up. I tried them in terminal and in the run command thingy in dashboard. Same result. Fail. Fail. And fail.
Its great that Linux is so secure. Its unfortunate its so secure that its unusable. Win7 here I come.
Thats just strange man. Something wasn't right with your installation. Your ex4 got messed up somehow and needed to just be reinstalled. Believe me what you went through is not normal. Its not meant to be that hard. If have similar problems in Win 7, its time for a new hard drive.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Thats just strange man. Something wasn't right with your installation. Your ex4 got messed up somehow and needed to just be reinstalled. Believe me what you went through is not normal. Its not meant to be that hard. If have similar problems in Win 7, its time for a new hard drive.
Well the install went without a single glitch as far as indications on the screen go. No lockups, no error messages, nothing out of the ordinary. But obviously something is wrong so you could very well be right. Its also possible that the hard drive is on the way out although it also had given no indications of that with the previous install. I only upgraded because I thought it was time.
I may throw spinright at the disk and see what it finds and then try a fresh install of 12.04 before I pull the trigger on win7.
Delete your partition tables and format the drive, let Linux recreate your ex.
Quote from: "wolf39us"Delete your partition tables and format the drive, let Linux recreate your ex.
Did that the first time.