Well
I thought i would have another go at Playing with Linux.
So I took my spare laptop that acts as out media centre into the hifi, and putting Ubuntu on it.
Its a PIII with 10gb disk, and 256mb of memory. It was running, and running surprisingly well, Windows XP
Well disk formatted, and ubunto loaded. The build was smooth, with no missing hardware drivers, (even found the wireless card plugged into the pcmcia slot)
There the joy stops. It performs like a dog. Memory is fine its the CPU its hogging and it takes 4 minutes to load and three to shut down. I also thought i would put audacity on to it. Oh yes you i forgot its still unix init, you need to compile the source, you need to download these libraries from here, and this library from there run this command line interpreter with 75 different /x's at the end. Now i know its probably fixable with several hours pouring over the internet, and piddling around with the kernal, and tuning, but perlease.
Now i can do all this, I have been in IT for 35 years, so I know my way round a kornshell, but hey WTH why should I when XP will do it all for me. You can say what you like, Unix (ok its been renamed to linux) is still carp for the average home user.
So Unix is back in the bin AGAIN and xp going on it. I have one dog, the black and furry one - i dont need another.
|
AE - just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting people should change to Linux. Just that if they did want to give it a go with minimal hassle, Wubi is a good way of doing it. Then if they find it as bad as you suggest they will, they haven't wasted too much time and effort.
F
|
Focus
No suggestion that you said people should move. Its just that people rave on about how good this or that distro of Linux is, so that I get swayed into thinking (about every two years or so) that it could be worth making the switch. I always forget how carp the last one i tried was, and suddenly end up remembering again after I have tried it.
The only use i have ever found for linux is for using a linux boot cd to fix the odd broken XP install.
|
|
BTW AE I'm impressed that XP can run with 10gb. But how much of that did you allocate to Linux? If it had had the whole 10gb (like XP) it might have at least run a bit better. Or did you take off XP altogether?
Edited by Focus {P} on 11/12/2008 at 09:54
|
Whole disk, single partition allocated to linux after a format - has about 8gb spare.
the system is not swapping, no issue with memory.
|
the system is not swapping no issue with memory.
Sorry to go on, but I'm curious. Did you do a top to see what was hogging the CPU?
Sometimes my Linux (CentOS) laptop gets into a state where it takes 30 seconds to open terminal windows, and that seems to be after starting up VPN. But the CPU is idle.
|
SNIPQUOTESometimes my Linux (CentOS) laptop gets into a state where it takes 30 seconds to open terminal windows and that seems to be after starting up VPN. But the CPU is idle.
No I didn't poke around too deeply yet, just saw the cpu at 100% when trying to load and run any prog. memory usage down in the low 40%, no increase in swap file. It idles at 40% cpu utilisation.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 11/12/2008 at 12:16
|
|
|
|
If it had had the whole 10gb (like XP) it might have at least run a bit better
...but not much:
help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequi...s
recommends 384mb RAM and 8gb disk.
|
SNIPQUOTE...but not much: help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequi...s recommends 384mb RAM and 8gb disk.
I used XP as the benchmark. If the lappy can run XP nippily, then it can run anything, and if Linux needs more than XP its not worth having.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 11/12/2008 at 12:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its a PIII with 10gb disk and 256mb of memory. It was running and running surprisingly well Windows XP
Can't help you with that--try installing Vista on it ;-)
One of the lightweight distros (Puppy Linux, maybe) will be fine, maybe even one of the lightweight versions of Ubuntu, such as XUbuntu, but a PIII with 256mb is hardly going to fly with a late 2008 OS, is it? It is very fast on a Pentium D with 1gb of RAM though and Vista er, isn't.
Ialso thought i would put audacity on to it. Oh yes you i forgot its still unix init you need to compile the source you need to download these libraries from here and this library from there run this command line interpreter with 75 different
No, you really don't. You use the package manager, which is called Synaptic and is available in the System-->administration menu. Synaptic is a bit like iTunes for software. You use the search box (Edit-->Search) to find what you want and then check the box next to where it says 'Audacity' and click Apply. Then it installs Audacity and all the dependencies and will put Audacity in the relevant menu.
I don't recall whether Audacity is in the default repositories, but helpfully you can add extra ones very easily. This is from memory, but here's roughly how to do it (no need for the command line at all):
From the menubar go System-->administration-->Software Sources.
Enter your password when prompted.
The window that opens has a bunch of tabs along the top and I think the first one is Ubuntu Software.
Check the boxes that are unchecked (universe, blah blah).
I recommend also adding the 'medibuntu' repository which gives you access to multimedia, codecs etc. www.medibuntu.org/ has loads of instructions on how to use multimedia in Ubuntu.
This page has instructions on how to add the medibuntu repository and the key (don't forget the key):
help.ubuntu.com/community/Medibuntu#Adding%20the%2...s
Once you're done all that open the package manager System-->administration-->Synaptic and allow it to refresh.
Click Edit-->Search and type Audacity
Check the box etc.
Full instructions (for n00bs without 35 years' experience) here:
help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu
|
Can't help you with that--try installing Vista on it ;-)
Nothing to do with Vista. Linux is not comparable to Vista. Its comparable to XP and on this hardware it compares very badly indeed.
One of the lightweight distros (Puppy Linux maybe) will be fine maybe even one of the lightweight versions of Ubuntu such as XUbuntu but a PIII with 256mb is hardly going to fly with a late 2008 OS is it?
Works well with XP. but not with Linux. And all you linux faithful bleat on about how little hardware it needs. Now you are saying it needs Vista levels of hardware?
It is very fast ona Pentium D with 1gb of RAM though and Vista er isn't.
whats Vista got to do with it?
No you really don't.
SNIPQUOTE again, sigh
Full instructions (for n00bs without 35 years' experience) here: help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu
How about
Type in url of page that has product
click download now hotspot
click run
Oh sorry - hmm thats a bit short? Ah no that's how windows does it.
> Puppy Linux maybe
Ah I was right - it is a dog.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 11/12/2008 at 12:16
|
>> Can't help you with that--try installing Vista on it ;-) Nothing to do with Vista. Linux is not comparable to Vista. Its comparable to XP and on this hardware it compares very badly indeed.
Not really, Ubuntu 8.10 is a lot more recent than Vista, is similarly capable, but has lower hardware requirements. Significantly lower.
Works well with XP. but not with Linux.
XP is seven years old. What a surprise it works ok with newer hardware. You'll be telling us Windows 3.1 works OK on a Pentium 2 next.
How about Type in url of page that has product click download now hotspot click run
I thought XP installed stuff without you even knowing. Having to click stuff seems a backward step.
I think you'll find Microsoft moves towards the Synaptic model in the next few years as Apple has done with the iPhone, Google is doing with its G1 and the Netbook manufacturers are doing as well. Downloading software from random websites is very risky behaviour--centralised known-good repositories, which deliver updates for everything that is installed on the system is much more efficient. A bit like Windows Update but for everything.
Actually I just checked and Audacity is in the provided 'Universe' repository. You just need to check a box to enable it. I guess in your daily work you are used to making things seem harder than they really are--it makes good business sense after all.
|
>I guess in your daily work you are used to making things seem harder than they really ?> are--it makes good business sense after all.
If you mean look at things from the perspective of an average home user - then yes sorry guilty.
I was disappointed that linux still does not match Windows for ease of use despite the claims it does.
|
My not quite five year-old daughter seems to manage. She doesn't seem to have any trouble playing with Childsplay--a suite of games and educational toys for kids--or with finding Cbeebies online, or with playing DVDs. She doesn't have a problem using stuff in Windows (at school) or Mac OSX (when I let her) either, incidentally.
As a highly inexperienced, but learning fast, user she seems equally happy with all of them, so I'm not quite sure what you're on about. Thinking you knew best, and studiously avoiding the extensive help available on the Ubuntu website, you tried the most difficult way of doing something and your l33t skilz were not up to it. Whoop de do.
|
Here we go
the same old Linux refuge - insults, my head is pointier than yours. Did i complain about its user interface for playing games? Did i say that the URL and the internet is different for Linux over windows? your 5 year old has got nothing to do with it.
(oh and my package manager didn't have audacity on it even when ticked all. I was using the one that came with the system or wasn't that that the right one? you mean there is more than one pointing to different places? heaven forbid surely not.)
See you have nailed it in one. Yes i could get it all working if i did lots of research on the net. Why the hell should I? you Linux types just dont get it do you. Who wants to spend hours on the web and reading lots of FAQS just to get and install one package. This is a point and click world and Linux just aint when you want to change something
I approached it with an open mind. Full of hope they may have got it right at last. Again i was disappointed. Its academic anyway, its performance sucks on a machine that works nicely on XP so its in the bin.
Can your 5 year old fix that?
|
Here we go, the same old Linux refuge - insults, my head is pointier than yours.
;-) AE, I would not bother. That is Basker's style, and in any case he has a pathological hatred of all things commercial, but especially any MS stuff.
Point Baskerville to his own post:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=69708&...e
;-) tinyurl.com/57hb3s
|
Point Baskerville to his own post: www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=69708&...e ;-) tinyurl.com/57hb3s
That must have really stung for you to care enough to remember it. Good cartoon, mind.
|
That must have really stung for you to care enough to remember it. Good cartoon, mind.
If you say so.
Note to anyone wishing to debate Linux vs MS:
A psychologist might question the mental state of a person who would go to the extent of remembering that such a cartoon existed in the first place, and who would then post it in reply to a thread where that person was losing the debate. A sure sign that debates with such people are to be avoided.
|
|
AE, I have to agree with you on the Linux front. It just isn't easy.
I've been in IT for 15 years, using DOS, OS/2, Windows 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, W95, NT 4.0, W2K, Win XP and OpenVMS. Plus Programming in Basic, VBasic, VMS script, XML, SQL and a custom scripting system we use at work.
I consider myself well rounded in IT, but Linux makes me very wary.
I've used some Unix stuff at work, but nothing I actually have to support. (Phew!)
I tried the original linux when it first came onto the scene - couldn't get it to work on my then PC of yesteryear (which happily ran OS/2), TurboLinux on another PC, which would never boot-up after installation.
But what really put me off was a Bad home experience with an alleged no-effect on Windows install of Lycoris about 5 years ago, which left me with a damaged partition and struggling to recover the contents of my Hard Drive (which was not backed up I hasten to add).
Recover I did, and I've persevered several times with Linux since, mainly Ubuntu, but I'm wary of anything which affects either Booting or Partitioning on my PC.
Tried doing it in the free virtual PC 2007 - but it just won't work without command line tinkering and I'm afraid that I don't want to learn the lingo just to make it work - unlike Windows which just works - sorry to say it
I have at least managed to get it to run within VMPLayer, but as a virtual appliance someone else built, which worries me as I didn't do it and have no way of knowing if it is legit/malwarefree!
The only thing that Linux has taught me is: Backup your data to at least 2 separate media types, take 2 copies of each, verify the data and keep 1 copy at a separate location (Disaster Recovery!) (Part of this also comes from my line of work where Data is King, and loss of data = Legal action)
|
must admit my "itch to use Linux" has taken an awful battering this last couple of days! - started off with cup of tea whilst i researched my "frozen mouse" problem, by the early hours, i was on Coffee, by bedtime (milkman had been!) i was drowning my sorrows with a few "Grouse"!
I am begining to agree with AE, Linux (unbuntu) just isn't ready for "everyday" home-users! and even from what i've read on some Linux forums, many seasoned "Linux- users" and "devotees" are of the same mind.
This link is to a page of "hints and Tips", which is supposed to make things easier, just reading through some of the steps and work involved is daunting to say the least.
Me thinks my interest has been quashed! ;-( tis a two way thing, i'm not ready for Linux, and Linux isn't ready for me.
Sad but reallity does bite! ;-(
Billy
Edit: forgot link!!: tinyurl.com/6s79uv
Edited by billy25 on 11/12/2008 at 15:31
|
|
Yup, if you've never used it before and the first thing you have to do is actually install it and set it up, it's not always easy. Depends on what you've got in the box, but true enough. Did the live disk boot ok?
|
Yep Baskerville, both live disks (Ubuntu & Mandriva) booted through to desktop no probs, didn't even see the dual-boot screen if you started comp with live-cd in tray. Still same frustrating problem with frozen ps2 mouse though, (which led to post above!) but die-hard that me is, i'm not going to "bin-it" untill i've been to town and treat myself to a usb mouse, to see if that works. My (spidey-senses) are trying to tell me that if it boots to desktop, then it may not be a Sis chip-fault! as reported, but thats me not wanting to be beaten! fool that i am!!
Billy
|
|
Fingers crossed. If it boots then the sis chip is probably (note my caution) not an issue, but the frozen mouse could still be related to X, which is the server that gives you the graphics, including the mouse pointer. ps2 mouse could be it though; nothing to lose really. Give up on that box if the mouse doesn't solve it though--the sis chip thing does sound like an issue for others.
|
Linux Hints and Tips....And herein lies the problem, and why both Microsoft and Apple have got it right.
Linux requires users from day 1 to understand the command language to make basic changes to the look/feel and behaviour of the Operating System.
The Killer App for Linux would be like the control panel, or even XP Powertoys which controls all these items via a point and click interface and then in code makes the changes to the relevant files.
If someone can do this......Linux will become a real possibility for most regular users
Until then.....Microsoft and Apple rule
|
|
Here we go the same old Linux refuge - insults my head is pointier than yours
I have no doubt at all that you are far more skilled, better trained, and more experienced than I am when it comes to computers. No doubt about that at all. Your first thought was "command line" and mine is always, "What do I click?" In that respect you are very far from an average user.
Still, Audacity is definitely in the 'Universe' repository and all you have to do to enable that is check a box.
The fact is you installed an operating system without chacking the minimum specs required and then blamed the operating system when it ran slowly. Then you tried to install some software on a system you had never seen before, basing your assumptions on past experience of much earlier versions, and were disappointed when it didn't work out as expected. It's hardly a huge surprise, is it?
|
>The fact is you installed an operating system without chacking the minimum specs >required and then blamed the operating system when it ran slowly.
True clearly it is not suited to the hardware I ran it on where as XP was ok with it. Just remember that next time any Linux person is tempted to say "Linux is less resource hungry than MS products"
The proof is in the ubuntu.
|
>>"Linux is less resource hungry than MS products"
Linux is for sure. Linux plus all the graphical stuff, rotating cubes, flashy window drop shadowing and so on is sort of--than Vista certainly, but not necessarily XP. Ubuntu is one of the heavy ones and so is Suse--Novell's business offering--but Puppy or DSL would run entirely in RAM on your old machine, GUI and apps included. I think DSL is actually Debian Linux underneath, like Ubuntu. Choice is good, but choice is also confusing.
The proof is in the Ubuntu no doubt.
|
I don't, & wouldn't use, a linux-type OS - too many cooks have had a stir for my liking. Unix OTOH, was my first OS experience, 25 years ago, is brilliant as what it does. I'd say (linux) is a 'hobbyist' OS & good for learning about OS internals & concepts - but for an everyday utility PC it's like restoring an old Ferrari: you're forever thinking/researching/trying-out the latest updates & revisions - more a labour of love.
MS OSs aren't fool-proof either though - especially when they get replaced & become unsupported. In my experience, MS OSs aren't as efficient as 'proper' Unix installations - I programmed in real-time safety-critical/security-critical environments for many years & a properly tuned Unix OS was (and probably still is) the only viable choice.
Many people get annoyed, I'm sure, with Unix/linux OSs because they're not just plug&play - you really do have to know your stuff to make it work for you - but once done, it's sans pareil.
MS OSs (esp. server flavour) seem to offer more, initially, but you soon reach the limits of flexibility & configurability - perhaps because Microsoft prefer it that way - as with car manfr. electronic managment systems.
|
As a long time user of the Unix command line, I also initially had more trouble with Ubuntu than I was expecting. But I think that was because I was expecting it to be like OSs of old. Once I found the 'Add/remove software' menu option and spent a bit of time looking through the menus, it all became a lot easier.
I'm not saying it is or isn't easier to use than Windows, but I can see why a 5 year old kid finds it easier to get started than me.
F
|
|
I first installed Linux with X-Windows on a 486SX 33MHz with 8Mb RAM and 420Mb hard disk. I ran a lot better and smoother than Windows 3.11 for Workgroups on the same PC - I had it dual booting.
With the latest desktop environments like Gnome etc. then Linux too has become bloated and needs more hardware but it's more advanced than when I first installed it from a pile of floppy disks in 1993. And you had to programme the display driver to drive the monitor back then based on bandwidth, V and H refresh etc. But I digress.
The only thing I would add is XP never runs okay with much at all running with only 256Mb in my experience.
For most people wanting to dabble, then this Wubi sounds interesting to me.
My other thoughts are how to install the free Hyper-V on a machine to para-virtualise the system to have more than one operating system running on top of a basic hypervisor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
