I tried Ubuntu

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
14,505
Location
Top of Virginia
I tried Ubuntu on two machines yesterday, with mixed results.

First, I tried it on an older eMachines with a 64-bit AMD Athlon and 2 GB RAM. There is a video card driver problem with that computer, and it looks like a known issue. The video card is the same reason you can't put the 32-bit Windows 7 on this computer, though 64-bit Windows 7 reportedly works okay. There is a known issue, apparently upgradeable with a BIOS update. Will work on this later.

http://superuser.com/questions/435014/wh...machines-el1200

Second, I tried it on our Compaq Presario C306 laptop. And it runs pretty good. It doesn't load particularly fast, and I wouldn't say that it feels all that particularly fast, but it runs good. I kept Windows 7 on it, and it's set up to dual boot. The LibreOffice 3 apps that bundle with 12.04 LTS work okay, though they're also slow to load and feel a little clunky to use. I remember liking OpenOffice 2.1 better when I tried it a few years ago. I do have a driver issue with this laptop, though: Ubuntu does not recognize the Broadcom B4311 wireless controller. There are also known issues here, with lots of internet help on installing the drivers. I worked on that for hours yesterday, but could not get it to work. I can get connectivity with a Dlink USB stick. And interestingly, the wireless "toggle button" on the computer will toggle that Dlink USB stick on and off, but it won't use the onboard wireless. Windows 7 is able to use it, however, so I know the hardware is good. That's disappointing, but I will keep working that this weekend.

Has anyone out there with Ubuntu gotten a Broadcom wireless controller to work, especially after some kicking and fussing? I'd be interested in your tips and tricks on that.

Thanks!
 
I miss not having my head into this stuff anymore. A few years ago I would be right there with you experimenting with OS's or benchmarking my system. Fell off from it for whatever reason, mainly because I transferred from being I.T. spv at my job to a field division and I just stopped keeping up with tech as much.
 
I havent tried Ubuntu in sometime. But I did test out Lubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu over the past few days.

I settled on Xubuntu as the user interface was the easiest for me to navigate. I suspect its laid out a little similar to Windows boxes I am used to.

I am writting this on a Dell D630 laptop. I did have some issues getting the wireless working. But after a few google searches and copying a pasting some things into the command line I got it working. Mostly dumb luck as Im not exactly sure what I did. But its working so Im happy. I have also set up an old Dell desktop with it to give to a relative whos pc died.

Hopefully you enjoy Ubuntu.
 
I installed Ubuntu 32 bit on an old machine and everything seemed to work right away including the wireless connection. The only problem I had was getting it to play commercial DVDs. Still haven't figured that out yet, after trying all the tricks by online gurus.

Overall, I like how easy the system is to use. My mother in law (it's her machine) has everything she needs - Libre office, internet, email. It also runs a lot smoother on her old machine than it did on Windows. But I think for somebody who is doing more heavy duty productivity tasks, involving lots of collaboration, reliance on network drivers, etc, I'm not sure Ubuntu is the best choice. Plus I find the app store to be a little sparse.
 
Through trial & error I found Fedora 19 Desktop Edition will find all drivers with few exceptions. Fedora is rather fast and well featured. Just my opinion
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Has anyone out there with Ubuntu gotten a Broadcom wireless controller to work, especially after some kicking and fussing? I'd be interested in your tips and tricks on that.


1. sudo apt-get update
2. sudo apt-get install firmware-b43-installer
3. sudo apt-get remove bcmwl-kernel-source
4. sudo reboot
 
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam

1. sudo apt-get update
2. sudo apt-get install firmware-b43-installer
3. sudo apt-get remove bcmwl-kernel-source
4. sudo reboot


You are my hero of the day!

I never could figure out how to get the bcmwl module OUT of the kernel, and it seems that the open source b43 module would always conflict with the WL module.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!
 
It should be noted that Ubuntu (and Fedora) are NOT well-suited for older machines any more: They both require some pretty powerful, whiz-bang graphics horsepower.

Xubunu and Lubuntu are best suited for older machines; or Linux Mint MATE edition.
 
Thanks. I looked some at Fedora and it didn't pique my interest meter much, but Linux Mint does. I'll have to look some more at Cinnamon vs. MATE.

I assume that since it's Ubuntu-based, all Ubuntu-related modules and code will work the same, is that correct? In other words, I should be able to refer back to Ramblejam's code in order to get my Broadcom wireless controller to work?
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Thanks. I looked some at Fedora and it didn't pique my interest meter much, but Linux Mint does. I'll have to look some more at Cinnamon vs. MATE.

I assume that since it's Ubuntu-based, all Ubuntu-related modules and code will work the same, is that correct? In other words, I should be able to refer back to Ramblejam's code in order to get my Broadcom wireless controller to work?


Yup. Cinnamon *is* Ubuntu with a few superfluous GUI additions to make it work like a more conventional desktop. It actually uses Ubuntu packages (software) from Ubuntu sources, augmented with Mint's few internal projects. It is entirely compatible with Ubuntu.

Here is my take on Cinnamon versus MATE: Cinnamon is prettier and uses newer technology (Gnome 3) than MATE, which is a fork of the now no longer supported Gnome 2. MATE is lighter on resources and has a much older (read: solid, and stable, meaning "unchanging") code base. Gnome 3 and Cinnamon are changing rapidly. They are stable in the sense that they do not crash but are a little unstable in the sense that new features are introduced, the workflow tends to change from version to version, icons are moved from hither to thither in new versions, etc. The technologies behind MATE (Gnome 2, GTK2, etc.) are obsolete but are still in use by some of the most rock solid Linux distributions that will be supported for many more years, like Red Hat. If you want new and pretty and flashy and awesome, go Cinnamon. Stable, light weight, out of your way, unchanging and simple? MATE.
 
I tried Mint 15 on a new PC with a Rosewill USB wireless. Wireless worked flawlessly with the live CD/installer CD.

Installed Mint from that CD. Rebooted.

No wireless. Nothing installed.

I couldn't believe they would have it working on the live CD but not after installation...from the same CD.
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
If you want new and pretty and flashy and awesome, go Cinnamon. Stable, light weight, out of your way, unchanging and simple? MATE.


I am interested in your opinion of Mint MATE vs. Kubuntu. I have Kubuntu installed on the laptop, and it works well. There are a few UI bugs, though. I don't know how "stable" the KDE UI is. It sounds like you have a very high impression of Mint MATE because of its Gnome 2 connection; curious what you think of KDE. My first choice actually was Mint MATE, but it couldn't set up the bootloader for some reason, so I ended up with Kubuntu (which I still do like).
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
I couldn't believe they would have it working on the live CD but not after installation...from the same CD.


I had the exact same experience! I tried Mint MATE and Kubuntu both...both from Live USB sticks I made with LiLi. On both, I could go into the "Additional Drivers" panel, and it had the Broadcom STA driver listed. Great! Once I got Kubuntu loaded, nothing was there. Ramblejam's code still worked for me, so it wasn't an issue, but I, too, was surprised that the drivers didn't show up in the actual install.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
I couldn't believe they would have it working on the live CD but not after installation...from the same CD.



I run into things like this often, but with graphics drivers: When you load from the live CD you are using (my term) "lowest common denominator" drivers. If an ATI or NVIDIA graphics adaptor is detected while the live system is booting then the appropriate **open source** driver is used (since the closed-source stuff cannot be re-distributed). However, neither Ubuntu nor Mint take an idealistic approach to using open-source software only, so after you have installed the system they attempt to automagically install the closed-source, proprietary driver for you (because you CAN do that since technically you are downloading and installing the driver from the vendor's site). Usually this is academic and the user never even realizes this is happening; but every once in a blue moon the correct driver is not loaded or the graphics chipset might be unfamiliar (ie. too new) to be properly detected and matched with the correct driver.

In any case, a quick visit to the appropriate support forum for Mint or Ubuntu will clear up your driver issues in about 5 minutes.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I am interested in your opinion of Mint MATE vs. Kubuntu.


Since MATE is built on the GTK framework and KDE the Qt framework they often come with an entirely different set of default applications. You can install both frameworks and use applications made for both at the same time, at the minor expense of not having perfect GUI consistency (colours may not be 100% the same, icons, etc.) Here are some examples:

photo manager: Ubuntu uses Shotwell or gThumb which are GTK applications; KDE usually uses DigiKam.

music manager: GTK is usually Rhythmbox or Banshee; KDE is usually Clementine or Amarok.

Therefore it is difficult to directly compare them. Here are my thoughts, though:

MATE works, is light weight and changes very little BUT is already obsolete in the sense that most applications are using GTK version 3. "GTK" and "Qt" are the underlying technologies that draw icons, determine color schemes, draw text fields, display and antialias fonts and what-not. MATE uses GTK2. So let's call MATE absolutely reliable but boring.

KDE is pretty and features some absolutely top-rate applications. The previously mentioned Amarok and DigiKam are professional-quality applications. You can configure KDE for hours. The KDE designers have made some terrific decisions about how their desktop works and I have wanted to love it for years and years but for these things:

1) It is no longer the case, but KDE used to be the bloated, heavy, slow desktop relative to Gnome 2 (now MATE). It's prettiness came at a cost and it was prohibitively slow on most systems I ever tried it on years ago. These days Unity and Gnome 3 are just as bloated and slow so the playing field has been levelled in that respect!

2) Back in the day, some of the applications that came with a standard KDE desktop crashed on me a lot. I used to get the impression that they spent all of their time on making it pretty and less of their time on making stuff work; which was the exact opposite impression from what I got from Gnome 2, which was boring and grey but fast and easy and reliable.

3) Most of the big, commercial distributions have settled on Gnome. Red Hat contributes a lot to Gnome, Ubuntu (and therefore Mint) is a GTK/ Gnome distro and many others use it. Firefox, Libre/ OpenOffice, Chrome/ Chromium and lot of others are GTK.

Since I have to oversee desktops for a lot of friends, family and neighbours I want something stable, standard and well-supported as well as being intuitive, attractive and high-quality. For *me* that means using Ubuntu's LTS releases. "LTS" denotes "Long Term Support" and will receive support for 5 years. These LTS releases come out in April of every other year (2012, 2014, etc.) and provide an upgrade path. Ubuntu has commercial backing as well. I chose it over Debian because there is less configuration to do when first setting up a system, and the software tends to be more up-to-date. Ubuntu, in my opinion, is also more attractive and more a pleasure to use as a desktop OS than Debian. The only thing that keeps me from using Mint is that it is new and is changing rapidly with their development of their own desktops (Cinnamon and MATE). It is also run by a small team and sometimes these projects die for something as seemingly trivial as the lead developer (in Mint's case, Clement Lefebvre) no longer having time to run things!

To summarize (I missed about a quarter of football typing this monster): MATE is eventually destined for obsolescence and is a little boring for some of the people for whom I administer systems. KDE is simply not the desktop I chose years ago and it'd be troublesome to migrate now.

There are lots of options if you want to use KDE. Kubuntu is OK but is not regularly seen as the best implementation of KDE. For that you may look at OpenSUSE. Fedora might be the best way to experience Gnome. Ubuntu's Unity, Mint's Cinnamon and Xubuntu's XFCE all provide wonderful desktop experiences and I suggest you spend some time trying the ones that interest you. Switching later is easy as pie as the formats and applications are all open and standardized and can be run side-by-side; and all of these OS's are free to use, modify and re-distribute 'til your heart's content!

You can consult distrowatch.com to see some of the other of the hundreds of distributions out there - There may be one that suits your needs perfectly that I have not mentioned here.

I will close by actually trying to respond directly to you: KDE is a little busy for me. MATE bores me to tears, which I like. But at home and for friends/ family/ neighbours I stick with Ubuntu LTS 12.04 and will upgrade everyone in April of 2014 and again in April of 2016 and again in Apr... Well, you get it.
 
I think you are correct about KDE regarding form perhaps being over function. I played with it on the laptop for a while today and there are certainly some visual bugs in it. For example, if I have two applications open, it would normally have both application title bars down in the task bar (like Windows XP). It sometimes stacks them on top of each other in the position of the "second" application, leaving a large blank between it and the "start menu" button. Other little bugs leave the feeling that it's somewhat "fragile".

I updated the BIOS on the aforementioned eMachines desktop this evening and I've put Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on it. Despite being slower, and by a noticeable margin, the Unity interface does feel absolutely rock solid in terms of stability. I don't seem to have the video issues I was having before the BIOS update. I think I'll keep both computers as-is for a while and see which I like better over time.

I'm not new to the IT world (my first major in college was computer science), but I am new to the Linux world. We had to install FreeBSD on our machines back in freshman year, and it was a total mess then (this was the mid-90s). I'm really quite impressed at the ease of which these current Linux distros install. It's really quite intuitive, and the terminal is really only needed for very specific and uncommon tasks. I guess I said all that to say that I want to like Ubuntu because I like the idea of using a current and very well-supported OS. The user community seems to be extremely friendly to new-comers, including you. I very much appreciate your advice on this.
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
It should be noted that Ubuntu (and Fedora) are NOT well-suited for older machines any more: They both require some pretty powerful, whiz-bang graphics horsepower.

After my Pentium D's meltdown this week, I found that the Ubuntu 12.04 LTS works fantastic on my system, even with Unity. However, I found that I hate Unity only marginally less than I hate Windows 8. So, rather than playing around with an older version (like was on the older computer) and tweaking it to my liking, I did the Linux Mint MATE edition and it's fantastic. It has all I wanted without losing much of what made Ubuntu great.

I know there are workarounds to replace Unity, but why install Ubuntu with Unity to uninstall Unity to install an alternative, when I can just to Linux MATE instead. I didn't try Cinnamon, though.

@Hokiefyd: Much of the way things are done in Linux Mint are similar to Ubuntu. The fixes and tweaks are much the same. In fact, if someone else did the install for me and did a few tweaks, I'd have a very difficult time telling it apart from Ubuntu, at least from appearances and functionality.

Installing and tweaking emacs and all the other goodies I like was virtually identical. I'll worry about MATE being obsolete down the road.
wink.gif


Using an older system, one could always download something older, like say in the neighbourhood of 6 or 8 in Ubuntu, but those releases were a little more problematic and required more tweaking. Those versions would likely cause more difficulties with video cards and the proprietary drivers. I had trouble with my nVidia card when I was on 8.04 LTS and earlier. When using the proprietary drivers, each kernel upgrade would "break" them. With 10.04 LTS, that problem disappeared.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top