I tried Ubuntu

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Ed_T
It's posts like these that keep the average slob using Windows....


?!

Setting up Windows is orders of magnitude more difficult than getting a Linux system up and running! You know why this discussion is even taking place?! Because the people in this discussion have the **freedom** to choose different layouts, interfaces, underlying technologies (bleeding edge versus stable, etc.) and versions and distributions as we could ever want, without cost or restriction on as many systems as we choose. You're not allowed to do that with Windows or Mac.

If you install Ubuntu or Mint you can begin using it right off the hop and everything will be fine. No trialware, no spyware, no license agreements, no serial numbers, etc. installing extra software is a simple matter of opening one program, finding the applications you want and clicking "Install".

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more


Setting up Windows is orders of magnitude more difficult than getting a Linux system up and running!



Ummm, no. A great case in point is a Dell E6400 laptop. Take the Win7 install disk (or Win8), all drivers on are on it. Intel, Broadcom, whatever, it's all in the box. Makes for an easy installation.

.....
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
If you install Ubuntu or Mint you can begin using it right off the hop and everything will be fine. No trialware, no spyware, no license agreements, no serial numbers, etc. installing extra software is a simple matter of opening one program, finding the applications you want and clicking "Install".


That's fine if your wireless works (see my recent post). Try explaining to the average user "Hey, just install the latest Broadcom firmware with these 4 simple commands".... They'll look at you like you have 10 eyes.

And one can not just install Ubuntu nor Mint and everything will be fine.

Another case in point, my oldest laptop is a single core unit, a Dell model. With Ubuntu and Mint only offering PAE kernels, it won't install on this 32-bit CPU, which doesn't offer PAE. So you have to dig around for an older version of Ubuntu/Mint that doesn't force PAE into the kernel to use on this older system.

Again, try explaining PAE Kernels to the average user...yeah....you'll have 10 eyes.


So, no, Linux isn't as easy to install as Windows in many cases.

 

[uc50ic4more]

whenever I have installed Mint or Ubuntu on a machine that required extra drivers, I was prompted, and the OS downloaded, compiled and installed the driver automagically. Any time I had to go find firmware or a driver myself in the past, it was a three-step process:

1 open the Software Center
2 search for (example) broadcom
3 hit Install

Finding and installing a driver in windows ain't that easy, by a long shot.

And my comment about getting an OS "up and running" extends beyond drivers. Way beyond drivers. I do not have to go to a dozen different locations to get a Java runtime, a PDF reader, codecs, an office suite, a multi-protocol instant messenger, a torrent program, a decent music manager and photo manager, etc. I open ONE program (Software Center), find the stuff I want and hit Install.

Regarding PAE kernels, the 12.04 LTS does not require one IIRC; and that is the one people who just want stuff to work should be using. Interim releases are for testers and techies and tweakers. 14.04? Well, you may have a point there; but the beauty is that you can use another distro or an older version OR - get this craziness - you can just use a different kernel with the OS if you're a techie.

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
So, no, Linux isn't as easy to install as Windows in many cases.


I've done both dozens and dozens of times; and in terms of ease and time taken to get a fully functioning OS for a real person to do real things on I'll take an Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora or Mint install above Windows on any given hardware any day of the week! Arch? Slackware? Gentoo? Even Debian? Maybe not so much! I'd rather set up Windows, Mac and get a root canal...

 

[Hokiefyd]

There apparently are certain cases where the Ubuntu/Linux stuff doesn't work quite out of the box. None of the Ubuntu flavors I have tried were successful in setting up my Broadcom B4311 wireless controller. And I actually got pretty frustrated with it after messing around with it for hours. Neither the software center nor the additional drivers/Jockey window were able to provide the correct drivers. I was about ready to give up when Ramblejam's post came along. Those lines of code have gotten my wireless controller working with every distro I've tried.

On the other hand, the time from "hood open" to "hood closed", so to speak, is much shorter with the Linux distros I've tried, assuming the hardware drivers are found and available. I've done Windows installs where it would find new updates after every reboot, because there were updates to the updates, and sometimes updates to THOSE updates (things like .NET seem to come to mind here). Then at the very least, you'd probably install LibreOffice or OpenOffice, but if you install MS Office, you have to then let it download at least one service pack, then let it download the updates to that service pack.

It has taken me entire weekends before to rebuild Windows machines...most of that time, obviously, waiting for updates to download and install. On the other hand, I've installed at least three different Linux distros on two different computers this weekend, each one taking less than an hour, including downloading the one set of updates that usually accompanies each.

So far anyway, I've gone through so many distros simply because I ~can~. It's fun at this point to see the various different flavors, see how they each work, and see how they each run on my hardware.

 

[Hokiefyd]

The catalyst, by the way, was seeing what I could do with the desktop mentioned in my first post, an eMachines EL1200 with an AMD Athlon 64 2650e processor that I picked up for free while helping at a local e-waste event. This is a single-core 1.6 GHz 15W processor...so it's really more of a laptop or netbook processor than one intended for a desktop environment. It currently has the OEM Windows XP on it with the OEM 160 GB Hitachi HDD; I doubled the RAM to 2 GB by installing an additional stick. It's a SFF desktop, so there's really no room for expansion. But with a 15W processor and no discrete video card (integrated nVidia 6150 SE), it runs very quiet, almost imperceptibly quiet.

I wouldn't say that it runs Windows XP remarkably well, and I don't believe it'd run Windows 7 well at all. I can at least keep the browser current with Google Chrome, and the security up to date with Avast, but with no real Windows upgrade path, I though I'd try something I've seen folks talk about a lot on here: a Linux distro. I've really only had Ubuntu on it so far...a BIOS issue kept me from being able to run Ubuntu at length (it would randomly freeze). A BIOS update last night enabled me to install 12.04 LTS and it runs...okay. The Unity desktop environment is clearly taxing on the hardware. I did have 13.10 on it at first, and when it ran, it seemed to run better. I have read that the newer versions of Ubuntu use less RAM than 12.04 did. Can anyone confirm a performance improvement with versions of Ubuntu newer than 12.04 on marginal hardware?

(I do understand that the 2D version of Unity was discontinued with release 12.10, but that's a non-issue for me; 2D mode looks horrible on my screen. There is some odd text ghosting going on in the 2D mode, which resembles looking at a 3D picture without the 3D glasses on...you get the red/green image ghosting.)

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Can anyone confirm a performance improvement with versions of Ubuntu newer than 12.04 on marginal hardware?


Both 13.04 and 13.10 are performance and resource-usage improvements over 12.04; going from a slovenly, haggard, lumbering fat pig to just a fat pig.

Unity is pretty and has some cool features, but thinking of Ubuntu as a candidate to revive ancient hardware is going to get you grief.

A non-3D desktop might be your only option for the old machine. Mint MATE edition might be right up your alley, along with either Xubuntu or Mint XFCE. It might be noted that Mint 16 just came out a few days ago in Cinnamon and MATE editions; and the KDE and XFCE editions are usually just a few weeks behind that. Mint 16 is based on Ubuntu 13.10, and Mint releases are always behind Ubuntu releases by a few weeks.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Thanks. Ubuntu is the only thing I've tried on the eMachines computer so far, only because that BIOS issue kept me from playing with it further until I got that fixed (all of my other distro exploration this weekend was on a Compaq laptop from 2006). A 12.04 DVD I made just happened to be handy last night, so I tried it again to confirm the BIOS update fixed the video problem (and it seems to have). I may try 13.10 on it next, because I don't remember it being too bad with 13.10. It's pretty laggy with 12.04; I will not keep 12.04 on it in any event. If I like 13.10, I may stay with Ubuntu on it. Otherwise, I may try Xubuntu or Mint MATE.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Ed_T
It's posts like these that keep the average slob using Windows....

It's not difficult, now. The Mint install took less than 5 minutes, and everything worked immediately. All I had to do was confirm my location, my US English keyboard layout, and a username and password.

Nonetheless, I am pretty hard on people with limited skills. My catchphrase, as opposed to RTFM, is "You have zero computer skills."

Then again, that's usually brought on by someone having no idea how to open a PDF or how to send a fax.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Unity is pretty and has some cool features, but thinking of Ubuntu as a candidate to revive ancient hardware is going to get you grief.

I find it cuts productivity when dealing with multiple instances of multiple applications. Switching seems to have more steps. But, it is pretty, no doubt.

There was the claim that Unity helps people who like to use keyboards. When I want to use the keyboard, I won't use Unity; I'll use the command line, thanks.

 

[Hokiefyd]

I installed Linux Mint MATE 13 Maya on the laptop last night, and I *really* like it. It seems to be very stable, I love the look of the UI, and it was the easiest to install of the lot. It even recognized my Broadcom wireless controller and listed that driver in the additional drivers window. HOWEVER...it would not let activate it. In the end, I did have to use the apt-get commands that Ramblejam posted earlier. So, once again, an install that went incredibly easy, but made possible by a few command-line routines posted here. Without those, I might still be pulling my hair out.

But the install took all of about 15 minutes...the quickest of all the distros I've tried. I put Chrome on it and it runs like a top. I will put this on our desktop with the mighty 15W AMD processor later this week and see how it goes.

 

[The_Eric]

Yes, I must admit that it's now much easier to install than before. I'd tried Ubuntu a couple of years ago and it wasn't bad, but never ran right. Likely needing drivers or something. Mint MATE 16 went right on and more or less ran fine. Total time was less than 15 minutes (with the exception of letting it partition my hard drive) and it needed nothing else to run. There were a couple questions with a browser spell check and some things are in different spots than they used to be, but otherwise easy.

MATE, does seem easier to run than Ubuntu (as I remember it at least) and perhaps faster too? I side with uc50 on this one...

Also, FWIW, this is coming from someone whose computer skills are rapidly declining. I used to know enough about XP to be dangerous. I've since forgotten most of that and now I can barely function in the newer Vista/7/8 OS's...

 

[Hokiefyd]

I installed Edubuntu on the same machine as in the beginning of this thread -- the one with the Broadcom wireless driver problem. This is Edubuntu LTS 14.04 and, as before, it couldn't find my wireless adapter. And, as before, Ramblejam's tip seems to be doing the trick.

I installed Edubuntu using the legacy Gnome interface option. So far, I like that a lot. It seems light weight and reliable so far. I especially like all of the educational software installed with Edubuntu. Is it all quality stuff? I don't know yet -- but I've heard that it's all pretty good. Looking forward to playing more with this over the next few days.

 

[zzyzzx]

Just tried Ubuntu 14 last night and I really liked it. Way better then Fedora 20. Still need to try sll the different spins of Fedora 23 though. I really liked the way MP3's and such worked out of the box on Ubuntu. Other than that, the thing I hated the most about Fedora 20 was the probably spin I chose.

 

[Hokiefyd]

This computer flies with the Gnome "fallback" interface option provided by Edubuntu. I don't know if mainline Ubuntu offers that as well, but this computer runs way better on the Gnome interface compared with Unity. I'm liking it so far.

 

[ClutchDisc]

I am going to give Edubuntu a try on my netbook. I was not aware that they offered anything other than Unity. Always nice to try out a new distro on my test computer.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: ClutchDisc
I am going to give Edubuntu a try on my netbook. I was not aware that they offered anything other than Unity. Always nice to try out a new distro on my test computer.


All of the major (and obscure) desktop environments and window managers are available through Ubuntu; either as a supported "flavour" or simply by installing it through the GUI Software Centre or apt-get. Ubuntu is a Debian derivative and pretty much everything is in the Debian repositories!

 

[Hokiefyd]

Yes, Edubuntu offered the Gnone "fallback" interface option as part of the installation process. I took it like a free cup of coffee, because I remember Unity being the biggest thing I didn't like about Ubuntu before. Of course, Edubuntu is a pretty big install file (the .iso is nearly 3 GB in size) due to the educational software it comes with. Some of it is pretty decent.

I installed Chrome on this laptop and it plays Pandora and YouTube pretty well. Firefox was crying for a Flash plug-in and, when the button was clicked, decided that it really couldn't install Flash after all. I know Chrome's not open source, but it's got what I need built-in and is easy as pie. It's my preferred browser anyway, because it syncs all my stuff between Windows, my Android phone, my Chromebook, and now this Edubuntu install too.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Firefox was crying for a Flash plug-in and, when the button was clicked, decided that it really couldn't install Flash after all.


ubuntu-restricted-extras (or edubuntu/ xubuntu/ lubuntu, etc.) are available through the Software Centre or via an apt-get command. That "meta" package includes several closed-source codecs in addition to Flash. Adobe no longer makes Flash for Linux so you'll be using version 11.x or 12.x, I forget.

 

[Y_K]

there is a way to switch Youtube to HTML5 from Flash, and Firefox also syncs across platforms.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Y_K
there is a way to switch Youtube to HTML5 from Flash, and Firefox also syncs across platforms.


But not all of YouTube's videos are available as HTML5. I still run into older videos that require Flash. Everything put up on YouTube since they began moving away from Flash is available without Flash; but things posted before the switch sadly may not - and may never - be available using only HTML5.