Author Topic: Switching to Ubuntu (Read 11543 times)

Lapis Lazuli · « **on:** June 17, 2006, 03:22:45 pm »

So a couple days ago I got tired of Windows. I pulled out my outdated Ubuntu CD's and tried a live run (live means you can test the OS from the CD and not have to lose your current configuration).

Rather impressed by Ubuntu's simplicity, I ordered a set of CD's and downloaded the Ubuntu ISO. After some Windows-based trouble I finally got the CD burnt and I tossed Windows aside forever.

Installation took less than 15 minutes, I backed up all my important files to my USB thumbdrive and I was able to settle right down into Ubuntu.

In many ways it is similar to windows, minus the crashes and severe performance lag. I can honestly run six or seven applets, including 3D games and the like, and use little over 160 MiB of RAM. There is never any performance drop, no matter how many programs or services I have running at a time.

I also have four virtual desktops, meaning that I have four workspaces to keep my workspace clear. If one screen is cluttered with windows I can switch to another (on the same monitor!) and work with a clear view.

Installing applications is easy thanks to a user-maintained repository. Applications and games can be downloaded automatically and installed with no effort made by the user. Updates are automatic and can be performed with a single click.

Ubuntu is extremely awesome, and now that I'm completely free of Windows, I'm happier each day that I made the switch.

If you want more info, go here: http://www.ubuntu.com

*edited in by FliesLikeABrick*
For anyone who wants to try ubuntu, here are some nice quick links for you:

Ubuntu graphical installer for x86 (pentium 1/2/3/4, celerons, AMD)
http://ubuntu.mirrors.u13.net/ubuntu-6.06-desktop-i386.iso

Ubuntu text-based installer for x86 (pentium 1/2/3/4, celerons, AMD)
http://ubuntu.mirrors.u13.net/ubuntu-6.06-alternate-i386.iso

Ubuntu graphical installer for AMD64
http://ubuntu.mirrors.u13.net/ubuntu-6.06-desktop-amd64.iso

Ubuntu graphical installer for AMD64
http://ubuntu.mirrors.u13.net/ubuntu-6.06-alternate-amd64.iso

Slashnoob · « **Reply #1 on:** June 17, 2006, 04:21:40 pm »

sounds tastey, sure made me wanna switch right ahead.
uhm, i'm not too keen in the subject of other operation systems so can you tell me if any normal file type that works in Windows will work in Ubuntu aswell?
such as movies (.mpg .mpeg .rm .avi etc..), pics (.jpg .bmp .gif etc) programs (exe), and other misc stuff such as rar or zip files?
is there a major type of programs\games\whatever that is known for not working in other OS or Ubuntu in specifit?

and for the last question - why did you choose Ubuntu and not Xubuntu?

FliesLikeABrick · « **Reply #2 on:** June 17, 2006, 04:27:29 pm »

Slashnoob, all of those filetypes you mentioned work on linux except .exe (except for the programs that work in wine). Linux programs have to be compiled specifically for linux (every operating system has its own program types).

Ubuntu uses GNOME
Xubuntu uses XFCE
Kubuntu uses KDE

My guess is that he just felt like trying ubuntu first, he can always install xubuntu and/or kubuntu over what he has now. you can have all 3 installed on your computer at once, plus even more window managers.

(btw I'm on ubuntu right now, I always am)

blackdevil0742 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 17, 2006, 04:31:18 pm »

Quote from: FliesLikeABrick on June 17, 2006, 04:27:29 pm

Slashnoob, all of those filetypes you mentioned work on linux except .exe (except for the programs that work in wine). Linux programs have to be compiled specifically for linux (every operating system has its own program types).

That's why I'll stick with my "legal" Win XP Pro I have.

FliesLikeABrick · « **Reply #4 on:** June 17, 2006, 04:33:36 pm »

... I'm just saying that .exe don't work on linux. There are tons and tons of programs for linux that are better, faster, and more reliable than everything you use on windows.

Plus you and your "legal" copy of windows are going to be dead in the water once you have the inability to use windows updates that give you things you want/need (new versions of windows media player, directx, etc) plus you're going to be forced to use windows vista to use certain programs you're addicted to.

Thats why I'll stick with my actually legal linux computers I have.

I didn't mean that only linux has to have programs compiled specially for it. Windows has to have programs compiled to run on windows, Macs have to have mac programs compiled on macs so they can run on macs, and linux systems have to have programs compiled to run on linux. It is the nature of having different operating systems, not something specific to linux

blackdevil0742 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 17, 2006, 04:46:53 pm »

True. But I've tied some linux OS and I like them but the I can't live without the .exe part.

As for my winxp I'm getting the latest updates without a problem. The only thing I can't have is SP2 from the net which I don't want because it messes up the computer with is't firewall and protection and If I would like to get sp2 I could allways order a free copy on a cd

.

jettlarue · « **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2006, 04:53:00 pm »

i have a dual boot with ubuntu/win xp for about a year now. i only use xp for soldat because i feel like playing it withought all the extra bugs fom wine. ive tried suse, ubuntu, mandriva, and goblinx before. and ubuntu is the best of them all. just download the live cd and if you like it you can click on install from the shortcuts. and its only ONE cd. better than suse with 5 or fedora with 5. plus gnome is great window manager. plus to upgrade and reinstall ubuntu is a breeze compared to shitty windows which cant detect anything...and the myth that you need to be real smart with computers to use any form of linux isnt true, there are some linux distros that require you to be more advanced. but ubuntu is simple but allows you to do all the complex things that other os's have. if it werent for soldat i wouldnt have bought a pre installed windows system

bja888 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 17, 2006, 05:35:26 pm »

If you like it simple you have some good timing Lapis Lazuli. Windows isn't kidding when they said the min for Vista is 1 GB of ram. There is so much happening in the background it isn't even funny. Mostly generating thumbnails and folder structures. I don't mind too much though. I need to get used to it before I turn it off. (at least the thumbnails)

No since repeating my reasons for not switching over but Vista has some useful new features. Some taken from linux and others that will most likely be put into new versions of linux distros. My favorite it being able to view the desktop via alt + tab

Vltava · « **Reply #8 on:** June 17, 2006, 09:06:12 pm »

We have been awaiting your arrival.

Lapis Lazuli · « **Reply #9 on:** June 17, 2006, 11:23:34 pm »

bja888 - There is nothing in Windows Vista that is worth switching from Linux for.

Especially, you know, viruses, trojans, spyware, and uhh, so much damn commercial software.

OSS is the future, and I have seen the light. I'm forcing myself to sit down and learn Linux day by day and every day I'm wishing I'd done it sooner.

bja888 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 18, 2006, 04:31:13 am »

Quote from: Lapis Lazuli on June 17, 2006, 11:23:34 pm

Especially, you know, viruses, trojans, spyware, and uhh, so much damn commercial software.

No firewall, no Anti-Virus, no anti-spyware software. And I am running just fine. Windows problem is not viruses. (Its users) Its that the run-time environment sucks.

The Bone Collector · « **Reply #11 on:** June 18, 2006, 05:34:16 am »

I don't like linux, mostly because of the programming shite you have to do just to install a simple program (using the console...blah blah blah). although, I like its look, and the way it using so little RAM to run. But windows is better for what I do. I'm a gamer, and there are not many (if any) commercial games for linux. If Linux wasn't so complicated, and had more commercial software companys distributing their programs in its format, then I'd use linux.

frogboy · « **Reply #12 on:** June 18, 2006, 05:40:26 am »

The programming shite, as in "./configure; make; sudo make install"? Or "apt-get install program"? "chmod 755 install-file; ./install-file"?

Lapis Lazuli · « **Reply #13 on:** June 18, 2006, 06:02:22 am »

You don't have to do any of that with Ubuntu, most, if not all, is handled graphically these days.

bja888 - I used to think the same way. There's no fault in Windows, it's all this other crap.. no, the faults are there, and you'll start to see them, given time. Trust me on that one.

All Windows has going for it is driver support, but that's only due to the Microsoft monopoly.

bja888 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 18, 2006, 06:51:32 am »

Quote from: Lapis Lazuli on June 18, 2006, 06:02:22 am

bja888 - I used to think the same way. There's no fault in Windows, it's all this other crap.. no, the faults are there, and you'll start to see them, given time. Trust me on that one.

"run-time environment" Not the programs. How windows runs the programs is the fault.

Quote from: Lapis Lazuli on June 18, 2006, 06:02:22 am

All Windows has going for it is driver support, but that's only due to the Microsoft monopoly.

Linux has better drivers than XP

frogboy · « **Reply #15 on:** June 18, 2006, 07:11:48 am »

Quote from: Lapis Lazuli on June 18, 2006, 06:02:22 am

You don't have to do any of that with Ubuntu, most, if not all, is handled graphically these days.

Yeah, I know. But installing a program from command line isn't exactly "programming ****e". I prefer command-line anyway, it's a lot quicker.

Quote from: bja888 on June 18, 2006, 06:51:32 am

Linux has better drivers than XP

Definitely not. Video drivers, for example, are a complete pain in the arse to install. At least, ATI's are. Sound drivers can be annoying sometimes too, because of the different driver frameworks.

ElephantHunter · « **Reply #16 on:** June 18, 2006, 07:13:53 am »

Oh, I see we have a convert. Welcome to the brotherhood, faithful believer of OSS.

Haha, anyhow... I have only Ubuntu on my PC at home. Right now I'm on my father's machine (today is father's day.) He's one of those guys who just has to be on the bleeding edge of gaming.

Ubuntu does almost everything I need. The only problem is testing websites I have developed in Firefox with the Internet Explorer browser (obviously necessary when none of my clients have heard of Firefox.) Soon I'll download QEMU and install my student copy of XP on it, just so I can have Internet Explorer.

MofoNofo · « **Reply #17 on:** June 18, 2006, 08:15:52 am »

I've just ordered my PC copy of Ubuntu =D.
I've used Feroda Core 3 (i think) on my old pc.

FliesLikeABrick · « **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2006, 11:11:01 am »

I agree with bja888, it is a well-known fact that linux has better hardware and driver support than windows.

As for the virus/trojan/spyware/whatever thing:

That is absolutely a fault of Windows. you cannot blame the user for getting infected with a malicious program that abuses faults in windows. It isn't the user's fault that windows has so many insecurities that you get infected if you stay a month or two behind the updates they release. The consumer can get infected with something just by plugging their computer into a network, or into the internet without a firewall.

Malware is absolutely microsoft's/windows' fault. It is not the user's fault at all. The user shouldn't have to tiptoe around the functionality of their computer worrying about getting raped by some virus, they should be able to click around and do whatever they want without worrying about getting taken advantage of by some kid who wrote a worm

bja888 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 18, 2006, 02:13:05 pm »

Quote from: FliesLikeABrick on June 18, 2006, 11:11:01 am

As for the virus/trojan/spyware/whatever thing:

That is absolutely a fault of Windows. you cannot blame the user for getting infected with a malicious program that abuses faults in windows. It isn't the user's fault that windows has so many insecurities that you get infected if you stay a month or two behind the updates they release. The consumer can get infected with something just by plugging their computer into a network, or into the internet without a firewall.

Malware is absolutely microsoft's/windows' fault. It is not the user's fault at all. The user shouldn't have to tiptoe around the functionality of their computer worrying about getting raped by some virus, they should be able to click around and do whatever they want without worrying about getting taken advantage of by some kid who wrote a worm

For the purpose of good conversition I wish to resolve this argument....

Now a days, everyone is so paranoid about getting anti-virus software and firewalls. Yet, I dont even think about it and I am doing just fine. Yes I know a little more then your average user but as EnEsCe will be quick to point out, I only know so much. I like to focus on the development of digital art rather than the technical aspect.
On the flip side, I was in class one day my sophomore year when a virus hit the schools network. It was a simple shutdown command that I aborted but I dont think anyone brought that worm on the network.

Computers where designed to do only and exactly what they are told. It would be morals that stop them from writing a virus (or a destructive program). Therefor, in theory both windows and lunix should be prone to viruses.

News:

Author Topic: Switching to Ubuntu (Read 11543 times)