Seconded, hope you have as much fun here & learn as much as I have.

Absolutely; but don't worry, you'll learn.
Start by reading the classic: How To Ask Questions the Smart Way.

Sorry, I disagree w/ your disagreement. Give a me the right live Linux disk & I can ruin your "Winders" install w/in 5 min. or less of it booting up. I can probably even manage to do it "accidentally", i.e. making novices' mistakes.

Agreed; unless you have the horsepower (mainly RAM) to go the VM route.

Mostly agree: no/never/not *buntu -- SimplyMEPIS 1st, then on to Debian itself. LFS later if you really want. CentOS when you need free ($0 as well as libre) server experience.

When I set up a Linux beginner, MEPIS is always my recommendation, easy to install & easy to get support: I run a weekly Linux Workshop here in Houston & do Linux phone support for HAL-PC members. (You don't have to live in Houston to join. )


Now to the real reason for this post: I have my own reasons for disliking Ubuntu, starting w/ their "pseudo" security (pun intended); but I am curious, why are you so vehemently against it?

It is true, but if somebody wants to learn linux, than s/he will check the partitioner settings carefully before clicking the "Next" button. What I meant when I said "Linux never modifies your windows partitions by itself" is that when you have linux already installed, linux won't do anything to windows, unless you want so. Yes, but linux still doesn't modify anything by itself as I said before. It is the user who tells linux to modify things, so from this point it is not linux's fault if something goes worng with the win partition (because the user messed up things). It is handy, but not the best option. If somebody wants to exchage data between win and linux, than the ext2 FS is the best. Linux can handle it by default, but windows can be thought to do so too with this tool. It will install ext2 support for win. This means that a user will be able to use the ext2 partition as it it was an ntfs part (full read/write access, will have an own drive letter, dot files are hidden like in linux, etc...). I use it more than a year now, and it works very well. Yeah. Basically, GRUB modifies your MBR, so you'll be able to boot multiple OSs. You don't need dd if you want to restore the original windows MBR entry. You only need the windows insaller CD, and there the recovery console, and the fixboot command. This is the most simple solution I guess. Well, I wouldn't do that. It is more confusing than a simple dual boot. The other thing against it, that running 2 OSs in the same time can really have a bad effect on performance. If someone wants maximum safety for win, than a second HDD (a used one is good, they're cheap, so they're great for experimenting (assuming that no important data will be written on it)) is the best solution.Well, I really hate the user management *buntus have. Not having real root account as default but only with workarounds is really annoying. I don't see why sudo-ing (and thus having the same password for user and 'root') is better in any way than the root and user model (with 2 very different passwords). Someone tells me that its harder to hack the system this way (no root to hack). Well, I tell this: disable remote root access and disable unnecessary services. Thats it. It will be as safe as any *buntu.
The second thing I hate in ubuntu is the poor KDE support. Why to ignore such a great DE? I never realized...
The third thing: A new release after each half a year even if the release is not stable and needs some polishing. Who cares about the strict half year release period if the "stable" release is just a beta at best. I hate the whole approach. "We released our latest version, it's not stable yet, but it's still great, because we released it right on time".
This should give the idea why I don't recommend *buntus.

Suse 11.1 just came out and it's nice.
they have a 64bit version that works great.
and the 32bit emulator is nice for things like flash that don't have a 64bit version.
it's worth a shot, good luck and enjoy.

Altough Pusrob was able to give a fully adequate answer, I want to add my two cents why *buntu is to be avoided.

Ubuntu (I will use this a shorthand for all *buntus) tries to win Windows users for Linux. It does so by hiding as much of the underlying techniques as possible. During startup a splash screen with a bouncing progress bar: when Ubuntu doesn't start, no way to find out what goes wrong. Hiding every command line utility as good as possible. Limiting interfacing with the system to GUI: you might never be able to solve a problem because the GUI doesn't provide the tools. The laughable security implementation with sudo: a copy of the Vista question: "this is potential security risk, do you want to continue". The Windows way of solving problems: restart for small problems, re-install for large problems. During installation Ubuntu asks MY name, but MY name gets root permissions thru sudo. Why? Me is me, and root is root in a decent Linux system. I have installed various Ubuntus with larger of smaller defects (not starting, not being able to install packages) and I have never been able to solve them, because I was limited by the OS which either prevented me from doing things, or knew it better and tried to reset what I did. Or at least that feeling I got. So therefor I consider Ubuntu as absolutley bad for someone who wants to learn Linux. Maybe Ubuntu serves its purpose, but not here. Ubuntu's slogan is "just like Windows, but better" could be extended with "some sort of Linux but worse"

jlinkels

Yes, it's true! Especially the re-install part. I just did forget to add this to my previous post. Thanks jlinkels for the supplement. I completely agree. Maybe we should recommend the *buntu developers to upgrade their slogan to this... This would describe the *buntu series better.

It is LILO that just modifies the MBR. It also creates a backup image of the MBR, so it is easy to restore it with dd. Whether fixboot will install the correct MBR or not is questionable, even MS writes about fixboot in a cautious manner. I also recall posts where fixroot actually failed to make the system bootable again. I do not know what exactly are the fixroot problems, but as far as I know the MBR contains not only the boot loader (which, theoretically, can be of a different version than the one fixboot will install), but a copy of the partitioning table as well (if the rest of the disk is not in perfect/expected order, fixboot may have problems figuring that out).

GRUB modifies many sectors on disc that it considers to be not used anyway, and its docs speak about some dependency on the number of heads and the like. I have never seen a formula to predict what sectors will be overwritten, but I saw GRUB making Vista unbootable beyond any fixboot abilities. So, a backup of the beginning of the disk may help to fix some GRUB problems. Naturally, it is necessary to understand the backup may become outdated and useless immediately after the first successful Windows boot.

Strictly speaking, I agree, not all by itself. In practice, I noticed what looked like the opposite several times. I do not recall what exactly I was playing with last time that happened (did not find it interesting), but the story was like that:

A dialog with a script:

Linux: I am mounting you NTFS partitions. Do you want to write to them?
Me: No, thanks.
Linux: OK, I am using ntfs instead of ntfs-ng.

Next that live something forced me to press the reset button and the next boot to Windows resulted in the blue file system check screen.

Yes, it is even more confusing than double boot, but there are some advantages, at least with 2 gigs of RAM or more. No CD/DVD burning, another OS fully functional while the experimental OS is being installed and/or used, safe experimenting thanks to snapshots, easy to create a toy network, easy to take an OS to another network environment for a test, ideal to explore a live CD/DVD since virtual DVDs are much faster than real ones and you can save the state of a VM and go away without loosing your context.

As for performance, I do not see (with Virtual Box) any problems even with Vista guests. The only pair that experiences minor problems is the Win95/DOS guest on Windows host.

Actually, I recommend virtual machines because I use/need them and because I noticed that people may be reluctant to start using a VM, but since they start they seldom quit.

Now, the true reason for the post - Ubuntu. It tries to steal Windows users and it is good. It wants the Windows users to continue to be Windows users on Linux, and it is very, very bad. I am afraid that soon those who prefer, say, Slackware will still have to know Ubuntu because it is what everybody thinks is Linux, and also to know Windows because it is what most people use. So, the number of OSes I do not like but have to know will double. This is why I do not like Ubuntu.

Desktop Linux, including Ubuntu, is still nowhere, but Ubuntu already does things like "Hello, Unregistered You are browsing a READ only archive of the main support categories pre 4/21/2008." This "pre 4/21/2008" is pretty original and smells of lust for power over users if not vendor lock-in. It is another reason why I dislike Ubuntu.

Well, I had to use fixboot several times (I was fixing the PC of my friend), and it worked. Of course, I don't say there can't be any complications. You can never know with windows...I never said there aren't any advantages. I told that it can really slow down a system. Since we don't know how much RAM the OP's PC has (actually this is the only key info we don't have about that PC), I was assuming "the worst case scenario" (no sufficient RAM). What I learnt in the past years of PC fixing, is that you always have to assume the "the worst case scenario", because it will avoid lots of problems. In this case if you tell the OP that VM is good, but the OP's PC has less than 1 Gig of RAM (not likly, but who knows...), then there would be some performance issues.

This thread is drifting pretty much away... but there I go: What do you mean with this statement? Nowhere in terms of vendor lock-in, licencing, stupid pop-ups, or nowhere in terms of what a decent desktop should offer the user?

jlinkels

Thanks for asking. I have a blog now where you can read the long (really long, but I felt better after I typed that) answer. The short answer: Nowhere as in "almost nobody uses it".

I just all 4 parts of your blog. Please take notice that part 1 and part 2 are identical. I think that is an editing/saving mistake.

Are you a relatively new user? According to the number of posts you are a new LQ member. But considering you are using Slackware you must have more experience.

I am asking this because about 4 years ago I wrote a similar essay titles "Why Linux is not ready for the desktop yet". I didn't publish it at that time, but sometimes I read it back and have to laugh about my ignorance and clumsyness.

That could mean a few things: Linux [desktop] could really be a way thru hell for new users, or when you grow more accustomed to Linux you don't see these shortcomings so much anymore, or with the years you gain more knowledge to solve your problems.

The fact that my experience if 4 years ago or more, I deny as not being relevant, as Debian releases only something which works, (according to you blog) so I am lagging 4 years anyway as die-hard Debian user. Just kidding!

Believe me, I could write a similar blog (now) about Windows. Sometimes, fortunately only seldom, I have to solve a Windows problem. I can assure you that I feel about as helpless as the average new Linux user. No on-line community, no on-line help. Microsoft hosted forums where 350 users post a complaint, but no solution in sight, no answer from Microsoft itself. Except the recommendation to download and install SP2 of whatever.

Or what about this experience when I tried to download a hotfix:
- first I had to download a program which could authenticate my software installation
- then I had to let the authentication happen. This yielded a pop-up with a password.
- This password I had to paste in my web page
- Then the download would proceed
- ... and then Windows would tell me "this update is not applicable to your computer"

And this complete loop I had to run thru 9 times, including 9 times the downloading of the authentication program on a lousy 128k cable connection.

Not to talk about hundreds of non-solutions which only lead you to porn sites, spam sites and shareware sites. Eventually, I did NOT solve the problem.

In my opinion, once installed and running (I repeat, once installed and running) Linux offers a complete and satisfactory desktop experience to most users, which only use Office, MSN, Skype and a web browser. Sometimes I make a computer available to guests, and they don't even notice they are on something different. Provided I create icons on the desktop with names like "MSN Messenger", "Internet Explorer" etc. Most users run a computer which is set up and running, and only a small percentage is playing around with hardware and software installation.

Like the discussion I have with my wife the day before yesterday. She said "Linux is more complicated than Windows, isn't it?" We agreed that is was not for me, but some time later, she agreed that for her it was not more difficult either. Why not? Because she is not able to fix her Linux machine when it is broken, but neither is she able to fix her Windows computer herself. So she is equally helpless.

Right now, my old father (74) runs a computer with Vista. Yeah, I let it happen because he had to buy new hardware. Is THAT easy? An explorer which shows ALL files in ALL subdirectories in ONE pane? Office 2007 where not even I can find out how to open a file. Me spending TWO HOURS finding out where the scanner put in scanned pictures? POP E-mail which stopped working on port 110 after two months for no apparent reason? Attachments which he cannot open because of Microsoft security?

I am seriously considering to put Linux on his Vista machine. So he is at least able to work with it like he used to. With files and menus in fixed places, with a scanner program that puts files in a location where you want them.

The point of this answer?

There might be shortcomings to Linux as you point out, what you write is true for the best part. But there are many as well in Windows, and I could write a blog as long as yours about them. IMHO it is mainly a matter of users being unaquinted with Linux and unknown with the capabilities.

Except for some niche groups, like gamers, people who want to buy and use the latest and the greatest, or specialized professionals who need that one specialized application, Linux offers the same productivity and productivity tools on the desktop as other OS-es.

jlinkels

I'm also convinced of this. Familiarity is the most important factor. *nix is horribly unproductive for me, and it'll require too much time to become as productive as I've become after decades using of Dos-Win.
I recently setup a win98se tighter and lighter than I used to setup "back in the day". Some Win98 things had become less familiar, but I wasn't lost.

Yet those are not the perceptions of someone who is familiar with Win. With any subject matter, knowing or learning the terms to google is needed. You'll find Win info at many non-MS forums or ngs. Therefore, rarely do you need to post a question.

I can't tell what you were doing. I run Belarc, go to each recommended KB url, d/l the patch, then install. (i also manually log in a text file, and being paranoid, i swipe some of the tech notes, but just bookmarking the update urls is enough.)
Again, no need to go to porn sites... google shows those jumbled-garbage-words sites only when the search topic is extremely rare.
When i was trying a bunch of livecds on old PCS, i copied (pencil & paper) critical-appearing log lines. This (eventually) lead me to disable ACPI (CD startup option). However, though these live distros used the same livecd script ("lz linux"? IIRC?), their bootup logs (on the screen) displayed differing clues. I think this "breadth" of clues may have helped me pick out the true problem. ("breadth" of clues are similarly helpful as multiple ppl giving same advice in different wording)
Not surprising. Most ppl don't know much what they are doing. If i were starting on pcs now, I'd def choose an "easy" nix distro to try 1st. But since I already know batch, tight light config, etc, it makes no sense for me to switch. Also all employers use win (a few use os x, but so far they haven't hired) Also guests do not use the your "borrowed" PC's hard drive as extensively as your guests use their own PC's - eg, no bookmarks therefore browser toolbars, cfg, are less relevant.
BTW, I use an old version of MS-Ofc and only to produce carefully laid out pdfs. Else of your short list (skype,,,), I use only browser(s).

But she knows how to use a win sys. So she still prefers win.

Still not sure what those are about (1) AFAIK, alt-explorers can show all subdir files as "flat" list. your example sounds like results list of a file search. 2) Ms-Ofc can open its own formats immediately, so need more info about that problem. 3) scanner ware likely has options, where you can change the default folder which likely was "My Documents", but a file search for likely filename would find that folder in minutes. 4) The temp POP3 trouble may be an ISP trouble?). 5) but some of the "wizards" def hide too much. Some provide a "link" which says "let me do this manually". And often "manually" is as simple as moving files in folders. Conclusion: "Wizards" can be good, but only when they should be used!
BTW as often mentioned: a nix distro that works "like" Winxp may detour low-level users from switching to Win Vista. Some nixers hate that (which leads newbs to conclude that nixers don't want "converts"), while other nixers have evangelical goals. :-)

YUP. or 2 or 3 appsWell, sort of. Again, productivity depends on workflow to which user is accustomed.
Sort of back on topic: if *ubuntu or *mepis work (on a shallow level) most similarly to winxp, then those "easy" distros may be the best for "switching".

Almost all points you and me said reflect a different point of view, mostly based on knowledge and/or experience, none of them being necessarily true or untrue. Let this not become yet another Windows vs Linux thread.

But I have to say a last word on this one: my wife is equally non-proficient in both Linux and Windows. I would even say she is slightly more productive in Linux, but that is because that is her current system.

jlinkels

I checked the blog and it was OK. The front page with the beginnings of the posts shows them correctly and parts 1 and 2 are displayed correctly. Very strange. If you have time, can you double check?

I am really new to LQ. Proof: the very idea of blogging is new and interesting. People write down to forget, and blog to stop thinking about something, right?

I have some Linux experience, sort of a series of close encounters. I guess the blog is a better place to write about it.

Filemon from the SysInternals suit could save you 1h50m with the quoted problem. If you do Windows troubleshooting, the whole suit may be helpful. It also contains the desktops app, which is as close to Linux desktops as it is possible on Windows without compromising stability. You may also find that its deficiencies are good for Linux advocacy.

When I saw it, part 2 was part 2 and part 1 was a copy of part 2. Now it is correct. Believe me, part 1 is so painful, I would have remembered what you wrote.

Yeah, but I didn't know of its existence. But I assure you, most Linux problems on that level I solve in 10 minutes. So it is funny that in the Windows world it is considered normal to look around for things you don't know they exist, and that is taken for granted. For (new) users on a Linux platform it is considered acceptable behavior that they don't want to look any further and that things become apparent with any effort. And then we say Linux is too complicated for the end user.

jlinkels

I still think Ubuntu and its variants are well suited to new Linux users. It is extremely easy for windows users to adjust to. All of the above points about what's wrong with Ubuntu are pretty well valid, but for example a new Linux user trying out a Linux distro for the first time may not be heavily concerned about security. Seeing as how they're not totally familiar with Linux, they will probably keep most of their serious computing on Windows and get used to using CLI, the differences in file structures, KDE or some other DE vs. the ubiquitous Windows desktop, etc etc. It's a good way to adjust if you've never used Linux before, specifically because it's so easy and tailored to Windows users.

I agree that perhaps once you are familiar with using Konqueror instead of IE (as an example - not that many windows users still use IE) you could switch to a "better" linux distro.

For the record, I used linux for about eight months and gave it up. It's too unproductive. I went through five or six distros, all of which I used *heavily*, and it turns out that XP is faster than all of them on my machine. Instead of spending six hours figuring out how to do something and fixing every random thing that goes wrong every day, I use windows, which I know how to use very well and never has any problems on my machine. As a computer professional, I would rather learn to use linux, and someday will resume learning Linux, but it turned out to not be worth the hassle at all. I found there were a lot more bugs that affected the way the system ran in Linux than in windows.

not to start a flame war, but I think this is relevant to the topic posted. start with ubuntu. in all of the distros I've tried, at least once I installed the distro and immediately afterwards couldn't even get it to boot because of some configuration error in the installer, an option that didnt make any sense, bugs in the installer (yes it happens), etc etc. can this happen with windows? sure. but in my experience, it happens in windows a lot less. I haven't experienced windows screwing up to the point where my machine was unbootable when I tried to do something like update a program in like two years. It happens all the time in Linux.

grrrr......

ok flame me now

edit: oh yeah more specifically the process for doing things like installing flash or getting flv movies to play in Linux is absolute B0RKED. that alone IMO makes a lot of distros that otherwise work fine totally unusable. i was unaware of these problems and needed to do both for school, and i didnt have windows on my hard drive at all, and surprise, i was F*CKED because no matter what they tried nobody could get these things working on my system.

linux pros: package manager, well-suited for development work