Is anyone here using UBUNTU? --- Linnux based op system
in [Design]
|
Prev: Novel? Guitar amp input stage, single 12AX7, footswitchableusing "folded" feedback loop.
Next: Hysteresis on dsPIC ports?
From: MooseFET on 1 Feb 2010 09:49 On Jan 31, 11:17 pm, "m...(a)sushi.com" <m...(a)sushi.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 9:43 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 30, 6:42 pm, JeffM <jef...(a)email.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > > Windoze users watch Linux package managers in action > > > and their jaws drop. > > > That you can actually USE Linux while it's installing stuff > > > just blows them away. > > > Not having to reboot for the slightest thing is the final topper. > > > One that really caused jaw "droppage" was this: > > > (1) > > Install the ffmpeg > > > (2) > > Convert some videos from one format to another > > > (3) > > Remove the ffmpeg just to show that it can be done > > > No rebooting or registering of software etc. > > Yeah, but very often you have to compile software with Linux, and that > gets a different reaction from the windows crowd. Still, I'm with you > on the need not to boot. I have found that many people will accept the compiling of software even if they are non-programmers. You just have to give them the step by step instructions on how to do it and warn them that it will take a while of the PC to do the job. So long as it compiles without errors they will accept the idea that their PC needed to convert it to the right form for their machine. The biggest problem is the truly awful way that most people write the instructions to do this. They usually read something like this: (1) To compile the software simply type "make"(without the quotes) at a command prompt. (2) When it is finished type "make install" (3) Warning, before you type "make" the first time, you must type "./configure". If you forget this step it will destroy all life in the universe.
From: Wanderer on 1 Feb 2010 10:58 On Jan 25, 2:25 pm, AndyS <andysha...(a)juno.com> wrote: > Andy writes: > > Many thanks to all who answered. It seems that UBUNTU is well > accepted > and a reasonable alternative to what I am now using. > > I have ordered the CD (I only have dialup) and in a few weeks I'll > give 'er > a butcher's to see what happens. I still have a little self-education > to be > able to convert to dual boot, and that seems like the most reasonable > thing for me to be sure of backward compatibility. > > Thanks again, guys. You've been a big help. > > AndyS in Eureka, Texas W4OAH For Dial-up, check your modem. Some systems have a windows soft modem which doesn't work with linux.
From: miso on 1 Feb 2010 23:36 On Feb 1, 6:49 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > On Jan 31, 11:17 pm, "m...(a)sushi.com" <m...(a)sushi.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 9:43 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > > On Jan 30, 6:42 pm, JeffM <jef...(a)email.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > Windoze users watch Linux package managers in action > > > > and their jaws drop. > > > > That you can actually USE Linux while it's installing stuff > > > > just blows them away. > > > > Not having to reboot for the slightest thing is the final topper. > > > > One that really caused jaw "droppage" was this: > > > > (1) > > > Install the ffmpeg > > > > (2) > > > Convert some videos from one format to another > > > > (3) > > > Remove the ffmpeg just to show that it can be done > > > > No rebooting or registering of software etc. > > > Yeah, but very often you have to compile software with Linux, and that > > gets a different reaction from the windows crowd. Still, I'm with you > > on the need not to boot. > > I have found that many people will accept the compiling of software > even > if they are non-programmers. You just have to give them the step by > step instructions on how to do it and warn them that it will take a > while > of the PC to do the job. So long as it compiles without errors they > will > accept the idea that their PC needed to convert it to the right form > for > their machine. > > The biggest problem is the truly awful way that most people write the > instructions to do this. They usually read something like this: > > (1) > To compile the software simply type "make"(without the quotes) at a > command prompt. > > (2) > When it is finished type "make install" > > (3) > Warning, before you type "make" the first time, you must type > "./configure". If you forget this step it will destroy all life > in the universe. The problem is missing programs (dependencies) or libraries in different places. If it compiles right away, yeah fine. But that is not always the case. Also, the ../configure make make install is not universal. There are other schemes. Occasionally all you get is a C file, but that is often the easy install since the program is not very big. DCRAW is like that. I like linux, but you just can't inflict it on the general public unless all they are going to do is run a browser, email, office, etc.
From: Nobody on 2 Feb 2010 12:40 On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:17:15 -0800, miso(a)sushi.com wrote: > Yeah, but very often you have to compile software with Linux, and that > gets a different reaction from the windows crowd. Still, I'm with you > on the need not to boot. If you go with a popular distribution such as Ubuntu, you can get binary packages for just about anything. And the package manager handles all of the dependencies, so you don't end up with some obscure error message that takes a day to figure out that you need to install ".NET runtime version x.y.z". Stuff that's only available in source form is typically either so obscure that the alternative to compiling it yourself would be writing it yourself, or is pre-alpha development code which probably doesn't have documentation either. IOW, the kind of stuff that, if was for Windows, there'll be a binary, but you have to spend a couple of hours tracking down the OCXs it needs, then figure out what compatibility settings it needs to run on anything later than Win95, and it will nag you for a donation every time you run it.
From: miso on 2 Feb 2010 14:34
On Feb 2, 9:40 am, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:17:15 -0800, m...(a)sushi.com wrote: > > Yeah, but very often you have to compile software with Linux, and that > > gets a different reaction from the windows crowd. Still, I'm with you > > on the need not to boot. > > If you go with a popular distribution such as Ubuntu, you can get binary > packages for just about anything. > > And the package manager handles all of the dependencies, so you don't end > up with some obscure error message that takes a day to figure out that > you need to install ".NET runtime version x.y.z". > > Stuff that's only available in source form is typically either so obscure > that the alternative to compiling it yourself would be writing it > yourself, or is pre-alpha development code which probably doesn't have > documentation either. > > IOW, the kind of stuff that, if was for Windows, there'll be a binary, but > you have to spend a couple of hours tracking down the OCXs it needs, then > figure out what compatibility settings it needs to run on anything later > than Win95, and it will nag you for a donation every time you run it. Unfortunately, ubuntu could not handle my software RAID. That was a show stopper. Many programs really need to be compiled since the programmer didn't use dynamic memory allocation but rather used conditional compilation. I don't blame them since the software is free and dynamic scheme can be a headache. I wasn't aware opensuse was an "unpopular" distribution. ;-) OK, except for the Novell deal. |