Ubuntu users, unite!

[twocows]

You'd have to check the EULA for the version of Windows you're using. I doubt it, though; Microsoft doesn't have the incentive like Apple does. They just makes the OS, not the hardware; they've incentive to allow as many options as possible for installing Windows.

 

[Archer]

Wouldn't installing Windows on a non-windows endorsed/labeled product be breaking the EULA?

Not really, if you think about it, most custom built computers are not labelled with the Windows sticker. Which is really a marketing strategy to make the computer seem more compatible.

Also, Macs are allowed to dual-boot Windows with OSX on their hardware. Microsoft allows this, but Apple will not allow OSX to be installed on a standard computer. So they won't let you do it the other way around.

Another aspect is that the install disc for Ubuntu is available to be sent to you for free (completely, and you get stickers, too!). I've looked around, and I could only find it for $130 on Amazon. Plus you've got to download patches, etc for OSX86. All of which is legally questionable. Plus, all of Apple's software is fairly expensive. You want an office suite? That's extra. OpenOffice is preinstalled on Ubuntu and major updates are free and automatic.

Unless you're buying a Mac, then it's easier to just go with Linux. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against people using Macs, but I'm certainly not going to switch.

I do miss Windows Media Player, ironically. I was fond of the whole-library view with Album Art next to each Album. Has anyone found something similar?

This is what I mean. It's not my Screeny, btw.

Spoiler:

 

[Bianca Paragon]

Don't be daft. OpenOffice is available for Mac too, if you *really* want to use the retarded step child of Office Suites.

Really? It's easier to go with Linux? Because I insert a Boot132 CD into a machine; swap it for a retail OSX DVD and it's all done. The entire install takes about 20 minutes; faster than Windows.

 

[Zet]

How is it easier go with linux? I'd rather have a nice looking display than how horrible and ugly linux looks like. The only good looking linux distro I have ever seen is Linux Mint

 

[IIMarckus]

Another aspect is that the install disc for Ubuntu is available to be sent to you for free (completely, and you get stickers, too!).

However, this takes a while—up to ten weeks. Contrast this with how most people buy computers with the operating system preinstalled, and often buy them in person. (For instance, most Mac users at my university probably buy them from the Apple store on campus.)

Unless you're buying a Mac, then it's easier to just go with Linux.

For a normal office‐style installation, possibly. I seem to recall the Ubuntu installation process being very straightforward, but general usage is not yet trouble‐free.

Example: My sister uses Ubuntu. She was irritated because it didn't play DVD movies by default. Whenever she inserted a DVD, the movie player popped up a vague and unhelpful error message. There was no indication from the message as to why the DVD wouldn't play (Ubuntu doesn't come with "non‐free" DVD codecs by default, and they aren't installable from the default repositories), or how to fix the problem (allow apt to use "non‐free" repositories and install the codecs).

How is it easier go with linux? I'd rather have a nice looking display than how horrible and ugly linux looks like. The only good looking linux distro I have ever seen is Linux Mint

What answer do you expect to such a subjective statement? People don't have the same tastes in themes. In any case, Linux is visually very customizable.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

In any case, Linux is visually very customizable.

OS X and even to a lesser degree, Windows Vista/7 come pre-pretty.

 

[Archer]

How is it easier go with linux? I'd rather have a nice looking display than how horrible and ugly linux looks like. The only good looking linux distro I have ever seen is Linux Mint

Oh sure, the default theme for Ubuntu is ugly as sin, there's no doubt about that, but it's quite easy to pick one of the nicer themes that are inbuilt, as of Jaunty, and there are far more available on sites such as Gnome-Look. Once you start using compiz and better effects, you can end up looking incredible.

And for it being easier, I meant that I don't have to buy myself a copy of Leopard/Snow Leopard, get some patcher to change it so it works with my setup, then install it when I'm already happy with Linux, and then have to tweak around with all of the bugs caused by installing something on hardware that it shouldn't be on. Linux is totally free and easier, IMO, to install.

If you're prepared to install OSx86 and work out any bugs, then that's fine. All I'm saying is that I would rather stick with Ubuntu than stuff around with anything else.

If it's any consolation, There is an included theme for Ubuntu which looks very similar to the Linux Mint one, although with slightly nicer _ [] X buttons. It's called Dust. Besides, they're focusing on appearance a lot more for the release of Karmic.

I personally don't like the default OSX theme, anyway. The brushed metal look isn't my favourite, but each to his own.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

compiz

SPIANNAN CUBEZ YAY

And for it being easier, I meant that I don't have to buy myself a copy of Leopard/Snow Leopard, get some patcher to change it so it works with my setup, then install it when I'm already happy with Linux, and then have to tweak around with all of the bugs caused by installing something on hardware that it shouldn't be on

Patcher? Wut? Download Boot 132. Burn CD. Boot CD. Swap for Leopard DVD when prompted. Install. Install Chameleon on first boot. There's no "patcher"; and I'm sorry to tell you this but..OSX was always intended to be on PC hardware :3 There's no fundamental difference except for Apple's signed EFI which is what Boot 132 and Chameleon are used for.

If you're prepared to install OSx86 and work out any bugs, then that's fine.

What bugs? Linux is a far buggier OS experience due to the fact that the components for the OS aren't made entirely by a single corporation that ensures 100% compatibility~

 

[Zet]

I'd hate to say it but I gotta agree with Sawaa, I had no problems installing OSX while installing a linux distro takes longer since you have to load the software via live CD, then select how much you want to partition, then convert to GRUB, install the OS to partition size, while installing OSX is simple as counting to three

 

[Archer]

I'd hate to say it but I gotta agree with Sawaa, I had no problems installing OSX while installing a linux distro takes longer since you have to load the software via live CD, then select how much you want to partition, then convert to GRUB, install the OS to partition size, while installing OSX is simple as counting to three

You've got to create a new partition for OSX anyway. I hardly see how that counts. You put in the disc, press install, follow the wizard and then let it do its thing for 20 mins or so. Done.

How much of an impact does a few extra minutes one one occasion make?

When you installed OSx86, did it work instantly with all of your hardware? Because I've heard of people having to install fixes to even get keyboards or mice to work. I'm just curious, it's not a baited question.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

You've got to create a new partition for OSX anyway. I hardly see how that counts. You put in the disc, press install, follow the wizard and then let it do its thing for 20 mins or so. Done.

How much of an impact does a few extra minutes one one occasion make?

When you installed OSx86, did it work instantly with all of your hardware? Because I've heard of people having to install fixes to even get keyboards or mice to work. I'm just curious, it's not a baited question.

If you use depreciated hardware like PS/2 keyboard and mouse or an AGP graphics card or whatnot? Yes. You'll have issues. Of course, there are patches that solve this.

I guess it's worth pointing out as a concession that if you intend to use OSX as a whitebox OS then some pre-planning helps; properly supported hardware (Intel CPU, Intel Chipset, SATA HDD's) does help. But with Boot 132 generic and other similar products you can pretty much have an OOTB working solution. The days of olde are just that - old.

 

[Zet]

No, you would need to make a partition for Windows ;P and everything works correctly <3~

 

[IIMarckus]

Linux is a far buggier OS experience due to the fact that the components for the OS aren't made entirely by a single corporation that ensures 100% compatibility~

Indeed, one of the reasons I prefer BSD to Linux is that the BSD projects work on the kernel and the base utilities together to make a cohesive operating system. Linux is more of a mesh between various software projects like the kernel, binutils, X Windows, and the desktop environment, each with different maintainers and therefore no one place to report bugs.

 

[twocows]

How is it easier go with linux? I'd rather have a nice looking display than how horrible and ugly linux looks like. The only good looking linux distro I have ever seen is Linux Mint

The window manager, among other things, makes the look of a Linux system. If you're using one of the crappy ones that everyone seems obsessed with, then sure, it's going to look ugly. Linux Mint has four different versions, one of which is based on fluxbox. This window manager is highly customizable and quite popular; there's a lot you can do to make it look nice. Unfortunately, Linux Mint is on version 8, and the latest version with fluxbox included is version 6. However, it's not that hard to just install a new window manager on any system and use it instead of the default. Another popular choice is Openbox, which integrates pretty well with common desktop environments like GNOME and KDE; or you could even use it without a desktop environment if you wish and install a few programs to give you the desired functionality (for starters, these). And besides all that, there are numerous projects out there to give you an OS X or Windows look, so there's always that.

SPIANNAN CUBEZ YAY

There's a lot more to Compiz than the spinning cube. It has support for window transparency, lots of window effects, some other less-used features, a bunch of plugins for anything you're missing, and configuration options for a lot of other stuff. I don't use it because I find many of the features to be more than I need, but a lot of people love it.

 

[Archer]

If you use depreciated hardware like PS/2 keyboard and mouse or an AGP graphics card or whatnot? Yes. You'll have issues. Of course, there are patches that solve this.

I guess it's worth pointing out as a concession that if you intend to use OSX as a whitebox OS then some pre-planning helps; properly supported hardware (Intel CPU, Intel Chipset, SATA HDD's) does help. But with Boot 132 generic and other similar products you can pretty much have an OOTB working solution. The days of olde are just that - old.

Would inbuilt laptop keyboards/touchpads be treated as PS/2 devices - would they work? I had no idea that compatibility had developed that far. I might actually try that one day. The problem is that I'd be more inclined to try it on a virtual machine or an old spare box (to add more fun to that deal, my old test box is an AMD...)

Twocows, I don't really find (from the screenshots I've been looking at) that fluxbox looks any nicer than the standard Gnome/KDE/XFce way of doing things. In fact, I think that most of the GTK themes are great. Emerald sort of kicks their borders out of the water, though :D.

I realise that you're a fan of minimalism, but I guess there needs to be some mid-point between efficient and practical.

You should post a Desktop Screeny. :P

 

[twocows]

I realise that you're a fan of minimalism, but I guess there needs to be some mid-point between efficient and practical.

The real trade-off was the time it took to set things up, customize it, and get any missing functionality (not as hard as you'd think; took maybe a day the first time, each time after took at most half an hour).

You should post a Desktop Screeny. :P

A screenshot would be kind of useless. I don't really have anything fancy going on. I use the right click menus for getting to most of my programs. I disabled window borders; I find windows to be cleaner without them. I have some keyboard shortcuts for commonly used functionality or programs (ctrl+alt+f brings up Firefox, for example). I have a taskbar that I can toggle off or on with a keyboard command; it has all the normal taskbar stuff and a few keyboard shortcuts in icon form. That's really all there is.

 

[DrCoolSanta]

I find the arguement here totally stupid. Being a fan of Linux in general, I have tried convincing many people that they can have a much better desktop computer with a different operating system. But what I have understood till now is, even though people have many arguements for the use of Linux and the others have none, there is always a reason for them to not use it. Choice of OS is like your sexual preference, you can't force it on people.

The only bad thing about linux is its different flavours, there's red hat, debian, gentoo. And the the different distros you have based on them, like ubuntu, cent os etc.
The main reason of their existence is that whenever somebody says that something like Ubuntu is bad because of the lack of some feature, there is always another one that could cater your needs.
And there is always a perfect distro for everyone.
The bad thing about this is to choose, it takes a lot of trial and error or reading to find out which is the best for you.

Though, I always find that ubuntu is one of the most perfect distros for beginners, I am what you would call an advanced user of the linux. I can keep myself entertained on a shell window, even though I have probably the worlds most eye candy spiffy desktop, I still end up using the terminal for the work.

Ubuntu tries to be the minimalistic in its approach, it tries to be more fast and efficient, what windows does is, it tries to be the most pretty and everything without blowing up your computer. So you have to tune down windows and tune up Ubuntu.

I find ubuntu rather easy to use and more specifically customize, my wallpaper changes every 10 seconds, the windows wobble, I have 4 desktops, It rains when I want it to, so much more, I really can't list everything down.

I have a laptop with minimal hardware, on windows it would take it 5 mins to do a simple task and on ubuntu it does everything within a second with all the eye candy.

On the other hand I also have a Ubuntu server on my oldest computer, let me list down what all it can do.
I have a wireless network at home, so all these functionality are available to even the laptops of the house and anywhere in the house, even in the garden and the neighboring restaurant.
I have a printer on it and CUPS lets me print to it from anywhere and from any OS. My friends with windows computer tried it with the windows way and its so buggy half of the time it is not working. It doesn't work if they ever shutdown their computers and I do that very often.
TorrentFlux allows me to schedule, que and keep my torrents and normal downloads downloading on a server that utilises a lot less power than my other computers thanks to my spiffy hardware. And not to forget, I can que them from anywhere. My friends still havn't figured out how to make it work on their windows machines, I know how and the procedure is a lot more complicated than writing one 'sudo apt-get install . . .' command.
Kplaylist allows me to keep my hard-drive and my parent's free of all the music we have. And it also allows us to listem to it whenever we want to without having to have crap on the HD and since its a local network the speeds are pretty fast.
Similarly, with the help of PHP and an FLV Player (flash applet), I can even keep all my videos and movies on that computer and can watch them whenever I feel like. This is something you could do pretty easilly on windows, but the speeds and the simplicity of installing apache and PHP make it very awesome and simple on Linux.
I even have some detachable sound hardware, and I can command it to play on that hardware, the music I have on it whenever I want to, with VLC and its remote website.
The best part is, I have configured my router to allow it to be connected from outside, so I can do a lot of this from outside my home.

Another use is that I have created a super computer out of many usual core 2 duo machines at my mother's research lab to aid her in chemistry. And once again all thanks to the software available for Linux thats free.
Supercomputers cost a lot of money, and this cluster is just tuned up for her work and is VERY fast and is pretty cheap.

EDIT: I believe the poll is useless, it can never show the real life situation, only people who have some idea what ubuntu is come to this thread, very few others do.

 

[twocows]

The only bad thing about linux is its different flavours, there's red hat, debian, gentoo. And the the different distros you have based on them, like ubuntu, cent os etc. The main reason of their existence is that whenever somebody says that something like Ubuntu is bad because of the lack of some feature, there is always another one that could cater your needs. And there is always a perfect distro for everyone.

Forking is a good thing. It circumvents bureaucracy and encourages innovation.

The bad thing about this is to choose, it takes a lot of trial and error or reading to find out which is the best for you.

So does everything worth having. That doesn't mean choice is bad.

Though, I always find that ubuntu is one of the most perfect distros for beginners

The best distribution for a beginner is one that forces them to learn as much as possible about Linux, not one that allows them to know practically nothing about it. Ubuntu is fine for someone who wants something that just works, but for someone who is just starting and plans to work further with Linux, I would recommend something like Gentoo or Arch Linux, or perhaps a BSD.

Ubuntu tries to be the minimalistic in its approach, it tries to be more fast and efficient

No; perhaps you're thinking of Xubuntu? Ubuntu uses GNOME, which is definitely NOT minimalist or fast or efficient. It's bloated and loads a bunch of useless daemons you'll probably never need.

what windows does is, it tries to be the most pretty and everything without blowing up your computer.

Windows is built to be as all-encompassing as possible; anything that the common user might want to do with Windows is pretty much possible with minimal hassle (or at least it is meant to be). I don't think there's an OS in existence whose sole purpose is to "be the most pretty."

I find ubuntu rather easy to use and more specifically customize, my wallpaper changes every 10 seconds, the windows wobble, I have 4 desktops, It rains when I want it to, so much more, I really can't list everything down.

Most of that stuff stems from the bundled Compiz, I believe. That's available on every major distribution, though I'm not sure how many bundle it like Ubuntu does.

I have a laptop with minimal hardware, on windows it would take it 5 mins to do a simple task and on ubuntu it does everything within a second with all the eye candy.

Try Xubuntu. Or better yet, build an Arch install. You'll be impressed what old hardware can do.

On the other hand I also have a Ubuntu server on my oldest computer, let me list down what all it can do
...
The best part is, I have configured my router to allow it to be connected from outside, so I can do a lot of this from outside my home.

None of that is specific to Ubuntu. You could accomplish most of that with pretty much any OS, including Windows or OS X. And Windows could do it fast, provided you did a bit of tweaking.

Another use is that I have created a super computer out of many usual core 2 duo machines at my mother's research lab to aid her in chemistry. And once again all thanks to the software available for Linux thats free. Supercomputers cost a lot of money, and this cluster is just tuned up for her work and is VERY fast and is pretty cheap.

You can make a Beowulf cluster with any OS. You could probably even have different OSes on different computers in the cluster and still pull it off, provided the software knew what was going on.

EDIT: I believe the poll is useless, it can never show the real life situation, only people who have some idea what ubuntu is come to this thread, very few others do.

Then why mention it?

 

[Bianca Paragon]

Hey twocows, were you bullied by processes and daemons when you were young? Or do you just still use a 386? Because there is quite literally no reason *at all* for anyone to be as paranoid and obsessed about making sure the OS isn't doing ANYTHING AT ALL. Processes/Daemons = background functionality. It's 2009; that's what our OS's do nowadays; they give us FEATURES. Deal with it, sister.

 

[DrCoolSanta]

Forking is a good thing. It circumvents bureaucracy and encourages innovation.

So does everything worth having. That doesn't mean choice is bad.

The best distribution for a beginner is one that forces them to learn as much as possible about Linux, not one that allows them to know practically nothing about it. Ubuntu is fine for someone who wants something that just works, but for someone who is just starting and plans to work further with Linux, I would recommend something like Gentoo or Arch Linux, or perhaps a BSD.

No; perhaps you're thinking of Xubuntu? Ubuntu uses GNOME, which is definitely NOT minimalist or fast or efficient. It's bloated and loads a bunch of useless daemons you'll probably never need.

Windows is built to be as all-encompassing as possible; anything that the common user might want to do with Windows is pretty much possible with minimal hassle (or at least it is meant to be). I don't think there's an OS in existence whose sole purpose is to "be the most pretty."

Most of that stuff stems from the bundled Compiz, I believe. That's available on every major distribution, though I'm not sure how many bundle it like Ubuntu does.

Try Xubuntu. Or better yet, build an Arch install. You'll be impressed what old hardware can do.

None of that is specific to Ubuntu. You could accomplish most of that with pretty much any OS, including Windows or OS X. And Windows could do it fast, provided you did a bit of tweaking.

You can make a Beowulf cluster with any OS. You could probably even have different OSes on different computers in the cluster and still pull it off, provided the software knew what was going on.

Then why mention it?

There is something totally wrong with you. I never said that Ubuntu was better than the rest, in fact, I was just being more specific about my flavour of Linux. Everybody who uses Linux knows that you can turn any flavour of linux to have features of another. And mind you, my cluster uses Red Hat anyway. I have OpenSuse on my development machine at home. I was just presenting my arguement against those who say that Windows is the best, and that there is nothing else that anyone will wever want to use, or for that matter even Mac. THere were people here who just keep ranting about windows or mac being better, I am just trying to say that windows is nowhere near the competition. Mac and Linux are far ahead of Windows. My post was just to show what all windows can do, and in listing what I have been able to achieve on my linux installations easily, I mentioned how well it can be done on windows, and there is nothing in the list that says that windows can't do the same. And for that matter, I am not here to discuss how Ubuntu is better than Gentoo or Arch or anything, I believe that the distros are something that everybody has a different opinion on and according to the person's need he might have to use a different distro than the one I might wanna use. There is nothing that you can do with one distro that you can't on another. And no don't give me stuff like aptitude can't remove RPMs.

No matter what you say, having a tonne distros is still a bad thing. I mean, I know when I first made a switch, choosing from millions isn't really the thing that I wanted to do. And no, not every good thing has to be chosen from millions. Choice is good, as long as you don't have to download the installation CDs, and format your hardware everytime you try one. Atleast where I live, downloading a CD takes an hour or 2, thanks to the uber slow ISPs in India.

And when I talk about beginners, I talk about someone who actually wants to use the OS not someone who is on his way to become a computer geek. Give a geek any distro, any OS, and within two days it is not what you ever thought it could be like.

When I said minimalistic, my comparison was between windows and Ubuntu. Ubuntu is minimalistic because it does not enable compiz by default, it has a basic theme and everything. Whilst windows vista or 7 just eat on your resources. I am not really minimalist the way you are, and I respect your opinion in that sense but I prefer for my desktop to be be pretty and fast at the same time and even on old hardware.

Xubuntu gives me the creeps, I said I use all the old school stuff, but xubuntu is horrible imo. I know a lot of people who like it, and I respect their opinion, but I don't like something that basic, sure it is fast and everything, but GNOME looks decent and thats what I want. GNOME is pretty decent, looks better than windows XP and with beryl - compiz it is comparable to vista and is precisely faster than the windows versions. The WM in Xubuntu, I forgot the name since I don't use it much, is good for old hardware but not really pretty and I find the untidiness quite creepy.

You sure wanna say that again, windows Vista was totally about the looks and nothing else, all other features were totally not what I expect an efficient Operating System to be like, I don't know anyone who has them turned on anyway.

And since you mention this, what is this tweaking you talk of, I have done much and I believe I have done everything that's possible on windows to make it faster, still it refuses to be as fast as a server built on Linux.

I am not trying to be rude or anything, but I challenge you to make a diskless beowulf cluster on windows vista, that means no hard disks on the nodes. And along that, I want you to have NFS, RSH, SSH and along with that find me software that runs on it. Now prove me that this is faster than a Linux cluster of the same specifications and same hardware.
And while you are taking this challenge, look up beowulf clusters on wikipedia, and look at that part where it says that beowulf's are made on FOSS software. Good luck finding a FOSS version of windows.

And now I hope I got my point accross. I believe, there was something that you didn't like about Ubuntu, thats totally alright, but my point was not to prove that Ubuntu is better than the other linux distros, but that windows is the most horrible thing on earth and linux for that matter is much better in that sense.