Author Topic: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.  (Read 71892 times)

Offline garym

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Country: gb
  • Manchester, England
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #150 on: May 18, 2014, 06:37:48 AM »
Hi David,

I think the version you have downloaded is not a LiveDVD. I think it is just an installation disk. I definitely wouldn't get rid of your Vista system yet, until you've tried Linux.

I don't think openSUSE is that popular with home users, most seem to use Ubuntu or Mint now.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Top-5-Linux-Distros-for-beginners

Now you know you can burn an image to a DVD, I would suggest trying Linux MATE from here

http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php

The one you want is the fourth one down the list either 32-bit or 64-bit, I can't remember what your PC spec is.

Keep persevering.

Gary
Workshop activity resumes now ankle improving :-)

Offline garym

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Country: gb
  • Manchester, England
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #151 on: May 18, 2014, 07:05:50 AM »
Or if you fancy Ubuntu it is here:-

http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop

Gary
Workshop activity resumes now ankle improving :-)

Offline vtsteam

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Country: us
  • Republic of Vermont
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #152 on: May 18, 2014, 11:54:16 AM »
I couldn't make it throught this whole thread -- read 5 pages and just skipped to the end here (so far).

I'm going to be the odd man out here again, and totally confuse the "which flavor should I use" question. But the simple truth is:

I use Puppy Linux. And have for years.

I can and do occasionally dual boot into XP or Win7 or whatever windizzy hyper slowness is on the boot sector of whatever computer I'm using to do occasional jobs with oddball windizzy software that won't work in WINE in Linux.

BUT, 99% of the time it's this amazing free OS that is about 100 megabytes in size TOTAL, WITH APPLICATIONS that run IN MEMORY at about ten times the speed of windizzy programs, CAN RUN off a CD, with NO installation necessary, and will EVEN RUN on a 486 machine, DOESN'T require antivirus software, and DOESN'T crash, and DOESN'T waste my time automatically updating itself, or try to force my computer to close, or tell me to wait to shut it off, or wait to start using it, or try to record what I'm doing, or try to sell me software, or install crippled "freeware", or try to hide it's inner workings.

I get enough of those problems when I occasionally boot back int Win 7.

And if you liked Win98 (I did) Puppy Linux will look real familiar, unless you want to trick it out. I don't, but you can.

If you want to run Puppy Linux, just download a copy onto a CD and run it from there. No need to install.

If you like it, just do a "frugal" install inside whatever OS your computer came with -- they can happily coexist. No need to do a "full" install -- I never have, and a frugal install has many advantages over re-partitioning your drive, etc.

Run WINE in  it and you can run many Win programs (I use a few) though probably not AutoCAD. I use the old free Google SketchUP in Wine when I want to draw anything. There are enough free add-ons to that to do anything I want. It's definitely not AutoCAD though, and certainly won't satisfy an expert AC user. But for me, it's a breeze, and I get tons done with it quickly.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention another Linux alternative, relatively unknown, but immensely useful, compact, efficient, and timeless, in terms of what it will run on.

I do all my work on that.
I love it when a Plan B comes together!
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sDubB0-REg

Offline DavidA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Country: gb
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #153 on: May 18, 2014, 05:18:16 PM »
Gary,

You're probably correct in that I may have inadvertently downloaded an installation version and not a live one. But at least I have a version of openSUSE to play with.

I'll get there eventually.

VT,
I've heard of Puppy linux.  And it got a good review.

As I accidentally almost wiped my Vista last night I think that I may fit up another of my old machines (a 486) and try Puppy linux on that.  I'll down load it and burn the dvd via the Vista machine. Then load up the 486.

If it works I can then move on more confidently to one of the other flavors if I feel the need.

Losing the XP wouldn't be a disaster as I have my own (licensed) disk. I can always re-install. But I would also have to replace the applications and that would be a real pain.

At times like this it is nice to have a loft full of old computers.

Dave.

Offline vtsteam

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Country: us
  • Republic of Vermont
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #154 on: May 18, 2014, 08:21:08 PM »
Dave, great -- but just to be a little confusing -- there are versions of Puppy Lnux, and to run on a 486 you will need the right one.

It won't be very fast on such an ancient processor, but it should work -- which is more than you can say for any other OS these days. I believe the version you would need is called Puppy 2.17.

But really, to be fair, just try a later version on your present computer, by just booting off a CD. Your computer doesn't even have to be working -- it will ignore the faulty Vista installation and happily just run off the CD. It actually doesn't need the hard drive.

Many people put Puppy linux on a thumb drive and run it on laptops that have dead hard drives, and never fix the hard drive.

There are a lot of flavors of Puppy Linux.

For 64 bit machines and multiple processors try Racy Puppy.

For single processor 32 bit machines you can try that or if that doesn't work out, try Wary Puppy.

For ancient machines try 2.17.


Then there are versions which use the application programs from other Linuxes. For instance, Precise Puppy can use all of the Ubuntu applications from Ubuntu program repositories.

There are also versions for Debian, Slackware, etc.

Lots to choose from and try out if you want -- all on CD (or thumb drive) none of which require actually installing on your computer to run.





I love it when a Plan B comes together!
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sDubB0-REg

Offline DavidA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Country: gb
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #155 on: May 19, 2014, 07:50:59 AM »
VT,

Thanks.

The machine with the Vista is OK,  Except when I try to download updates it won't accept the key.  I can get by without the updates.

My laptop has the XP on it.  This is the system that is faulty. It drops out of applications and reverts to the desktop at unpredictable times for no apparent reason.  My antivirus programs can't find anything.  I have the original CD and mean to re-install, but it is somewhere in a box with most of my other nice things (Norton Ghost,  Partition magic etc. But it is one box of about twenty in the loft.
 Might as well be on the Moon.
I have another machine in this room with a Celeron D processor. Not sure what OP it has.  Think it's also XP.

So I am spoiled for choice.

I'll try for Puppy 2.17 this evening.

Dave.

Offline vtsteam

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Country: us
  • Republic of Vermont
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #156 on: May 19, 2014, 09:49:25 AM »
David anything that will run XP probably doesn't need 2.17. It's mainly for ancient machines.

It can probably use a modern Puppy like Wary.

You mentioned a 486 for a processor which is pre- Pentium 1, so that's why I thought you'd need a specialized Puppy.

(I don't believe XP would have run on a 486 processor -- I think it needed a Pentium of some sort, etc., but might be wrong).

Anyway, one way of trying out different flavors of Puppy is to use a CD R/W disk -- you can then erase it if you don't like one variety and try another.

One other advantage of a R/W CD: since Puppy Linux only takes up about 100-150 megabytes of the CD, the rest of the CD ( about 400 megabytes) can be used for data or additional programs! You can actually run your entire OS, programs, and data on a CD -- and if you like,  pop it into completely different computer, and keep on working on that one in Puppy! Makes it totally portable. You can also do the same with a thumb drive.

Actually you can do the same thing with a conventional  CD, leaving it open, you can't erase and rewrite over something, you just erase and write on unused space. Puppy can do amazing stuff.
I love it when a Plan B comes together!
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sDubB0-REg

Offline DavidA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Country: gb
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #157 on: May 20, 2014, 06:17:16 AM »
Well.  It worked.

Typing this on my old Esys Celeron machine using Puppy Linux  2.17.  Running from a CD.

And it was indeed pretty painless.

Whether it will all work again on the next boot up is uncertain. But things look hopeful.

I'd like to thank you all for your help with this little project.

Dave.

 :nrocks: :thumbup:

Offline garym

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Country: gb
  • Manchester, England
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #158 on: May 20, 2014, 06:26:48 AM »
Great news, Dave. I thought if you persevered it would be successful in the end. As VT says now you know it works it would be worth trying a later version.

Gary
Workshop activity resumes now ankle improving :-)

Offline vtsteam

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Country: us
  • Republic of Vermont
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #159 on: May 20, 2014, 10:44:19 AM »
Great David!

Play around with it, have fun -- there's tons of stuff to discover and try out. There's a good Puppy Linux forum at www.murga-linux.com/puppy/ .

Some suggestions if yo do decide to put it on hard drive:

1.) Don't bother with a "full" installation (as is required in most other Linux types) . Do what's called in Puppy a "frugal" install. It's pretty simple to do that, and it means you will have a lot more flexibility in the future, than if you tried to do a full installation. Trust me on that, because it's too hard to explain it all in detail here. (Roughly: the whole OS is saved as a file on your drive, and doesn't require re-partitioning the drive. Also anything you add -- programs, data, etc is saved as a "personal savefile" another big file).

You may have already done that -- since when you close down after your first session on CD I asks you if you want to create these two files -- and if you answered yes and went through the process, you already now have a "frugal" installation -- and don't need the CD any more.

The trickiest things for a newcomer to get used to is that a single click opens a program (instead of double clicking), and understanding the file structure -- where things are. No more C: and D: drives. You might see things like hda1 (for hard drive A partition 1) or sda3 (for serial drive A partition 3) and such.

And also find that there are two different ways to get to the same place: on my machine I can get to the same place by opening to either sda3 or /mnt/home . Also the concept of "mounting" a drive before you can see or access the contents, and unmounting the drive.

These things bugged me when I first started, coming from Win98, but after a couple weeks I got used to  them, and now I'm so used to it that it's Win7 that I find clumsy and slow and convoluted to do anything in. Just trust that you'll get it if you use it for a time.

Anyway, good luck, and if you run into any problems or have questions, let me know.

I love it when a Plan B comes together!
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sDubB0-REg

Offline mattinker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
  • Country: fr
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #160 on: May 20, 2014, 10:59:55 AM »
Well.  It worked.

Whether it will all work again on the next boot up is uncertain. But things look hopeful.


Glad it worked! Why the pessimism?  Just reboot!

Regards, Matthew

Offline DavidA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Country: gb
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #161 on: May 20, 2014, 01:43:54 PM »
Reboot went ok.

Now it's just a matter of brewing a lot of coffee and trying to kick my faded grey cells back into action.

I believe that the term 'mount' goes back to the days of reel-to-reel computers. When Unix reigned supreme.

So it's more or less back to the world of the Command Line.

But as I like DOS and use it regularly,   that shouldn't be too hard.

So,  who is next to take the plunge ?

Dave.

Offline CrazyModder

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Country: de
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #162 on: May 20, 2014, 02:37:58 PM »
So,  who is next to take the plunge ?

I did take the plunge due to this thread - I shrunk some partition on a SSD in my main PC and installed Mint LMDE 64bit. Very happy. Everything worked just fine; I even was able to take 99% of my important Windows software with me. That is, either there were native Linux versions which actually were able to keep using the same data (for example, Opera M2 mail client, popfile spam filter etc.); or the software is WINE compatible.

Now if it weren't for the wife who still prefers Windows on this PC...  :palm: but I guess there's no hurry to get rid of Win7 anytime soon. ;)

Offline vtsteam

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Country: us
  • Republic of Vermont
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #163 on: May 20, 2014, 02:44:08 PM »
Well Puppy makes it pretty easy to mount a drive (partition). Just click on the icon for the drive in the lower left corner of the desktop, and it's mounted.

And to unmount, right click on the same icon and you'll get a dropdown list including unmount for the drive. To close Puppy all of the unmounting is automatically handled, so yyou don't really have to do that

The only time I actually unmount a drive is if I use a thumb drive and want to remove it.  Then you should unmount it first, to make sure that any changes which might be cached, actually get written to the thumb drive before it is removed. It's exactly like windows used to do but with a different name. I think it was "eject".

Of course you can do all the "real" linux stuff from the command line if you like!
I love it when a Plan B comes together!
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sDubB0-REg

Offline vtsteam

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Country: us
  • Republic of Vermont
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #164 on: May 20, 2014, 02:57:20 PM »
DavidA one cool thing about Seamonkey browser included in Puppy (it's basically Firefox and Thunderbird combined -- Mozilla maintained --  the old Netscape all-in-one package, updated) is that it has WYSIWYG web authoring also included in the package.

If you want to edit a web page just click in the top left corner File>Edit Page, and you're instantly able to edit the page you're on! You can even edit this page. Of course you won't be able to upload it..... :lol:
I love it when a Plan B comes together!
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sDubB0-REg

Offline BaronJ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • Country: gb
  • Grumpy Old Git !
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #165 on: May 20, 2014, 04:17:46 PM »
Reboot went ok.

I believe that the term 'mount' goes back to the days of reel-to-reel computers. When Unix reigned supreme.

Dave.

Hi Dave, Guys,

Unix still reigns supreme !  The whole Internet is based on Unix !  Remember that Unix pre-dates Windows by around 30 years.
Its the graphical desktop that made Windows what it is today.  I believe that concept was borrowed from Xerox Labs along with the Mouse and Icons.  The word "WIMP" springs to mind.

Anyway Dave its great that you are up and running Linux now.  Congratulations.   :ddb:
Best Regards:
                     Baron

Offline Pete49

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Country: au
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #166 on: May 20, 2014, 11:27:11 PM »
Well congrats DaveA . Now if only I didn't procrastinate I would be as well. Just another question if you don't mind .....can I still access the forums on Linux or is it win only access? Years ago I set up red hat on a puter and had fun but then succumbed to XP and forgot all about it. Still have the original disks and setup manual :wave:
Pete
oops..........oh no.........blast now I need to redo it

Offline mattinker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
  • Country: fr
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #167 on: May 21, 2014, 07:07:24 AM »
Well congrats DaveA . Now if only I didn't procrastinate I would be as well. Just another question if you don't mind .....can I still access the forums on Linux or is it win only access? Years ago I set up red hat on a puter and had fun but then succumbed to XP and forgot all about it. Still have the original disks and setup manual :wave:
Pete

You can use the internet like any other operating system (like you can on a Mac). There are the same sort of programs and even the same programs available, fire fox, Google chrome etc for web access.

I have a relatively recent machine that I built cheaply, using a dual processor (2 x 2.6 G), 4Gig of Ram, a 1tera hard disk and a video card, I am at the moment using Ubuntu Studio that comes with a decent range of Graphics, sound and video programs not to mention the Libre Office suite. For those of you that are interested, it uses the Xfce desktop, which is more light weight than the other desktops, more suited in my opinion to the older generation, it's not trying to keep up with the transparent borders type widows!

I would like to point out that as Linux programs are frequently developed by their users, the more used something is, the better the programs, a good example is Video applications, the Linux one's are good, but not as user friendly as the Windows ones or so I've been told, I don't have a windows computer so I can't speak from personal experience!

I would like to encourage people to have a go at Linux on an old machine, it's much more in the madmodder spirit than Windows!

Regards, Matthew

Offline AdeV

  • Madmodder Committee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
  • Country: gb
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #168 on: May 21, 2014, 07:59:18 AM »

Its the graphical desktop that made Windows what it is today.  I believe that concept was borrowed from Xerox Labs along with the Mouse and Icons.  The word "WIMP" springs to mind.


WIMP: Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer.

The history of the Graphical User Interface is convoluted and full of intrigue. It's widely believed that Windows was a copy of the first "production" GUI, written by Apple and seen on the Lisa (which pre-dated the Mac and, to my eye at least, was a much more handsome machine). Apple, in turn, allegedly stole the idea from Xerox - who had a demo(?) system running at their Palo Alto labs.

Until the lawsuits in the late 1990s/early 2000s, I think it'd be fair to say that both MAC and Windows GUIs were essentially totally parallel and independent developments - yes, they stole look & feel from each other, but the actual codebases weren't the same.

Of course, Linux then came along and muddied the waters with Gnome, KDE and a bunch of other interpretations on the same old WIMP environment...
Cheers!
Ade.
--
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside. A long way from anywhere.
Occasionally: Zhengzhou, China. An even longer way from anywhere...

Offline DavidA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Country: gb
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #169 on: May 21, 2014, 08:15:09 AM »
Pete.

You just (single) click on the 'browser' icon and you are in a place very similar to Firefox.  Bookmarks etc are all very similar.

I'm still marveling at the speed this system boots up.

Dave.

Offline vtsteam

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Country: us
  • Republic of Vermont
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #170 on: May 21, 2014, 08:44:26 AM »
It was SmallTalk that was the first to introduce the whole package together -- it was Xerox. I think they might have used some of the concepts of Turtle Logo. I remember reading about it in Byte at the time. Then Apple came out with the Lisa that used Smalltalk I believe.

Interestingly one of the principal philosophies of SmallTalk besides the mouse, etc. was to absolutely get rid of "modes."

Modes occurred according to the originators, when a keyboard for instance re-mapped keys under certain circumstances. Edit mode, Graphics mode, that kind of thing. Keys suddenly did something different depending on the mode. This was proven to be problematic, and error producing, and required memorization, varied between programs, and slowed throughput and intuitive use of a program.

While computer OS designers were quick to adopt from SmallTalk the physical aids of modern, GUI's they often didn't understand the problem of modes, or forgot that part of the original design concept. So we had a rapid return to program, keyboard, and even mouse click modes, sometimes simply dressed up as menu items in dropdown lists, but modes nonethless. This is particularly apparent in CAD's -- probably some of the most conservative programming of any type.
I love it when a Plan B comes together!
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sDubB0-REg

Offline vtsteam

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Country: us
  • Republic of Vermont
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #171 on: May 21, 2014, 09:10:25 AM »
Pete.

You just (single) click on the 'browser' icon and you are in a place very similar to Firefox.  Bookmarks etc are all very similar.

I'm still marveling at the speed this system boots up.

Dave.

It's fast because all the bloat has been removed from programs and OS -- enough so that everything can be loaded into memory at once at boot-up. Memory is hundreds of times faster than a hard drive.  So instead of constantly reading program segments from your HD, it's already in memory. This is why if you're running off of the CD, once Puppy Linux loads up, you can remove the CD. It doesn't need it any more. Or you can use the CD drive for other things, like playing music or watching a movie.

There are MANY extremely innovative and interesting things about Puppy Linux that make it unique, even in the Linux world. I spent a couple years just exploring and appreciating the innovations it can provide and the flexibility you have with it. It's a brilliant creation by one Aussie, Barry Kauler. You don't need to study it to use it normally, but if you do get interested in it, it's pretty fascinating how it works, and what it can do.

I once wrote a version called MediaPup for older computers -- kinda outdated now, but It was keyed toward editing videos, DVD authoring, music, and graphics. The idea was you just popped it into any computer, ran off the CD and had a full media studio suite f programs. When done editing Take the CD back out and continue on in Windows, Linux, whatever.

These days I like running Cinelerra for video editing on Linux. I often boot into Precise Puppy to do that (my computer can boot into any number of Puppy Linux varieties as well as Win 7 -- with a frugal install, a version of puppy linux takes up only 100-150 megabytes of HD space, and they can all be booted to -- so you could have 25 varieties of the OS in under 3 gigs of HD space -- not that I'd want to!!) The ubuntu version of Cinelerra seems to run the best -- and the Precise Puppy can access and use Ubuntu repositories and programs.
I love it when a Plan B comes together!
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sDubB0-REg

Offline DavidA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Country: gb
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #172 on: May 25, 2014, 12:35:54 PM »
Something related to this subject.

A I mentioned,  I have a broadband cable straight into my computer.

Now, I need to run three computers of the incoming line, but  I don't like the idea of using a radio hub.  So I suppose the other rout is to set up my computers on a LAN. Taking out the single broadband LAN cable and swapping it around is not a good thing to do.

I have never had anything to do with LANs,  but I believe that you set up one computer as a server and this machine has to be running all the time you wish to use the others.
Is this correct,  and has anyone done it ?

Dave.


Offline mattinker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
  • Country: fr
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #173 on: May 25, 2014, 02:17:19 PM »
I have several outputs on my DSL box, not enough so I have an additional hub.
TV and up to five computers all running of the same line. I rarely need more than three computers at the same time, but I never unplug anything!

Regards, Matthew

Offline vtsteam

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Country: us
  • Republic of Vermont
Re: To Ubuntu or not to Ubuntu; that is the question.
« Reply #174 on: May 25, 2014, 04:17:36 PM »
David, you need a router. -- Or you can use a computer as a router, as you are suggesting.

Basically you set up a local network to the router (a LAN), and the router connects to the Internet (the wide area network or WAN).

The router (or computer acting as a router) makes the connection between the LAN and WAN -- basically passes information from one to the other. The router looks like a single computer (address) to the Internet. The Local area network has a large number of addresses (well as many as you have devices on it). The computers in the LAN can communicate with each other directly over the LAN. The router can also have a firewall in it to protect the LAN from attacks over the WAN.

Many wireless cable modems actually consist 1.) a modem to receive and decode signals from the WAN 2.) a router that connects a LAN to the WAN, 3.) a firewall to protect the LAN, and 4.) a wireless transmitter receiver to communicate with wireless devices connected to the LAN.

And many actually have several slots for wired devices on the LAN, not just one -- so they can accommodate several computers that don't actually have wireless capability. So it's often possible to hook up several computers via network cables and ignore the wireless capability.

I love it when a Plan B comes together!
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sDubB0-REg