Anyone here running Linux from a USB drive?

[capidamonte]

More FUD.

I've run Ubuntu on fast, modern, dual-monitor systems. It's incredibly snappy. Heck, it's reasonably snappy on my old P4.

Either you misconfigured it, or there's more to the story.

You have to give permission when you install applications -- if you close the installer every time, well, there you go, it's going to keep asking. If you really don't like that, there are ways around it; not recommended, but easily doable.

A day and a half with Ubuntu, most spent setting it up. Versus a lifetime of familiarity with Windows.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by capidamonte

More FUD.

I've run Ubuntu on fast, modern, dual-monitor systems. It's incredibly snappy. Heck, it's reasonably snappy on my old P4.

Either you misconfigured it, or there's more to the story.

You have to give permission when you install applications -- if you close the installer every time, well, there you go, it's going to keep asking. If you really don't like that, there are ways around it; not recommended, but easily doable.

A day and a half with Ubuntu, most spent setting it up. Versus a lifetime of familiarity with Windows.

My best guess is that the main problem was with the graphics card. Ubuntu chose the drivers and the Linux software to use. There may be better drivers out there. But I have other things to do.

"Either you misconfigured it, or there's more to the story."

I just let it configure itself. As I said, that was the best part. I wanted to test it as it came. Adding programs was something different and is not "configuration".

"A day and a half with Ubuntu, most spent setting it up."

No. I think that it was about 20-25 minutes setting up, the rest was playing around with it.

What you, like my wife, can't understand is that there is no perfect "whatever" for everybody. Just because I've upset you by not liking Linux does not mean that I'm trashing Linux.

Simply put, I've expressed my opinion that Linux is not for me.

I sorry that you're so easily offend, and that you have a problem with those who’s opinion differ from yours.

[capidamonte]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

What you, like my wife, can't understand is that there is no perfect "whatever" for everybody. Just because I've upset you by not liking Linux does not mean that I'm trashing Linux.

Sorry you're having trouble with the wife. What I'm saying is not what your wife is saying.

I never said that it was perfect; what I said implied that your experience is not normal. If it's not normal, then your complaints and dislikes might scare someone off in disproportionate measure to their likelihood.

80486-level performance is quite a claim, and certainly off-putting. And, given my years with Ubuntu, seems incredibly, lottery-winning unlikely.

Simply put, I've expressed my opinion that Linux is not for me.

Fair enough. But whenever something is different, it's scary. Maybe not to you, but to some readers. People don't know much about Linux, so your story is powerful beyond its intent. And you're carrying cultural baggage that Windows is the baseline.

I sorry that you're so easily offend, and that you have a problem with those who’s opinion differ from yours.

I'm not easily offended, I'm easily provoked by the spreading of FUD. Unanswered FUD is FUD victorious. It may not be your intention, but it's the effect.

I bought a monstrously cool laptop yesterday, and restored it to its factory-new OS (Vista). Living in Linux-land for so long, the experience was terrifying -- constant pop-ups about programs running, warnings about vulnerabilities, AV programs hawking themselves by being embedded in the OS. There were at least a dozen visible icons in the tray, all sucking CPU -- never mind what was going on invisibly. This is without installing or changing a single thing. I had a constant feeling that I was out of control, that it was trying to train me how to behave.

Now, it's Vista, notoriously bad. But the mode of interaction with it is entirely different than the mode I engage in with Linux. The OS is in charge in Windows, constantly "protecting" you from yourself, fighting customizations, hiding configuration. (The Registry! AGH!) In Linux, yeah, sometimes you have to Google, or use the command line. And sometimes there is no solution, largely because hardware manufacturers tie themselves to Windows. But at least I can do what I want, and change what I want -- and I don't have to live in fear, or bear the constant harangue of marketing.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by capidamonte

Sorry you're having trouble with the wife. What I'm saying is not what your wife is saying.

I never said that it was perfect; what I said implied that your experience is not normal. If it's not normal, then your complaints and dislikes might scare someone off in disproportionate measure to their likelihood.

80486-level performance is quite a claim, and certainly off-putting. And, given my years with Ubuntu, seems incredibly, lottery-winning unlikely.



Fair enough. But whenever something is different, it's scary. Maybe not to you, but to some readers. People don't know much about Linux, so your story is powerful beyond its intent. And you're carrying cultural baggage that Windows is the baseline.



I'm not easily offended, I'm easily provoked by the spreading of FUD. Unanswered FUD is FUD victorious. It may not be your intention, but it's the effect.

I bought a monstrously cool laptop yesterday, and restored it to its factory-new OS (Vista). Living in Linux-land for so long, the experience was terrifying -- constant pop-ups about programs running, warnings about vulnerabilities, AV programs hawking themselves by being embedded in the OS. There were at least a dozen visible icons in the tray, all sucking CPU -- never mind what was going on invisibly. This is without installing or changing a single thing. I had a constant feeling that I was out of control, that it was trying to train me how to behave.

Now, it's Vista, notoriously bad. But the mode of interaction with it is entirely different than the mode I engage in with Linux. The OS is in charge in Windows, constantly "protecting" you from yourself, fighting customizations, hiding configuration. (The Registry! AGH!) In Linux, yeah, sometimes you have to Google, or use the command line. And sometimes there is no solution, largely because hardware manufacturers tie themselves to Windows. But at least I can do what I want, and change what I want -- and I don't have to live in fear, or bear the constant harangue of marketing.

Yes, my wife is a minor headache in the area of "Why did...." and "Why would....". As in - "Why would anyone buy a suv!" Because some people want them. If she dislikes something, it's obviously bad, and everyone should see it her way. Same thing whenever she sees a jacked up pickup truck. "Why would anyone...." I don't even try to reason with her.

I occasionally run into the "Why would anyone buy something other than a Mac?" kind of people. When I wrote my post I knew that someone was going to think that I was trashing Linux. Some (not all or even most) Linux and Mac users have something in common, they can overreact to a perceived slight of their favored OS.


"I never said that it was perfect; what I said implied that your experience is not normal. If it's not normal, then your complaints and dislikes might scare someone off in disproportionate measure to their likelihood."

Are no criticisms allowed? Should we whisper to each other late at night?

Actually, my first, and biggest, complaint had to do with my video performance. I even anticipated that someone would suggest that I replace the video card.

"And before anyone suggests replacing the graphics card the answer is No."

Going back to your first reply to my first post you said - "More FUD."

My reply was a civil - "My best guess is that the main problem was with the graphics card." Again, clearly stating that the problem was probably MY graphics card.


The next complaint I had, started out with -

"The next complaint is one that would be taken care of in time. .... There were more requests for permission...

Your answer - "You have to give permission when you install applications -- if you close the installer every time, well, there you go, it's going to keep asking." Leaves me a little confused.

Are you saying that when I install a program in Linux there is something I should leave open? It looked simple - install a Linux WMA converter and exit the setup program. What should be left open, and for how long? In real life it could be hours or days before I install something new. I am being somewhat facetious because I don't understand your saying not to close the program installer.


"Fair enough. But whenever something is different, it's scary. Maybe not to you, but to some readers. People don't know much about Linux, so your story is powerful beyond its intent. And you're carrying cultural baggage that Windows is the baseline."

Anyone afraid to try something because it's "different" probably wouldn't try a different OS in the first place.

"Powerful beyond its intent"??? I have a minor post in a Linux love fest where everyone is saying how great it is, and you say that it's "powerful beyond its intent"? Look at all of the other post! Why do you think that I tried Linux again! Give me a break "powerful beyond its intent".


Look at your reaction to my post. If I were a computer newby would I want to try Linux? What if I had a problem. Is this the kind of reaction I would get? Better to stay away from Linux with reactions like that.


Yes, I anticipated someone over reacting, but I also expected others wanting to help me with my problems.

Hence -
"And before anyone suggests replacing the graphics card the answer is No."
and
"Simply put, I've expressed my opinion that Linux is not for me."
to forestall offers of help. jgaiser was the only one to offer help. Linux would be better off with more like him.


"I bought a monstrously cool laptop yesterday, and restored it to its factory-new OS (Vista). Living in Linux-land for so long, the experience was terrifying...."

Sorry about you using Vista, I could have told you to skip it as I did. We all make mistakes.

You have obviously had bad problems with other OS in the past and find Linux simpler. Mac users find Macs easier to use too. And MS Windows users learn to pray.

To each his own. But attacking those you disagree with, and trashing their systems, because you feel that YOUR system is vastly superior seems juvenile. "My dads bigger and better than your dad! And I'll beat you up if you don't say so." That kind of thing.

If you believe that your system is better then help others understand how to make it work for them.


"I'm not easily offended, I'm easily provoked by the spreading of FUD. Unanswered FUD is FUD victorious. It may not be your intention, but it's the effect."

For some reason I believe you.

[frabjous]

Now, let's all calm down. It is important to respond when someone has a problem to point out that that problem isn't typical. Otherwise other readers may assume that what goes for one person goes for all.

Anyway, I run Ubuntu on a dual monitor set up all the time. For a long time I dual booted that system with both Windows and Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is definitely faster, especially with compiz disabled or running LXDE. With full Compiz and GNOME, it's still faster than Windows. This is with a relatively modest ATI card. I can't remember the precise model. (This is my work system; at home now.) But I did have a lot of trouble trying to use an external projector monitor with a NVIDIA driver for linux with my laptop with Compiz enabled. (With the open source driver, I didn't have a problem, but couldn't do any fancy effects.) NVIDIA seems to neglect their linux drivers somewhat.

Nonetheless, I don't think anyone would suggest buying a new video card in your case. If linux can run on low-end hardware, then it should run well on yours, dual monitors and all. Probably there's just some configuration mismatch which might be solved with a bit more research. Yeah, it is a downside to linux that sometimes you need to research things yourself. With its low market saturation, and no professional support staffers doing these things for you, you can't expect that things will always go smoothly out of the box. If it's too much trouble, that's understandable.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

The next complaint is one that would be taken care of in time. It seemed that whatever I wanted to do, I had to download one thing or another. There were more requests for permission to run some program or another than I have on Windows 7!

Those are most common when you're just setting things up. Many of us consider it a virtue of linux that it doesn't prebundle everything, so you download exactly what you need and nothing else. This does mean that you'll have to download a bunch of stuff right at first to get what you need, and since installing new software must be done as administrator, you're always entering your password to do so during this early phase. Once you've "settled in" to certain programs and certain routines, this goes down quite a lot. It takes weeks if not more to get there, not days, however.

I'm sure that there are a million Linux programs out there. But reading thru all of the c#$& to find them just wasn't worth it to me.

Different strokes for different folks. I love all the choices, and I also like trying new things. But since it's almost all free, very easy to install and very easy to uninstall, there's no risk in trying something, finding out you don't want it, and then trying something else instead. When you have to pay for most of your software, then you need to do your research before you buy, and if you choose wrong, sorry!

In short, I just didn't want to devote my time to Linux. The 1 and a half days working with Ubuntu were enough.

Linux is never going to overcome a lifetime of being used to one thing in a day, unless of course you were very dissatisfied with where you came from. I was very dissatisfied with Windows. The constant upgrade treadmills, the constant fears of malware -- and just as often -- software bundling tricks, hidden software running in the background taking up memory (even stuff with no malicious intent) and similar annoyances one constantly had to be the guard for.

And of course, I had other reasons for disliking Microsoft, which I won't go into unless asked.

But Linux isn't perfect. I spent a good portion of the day figuring out how to partly rewrite a printer driver for a network printer at work so I could use job accounting with it, since the linux driver xerox offered didn't have the same features as the windows and mac driver. Of course, that's really xerox's fault, not linux's, but it's the kind of thing that could easily keep people away. But I do think it is important to support the open source movement and make sure there are always alternatives to what the big software giants are trying to force on us. If nothing else, the presence of a free alternative should benefit even those who go in the other direction as well, by forcing prices to be lower elsewhere.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by frabjous

Now, let's all calm down. It is important to respond when someone has a problem to point out that that problem isn't typical. Otherwise other readers may assume that what goes for one person goes for all.

Anyway, I run Ubuntu on a dual monitor set up all the time. For a long time I dual booted that system with both Windows and Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is definitely faster, especially with compiz disabled or running LXDE. With full Compiz and GNOME, it's still faster than Windows. This is with a relatively modest ATI card. I can't remember the precise model. (This is my work system; at home now.) But I did have a lot of trouble trying to use an external projector monitor with a NVIDIA driver for linux with my laptop with Compiz enabled. (With the open source driver, I didn't have a problem, but couldn't do any fancy effects.) NVIDIA seems to neglect their linux drivers somewhat.

Nonetheless, I don't think anyone would suggest buying a new video card in your case. If linux can run on low-end hardware, then it should run well on yours, dual monitors and all. Probably there's just some configuration mismatch which might be solved with a bit more research. Yeah, it is a downside to linux that sometimes you need to research things yourself. With its low market saturation, and no professional support staffers doing these things for you, you can't expect that things will always go smoothly out of the box. If it's too much trouble, that's understandable.



Those are most common when you're just setting things up. Many of us consider it a virtue of linux that it doesn't prebundle everything, so you download exactly what you need and nothing else. This does mean that you'll have to download a bunch of stuff right at first to get what you need, and since installing new software must be done as administrator, you're always entering your password to do so during this early phase. Once you've "settled in" to certain programs and certain routines, this goes down quite a lot. It takes weeks if not more to get there, not days, however.



Different strokes for different folks. I love all the choices, and I also like trying new things. But since it's almost all free, very easy to install and very easy to uninstall, there's no risk in trying something, finding out you don't want it, and then trying something else instead. When you have to pay for most of your software, then you need to do your research before you buy, and if you choose wrong, sorry!



Linux is never going to overcome a lifetime of being used to one thing in a day, unless of course you were very dissatisfied with where you came from. I was very dissatisfied with Windows. The constant upgrade treadmills, the constant fears of malware -- and just as often -- software bundling tricks, hidden software running in the background taking up memory (even stuff with no malicious intent) and similar annoyances one constantly had to be the guard for.

And of course, I had other reasons for disliking Microsoft, which I won't go into unless asked.

But Linux isn't perfect. I spent a good portion of the day figuring out how to partly rewrite a printer driver for a network printer at work so I could use job accounting with it, since the linux driver xerox offered didn't have the same features as the windows and mac driver. Of course, that's really xerox's fault, not linux's, but it's the kind of thing that could easily keep people away. But I do think it is important to support the open source movement and make sure there are always alternatives to what the big software giants are trying to force on us. If nothing else, the presence of a free alternative should benefit even those who go in the other direction as well, by forcing prices to be lower elsewhere.

Thanks for the effort, frabjous. It's been a long time, about 15 years, since I've tried Linux (Red Hat then). Everyone was going on about how much they liked Linux that I thought it about time to try it again.

I'm fully convinced that the incredible slowness was the driver for my video card, and said so twice.


There was indeed much that was refreshing in Linux compared to Windows.

The annoyance with all the times I had to input my password was acknowledged in my first post when I said that time would take care of that problem. It seems that everyone has skipped over that line and focused on other aspects.

Looking for new software, Windows or Linux, can be a problem. There is a great deal of it out there, and not all of it is good.

A problem with the Linux software that I was installing was that a lot of it required downloading other software to complete the install. The WMA to MP3 software that I mentioned before was one instance. I do understand the reason for it, but was surprised how often it occurred.

Yes, I had difficulties. Yes, they would have been overcome the more I used the OS. But I saw no compelling reason to switch from what, for me, works well. Were I given a top of the line Mac today I would probably try it out for a while and then give it back. Not a problem with Macs. I just have something that works for me now. Sure hope no Mac fanatics read this, or I'll be in even more trouble.

Let me say this about attitudes. A rabid attack dog response is more likely to drive away possible Linux converts than an understanding and "how can I help" approach.

I for one, am far less likely to try it again.

[jasonfedelem]

What is the boot time (typically) for Ubuntu? Thinking about setting my netbook to dual boot winxp and ubuntu. If I do it I'd probably try this weekend.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I would like to worry less about viruses and Trojans while surfing online. (You may know that I was badly infected by a Trojan worm in December and it took months to get everything ironed out).

Just my advice, but no OS will make you invulnerable. I've had linux machines hacked into as well.

IMO, a better solution is to make sure you've got backups/etc so that recovering doesn't take you months.

Being concerned/worried about security is a good thing. Switching OS in an attempt to not have to worry about it anymore is probably not the best idea.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I have a new system that I put together before Christmas. Lots of horsepower, more ram than is needed, fast hard drive, and a very fast Nvidia graphics card.

The biggest complaint was how slow it was. I use large dual monitors and with both "turned on" it was like I was running a 486 cpu. "Turn off" one monitor (with the video card software) and it ran better. Not good, just better.

And before anyone suggests replacing the graphics card the answer is No. I spent several hundred dollars for it and don't want to get rid of it so that I can run Ubuntu a bit faster. And if you haven't used dual monitors let me tell you it is worth every cent.

To me, it sounds like it wasn't using the proper drivers for your video card. For Nvidia and ATI cards, there are the ones supplied by the companies that support everything, but are closed source so are not included by default (would be against the GPL to distribute things that link against GPL code along with the GPL'ed items, so to stay kosher, the offending things have to be separate and put together only by the end user). Ubuntu, and most other distros have utilities built in to allow easy installation, if the person chooses to. Most likely you were either using the VESA drivers, which rely mostly on the CPU, or you were using some sort of stripped down GPL friendly drivers. The community is hard at work to create better drivers that are GPL friendly, but it requires them to reverse engineer everything themselves, because graphics chipset manufacturers don't always want to help.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

The next complaint is one that would be taken care of in time. It seemed that whatever I wanted to do, I had to download one thing or another. There were more requests for permission to run some program or another than I have on Windows 7!

You kinda have to do that with Windows as well. Windows with a fresh install has very little to work with. You get a basic browser, simple text editor, handful of games, etc. Basically just enough to get you to go online and find the other apps you want. In my experience, in my 20 some odd years experience with *Nix and Windows, most Linux distros give you more out of the box.

[brainycat]

Originally Posted by DJHARKAVY

The netbook is going to be my primary computer for teaching. I will be running a few Windows apps with WINE, the Smartboard program for interfacing with the smartboards at my school and connecting it to a tablet computer that I can carry around the classroom and write on with a stylus. Will Joliecloud support all this, or should I continue with Ubuntu?

Unless those apps are in Joli's repository, you'll probably want to go with Ubuntu, which has a much higher likelihood of having them available. If all else fails, you can get the compilers and build the apps yourself.

I liked you "AOL for netbooks" analogy; that sums up what I like about it. I don't use the device often enough, and I don't enjoy using it when I do, so I wanted a distro that did everything for me.

My lappys and pcs, however, are all Slackware, all the time

[frabjous]

Besides Ubuntu Netbook Remix, there two other Ubuntu-based distributions geared for netbooks, easypeasy and Aurora OS. I can't vouch for them, or for UNE for that matter, since I don't have a netbook.

[capidamonte]

Love guys like S-O-S: when they talk, it's their opinion. When you talk, you're attacking them personally.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Just my advice, but no OS will make you invulnerable. I've had linux machines hacked into as well.

IMO, a better solution is to make sure you've got backups/etc so that recovering doesn't take you months.

Being concerned/worried about security is a good thing. Switching OS in an attempt to not have to worry about it anymore is probably not the best idea.

I'll second every word said. Backups are essential, and not only because of potential hacking or malware attack. We live in the age of plentiful and cheap mass storage (disks), but it seems to me that these devices are more and more prone to failures.

Having said all of that, the reality IS that life with Linux means less hassle with malware. It might be the case of "security by obscurity", but who cares?

There is no such thing as free lunch. The price of Linux is higher level of required knowledge for maintenance and operation, and lack of professionally written applications (CAD/CAM, games, the list goes on).

To compensate for all of that, virtual machines (vmware player, virtualbox and others) have also liberated us from the need to live with only one OS. You can have your cake (use Linux for most of network and day-to-day activities) and eat it too (run Windows programs in the virtual machine, everything except games), with a negligible penalty.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by jasonfedelem

What is the boot time (typically) for Ubuntu? Thinking about setting my netbook to dual boot winxp and ubuntu. If I do it I'd probably try this weekend.

Sony laptop -- Dual boot Vista/Ubuntu 8.04 - 30 seconds from boot prompt to Xwindows login.

[frabjous]

As for boot times, I've heard that Ubuntu Netbook Remix boots very fast, but I've never used it. Comparing regular Ubuntu (with GNOME) to the Windows 7 release candidate dual booting on the same machine, Ubuntu booted faster, but only by a couple of seconds. (I never timed them, however.) I did use Lubuntu (the LXDE version of Ubuntu) for awhile thought and it was wicked fast booting. (I ended up switching back to regular GNOME though just because I thought fonts were crisper/cleaner/easier to read on GNOME, no doubt due to its anti-aliasing features.)