is there a guide for how to use an ereader in linux?

[kacir]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If I ever did decide to give Linux a try, I would dual-boot because I would not want to lose what I already have.

This is what I have been doing for years.
There is absolutely no need to burn the bridge.
Just use whatever works best. This is not a religion, just a work tool.

Before you commit to dual boot you can try live system - booted from a CD or an USB memory stick. For example Mint Linux install media is a live CD (loadable to USB memory stick), so you can try it before installing.

As a next step you can download installed and configured image for one of numerous VMs out there. You can be up and running 3 minutes after download finishes.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sure that there probably are Linux apps that can do most of what Lightroom does, but I don't want to have to learn how to use a new app. I'm happy with what I have.

So you can understand why people might not want to learn Windows just to use one program, right? This is about Gregg getting things done on his Linux machine, isn't it? We are trying to help him do that, not trying to convert him to Windows.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Before you go to Linux, take stock of what it is you want to do.

Gregg is not going to Linux. He's already there. Some people are trying to get him to go to Windows, instead of helping him do what he wants to do.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

So you can understand why people might not want to learn Windows just to use one program, right? This is about Gregg getting things done on his Linux machine, isn't it? We are trying to help him do that, not trying to convert him to Windows.

Absolutely, old boy. Not suggesting for a moment that Gregg should use Windows.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have a better idea. Change step 1 to...

Step 1. Install Windows OVER Linux

Now you can do away with step 2 as you don't have Linux any longer.

Have you even tried Linux? I ask because you seem to be stuck in a time warp from about 15 years ago.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have a better idea. Change step 1 to...

Step 1. Install Windows OVER Linux

Now you can do away with step 2 as you don't have Linux any longer.

Fortunately I don't have to use any "Windows-only" applications. I've been using Linux exclusively for about seven years now. There is simply nothing that would induce me to go back to Windows. Had I been happy with Windows I would have never gone to Linux in the first place.

And I'm not a zealot. If you like Windows, go for it. If you like OSX, go for it. I like Linux -- it just works -- so I went for it.

[JSWolf]

If I was stuck using Windows Vista, I owuld possibly try Linux. But as Windows 7 works well and so does Windows 8.1 (with a few customizations), there's no need to switch. What is it that Linux has that Windows doesn't?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Gregg is not going to Linux. He's already there. Some people are trying to get him to go to Windows, instead of helping him do what he wants to do.

And some people are trying to convince him not to incorporate some kind of Windows, only because the native solution is always better. The native solution to your OS is always better, but it is certainly not easiest or fastest to get it up and running in every case.

Let me show you some of the problems the OP has run into, in his own words (bold is always me emphasizing, and [snip] where I cut part of the post out):

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

You know, the whole Windows/Linux debate. As you know I'm a late entry (I'm really just a writer) to this whole issue. The 'end of XP' is what got me hearing about Linux. And so the computer I had (which was working well) was suddenly going to be garbage. So a friend helped me install Xubuntu on it. Well, it worked so much faster, so much more reliably than XP ever did that I was blown away.

[snip]

Now that's a two-edged sword. Lately with Alf's tools and trying to get some other stuff I'm really getting pretty sick of trying to figure out some of the winding directions to install stuff. And I mean that. I am so close to getting a cheap refurbished Windows 7 installed Dell and dual booting. (And when I'm frustrated enough single booting--with Windows!)

But Linux and me are pals by now.

[snip]

Let's face it both Windows and Linux have advantages. But I'm still leaning toward Linux. And it's motivating--David vs. Goliath. Bill "monopoly" Gates vs all the awesome Linux volunteers.

So Greg is not dead set on one thing or the other (Windows vs. Linux) - he wants to do what has easy enough instructions that he can follow plus he wants to use an OS that is supported (XP is no longer supported by MS). And seeing that he is about to throw the towel and almost giving up on Linux shows his frustration clearly.

So instead of having to find agreeable instructions for Linux in general, his distro in particular, any future obscure port to Linux especially (not just Alf), I suggested to run a complete Windows in a VM. The really main reason for that is easy to find instructions everywhere for Windows. If you notice, even the instructions I linked on how to setup the VM itself, are easy enough to follow. Sure it is not the ideal solution. Greg would have been much happier, imo, to have the Easy Guide For Dummies To Get Everything To Work Concerning Ebook Management In Linux Natively. In the meantime while he searches this mythical beast, he can learn to setup his Windows in a VM (no extra computer needed) then find the Windows instructions with download links to the actual program, install, transfer the finished (deDRMed book) to Linux and go on his merry way.

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

This sounds really great, Tigger, thanks. And thanks for the link. I don't really anticipate having a lot of books to DEDRM so that would be ideal.

[snip]

I realize I need to learn more about how vmware works but this sounds really promising. Esp. if it will work on Xubuntu.

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Enjoyed the pun. I've heard the virtual boxes are slow. I single booted the XP I have so dual booting isn't an option. Slow or not I'm thinking the VM is my best shot at this point. Esp. since I'm not going to have to be doing it a lot. Thanks for the info. I never think about corruption. In my mind everything lasts forever.

At least that is what I read from it. Bite the bullet now, get the VM running. Now Greg will have the option to use the first instruction that he finds - be that either a solution for Windows or for Linux. Of course, he would look first for a native way in Linux, but he can (to save time and frustration) alternatively fire up his VM and follow the Windows instructions.

It is sad that this whole thread turned into a "my OS is bigger than your OS".

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

So Greg is not dead set on one thing or the other (Windows vs. Linux) - he wants to do what has easy enough instructions that he can follow plus he wants to use an OS that is supported (XP is no longer supported by MS). And seeing that he is about to throw the towel and almost giving up on Linux shows his frustration clearly.

Linux could be very misleading. Since the computer in use is old, it could be that it's not capable of running Qt5. While Linux will allow installing the latest Calibre and the latest Sigil, that does not mean it's a good thing if Qt5 will not work. So the best solution is to run a check on that computer to see if it is capable of running Windows 8.1. If it's not, then seriously, it's time for a new computer as Linux won't help in place of XP. In fact, it could be the wrong way to go for a computer unable to run what's wanted to be run since the installs will work but the software will not cause possible data loss and crashes. I'm not saying Greg should run Windows or Linux. But he should know what his computer is capable of and if it's not capable of running Windows 8.1, then it's not capable of running Qt5 and that leaves out new versions of Calibre and Sigil.

If a new computer is needed then chances are it will come with Windows 8.1 and I suggest installing Classic Start Menu and using that.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Linux could be very misleading. Since the computer in use is old, it could be that it's not capable of running Qt5. [Snip]

Every computer is capable of running QT5 when you run it in a VM that can emulate the needed hardware. So what exactly is the problem?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Every computer is capable of running QT5 when you run it in a VM that can emulate the needed hardware. So what exactly is the problem?

But what are the processor requirements?

Personally, I'm not a VM fan. I prefer to have real hardware that can run the software I want to use.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Every computer is capable of running QT5 when you run it in a VM that can emulate the needed hardware. So what exactly is the problem?

The problem is usable performance.

Remember a Virtualised Machine emulates all the hardware apart from the CPU which is shares with the host OS. So if your actual CPU doesn't support SSE2 then your VM won't either. So no QT5.

What you can do is emulate the whole machine, including CPU, with something like Qemu. But that will be much much slower.

And even a VM on a machine old enough to not have SSE2 is going to run like a dog unless you run a really old OS on it. But I doubt you can run the software you need on Windows 95.

Also to create a Windows VM you need the install media for Windows for generic hardware and a valid license. Many people don't have that. They have perhaps the ability to restore the PC to the version of Windows it came with and the license almost certainly is not transferable. A legal technicality perhaps but still.

Wine or dual-booting is a better solution IMO/IME.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If I was stuck using Windows Vista, I owuld possibly try Linux. But as Windows 7 works well and so does Windows 8.1 (with a few customizations), there's no need to switch. What is it that Linux has that Windows doesn't?

Stability. Ease of maintenance. No malware issues. No constant anti-malware application maintenance. No Registry corruption. Sensible file structure. No Blue/Black Screens of Death. NO REGISTRY CORRUPTION. No built-in obsolescence. Almost all programs load (and update) from a single repository, with a single (universal) update command. No Registry corruption. Choice of many desktops -- not stuck with Microsoft's newest desktop dictates (like no Start Menu). Can use much less powerful hardware. No Registry corruption. Choice. Lots of choice. And, in case I missed it, no Registry corruption.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by latepaul

The problem is usable performance.

Remember a Virtualised Machine emulates all the hardware apart from the CPU which is shares with the host OS. So if your actual CPU doesn't support SSE2 then your VM won't either. So no QT5.

What you can do is emulate the whole machine, including CPU, with something like Qemu. But that will be much much slower.

And even a VM on a machine old enough to not have SSE2 is going to run like a dog unless you run a really old OS on it. But I doubt you can run the software you need on Windows 95.

Also to create a Windows VM you need the install media for Windows for generic hardware and a valid license. Many people don't have that. They have perhaps the ability to restore the PC to the version of Windows it came with and the license almost certainly is not transferable. A legal technicality perhaps but still.

Wine or dual-booting is a better solution IMO/IME.

What you can do is run one of the various programs that will show you the Windows key that you can then use if you can get a copy of the same version of Windows on CD or DVD.

Considering you own Windows, I would say finding a torrent for the same version of Windows is not a morale issue. You could do that and have an installable Windows. So if you do want to run Linux and that Windows in a VM, you can install it as you'll have a valid key.

(IMHO) very very slow is unusable and thus a VM that has to emulate processor functions the hardware processor doesn't have is not a good idea. I would expect too slow to be of any real use.

[latepaul]

BTW, to check for SSE2 support in Linux, run this in a terminal:

cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -i sse2

If you get nothing back then it doesn't. More likely you'll see a line with all the various CPU gubbins (technical term) it supports.