Gregg's Nearly Interminable Adventures in Linux Land

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

What do you like about it? How does it work? Like it says? .odt-->html? If so, is its .odt-->html cleaner than Libreoffice's .odt-->html? What are Writer2xhtml's advantages over other processes?

When I go to File->Export, one of the options is "ePub". I like it because it's simple, and the output is reasonably clean.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Exactly. Even if you are just going to copy the raw text out of LibreOffice, I would still suggest using it -- text editors have a lot of bells and whistles for all the wrong things, as far as your needs go.

Unless LibreOffice was freezing up on you and stopping you from being more productive... text editors are probably not worth it.

Thanks man

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by avantman42

When I go to File->Export, one of the options is "ePub". I like it because it's simple, and the output is reasonably clean.

Okay. Thanks Russell.

[Cinisajoy]

Just want to say hi to Gregg.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Just want to say hi to Gregg.

Hi Cinisajoy. Nice to see you.

[Gregg Bell]

Hey, just in case anybody's looking for a list of regex commands for novels (for Word, Sigil and Regex), somebody at LQ turned me on to this. I haven't tested it yet, but it looks great!

http://jabrambarneck.com/2013/10/21/...comment-158143

[Gregg Bell]

Okay, I'm pretty much double posting here but I'm justifying it (rationalizing it?) by the fact that you guys down here in the Lounge are the Linux Zen Masters. (Please don't turn me in.)

This is the deal:

I used to proof the epubs I made in Sigil on the Sony Reader Library, which from what I can gather is no longer around. Before that I used ADE 2.0 but that was back in my Windows days. Yeah, I could use Calibre's Ebook Viewer or Sigil's Bookview, but there was something comforting about seeing it on another system (and the Sony Reader Library made it super easy to transfer edits to Sigil).

Are there Sony Reader Library downloads for Linux around anywhere? And would I have to go with Wine to use ADE?

I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks.

[eschwartz]

You'd need WINE to use Adobe Digital Editions, but the good news is that winetricks (a sort of appstore for WINE programs that are known to be reliable) can install it for you.


It can also install Kindle for PC.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You'd need WINE to use Adobe Digital Editions, but the good news is that winetricks (a sort of appstore for WINE programs that are known to be reliable) can install it for you.


It can also install Kindle for PC.

Thanks eschwartz. So (see screenshot) I install Wine first, then Winetricks? Then I can install ADE and KIndle for PC thru Winetricks? (So Winetricks is kind of like a Ubuntu Software Center for Windows stuff?)

[eschwartz]

Yup.
It has a small collection.
Also, it does some other things (à la System Settings), but that doesn't matter for this.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Yup.
It has a small collection.
Also, it does some other things (à la System Settings), but that doesn't matter for this.

Thanks man.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Yup.
It has a small collection.
Also, it does some other things (à la System Settings), but that doesn't matter for this.

I already had Winetricks on one computer! Ha. Super easy to use. Got ADE. Now I'll put Wine and Winetricks on the other computer too. Thanks!

[Gregg Bell]

Hey.

As you know I'm a Linux guy. But I need a new desktop. Both of these have Windows OSs and I'm probably going to get rid of them and put Xubuntu on them (well, on the one I buy anyway).

The computer I have now bogs doing tweets on Twitter (I get the 'the script is not completing. do you want to continue?' screen.) and is just generally slow opening things up. I would also like do some light video editing.

So here are the two computers I'm interested in. Any opinions as to which is better (or perhaps neither)? Thanks.

https://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/sys/5497368099.html

https://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/syd/5487887839.html

[Glorfindel]

Personally I'd go for the second, simply because it's a quad, which is much better than a duo for video editing. Ram and hdd can be upgraded if you need more.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

So here are the two computers I'm interested in. Any opinions as to which is better (or perhaps neither)? Thanks.

https://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/sys/5497368099.html

https://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/syd/5487887839.html

I did a desktop upgrade, and my starting point was similar to the first system you list. My old built-from-components dual-core desktop box was developing issues I could not resolve. My SO said "You need a new machine. You have $500. Go." By happy coincidence, midwest retailer Micro Center send an email with deals including a refurb Dell Optiplex SFF system with a quad-core 2.4ghz Xeon CPU, 4GB RAM, a 240GB SATA HD, and Win 7 Pro for $250.

That was a decent starting point. I added 4GB more RAM to take it to the 8GB that was the max supported by the Intel chipset, added a Crucial MX-100 240GB SSD, and an ATI low profile graphics card with a GB of video RAM to replace the onboard Intel graphics. Total cost when the dust settled was $550.

The intent was to dual boot Windows and Ubuntu from SSD, but there were a few speed bumps in the road.

Problem one was the Small Form Factor model had two SATA connectors - one for HD and one for a built in DVD. I wanted to keep the HD as well as using the SSD. I had a USB DVD drive, so I could live without the internal DVD and repurpose the SATA connector. This required getting a Y adapter for the HD power lead, because the DVD used a different power connector. I also added a 7 port USB hub to accommodate an assortment of thumbdrives.

Another issue was the Dell BIOS. While the machine would see the SSD, there was no way in the BIOS to tell it to boot from it. The BIOS assumed one SATA drive, and there was no way to select a second as boot device. A freeware Windows utility let me modify the Windows boot file to add the SSD to the list.

Next step was migrating to the SSD. The Crucial MX-100 came with a license for a version of Acronis True Image, that would let me clone the Windows version on the HD to the SSD. But while Device Manager would see the SSD device, Windows didn't see it as a drive. It had to be initialized and have a file system. I could do that from Windows, using Control Panel/Administrative Tools/Computer Management/Storage/Disk Management. Once that was done, I could install Acronis True
Image and tell it to clone the HD to the SSD. That happened very quickly.

After the image was cloned, I could reboot and select the SSD as the boot drive from the Windows boot menu, and Poof! I was booted and running from the SSD. It's [i]fast[i]. Boot from cold start to a Windows desktop was about 45 seconds. Applications load similarly quickly.

Next step was dual booting. I could use Windows disk management to carve out a raw partition on the SSD. I made one 20GB in size, as adequate for Ubuntu and Linux apps. Ubuntu could see the existing HD, and data could live there.

I rebooted into BIOS setup, and made USB the boot device, then booted from a Ubuntu installer on a USB thumb drive. The installer matter of factly saw the raw partition on the SSD, formatted it ext4, and installed Ubuntu to it. The end result was a grub2 menu offering Ubuntu, Win 7 from SSD, and Win 7 from HD.

The end result is a pleasure to use. There are bigger, faster machines out there, but what I have is adequate for what I do with it.

The biggest minus is lack of expandability. It can't be overclocked, so making it faster would require replacing the CPU. It doesn't have USB3, so additional storage hooked up through USB might be hobbled. (This would mostly affect trying to run a different Linux distro from a USB thumbdrive. Folks who have tried reported disappointing experience doing it from USB2, and much better results with USB3.) There is one PCI-e expansion slot, intended for a replacement video card. If I wanted to do something else that required a PCI-e slot, I'd have to drop the video card and revert to built-in Intel graphics. (The machine was built to be a corporate desktop machine, where 3D performance would not be a requirement. The Intel graphics do 2D just fine, but lack on 3D.)

But I knew that going in, and largely don't care. I do need to dual-boot, because too much of what I do tends to be Windows specific, sl going all Linux isn't a viable option. But what I do doesn't really require the most powerful machine. I'm not a desktop gamer, and I'm not doing heavy development with a local repository, compilers and debuggers, where the speed with which something can be built from source is an issue.

I spend most time in my browser, so I set up something that recapitulates what I did on the old desktop. I found an open source 64 bit ramdisk driver, and devote 512MB to a ramdrive seen as Z: in Windows. My Firefox profile and cache live there. I speeds up the browser a treat.

At some point, the desktop will get upgraded to Win10 Pro. I already have two laptops which got upgraded, and there were no special issues. It was mostly a matter of telling Win10 what not to do once it was up and running.

And just to make it more fun, Ubuntu parent Canonical is apparently working with MS to get Ubuntu to run on Win10 side-by-side with Win10...
______
Dennis