View Full Version : ubuntu install on tekzilla
computoman
03-14-2008, 07:32 PM
I was very happy that they showed at least a minimal install of linux. I dare a mswindows product to be so easy. I aslo wished they could have at least teased with with the use of compiz.
Here is one of my machines with ubuntu watching Tekzilla live. yet the video even works on a plane.,
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/337/screenshotae5.th.png (http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotae5.png)
brotherJohn1234
03-14-2008, 07:47 PM
i love ubuntu and debian :) - but why have you gone through the text-(alternative) install ? the default gui-installer is much easier for a new linux-user.
( btw. the folks from ubuntu preparing a Micro$oft Windows installer for the next version for ubuntu http://wubi-installer.org/screenshots.php )
...I dare a mswindows product to be so easy.
...are you serious? You can't be serious...
computoman
03-14-2008, 11:38 PM
i love ubuntu and debian :) - but why have you gone through the text-(alternative) install ? the default gui-installer is much easier for a new linux-user.
( btw. the folks from ubuntu preparing a Micro$oft Windows installer for the next version for ubuntu http://wubi-installer.org/screenshots.php )
They probably did the text install to make sure it was installable on a 64meg ram machine. The video install takes a bit more memory. Remember the specs they gave. Personally for a low end machine like that I might have chose mepis antix instead( it only has a graphic install from what I have seen). It comes already setup to use you tube and other standard multimedia, so you do not have to install the media software separately like you do with mswindows (linux has windows too) or the average linux.
computoman
03-14-2008, 11:53 PM
...are you serious? You can't be serious...
Where used to work, the MS tunnel vision admins gave me heck about what I demonstrated linux could do. They never did tell me why I was let go. I think the real reason was I made them look bad.
That was not hard to do with their level of computer sophistication. To be honest, I really do not consider myself a pro at it either. I am trying to learn as much as I can as fast as I can.
Shinku
03-15-2008, 01:16 AM
Where used to work, the MS tunnel vision admins gave me heck about what I demonstrated linux could do. They never did tell me why I was let go. I think the real reason was I made them look bad.
That was not hard to do with their level of computer sophistication. To be honest, I really do not consider myself a pro at it either. I am trying to learn as much as I can as fast as I can.
So... the reason you just said that installations of Microsoft products were hard is because some sysadmin wouldn't let you install Linux one day?
Wow.
computoman
03-15-2008, 10:00 AM
It is a lot more complicated than that. I installed the linux in the student computer labs as required for the classes. I also always had linux test machines going on with machines about to go to auction. Other than saying that, The gist of it was they (it management) would tell users something was impossible to do (translation: they were were either too lazy to do it or were not technically qualified to do it) and then I would do it easily or suggested a very reasonable alternative. It was not hard to make them look less than satisfactory. They were getting a lot of negative feedback from users because of it. Most of the users wish I was still there. The good ol boys IT club of bullies there will never be broken apart unless something freezes over. To add insult to injury, they would prefer to badmouth me to potential employers than admit they were wrong. I pray to god someone requests a Rico act investigation of that institution. I am going to start my own business once I get some things set up,
Ah, so you think installing Windows is hard because you went out of your way to go behind the IT departments back and do things your way.
I see now.
/eyeroll
computoman
03-17-2008, 01:29 AM
I have deployed windows images from windows 97 to xp and win2k server that I built to hundreds of machines over the years. I will work with any os that will pay the rent so to speak. I just downloaded a trial version of windows server 2008 from Microsoft itself to play with. Considering Vista still has issues, Microsoft says they will not have a fix for their home server maybe this summer, and so on and so forth. Who needs that type of aggravation that you have to pay a premium price for software and new overpriced hardware every other day. I do recommending donating to the open source project of your choice. I still have M$ on a couple of toy machines that go pretty much unused by the whole family. Everyone here prefers linux. 'nuf said.....
ciao
darknessgp
03-17-2008, 03:42 AM
...It comes already setup to use you tube and other standard multimedia, so you do not have to install the media software separately like you do with mswindows (linux has windows too) or the average linux.
Just a few things that make you sound like a moron when it comes to computers...
"you tube" isn't multimedia, it's a web site that uses flash to play videos that are not stored on your local machine.
"mswindows". I don't think I ever heard ANYONE use that term ever. you can just put windows or XP or Vista... We will know what you are referring to.
"linux has windows too" That just makes you sound like you time traveled from back when Linux first got a GUI. Just FYI, every desktop OS has "windows".
Considering Vista still has issues, Microsoft says they will not have a fix for their home server maybe this summer, and so on and so forth.
Now, normally I wouldn't be a grammar Nazi, but That sentence makes absolutely NO sense. You have a "Considering" statement, followed by a statement somewhat unrelated, and then you tack on "and so on and so forth" A better way of writing it would be. Vista still has issues, but Microsoft says..." and leave off the "and so on and so forth."
Oh, and about your IT badmouthing you... Even if you are correct and did nothing wrong. Or you are not a moron (I have my own doubts on that) It's pretty fair to assume that if an employer doesn't like you, they are probably not going to be saying the best things about you if you use them as a reference for another job. You should already know this, which is why I have my aforementioned doubts.
...
Well, hat was ridiculously incoherent (and I'm factoring in the idea that English is likely not your first language), but from what I could understand, it seems like you're just complaining because someone doesn't agree with you outright. It's immature and it pretty much just proves my point.
I don't care what you've downloaded to test, or how many toy boxes you have laying around, that's standard "I have no clue what I'm doing, look how many computers I have!" chatter from crappy admins and teenagers. It /really/ doesn't sound like you have any idea what you're talking about (technically or logically)...
uteck
03-17-2008, 03:31 PM
It would be fun it they did a install of XP just so all the people in the audience that have never done it can see just how difficult it is to get a usable system fully installed. People could play a drinking game every time the system needs to reboot. :P
It is clear from the posts in this thread that more Linux demos need to be done to educate the people that have never tried it, or did once a few years ago.
Windows has 1 strength, it plays games. Everything else is up in the air. Most of the people I work with do not know the difference between MS and Linux, they just want their apps to work and the system not to crash. Show them a way they can do their work without having to reboot all the time or admin their machines patches and anti-virus, they would be grateful.
tokenuser
03-17-2008, 03:48 PM
Windows has 1 strength, it plays games. Everything else is up in the air. Most of the people I work with do not know the difference between MS and Linux, they just want their apps to work and the system not to crash. Show them a way they can do their work without having to reboot all the time or admin their machines patches and anti-virus, they would be grateful.Only 1 strength? It plays games ...
How about - dominant market share in home and business markets. Thats a strength.
Those "apps" they want to work will probably be Microsoft Office. And runnign under WINE in Linux is not a strength, its a weakness - bercause it is even flakier than Windows.
Sure, I have an AV installed. It updates automatically. Ditto on the patches. Since I run a laptop, my machine does get shut down periodically. Most "non server" machines do.
Linux has its place. Fanboys do not.
It would be fun it they did a install of XP just so all the people in the audience that have never done it can see just how difficult it is to get a usable system fully installed. People could play a drinking game every time the system needs to reboot. :P
It is clear from the posts in this thread that more Linux demos need to be done to educate the people that have never tried it, or did once a few years ago.
So, you think that all of Linux is just prebuilt crud like Ubuntu? Do you not see the support forums for so many distros that are flooded with ridiculously simple questions that arise because everything has been laid out on a platter for users? How can you honestly say it's difficult to get an XP installation setup? It does everything for you, all you have to do is enter your name and a product key. It's an installation process that Ubuntu and other 'come by the masses' distros first aimed to emulate.
Windows has 1 strength, it plays games. Everything else is up in the air. Most of the people I work with do not know the difference between MS and Linux, they just want their apps to work and the system not to crash. Show them a way they can do their work without having to reboot all the time or admin their machines patches and anti-virus, they would be grateful. When OpenOffice.org can actually hold a candle to MS Office, you may be right. Or even, when Linux distributions can provide enterprise level support for non-enterprise level users, you'll be right. Or even when there is absolutely _no_ need to ever touch a shell, you'll be right. But you're wrong.
And moreover, I'm sick and tired of seeing bullshit like this:
t is clear from the posts in this thread that more Linux demos need to be done to educate the people that have never tried it, or did once a few years ago.
That's pure fanboyism right there. You don't know me, and chances are you don't know anyone else in this thread. You assume we don't know something because we disagree with you, when it's more likely that we do know what we're talking about because we're able to criticize something like Linux objectively. In all honestly, when you make a claim like that, and then say the things you did in that post, it makes it look like you just have no idea what you're talking about in general, and it makes the Linux community (thank God it isn't the entire UNIX community) look like a bunch of sniffling retards.
davmoo
03-17-2008, 08:41 PM
Actually you're all wrong, and you're all right :-)
Blanket statements like "[OS of choice] are hard to install" never work.
I've installed Vista and XP and had it work like a champ on the first shot...I've also had them blow up within the first few steps.
And the same goes with Linux. Mandriva has been so easy to install for me that its almost (and notice I did say "almost") better than sex. At the same time, I have yet to ever have a successful install of any flavor of Ubuntu on any hardware I own (and I can see 7 desktops and 4 laptops just from where I'm sitting...I need to clean up this room). Redhat/CentOS is running about 50/50 on install ease, as is Slackware.
OS installation is like most anything else...some days you're the hammer, other days you're the nail.
phoenixp3k
03-18-2008, 01:09 AM
I would of liked they use the live CD and install it from there. To me it looks even more user friendly than the text install (even if you're going through the same selections basicly).
I found funny how they "casually" switched from the big tv to the monitor, display setup can be a little sketchy without the drivers there (on a fresh install).
Ubuntu is my distro of choice and hope they make an other segment on it when Hardy Heron gets released in April.
computoman
03-18-2008, 01:33 AM
He makes a lot of assumptions that are not true. I.e. I was actually around when X was first being used to any degree. Other than that, I would prefer to go spend time with my daughter than put up with his drivel.
He makes a lot of assumptions that are not true. I.e. I was actually around when X was first being used to any degree. Other than that, I would prefer to go spend time with my daughter than put up with his drivel.
Eh... actually, no, I didn't make that assumption about you. You fail at reading.
GFree
03-18-2008, 11:24 AM
This is what I see regarding the situation of Linux and Linux on the desktop, after spending years trying out various versions (and sorry about the wall of text :) )
Linux has its greatest strengths in technical areas such as development, servers and hosting, and embedded devices. The idea of running Linux on the desktop, specifically the desktop market held by Windows, is actually a fairly recent idea, and for the longest time there was no real concerted attempt to focus effort and attention into making this happen. Microsoft have had a LOT of experience doing this.
Now, with Ubuntu we're finally making some headway, BUT... as has been stated, commercial software is still something we desperately need. There's still a stack of closed-source software on Windows/OS X that open-source just can't hold a candle too, and in particular, Windows has a stack of enterprise-level software that is simply not available in Linux yet. If businesses won't use Linux because of the lack of necessary software, there's little chance of normal folk even caring, much less knowing about any alternatives.
ha1f does have a point, but I'd also argue that not everyone needs all the capabilities of commercial software. Heck, a lot of people don't even buy the stuff they use at home, they'll just crack it/find a key somewhere. But since no-one apart from businesses care about pirated software (and even in many businesses, they still don't care if they can get away with it), the idea of using free software for both meanings of free just doesn't register with most people apart from the zealots.
(BTW - Linux zealots piss me right off, and I use Linux! They're often the worst advocates for trying out Linux because they'll use outdated ideas such as Windows being hard to install, or how Windows users suffer BSODs every day. Exaggeration is not the way to go.)
Linux has a place on the desktop for two sets of people: geeks, and people with very specific and unwavering uses of their computers that can be satisfied by existing Linux software. My mom's laptop came with Vista - it ran slow as shite due to it having 512MB RAM. I installed XP, but later on and for a little curiosity installed Ubuntu as a dual-boot to see how she'd fair. Things worked out quite well, but this was because her only real needs (Web/Email) were satisfied Firefox/Thunderbird, and because I installed it for her due to my past experiences.
Linux needs exposure to "normal" people (sorry geeks - let's face it, too many of us have a warped idea of how regular people think). Linux also needs a crapload more commercial software, and in particular, businesses need to start using it on their workstations before we'll see any chance of it being a viable alternative to Windows or OS X. Still pleased to see it shown on Tekzilla, even if they only used the text-based installer for some god-awful reason. :)
computoman
03-21-2008, 02:51 AM
Although I tout linux I actually do have windows, and osx systems also. The greatest percentage of my income is from windows and osx users from cleaning up and or upgrading their machines using linux, So I keep systems around for that. So everyone keep on using windows and osx so i can make more money. I have not had to clean any linux systems of viruses or malware as of yet.
-
Name me a package that is needed on windows or mac and I will show you in most cases an open source alternative. Ironically on both mac and the pc, many more people are now using open source software under windows and osx instead of their expensive counterparts. With Wine, I can run windows software anyway on linux. I just purchased and installedan mswindows income tax progam on my main linux desktop system. There is a product called Crossover Office that is a sort of commercial version of wine also available. Lack of software for linux is not a valid argument.
-
Several years back I was taking care of my stepfather. Since he did not have much time left (he has since passed away), His brother came to visit us. He wanted to use my computer to get on the internet and do other things. When he saw i was not using windows he had a hissyfit and ranted for a bit why I was not using mswindows. He owned a bit of MS stock (Wish I had that kind of money) . At the time I was running suse 8.x linux (before Novell took it over), I said: let me show you around on the system and show what you can do. Of course the internet was his prime need. I set him up an account on the system. I introduced him to open office and the network browser of the time and other software. He became more interested. I also had a tv card installed to watch tv. He really loved that so he could get his weather reports. To make a long story short, I never was able to use my computer till he left. He wanted to know where to get linux for his machines. I gave him a copy of some linux iso's we downloaded from the net. He and his three adult sons (one whom is an engineer at HP) all use linux now. I now have a spare computer for guests.
-
I have been running linux on the desktop with xwindows (not mswindows) since the 1990's, I know quite a few non-geek average people that use linux. Linux is not just for geek or techie types. They use it specifically for the desktop and the wealth of software available. If I were to start someone off with linux. it might not be ubuntu though. If Novell did not own suse, i would recommend opensuse, redhat, or maybe as a last resort xandros for the non-techie as a starter distro. I think corel (word perfect fame) is now owned by zandros was the first real easier install of linux. Anyone who wants to badmouth both linux and linux users need to get a grip and find out the real truth is and not listen to the fud that is being slung around.
computoman
03-21-2008, 03:19 AM
There are several versions of linux that you can use without even installing it on the computer. These are known as live cd's that are freely available. You can knck the tires of linux without ever putting anything on your system to see if you may or may not like it. Just boot from cd and run. I dare Apple and Microsoft to make a live version of Vista and or OSX for the public to use to see if they like it or not. With Apple and Microsoft you have to pay before you play. Not so with linux.
GFree
03-21-2008, 09:42 AM
Name me a package that is needed on windows or mac and I will show you in most cases an open source alternative.
It's one thing to have an open source alternative. It's another thing to have an OSS alternative that's as good as the closed-source version. There's absolutely nothing in Linux equivalent to Photoshop, AutoCAD, FL Studio or Sony Vegas for example. There are perhaps programs that can do SOME of what these tools provide, but often it's either buggy or simply not functional enough.
There are also other examples of programs that simple don't have any Linux alternative. There's no Nokia PC Suite for Linux, which means I can't upload content to my phone (eg. wallpapers, java apps). I have managed to get it working using VMware in Linux, but what's the point? I might as well keep using Windows.
Perhaps I'm a power user, but I can guarantee you that the power of commercial software is often unmatched, and cannot be matched by OSS for every case. OSS is cheaper sure, but unless it's superior to the commercial stuff in both quality and functionality, it can be overlooked for this reason. There are exceptions of course, but I've been taken along the OSS-is-better-full-stop road far too many times to fall for it again. :mad:
computoman
03-21-2008, 08:05 PM
Do not get me wrong. If you have software that is best for you then stay with that platform...
-
I can recommend several people who are real power users and have not had problems using the nokia. They can also help you with your nokia and linux issues. I do not own one yet. With the eeepc, that might be a better choice for me. I will plug along with my trusty compaq pentium 1 laptop for the time being. By the way the nokia runs linux. With the amount of businesses and schools around the world and the U.S. that are now converting to linux, someone might disagree with you about linux operating system and its application software being sub par. I will not bore you with the list. To say software for windows or apple software is all robust is not exactly true. Having been a tech for more than ten years, I have installed so many upgrades to fix issues In Photoshop, Autocad, Microsoft, Apple, and quite a few other products. Every platform has a few bad apples, but on the average issues get fixed quicker and better and usually improved on linux and bsd.
See how people use non-commercial operating systems.
www.thelinuxlink.net
www.linuxreality.com