Linux doesn't seem practical

[Sporkk]

A long time ago I tried several linux distros but was never able to get it working properly with my isp, network card, or who knows what the problem was. So I ignored linux until now. I decided to give ubuntu a try after hearing about how secure it was from spyware and viruses. Also just wanted to try something different. After install I excitedly wait for the reboot and tada my win7 desktop loads. I google about why the grub screen isn't showing up. Apparently windows 7 does not like anything changing the mbr. I find many suggestions most taking me into the command line and typing a bunch of stuff that I have no idea what it means. Then further down I read most people talking about how there is still no proper fix yet.

So I downloaded the super grub cd and was able to get into the ubuntu desktop finally.The main screen of grub cd didn't make any sense to me but your suppose to click pick language and help for the real screen. Why couldn't they just title it start here or something like that? So I figure that my options are to use a cd every time I want to boot, or buy another hard drive for which I can build a switch or change the boot order in the bios.
After sleeping on it I realize I won't be spending much time in linux simply because the programs I need aren't supported for it. My whole pile of dvd rebuilding tools is a good reason. I don't want to worry if wine may or may not work with every new version of a windows program comes out that I need.

So why keep switching over to linux just so I can browse the internet? The practicality of linux sucks. The only reason I would consider using it is for relatives or friends computer that is only for internet and they keep mucking everything up with spyware.

[cloggy45]

Windows 7 and Ubuntu work side by side perfectly for me, I have it on my laptop, Ubuntu is much faster and loads up far quicker than its windows counterpart, but takes ages to get anything done, i.e. compiling programs looking for drivers and messing with terminals and such.

It also has this strange thing where it forgets my root pass, but all in all I think its not a bad operating system, you must also keep in mind that Linux is free, and is developed by a community rather than a company of paid individuals

Also with Linux I found it’s also a good idea too have a thirst for knowledge! Especially when it comes to using the terminal, and working out the commands!

[Sporkk]

Are you using grub with windows 7? Same or separate hard drives? It would be nice if I could have them both running at the same time and switch like you can with windows desktops.

It would be a lot of fun to learn about linux but I'm having trouble finding the motivation to do so because the programs I use on a regular basis are all in windows.

Anydvd(needed for the bluray support), dvd rebuilder, makemkv , newsleecher, just to name a few. Maybe some of them would work with wine but I think they like the real windows better. Ipod touch support is also very limited.

[Recursacro]

Now, I'm just a n00b(in FST rank), but I can have my say:

The reason you're having a hard time is because it's Linux. As cloggy45 stated, Linux, is for (in our opinion) people who have a thirst for knowledge, and/or people who want something more than Winblows or Mac. Almost everyone will have the problems you've had. The trick is to just figure them out, and then help out the next noobie that has the same problem. That's how the community runs.

When I started with Linux (Ubuntu), I had the hardest time connecting to my wireless network. Since then, I've learned a substantial amount about the drivers, modules, inards, and outards of Linux. With this knowledge, I help others where I can.

You need to gather up that motivation you say you lack if you want to do well with Linux. Even Ubuntu, which babies you.
I have Slack, Ubuntu, and Win7, and they all work well(enough) together.

Please don't think Linux is impractical. Closed source software is the real impracticality.

[Sporkk]

Fwir a major problem with linux is that there are so many distros. Nothing can be standardized and software writers don't want to build a package for 50 different o/s. How many linux users don't dual boot or even have a windows box in their home? I'm guessing very few. Maybe people use linux because they truly like tinkering with computers or they feel that microsoft is evil or both. As for being something more than windows? how so? What can I do in linux that I can't do in windows? The only advantage that I see is being free and immunity to virus/malware.

Open office is a wonderful set of software but to be honest every review I have seen favors the microsoft offering by at least a small edge. That being said I still install open office on a lot of peoples computers that ask me about a office application.
My point is that windows will usually have better software because people are actually paid.

If every program I needed was as well supported as something like open office in linux then I would gladly make the switch. Until then I will stick with windows and have the choice of high quality paid programs and open source.

[Recursacro]

Fwir a major problem with linux is that there are so many distros. Nothing can be standardized and software writers don't want to build a package for 50 different o/s. How many linux users don't dual boot or even have a windows box in their home? I'm guessing very few. Maybe people use linux because they truly like tinkering with computers or they feel that microsoft is evil or both. As for being something more than windows? how so? What can I do in linux that I can't do in windows? The only advantage that I see is being free and immunity to virus/malware.

Open office is a wonderful set of software but to be honest every review I have seen favors the microsoft offering by at least a small edge. That being said I still install open office on a lot of peoples computers that ask me about a office application.
My point is that windows will usually have better software because people are actually paid.

If every program I needed was as well supported as something like open office in linux then I would gladly make the switch. Until then I will stick with windows and have the choice of high quality paid programs and open source.

A couple things:

The the vast variety of distros is a good thing. People can choose what fits them.

Linux is not immune to viruses; it just gets updated more often, so holes are fixed faster.

I thought M$ can no longer sell their Word Processor/Office Suite...

I suppose I take a look at this as a programmer, so Linux has all the potential in the world, and if I want to change something, I can. Even if I look at this as Mr. Average-Joe, Linux is a better choice because it's free, the software for it is free, and I can find a distro that fits my needs. If I want one that babies me like Windows, I'll use Ubuntu.

It is people like you that hold Linux back. The reason Windows does so well is because of the community. The majority of people use it. If everyone that used Windows used a flavor of Linux, it would be supported much better, and people would generally have a better understanding of computers.
Moreover, OpenOffice (along with many other projects) would benefit substantially from a larger community. If everyone stopped using Word '07 and used the OO suite, then they (the team) would be sure to improve their software.

Also, take a look at Windows' file system compared to Linux's. NTFS vs. ext4.... hmmmm...

The point you have is that Linux doesn't have the software that Windows does. The only reason it doesn't is because not enough people use the projects that get started in Linux. The projects then die off, and the closed-source programs for Windows prevail.

[Sporkk]

Ok now that I've had a nap I can think a bit better. I am all for open source. I apologize if I sounded like I'm trying to say linux sucks. I do use open office over m$office because the wonderful people that created it make it available for windows too. I would so much like to wipe windows off my computer but unfortunately there is some software that I really like to use and may never work its way onto linux. Anydvd is one of them. I can rip blu ray videos with ease but with linux its probably some 5 page process and may not even work consistently. I also like using my ipod touch which has no support in linux yet. While amarok may be ok i doubt it even comes close to media monkey.

These are just a few things. Linux may never over take windows and while microsoft is evil im not going to deprive myself of programs I may never see in linux. I did install ubuntu on my laptop and I was very impressed it even installed the old usb wifi adapter without a snag! I may do some experimenting with ubuntu on the laptop and gradually move over but certainly not on the main desktop for now.

[Recursacro]

Yeah, sorry for ranting. I'm quite passionate about this topic. I apologize if you were offended at all.

What you are doing is the way to go. I still use Windows because of some programs, but if I can use Linux for it, I do. Anyway, I hope things go will with Ubuntu.

Cheers.

[Sporkk]

I made another attempt to dual boot ubuntu. I reformatted my pc and put my legal copy of windows vista back on it.
Then I installed ubuntu on a separate partition. I figured I wouldn't have issues with the auto install of grub on ubuntu 9.04 since vista has been out for a while. Well vista ends up loading and no sign of a grub screen.

After screwing up my mbr last time I would like a solution that doesn't require changing it. Would adding a second hard drive and changing the boot order in the bios work very well? Another solution I've thought about doing is just boot linux from cd. Would super grub disk be the best solution for this method? or maybe a flash drive loaded with super grub disk? I am leaning towards the bootable cd method so I don't have to add another drive. It is a bit of a hassle but really the only time I would need to reboot is to use anydvd so I can load up my media server.

Which brings me to another question. I have a networked media tank and I store the files on my secondary hard drive with ntfs format. Would it be possible to auto mount and share my ntfs folder under linux?

After further thought I may also switch mp3 players so I can completely disconnect from apple. I don't want a mp3 player that charges me for a software upgrade or I need to shell out big bucks just to change a battery.

Hopefully you can help. Here's your chance to recruit a new linux user. If I'm able to do most of my work in linux I can at least refrain from the urge to buy windows 7.

[Recursacro]

Heh, I might be on Win7 right now. :cool:

Well, as for the booting... if you install Ubuntu after Windows, everything should go fine with Grub. What I think the problem is is that your Windows partition kept the boot flag. If you booted into GParted live CD or something like it, you could change which partition has the boot flag. If Linux does, then Grub will load, and you'll be able to choose which to boot into.

As for a new HDD, that's the best way, in my opinion. That solves all problems with conflicting operating systems. I have three 500GB HDDs, one Win7, one Slackware (Linux), and the other is formatted to NTFS, and I keep files from both Windows and Linux on it. It's for backing up.

Now, if you have separate hard drives, or even separate partitions, you can access the other from Linux. On my laptop I have Ubuntu and Win7, and I can access all of my Win7 files from Ubuntu. It mounts automagically, so it's nice and easy.

the iPod Touch shouldn't be an issue. I did a quick Google search of:

iPod Touch Ubuntu

And I found this link:

http://ipodtouchtricks.net/ipod-touch/ipod-touch-syncing-with-ubuntu-linux/

There were others too. Check them out. Don't bother with a new .mp3 player, support shouldn't be hard to find.

If I missed something, tell me. Hope I helped.

Oh: ubuntuforums.org

The best community ever. They will help you with anything.

EDIT:
One could always install Windows in a virtual box under Linux. That way they could use their Windows programs, but still be running Linux. I did that for a while.

[Sporkk]

I registered for ubuntu forums and so far not getting a response. I will repost what I put there

"I have vista loaded first onto my ide drive which is hd1 on my system. I then install ubuntu to my secondary sata hard drive. I make a new partition on it and install ubuntu at hd0,4. Vista loaded and no sign of grub. So I use super grub disc so I can boot my new ubuntu install. Then after I'm in the ubuntu terminal I attempt to reinstall grub. I follow these steps

sudo grub
find /boot/grub/stage1
root (hd?,?)
setup (hd?)
quit

I've tried to setup on both hd0 and hd1. Grub loads but I get bootmgr missing when I try to load vista. The only way I could fix is to use bootrec on my vista install disc. After some reading I discover another program called easybcd. I configured it so ubuntu shows up in the windows boot manager which in turns loads grub so I can load ubuntu.

This seems to be working for now but what was I doing wrong? What can I do to get grub working the proper way? I don't understand why I'm having this issue and others aren't? Does it have anything to do with me using the eide drive as my primary windows install? My reason for that is because the sata drive is only 5400 rpm and originally intended as a backup.

thanks for any suggestions you can give"


Getting amarok going was another headache but it works now. Installing the standard package for mp3 support will work for everything else except for amarok. I had to google and came up with a guide for going in the synaptic package manager and installing Libxine1-ffmpeg. This wasn't so bad but seriously why can't the program prompt you that this is required to play mp3's? I've also noticed that you can't select the ntfs drive to use on most programs, ie amarok for the location of the music library. My only other issue is that embedded video playback can be a bit quirky on sites like youtube.

I appreciate the link for the ipod touch but the pages it links to are broken. Either way itunes is still required to use the features that give you the only reason to use a ipod touch, apps, video, net browsing. I don't like how it shoves quicktime and I think safari onto your computer.

I'm interested now and passed the give up easily stage. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

[Recursacro]

Perhaps you could install Windows on a virtual drive, and install iTunes onto that. As for your booting problems, I honestly don't know. I've never tun into such problems. The only problem I had was when it boot right into Windows. I just used a live CD and reinstalled grub. That was because I put Windows on second though.

I don't like the .mp3 thing either, but it'snot hard to get if you search synaptic. Also, I recommend opening Add Remove Programs and checking out all of the cool programs you can get. Make sure that you set it to view all of them, not just the community maintained ones.

I hope that you can get things sorted out with Amarok, and it sounds like you're booting just fine. If you have any other questions, I might be able to help. Just stay confident and stubborn in the forums. Once someone replies, many others do too. (usually)

Best wishes

[orb]

A long time ago I tried several linux distros but was never able to get it working properly with my isp, network card, or who knows what the problem was. So I ignored linux until now. I decided to give ubuntu a try after hearing about how secure it was from spyware and viruses. Also just wanted to try something different. After install I excitedly wait for the reboot and tada my win7 desktop loads. I google about why the grub screen isn't showing up. Apparently windows 7 does not like anything changing the mbr. I find many suggestions most taking me into the command line and typing a bunch of stuff that I have no idea what it means. Then further down I read most people talking about how there is still no proper fix yet.

So I downloaded the super grub cd and was able to get into the ubuntu desktop finally.The main screen of grub cd didn't make any sense to me but your suppose to click pick language and help for the real screen. Why couldn't they just title it start here or something like that? So I figure that my options are to use a cd every time I want to boot, or buy another hard drive for which I can build a switch or change the boot order in the bios.
After sleeping on it I realize I won't be spending much time in linux simply because the programs I need aren't supported for it. My whole pile of dvd rebuilding tools is a good reason. I don't want to worry if wine may or may not work with every new version of a windows program comes out that I need.

So why keep switching over to linux just so I can browse the internet? The practicality of linux sucks. The only reason I would consider using it is for relatives or friends computer that is only for internet and they keep mucking everything up with spyware.

So...

This is your point:
The practicality of linux sucks.

...and this is your argument:
A long time ago I tried several linux distros but was never able to get it working properly with my isp, network card, or who knows what the problem was. So I ignored linux until now. I decided to give ubuntu a try after hearing about how secure it was from spyware and viruses. Also just wanted to try something different. After install I excitedly wait for the reboot and tada my win7 desktop loads. I google about why the grub screen isn't showing up. Apparently windows 7 does not like anything changing the mbr. I find many suggestions most taking me into the command line and typing a bunch of stuff that I have no idea what it means. Then further down I read most people talking about how there is still no proper fix yet.

So I downloaded the super grub cd and was able to get into the ubuntu desktop finally.The main screen of grub cd didn't make any sense to me but your suppose to click pick language and help for the real screen. Why couldn't they just title it start here or something like that? So I figure that my options are to use a cd every time I want to boot, or buy another hard drive for which I can build a switch or change the boot order in the bios.
After sleeping on it I realize I won't be spending much time in linux simply because the programs I need aren't supported for it. My whole pile of dvd rebuilding tools is a good reason. I don't want to worry if wine may or may not work with every new version of a windows program comes out that I need.

So why keep switching over to linux just so I can browse the internet? ... The only reason I would consider using it is for relatives or friends computer that is only for internet and they keep mucking everything up with spyware.

I agree with you on one thing. You should stick with Windows.

[topicaltapioca]

"LoL"

Linux is certainly a learning experience, everyone started as a wee-newb and either got frustrated and either stopped or kept going.

I use both now myself, I keep 100% linux servers, but generally my desktop/laptops are dual boot, netbooks are XP.

VS .NET

[rdtphd]

my penis didnt seem practical till i learned how to use it

[Expeto]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think its good idea to dual boot, I think dual boot should be only a tool of migration. For example when I dual boot Fedora and WinXP I feel like installing bulletproof windows and steel doors to the half of my house and leaving the doors of windows of other half open. In one half there is the windows which simply gives the root access to anything or anybody, and in the other hand the Fedora who uses a dozen mechanisms, like DAC and MAC to regulate access.