LINUX---Discussions in General

[big_teee]

Here's another look at Ubuntu 17.10 with the Gnome Desktop.
It will be out 10-19-17.
I started with the new Ubuntu 17.10 which has a new version of gnome.
I like the classic gnome better, so I installed the 3.26 classic gnome, that way both desktops are loadable, and usable.
Here's some screenshot of it.
Actually pretty user friendly, and runs pretty fast too.
Have a look.
T

[big_teee]

Ubuntu Beta 2, came out today.
Development Release: Ubuntu 17.10 Beta 2 (DistroWatch.com News)
Ubuntu Official will be out on 10-19-17.
I've been running 17.10 with various desktops for past 6 weeks.
It has been a very stable OS, so far, and gets better with each update.
It is currently running on kernel 4.13.0-12 generic.
T

[rjb]

So, I just installed GalliumOS on my $150 refurbed Acer C720P Chromebook. I guess you'd call GalliumOS a lightweight Xubuntu optimized for Chromebook hardware, with XFCE desktop and Chrome browser.
https://galliumos.org/
Wondering if anyone else might have a similar setup, and some sage advice for a brand-newbie?

I installed with chrx to get a dual-boot system with GalliumOS alongside ChromeOS. Will probably eventually switch to GalliumOS single boot. According to the documentation, "chrx" is pronounced "marshmallow". I assume that's a joke, but I don't get it. https://wiki.galliumos.org/Installing

Seems to work, mostly, except for the touch screen- which now doesn't respond either in GalliumOS or ChromeOS. Maybe just a coincidence?

Also, there was a conflict between the power manager and xscreensaver, which I think I resolved by killing the latter.

And I noticed that the power manager predicts a battery life of ~6-1/2 hours, which is considerably shorter than the 9 to 11 hours I typically get under ChromeOS. I see that an "advanced power management tool" called TLP is available - which may either improve battery life or cause system instability. https://wiki.galliumos.org/Additional_Software Has anyone here tried TLP?

Youtube videos played without sound until I found the correct "source" checkbox in the volume control application.
I initially couldn't get windows to tile, but found the keyboard setup application that took care of that.

...Looks like I may be diddling for awhile.
Again, any handy tips would be greatly appreciated.

-rb

PS - I did install Audacity without a glitch. Haven't checked it out yet, but don't expect any problems.

[Enzo]

I hate to keep sticking in dumb questions, but I really want to get a handle on this stuff.

Once we are done configuring all this so it works, what all do we do with the system? I mean what functions better on the UNix than the plain old vanilla MS? I don't challenge my computer. I email, I do forums, and download schematics. I don't do RPGs or games at all beyond solitaire. I stream dumb You Tubes, but not movies. Not doing Pro Tools or other audio recording/processing. So where do these alternate systems shine? You guys must have uses beyond my very basic computing.

[rjb]

This may not answer your question, but the advantage of a Chromebook is that it is fast, portable, and cheap.
It does everything you've mentioned, and you can pick one up for under $200. With it's solid state drive, my system boots in about 2-3 seconds. Close the lid, and it goes into suspend mode; open the lid and its ready to go. Some disadvantages are that you must have a wireless router, and that the tasks you can perform off-line are pretty limited because most of the applications live on the cloud. Or something like that.

The advantage of Linux on a Chromebook is that both the operating system and most applications (which you can download and run off-line, like on a "normal" computer) are FREE. So, for instance, with a Chromebook and a thumb drive or two, you can carry an oscilloscope, a portable DAW, and the contents of the Real Book Vols 1-6 in the accessory pocket your gig bag.

-rb

[nosaj]

I hate to keep sticking in dumb questions, but I really want to get a handle on this stuff.

Once we are done configuring all this so it works, what all do we do with the system? I mean what functions better on the UNix than the plain old vanilla MS? I don't challenge my computer. I email, I do forums, and download schematics. I don't do RPGs or games at all beyond solitaire. I stream dumb You Tubes, but not movies. Not doing Pro Tools or other audio recording/processing. So where do these alternate systems shine? You guys must have uses beyond my very basic computing.

It's not always about it being done better, but it being free, people writing many different apps for it or easily being able to rewrite programs.
Or not using using the corporate-fed garbage(which works well for most people)

nosaj

[DrGonz78]

I hate to keep sticking in dumb questions, but I really want to get a handle on this stuff.

Once we are done configuring all this so it works, what all do we do with the system? I mean what functions better on the UNix than the plain old vanilla MS? I don't challenge my computer. I email, I do forums, and download schematics. I don't do RPGs or games at all beyond solitaire. I stream dumb You Tubes, but not movies. Not doing Pro Tools or other audio recording/processing. So where do these alternate systems shine? You guys must have uses beyond my very basic computing.

These alternate systems shine in the regard that they are perfect for basic Internet computing, just as you said "email, ...forums, ...download schematics...stream dumb You Tubes." That is exactly what I do on my Linux system. Where it shines, at least for now, is by not getting viruses and it does not slow down due to a bad registry dependant windows system. Windows registry generates huge amounts of errors over time and cleaning the registry might still not truly fix the errors. It is fun to run a system without a "REAL" need for anti-virus software which typically bogs down the speed of the computer. Windows updates are horrible too and take forever. Linux updates, I find, are much less intrusive. While I cuss & yell at Windows systems during many updates, I never even feel this way with linux updates.

As far as uses beyond basic computing... Sure they shine too, but first they should shine for basic computing. There are pros and cons to all of this but the biggest pro for me & Linux is just the basics.

[Justin Thomas]

Every time I need something on my Windows 10 machine that Windows wants me to pay for, my friend downloads me a free version from Linux /Ubuntu/whoever that works great, let's me update when it's convenient for me, and deosn' t want to "sync" everything together and make my life more complex than I want it... all this free stuff does exactly what I need ("just the basics") and no more.

Justin

[g1]

Some disadvantages are that you must have a wireless router, and that the tasks you can perform off-line are pretty limited because most of the applications live on the cloud. Or something like that.

Cloud based apps are a deal-breaker for me. How much of the more basic type stuff is cloud only?
I need something that can do everything offline (aside from actual internet browsing or email type stuff).

[big_teee]

Linux is just an alternative to windows
I'm been MicroSux free for over 5 years now.
If you like your MS, keep your MS.
I for one like GNU free software, that works, & boots fast.
This is a Linux Ubuntu thread, and I just like to post when new distro downloads come out, and I like to promote and endorse Ubuntu Linux.
I don't use or endorse Windows, but I'm sure there are some that do!
Everything I need comes on a linux distro, or is easily downloadable from the ubuntu repository.
As far as Enzo's question that he asks, he will only get the answer when he tries it.
Linux is a choice, Like Ford, or Chevy, or Marshall vs Fender, or play gibson, or fender, PRS, or Gretsch, etc.
None are particularly wrong, just preferences, and choices!
Just pick what you like and go with it.
But, I will keep posting when new distros of linux come out, here on the Ubuntu thread!
As far as Chrome, a chromebook costs too much for what you get.
I stick with cheap laptops with a hard drive, Optic drive.
The last two I bought last year was my HPs 1tb hard drive 8gig ram, and optic read/writer, 15 inch led screen, $295 free shipping, and brand new.
Some great deals out there if you beat the bushes.
T

[big_teee]

Every time I need something on my Windows 10 machine that Windows wants me to pay for, my friend downloads me a free version from Linux /Ubuntu/whoever that works great, let's me update when it's convenient for me, and deosn' t want to "sync" everything together and make my life more complex than I want it... all this free stuff does exactly what I need ("just the basics") and no more.

Justin

My cure for the win-10 issues, is to get rid of it.
Format the hard drive and load Ubuntu, I'm always glad to see win-10 gone.
I kind of liked win-7, but it is obsolete, and I had to recover way too often.
For me Linux is the only viable option, and my choice!
T

[Gnobuddy]

Once we are done configuring all this so it works, what all do we do with the system?

I mean what functions better on the UNix than the plain old vanilla MS?

I would like to stress that, these days, there is very little to configure manually. Pop in the install DVD, or boot from a USB drive with the DVD image on it, answer a few prompts, and, 99% of the time, you'll have a fully functioning system after 30 minutes or so.

Your question is a a perfectly good one, and the answer is quite individual. Let me list a few of the reasons why I prefer Linux:

1) Stability. I first started tinkering with Linux (back around 1999 or 2000), because Windows 95 (and 98, and ME) was utterly unreliable, blue-screening a dozen or more times a day. Windows is hugely more stable today, but the stability advantage still remains: I used to run my own Linux server in my classroom, and many times, it has run all semester (say four months) without ever having to be rebooted. Even today, leave a Windows computer running for a month, and you'll usually find it's ground to a halt, or is behaving weirdly.

2) Security. This is a huge one; there are literally hundreds of thousands of viruses, worms, and other attacks (like cryptware/ransomware) in the wild for Windows. No operating system is perfectly secure, but Linux has proven itself to be vastly less susceptible to network nasties.

Windows supporters like to say that this is simply a matter of statistics, since Windows is much more widely used than Linux. That may play a role, but the Windows security nightmares started because early versions of Windows had absolutely no concept of any kind of security; Windows was built on an operating system designed to run on individual PCs in the days before Ethernet, when anyone with access to the PC had full control over every file on it. Even long after the Internet arrived, the almost wilful stupidity continued; for example, end any filename with the characters ".exe", and Windows would execute it if you clicked on it, without even asking the user first. So nasty people could send you emails with viruses attached (named "evilvirus.exe", say), and Windows would helpfully run the virus automatically if the unfortunate user clicked on it, infecting itself with no intervention from the user.

Linux, on the other hand, from the very start, inherited a security model from Unix; Unix was designed to run on big mainframe computers used by multiple people simultaneously, so it had built-in mechanisms that prevented one user from, for example, deleting data belonging to another user, or running arbitrary code. To execute a file, you have to specifically give it execute permission, and then run it; and even then, it has only the permissions given to it by the superuser (what Windows now calls the Administrator).

This is actually an excellent disproof of the consumerist mantra "You get what you pay for". Pay for Windows, and get ludicrously poor security; download Linux for free, and get vastly better security.

3) Usability after a clean install. To this day, Windows comes with precious little software included - not even a decent text-editor, so you have to download and install Notepad++ before you can even code up a simple HTML web page. By contrast, any of today's "full-fat" Linux distros comes with the majority of the software most people need to get started working. Need more? It's usually a couple of mouse-clicks away.

4) Geek tools. For those of us who like doing stuff ourselves, Linux is an operating system straight from heaven. Its filled with fantastic tools for building your own stuff, from the simple (programmers editors) to the complex (free compilers and interpreters for dozens of powerful programming languages, powerful networking tools), to the uber-complex (pro-audio software like Ardour, Musescore). Want to run a web server? Want to record multi-track audio? Want to code up an HTML/Javascript application? Want to learn some Python? Want to backup your PC over your home network? All the tools are available, and all are free.

5) Versatility. When Gnome developers changed their desktop software so I found it less usable, I simply switched to KDE. KDE was ruined for me when version 4 came out, so I switched to XFCE. By contrast, when Microsoft shoved Vista down our throats, or Windows 8, you had nowhere to go to escape their stupidity. One size fits all, and these days, it's usually programmed by twenty-something millenials whose brains revolve around video games, anime, social networking, video chatting, and other useless garbage that I have zero interest in.

6) Standards-compatible. Linux has tended to play nice with international standards from the start, for example, Firefox was fully W3C compatible while Internet Explorer was still a kludged-together dogs breakfast of broken and deliberately incompatible code. How would you feel if Chevy cars only worked on Chevy gasoline, which cost $8 USD/gallon, and Toyotas wouldn't run without Toyota gasoline, sold only at Toyota-owned gas stations, for a mere $9 USD/gallon? Yet that's what most proprietary software companies try to do, deliberately create software incompatibilities so that you are forced to buy your entire software stack only from one single vendor, no matter how much they cost. It's called "vendor lock-in", and the bean-counters love it, because it lets them gouge the customer.

MS was actually attempting to control the entire World Wide Web when they deliberately made Internet Explorer incompatible with 'Web standards. Their plan was that only pages written specifically for IE would display properly, so, in the long run, the entire 'Web would have to be written in such a way that only IE could render it properly. Other browsers would die, removing the threat of competition.

Thankfully, they lost that battle. Mozilla/Firefox played a role there, as did other browsers like Konqueror and Opera. Eventually smart-phones took over the world, MS completely failed to get a toe-hold in the brave new world of iOS and Android, and their plan to conquer the 'Web failed, for the most part.

6) Price. I'm perfectly willing to pay for a good tool, like the Maxtech hacksaw I bought a couple of years ago. It has a die-cast metal frame, a compound-action lever to adjust blade tension with very little finger effort, and it's rigid, straight and true, so it's a joy to saw with it. But I absolutely hate paying for a succession of expensive, crappy, unreliable, short-lived tools - like Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows Vista, or the annual version of MS Office, which brings nothing useful to the party, but merely a new file format that is deliberately incompatible with all your older documents.

I don't challenge my computer. I email, I do forums, and download schematics. I don't do RPGs or games at all beyond solitaire. I stream dumb You Tubes, but not movies. Not doing Pro Tools or other audio recording/processing.

For your usage, any contemporary operating system would be sufficient. What would Linux bring you? Improved security, much greater control over what goes on with your computer, and a considerable ability to change things until they suit your tastes.

Would you find those benefits worthwhile? I don't know, it depends entirely on your opinion. If you have no beef with the way your current operating system works, then you have no reason to change, simple as that!

-Gnobuddy

[Enzo]

I appreciate the responses.

I always looked at Apple products (having never tried one) as existing to leverage you into only being able to use Apple software products. I didn;t want to support what I considered a predatory business practice. MS may be just as predatory, I don't know, but at least I can chose from a half dozen other brand apps like a word processor. it seems that many of you look at MS the same way as I see Apple. I note no one has mentioned Apple. I truly regret not stopping Windows updating to 10 from the 7 which was working fine.

I was expecting Linux ran protools five times faster or something, but apparently that isn't the point of it.

[big_teee]

One of the big reasons I like linux over others.
Apple computers hardly exist in my part of the world.
I've never had the opportunity to use one.
Used lots of PCs and Lots of Sun Unix machines in my retired telecomm world.
One of the big reasons I like linux over windows, is I have a better idea of what is being saved on the computer.
On a windows machine, you think you deleted something, only to find out it got saved in 10 other places, that you may have not known about.
I have a better idea of where the web browsing data and cache info is stored.
I wipe drives, and load often anyway. Mainly because I like new software.
with linux, I have better control of the data on my computer.

If you work and have to use windows and MS office, it is hard to totally cut free from windows.
I couldn't totally cut ties until retirement.
Now retired, there is no reason for me to keep using windows.
Also, like I say, another good reason, Linux is FREE!
YMMV,
T

[Gnobuddy]

I always looked at Apple products (having never tried one) as existing to leverage you into only being able to use Apple software products. I didn;t want to support what I considered a predatory business practice.

I agree with you 100% here. The fascinating thing is that Steve Jobs mastered the art of ripping off his customers, while simultaneously having most of them worship and love him for ripping them off, because he managed to convince them that they were simultaneously superior to everyone else, and martyrs to the holy cause. You may have heard joking references to Steve Jobs "reality distortion field" - it is the same thing that other charismatic psychopaths throughout history have had, from Adolf Hitler to Donald Trump to the various fundamentalist televangelists and religious cult leaders.

MS may be just as predatory,

From everything I ever read about Gates and MS, he/it was indeed just as predatory, but not as clever about it. People hated Gates when he ripped them off, while they loved Jobs when he ripped them off.

Do you know the story of how MS got its start? Bill Gates got rich selling QDOS (for Quick and Dirty Operating System) to IBM; but he didn't create QDOS, and has never shown any evidence that he was capable of coding anything that complex: he bought QDOS (cheap) from a very talented 24-year-old young man named Tim Paterson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Computer_Products

I don't know, but at least I can chose from a half dozen other brand apps like a word processor.

IBM (inadvertently?) created an open hardware standard with their PC, and multiple manufacturers jumped on both the hardware and software bandwagons. Both IBM and Microsoft therefore failed to create a total hardware/software monopoly, as Apple managed to subsequently do.

I think Microsoft (and Gates, specificially) spent years fuming at the fact that he never quite managed to pull off what Apple was doing. I'm sure his vast billions of personal wealth helped soothe him to sleep at night, though.

it seems that many of you look at MS the same way as I see Apple.

I look at Apple the way you do, and at MS the way many tech-savvy people do. Both companies did indeed bring something useful to our society, but both companies' offerings come with strings attached, and sometimes those strings bind the end-user quite tightly.

Here's one of the many lovely things Apple does to their loving customers: Why I Ditched Apple Music | HuffPost

I truly regret not stopping Windows updating to 10 from the 7 which was working fine.

Having "updates" thrust down your throat whether you want them or not, is a great example of MS software coming with strings attached. You don't own their software, you only license it from them, and on their terms; those terms got a lot more ugly when MS became desperate to force their users to migrate to Windows 10 whether or not they wanted to.

I was expecting Linux ran protools five times faster or something, but apparently that isn't the point of it.

Linux is very flexible - it can be lean and mean and stripped down, like a motorcycle, or fat and heavy and slow, like the original AM General Hummer.

I have used lightweight Linux to keep ancient 200 MHz Pentium II PCs running all the way till 2014, but that was because this was a classroom situation where I had zero IT budget.

But if you have reasonably adequate modern hardware, you probably won't experience a huge speed boost from using Linux, especially if you use one of the cushy, luxurious distributions (like Ubuntu) that come with everything but the kitchen sink.

So yeah, I agree with you that more speed is rarely the reason to use Linux. That was true in the early 2000s when PC hardware could barely keep up with the weight of the software running on it. But the last few generations of PC hardware have been fast enough for most of us not to feel hindered too much by the slowness of our PCs.

At work I have a corporate Core i5 PC that was manufactured in 2012, and leased in 2013. It was recently upgraded to 8 GB of RAM, and the mechanical hard drive replaced with a 256 GB SSD (solid state drive). With the upgrades, even this five year old hardware flies - it boots in seconds, and most reasonable software runs quite fast on it. Unfortunately, at work I am forced to use that prize MS turd, Outlook, and it manages to bring this PC to its knees quite regularly. Click on an email, go get a cup of tea while Outlook bogs to a halt, come back ten minutes later and start typing.

That PC would definitely fly on Linux, but I can't even begin to guess how much trouble I'd be in if I put Linux on my work computer, so I have to suffer with the awfulness that is the Windows software ecosystem.

-Gnobuddy