Ubuntu 9.10

[SN4]

Originally Posted by BucDelta-11

If i wasn't forced to run Office 2k7 by my online classes...Ubuntu 24/7.

Open Office 3.whatever can open Office 2007 files, supposedly. It just can't save in that format. You would have to save into Office 2003 format, which it does.

The only other thing that may screw up is "what you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG). In my experience with Open Office 2 and MS2003 excel files, some graphics get slightly moved when opening .xls files directly. Though, Office in general is pretty much crap for handling graphics.

Though, at least for now, I will admit that I am prefer Office over Open Office. I find that formatting is easier in MS, and working in spreadsheets is far easier in MS (moving equations around and what not)... though, that is in OO2, not OO3.

[Digital_Damage]

Originally Posted by TomatoVSC

Yup. You can run Office 2k7 on Ubuntu pretty easily.

Not that you'd need it in most cases. Openoffice does most everything. But if it HAS to be Office, you can install it.

You can't install it to linux, you have to install it to wine or another emulator.

That is the issue with Linux, everything is a work around and if one does not exist it is "you don't need it anyways, use this <POS Opensource knockoff here>"

[TheOutsider]

Using Vista Ultimate x64 still. Have never had a single problem with it in the 2ish years I've used it.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Digital_Damage

You can't install it to linux, you have to install it to wine or another emulator.

That is the issue with Linux, everything is a work around and if one does not exist it is "you don't need it anyways, use this <POS Opensource knockoff here>"

Bingo. but when you use those work arounds it makes you feel like an "advanced user".

[BucDelta-11]

I know i can emulate it...but i just don't feel like bothering with the whole thing...for now, ubuntu is dual boot. Gonna keep using it for web browsing and some games.

[TomatoVSC]

Originally Posted by Digital_Damage

You can't install it to linux, you have to install it to wine or another emulator.

That is the issue with Linux, everything is a work around and if one does not exist it is "you don't need it anyways, use this <POS Opensource knockoff here>"

Wait.

Wait...

So the nack was that you couldn't use a particular program on Linux...and when I say that it's pretty easy to use that particular program...there's something wrong with that? Also, Wine is not an emulator.

The <POS Opensource knockoff>s work great. Openoffice does everything I need it to. Rhythmbox manages my Ipod. Pidgin manages IRC, AIM, and MSN Messengers for me(all in one). I can do image editing with GIMP. I can manage my email with Evolution. All of them are Opensource, free, and work great. Now, I'm not going to say that there aren't better "for-pay" programs out there. I'm sure the newest Photoshop probably has a few things GIMP doesn't. But I don't need it and I'm not willing to shell out the money for it. And if I absolutely needed it, I could just run it with WINE just fine.

In most cases, Opensource is almost synonymous with "better." Do you use Internet Explorer? Or would you rather use Firefox? Well, about 46% of people are using the opensource one.

[pmcd95]

Originally Posted by TomatoVSC

Keeping pace? What do you mean?

Ubuntu 9.10 boot time - ~10 seconds
Windows Vista boot time - ~50 seconds
OS X boot time - ~75 seconds
Windows 7 boot time - ~90 second

I'm not arguing against any Linux system, or even windows, but my Mac has NEVER taken 75 seconds to boot. Not even close. Don't think it has ever booted in 10 seconds, but always less than 30.

[User Name]

Originally Posted by pmcd95

I'm not arguing against any Linux system, or even windows, but my Mac has NEVER taken 75 seconds to boot. Not even close. Don't think it has ever booted in 10 seconds, but always less than 30.

my windows 7 never took 90 seconds either

[User Name]

Originally Posted by TomatoVSC

I tried Mint and wasn't too impressed with it. It just seems like simplified Ubuntu...not my cup of tea.

its based off jaunty jackolope i think
i've used ubuntu more than mint
i just lost the disc and wanted to try something new so i just went with mint one day

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by pmcd95

I'm not arguing against any Linux system, or even windows, but my Mac has NEVER taken 75 seconds to boot. Not even close. Don't think it has ever booted in 10 seconds, but always less than 30.

Yeah. the only system i've had that's booted in more than 30 seconds was a Vista laptop.

My windows 7 takes roughly 30 seconds.

[TomatoVSC]

Originally Posted by pmcd95

I'm not arguing against any Linux system, or even windows, but my Mac has NEVER taken 75 seconds to boot. Not even close. Don't think it has ever booted in 10 seconds, but always less than 30.

The only one I use is Linux, so I just had to trust other sources. Here's one for Windows:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10...ag=mncol;title

[TomatoVSC]

Originally Posted by User Name

its based off jaunty jackolope i think
i've used ubuntu more than mint
i just lost the disc and wanted to try something new so i just went with mint one day

Yeah. The difference is that it includes all the proprietary software that Ubuntu doesn't. It's interesting and I'd probably recommend it to someone completely new to Linux.

[Kyle]

but rather the time it takes to become fully usable "with CPU cycles no longer significantly high and a true idle state achieved."

that is where you fail. It is still well usable for the 50 seconds in which that is happening.

[Kyle]

Also, I love the cherrypicking. Really. I love how much you have to stretch to make a point

Earlier this year, Canonical revealed plans to significantly optimize boot performance. It aims to deliver 10-second startups for the Ubuntu 10.04 release, which is due in 2010. In the latest Karmic alpha, the team has already taken some important steps toward achieving this goal. Their roadmap indicates that 25 seconds is the target for Karmic, and the reference device used to benchmark progress is the Dell Mini 9 netbook. We did some testing of our own to see how the OS is coming along.

For example, you listed something that is in plans to be released next year.. and that 25 seconds is the target for the OS that was just released.

[Digital_Damage]

Originally Posted by TomatoVSC

Wait.

Wait...

So the nack was that you couldn't use a particular program on Linux...and when I say that it's pretty easy to use that particular program...there's something wrong with that? Also, Wine is not an emulator.

The <POS Opensource knockoff>s work great. Openoffice does everything I need it to. Rhythmbox manages my Ipod. Pidgin manages IRC, AIM, and MSN Messengers for me(all in one). I can do image editing with GIMP. I can manage my email with Evolution. All of them are Opensource, free, and work great. Now, I'm not going to say that there aren't better "for-pay" programs out there. I'm sure the newest Photoshop probably has a few things GIMP doesn't. But I don't need it and I'm not willing to shell out the money for it. And if I absolutely needed it, I could just run it with WINE just fine.

In most cases, Opensource is almost synonymous with "better." Do you use Internet Explorer? Or would you rather use Firefox? Well, about 46% of people are using the opensource one.

Dispite what Bob or Eirc says wine is an emulator (had this debate in class 10 years ago), it interprits the API in a user space instead of the kernel. That is the definition of a emulator. They call it "wine" because they tried to thumb thier noses at the community and rewrite the definition. They lost.


You just admited to what I was getting at, it is either a workaround or insert crap <OEM software here> and opensource borwsers combined only account to 31%

Linux nuts always try to skew the numbers.

[TomatoVSC]

Originally Posted by Kyle

Also, I love the cherrypicking. Really. I love how much you have to stretch to make a point



For example, you listed something that is in plans to be released next year.. and that 25 seconds is the target for the OS that was just released.

http://static.arstechnica.com/watson...20090909-3.png

This guy booted in 5 seconds.

Most people get in the high teens or low twenties with average computers. I upgraded this morning with a low-end, older Pentium 4 model and booted in 19 seconds. This is compared to times well over a minute with Window XP.

edit: I should mention that my 19 second boot time is to the login screen. That guy who got 5 seconds was to the functional desktop, I believe.

[TomatoVSC]

Originally Posted by Digital_Damage

Dispite what Bob or Eirc says wine is an emulator (had this debate in class 10 years ago), it interprits the API in a user space instead of the kernel. That is the definition of a emulator. They call it "wine" because they tried to thumb thier noses at the community and rewrite the definition. They lost.


You just admited to what I was getting at, it is either a workaround or insert crap <OEM software here> and opensource borwsers combined only account to 31%

Linux nuts always try to skew the numbers.

I just googled "Browser Market Share" and the first result had Firefox at 46%. Looking at a few others, the average seems to be around 36%. The actual percentage isn't that important, I suppose. The fact is a LOT of people are already using Opensource software and are quite happy with it.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by TomatoVSC

http://static.arstechnica.com/watson...20090909-3.png

This guy booted in 5 seconds.

Most people get in the high teens or low twenties with average computers. I upgraded this morning with a low-end, older Pentium 4 model and booted in 19 seconds. This is compared to times well over a minute with Window XP.

edit: I should mention that my 19 second boot time is to the login screen. That guy who got 5 seconds was to the functional desktop, I believe.

I just timed mine 23 seconds to the login screen. I'll take that and windows 7 over what ubuntu has to offer.

[pmcd95]

19.3 seconds to desktop, 29 seconds to espn.com home page loaded.

MacBook 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo
2 GB 667 MHz DDR2

It's over 3 years old, last full system reload was when I installed Snow Leopard a few months ago.

[TomatoVSC]

Originally Posted by Kyle

I just timed mine 23 seconds to the login screen. I'll take that and windows 7 over what ubuntu has to offer.

Go for it. I'm not sitting here trying to make you switch from Windoze to Ubuntu. This thread was to celebrate 9.10(which is AWESOME, btw). You can make a thread celebrating Windows 7 if you'd like.

I'll take my system stability, low CPU requirements, high security, and generally awesome OS and be happy(along with the faster boot time).

[BucDelta-11]

Originally Posted by pmcd95

19.3 seconds to desktop, 29 seconds to espn.com home page loaded.

MacBook 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo
2 GB 667 MHz DDR2

It's over 3 years old, last full system reload was when I installed Snow Leopard a few months ago.

29 Seconds for ESPN? Ouch...takes me about 8 seconds w/ FF & windows...I thought Safari was the "World's Fastest Web Browser".

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by BucDelta-11

29 Seconds for ESPN? Ouch...takes me about 8 seconds w/ FF & windows...I thought Safari was the "World's Fastest Web Browser".

I can't believe I'm wasting my time explaining this. the 29 seconds was from when he pressed the power button to the time it took him to load espn... ie 10 seconds after his desktop was displayed.

edit: also safari is faster. I use it and firefox both on my windows computer. It's definitely faster.. it just doesn't have some things i like that firefox does.. Similarly it has somethings I like better than firefox.

[pmcd95]

Originally Posted by BucDelta-11

29 Seconds for ESPN? Ouch...takes me about 8 seconds w/ FF & windows...I thought Safari was the "World's Fastest Web Browser".

I can't take it anymore. You are being blocked. It truly hurts my head to read your posts.

[DAFIF]

OK...so here is another tech geek question:

a little over a year ago, my desktop crashed and burned. I bought a cheap one with Vista but didnt want that. Was unable to install XP because of hardware issues....installed Ubuntu but could not get it to network.

So, the question: can you network Ubuntu with another XP machine?

[BuccinTex]

As an IT guy I play a lot with various operating systems. At home on my laptop I have Vista which does indeed suck but I use WUBI or did at least to run Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope. No problems there. I did ditch that for Karmic Koala but 9.10 was rushed. Nothing was really fixed from the RC version and in just the first few hours of it's release there were ALL KINDS of video driver issues and issues with Compiz. The ubuntu forum was blowing up with threads of people freaking out over glitches. I'd say 40% of people have it freeze on them on the first reboot after installation. The good thing is in the open source movement you have people who will work on these issues and fix them promptly. That's not the case with proprietary software. I'll wait a month or two so the bugs get worked out and then go back to WUBI and install the 9.10 server iso.

Oh and if anyone cares to learn more about the open source movement, linux, GNU, etc check out a documentary called Revolution OS. It's geeky but entertaining for people in the industry.

[stacystec]

Originally Posted by DAFIF

OK...so here is another tech geek question:

a little over a year ago, my desktop crashed and burned. I bought a cheap one with Vista but didnt want that. Was unable to install XP because of hardware issues....installed Ubuntu but could not get it to network.

So, the question: can you network Ubuntu with another XP machine?

If you are web browsing, the standard tcpip protocol should work. If you want to browse network shares (or have your linux machine be a network share on a windows network), you'll want to activate Samba.