Worth going Ubuntu? [Archive]

Shakey_Jake33

20th October 2007, 19:35

I'm using Vista 64-bit right now, and have basically zero Linux experience. However, with the increasing popularity of Ubuntu, I've been tempted to give it a go.

I mainly use my PC for media i.e vids and music.

1) Is it worth it?

2) Am I going to be in for a hell of a lot of stress?

3) Would most vids perform better in Windows or Ubuntu? I guess that's the main thing here.

4) Easy enough to set up my shares to other windows machines and vice versa?

Thanks

shakey

20th October 2007, 23:44

1) if you're just watching movies/ listening to music, possibly not (depends what else you might want to do), though I personally prefer almost any O/S other than Vista.

2) with the latest releases on not too obscure hardware, probably not.

3) probably about the same, though if any of your media is infected with nasty DRM you will probably have issues.

4) Yes

If you're serious about giving it a go, you can install Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro) along side your windows install and be able to use either at will. If you later decide you don't like linux, just remove it.

LANjackal

20th October 2007, 23:45

Shakey_Jake33

20th October 2007, 23:51

Thanks for the replies! I've downloaded a LiveCD, gonna see how I get on with it (I know a LiveCD won't be a true represntation of an install etc).

It's not that I particularly need Linux or opensource, or dislike MS, I just realised there wasn't much I really needed Windows for, and was curious about it.

legoman666

21st October 2007, 01:37

I installed Ubuntu on my machine for a few weeks alongside windows xp x64. LANjackal is 100% correct. The initial isntallation was cake. But configuring my dual monitors, installing the video drivers, and figuring out how the hell to share drives via Samba, is a huge pain in the ass. Prepare to be Googling for hours on end.

Once I got everything set up and running, I found that it was very simple to do every day things (no video gaming though). But I once changed a config for my video and I somehow killed X (the GUI). It took me hours of mucking around to get it working properly again.

In the end, I ended up nuking the installation simply because it was unecessary. I dislike Microsoft, but Ubuntu didn't do anything that I couldn't do in Windows. Some might cite cost as a reason for going to Linux; but as a student, I bought Windows XP from my university for $5 and Office for $7. Can't really beat those prices.

dragongodz

21st October 2007, 02:36

personally i think opensuse is a better distro than ubuntu. no doubt others will disagree. :)

I've downloaded a LiveCD

thats a good idea. a lot of distros have livecd/dvd versions so a pretty safe way to have a look at them.

yes linux requires you doing some learning but in general you can do most of that at your own pace and as required.
windows may be a little more idiot proof but do not think for 1 second that it cant or wont stuff up as well. it can and can do so to the point that the only way to get back is reinstalling it.

Some might cite cost as a reason for going to Linux; but as a student, I bought Windows XP from my university for $5 and Office for $7. Can't really beat those prices.

thats good for you, however not everyone can buy them for those prices. as such the fact you can means nothing to others.

Sharktooth

21st October 2007, 04:11

Ubuntu is not my preferred choice. There are much more hardware and media friendly distros around.
One example is Linux Mint (based on Ubuntu) that comes with everything that Ubuntu lacks...
Another cool distro is PCLinuxOS (based on Mandriva), expecially for beginners. Despite the name it's really easy to use and very stable.
OpenSuse 10.3 is also a very good choice and once you get more knowledge about linux, you can try Sabayon (based on Gentoo) too.

Dark Shikari

21st October 2007, 05:18

I run both Ubuntu 7.04 and Vista on separate machines.

1 - IMO, Linux just isn't worth it unless you're short of money, you have a personal vendetta against MS, or you're an open source zealot. You'll discover this especially after a minor tweak or forced reboot you make messes up some setting in your Linux installation. Thanks to the lack of a System Restore equivalent in Linux, you can prepare for either hours of hair-pulling troubleshooting or a reinstall (this happened to me, causing me to ban Linux from being my primary OS until some System Restore-like feature is added)

2 - YES. Linux is great if you wanna do basic stuff like email or web browsing. But for much more than that, be prepared to spend HOURS Googling and reading forums and sorting through poor documentation just to get something to work. The situation likely to be worse for 64-bit
Replace "Linux" with "Windows", and your post is really quite accurate.

Ubuntu is basically impossible to screw up unless you're really trying, and even if you do, fixing it is pretty easy unless you really went out of your way to break something using admin access or the like. If all else fails you can reinstall, which is a lot easier than it is on Windows (since the Ubuntu install process is quite painless). But without admin access you're not going to break anything anyways; its simply not possible.

On the other hand, as someone who ran a computer repair business for a number of years, Windows is hell on Earth to try to fix if something beyond the basics goes wrong. DirectShow Hell is cake by comparison to what can really go wrong with XP and Vista.

Everything works fine out of the box in Ubuntu, while when I installed XP (after wiping Vista) on my laptop, I spent the good part of an entire day finding the dozen drivers I needed for it; not even the wireless or Ethernet drivers worked out of the box, forcing me to sneakernet them onto the machine. Anyone who says that this is "easy" for the ordinary user and "easier than Ubuntu" (where it works without a single click on any driver-related anything) is nuts.

I don't generally use Ubuntu for my everyday work, but that's because I have very specific, valid reasons for doing so; Avisynth and Premiere have no equivalents on Ubuntu. I've used Linux, both Ubuntu and otherwise, outside of my personal work and I'd have to say that I can't understand how the computer industry even survived on Windows, considering most people have nowhere near the knowledge to do almost anything on Windows, and people like us seem to forget this as we flame Ubuntu for not being "easy to use", when in reality, Windows is incredibly difficult to use and we're just so used to it that anything other than Windows looks "difficult." See OS X for another example; whether you like macs or not, its definitely easier to use than Windows, partially because it generally does what you tell it to do.

Of course, my preferred development system is a chimera: Windows XP (for Avisynth support) with the GNU development toolkit and Cygwin bash shell.

Blue_MiSfit

21st October 2007, 07:11

when I installed XP (after wiping Vista) on my laptop, I spent the good part of an entire day finding the dozen drivers I needed for it; not even the wireless or Ethernet drivers worked out of the box, forcing me to sneakernet them onto the machine. Anyone who says that this is "easy" for the ordinary user and "easier than Ubuntu" (where it works without a single click on any driver-related anything) is nuts.

Hmm.. It took you most of a day to find some drivers? It's obvious you haven't done a lot of windows reinstalls. Finding drivers is _not_ hard, unless we're dealing with some very obscure, unsupported hardware. Getting drivers on to a system with no networking is very easy - it's called a flash drive. What's so hard or "sneakernet-ish" about that?

Ubuntu is basically impossible to screw up unless you're really trying, and even if you do, fixing it is pretty easy unless you really went out of your way to break something using admin access or the like.

Well... making any changes to the system require admin level access. You always need to make changes to a linux system once you first boot into it - at least I sure do.

Windows is hell on Earth to try to fix if something beyond the basics goes wrong

This is sort of true, but if it does, reinstalling is a very easy solution that has many associated benefits. Nothing hard or particularly time consuming about it - I can backup, reinstall and restore windows in a couple hours with lots of idle time in between to do other things.

people like us seem to forget this as we flame Ubuntu for not being "easy to use", when in reality, Windows is incredibly difficult to use and we're just so used to it that anything other than Windows looks "difficult."

That's completely true. But guess what, the average user knows windows. That's all that matters in the end. Sorry. If we're talking about average users, what matters is what's easy and familiar. What happens when Joe Average plugs his iPod into a Linux box? What will he do without iTunes? Use something else? No. That's too hard. Really.

I love Linux, and it will always have a place with hardcore enthusiasts. It's unbeatable for very specific tasks, but it's never going to be truly mainstream on the desktop in any sense. I just don't see it being possible.

There's a lot of potential in developing countries where people aren't already familiar with computers. Linux is a great alternative due to its free nature. And yes, it's a lot easier to use than it used to be, but to break existing patterns is too much to ask of much users!

Now, as to the OP's question - give it a try! If you're tech savvy, and like the idea of running a free OS - go for it! Linux can be very rewarding to a technical person. Just be prepared to crash and burn a lot, and have a lot of frustration to start with. Also, forget about pro apps like Photoshop and Premiere (and AviSynth :()

~MiSfit

Dark Shikari

21st October 2007, 07:53

Hmm.. It took you most of a day to find some drivers? It's obvious you haven't done a lot of windows reinstalls. Finding drivers is _not_ hard, unless we're dealing with some very obscure, unsupported hardware. Getting drivers on to a system with no networking is very easy - it's called a flash drive. What's so hard or "sneakernet-ish" about that?Its far harder on a laptop than on a desktop, because most of the drivers are left up to the laptop distributor, and as such are far harder to find online.

And of course you need to know exactly the chipset you're using of various wireless devices and so forth because of that.

Since the laptop came with Vista, it didn't have any XP drivers, and if it wasn't for me finding that there were hidden pre-Vista versions of some of the drivers in some arcane location on one of the install CDs, I would have likely spent days trying to find the drivers I needed, since they weren't available on the official websites of many of the hardware manufacturers.

This is one place where Ubuntu has a big advantage, because its drivers work as long as the chipset is supported, while for example on Windows the official nVidia drivers don't even support their own Go series of cards.

nonoitall

21st October 2007, 10:04

As far as ease of use in Linux goes, I usually break it down into four groups (coming from a Windows background anyway):

1. Completely computer-illiterate users: These users don't do much besides surf the web, e-mail, word processing and solitaire. They're just as lost in Linux as in any other OS, so the only possible complication that Linux has that Windows doesn't is that it may be harder to find a computer guru that knows how their PC works to help them when they need to do technical stuff.

2. Average users: These users do 'typical' computer activities like play games, install programs, play media, a little customizing, etc. Linux probably has the highest learning curve for users in this group when compared with any of the other groups. Software installation is very different in Linux from Windows. Gaming, while often possible through native ports or Wine/Cedega usually still isn't quite as simple as popping in a CD and letting the autorun start and clicking 'Next' half a dozen times.

3. (Relatively) advanced Windows users: These guys understand how a file system works, and can do things like install a program from a ZIP file and make it look as good as if an installer had done it and find their "My Documents" folder without actually clicking on "My Documents". They know why a file that ends with ".exe" is different from a file that ends with ".mp3" and they can diagnose common and possibly uncommon problems.

This group has a learning curve similar to the previous group. Linux, while not 100% foreign, is a very different beast from Windows. None of the old tricks that these users know have any relevance on Linux, which makes tasks that were second-nature into a trip through online documentation. "How do I put a shortcut on my start menu? - if that's even what they call it over here?" "Where is the 'Program Files' folder?" "Where in the world is the C drive???" "The Control Panel is missing!" "What's this pack-age man-a-ger?"

Since members of this group already know a decent amount about general computing, there are some aspects of Linux that are familiar though.

4. Computer gurus with mystical nerd power: These guys can summon up electrical fields with their minds to force any computer to bow to their will. (Or perhaps not, but it seems that way to the casual observer.) Command line terminals are certainly no stranger. It's not a program; it's a binary. The computer didn't crash; there's a bug in Windows that caused it to become unresponsive. 255 is a significant number. MBR is a meaningful acronym. There's at least a basic understanding of programming and code under these users' belts.

Because these users have a fairly extensive knowledge of what goes on under-the-hood, Linux is 'just another OS' that runs on top of the same familiar infrastructure. It's still a new OS, but once you learn how it ticks, it's obvious why it's done that way, and it makes just as much sense as Windows did. Linux is far more flexible, which may appeal to these users.

Anyway, you'll probably see aspects about yourself in more than one group. A Live CD is a good start to see if Linux is something you'll be interested in. If you like it, dual-booting is probably the next step. (Some people just quit using Windows cold-turkey, but IMO, the transition is less frustrating if you can fall back to something familiar.) As far as your questions go...

1. Even if you don't decide to leave Windows behind, you'll probably learn a little bit more about computers in the process of using Linux - knowledge that will be applicable in Windows as well. So, yes, IMO it's worth it.

2. It can be frustrating at times depending on your background. Just remember - you didn't learn everything you know about Windows in one day, and you're not going to match your Windows competence in Linux in one day either. Don't try to. If you've had enough, take a break in good old Windows.

3. Overall, probably about the same. Compiling from source is far more common on Linux than Windows, and that opens up the possibility of customizing programs for your specific hardware - potentially improving performance. But, it's also thoroughly possible to compile from source on Windows, so it's not really an advantage. As far as OS overhead goes, they're comparable, though Linux sometimes handles things like multi-threading better than Windows.

4. 'Easy' is a subjective term. If you're anything but computer illiterate and you've got a little time to spend, it shouldn't be that complicated for you.

Dark Shikari

21st October 2007, 10:34

stuffThe interesting thing about this is I'd say literally the opposite--it goes something like this:

Computer illiterate up to normal users feel at home in Linux because they're not so utterly used to Windows as to be confused, and love the features like one-click installation of software off a simple checkbox list. They like it when Add/Remove Programs actually lets you add programs, and where software installation is a 5 second job, not a confusing installation routine with dozens of windows. I know this from a great deal of experience; I know loads of ordinary users who, upon being given Ubuntu, where quite happy overall and preferred it to Windows. I don't know anyone in the "ordinary users" category who found it confusing; they could find the Firefox and the Mail button, and it didn't crash, so they were happy.

Advanced users are not as well off because they're so used to Windows that they know how to get around it technically, but are no better off in Linux than the normal users are. I myself have run into this issue a number of times, and this is partially why I don't use Ubuntu as much--I am far more used to the technical aspects of Windows than the technical aspects of Linux.

The really advanced users, of course, already use Linux, so they don't have to worry.

nonoitall

21st October 2007, 19:37

I agree with you completely. Generally, unless someone is just starting to use computers, I'd consider a computer-illiterate person to be someone who would rather not bother learning how to install software - regardless of how simple it is, since it's just a skill that they wouldn't use very often. But, you're right - computer-illiterates might actually find Linux to be more intuitive than Windows.

My mom falls into the first category and in all honesty, as long as the icons to OpenOffice.org, Firefox and Solitaire are in an obvious places, she probably wouldn't even notice if I'd switched OS's on her while she wasn't looking :D

When I first tried out Linux I probably fell into the third category and it was frustrating having to relearn everything that had seemed so simple. But I think that the struggle helped me to get a little further into the fourth group, since now I know a lot more about how Linux and Windows work. To clarify the definitions a little more - group three is Windows experts; group four is computer experts.

Basically, my opinion was that groups one and four would find the transition to be fairly easy, while the middle two will have far more difficulty (though I'm not trying to discourage them from trying).

Shakey_Jake33

22nd October 2007, 15:01

Gave the LiveCD a go, and overall a positive experience, except...

1) My WiFi signal was real weak, 54% compared to basically perfect in Vista.

2) Sometimes Ubuntu would boot up in my screens native resolution of 1360x768.... but sometimes it would boot up in 1024x768 and not let me choose any widescreen resolutions!

Funny how initial bad experiences put you off :(

Is there a Linux equivelent of DirectShow for codecs? I assume everything basically uses ffmpeg. libavcodec the other stuff that ffdshow uses.
How is H.264 support? Since I assume you cannot use PureVideo, and there's no Linux CoreAVC. My CPU should be able to handle it fine anyway though (Core2 Xtreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz)

Inventive Software

22nd October 2007, 15:26

The Linux equivalent of DirectShow is GStreamer. Otherwise, ffmpeg's the way for Linux. :)

Sharktooth

22nd October 2007, 17:18

read this:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=131062

foxyshadis

23rd October 2007, 10:22

CoreAVC does work with mplayer, in fact it has a whole directshow host, though I don't know much about how it works, so that's one option. But yeah, lavc would probably work fine for you, even bluray if you get the newest ones with h.264 threading.

I have no idea where to set the wifi signal power, but I'm sure it's in a configuration file somewhere. (Big surprise.) You've already had more success at wifi in linux than I had, though, which wasn't too surprising given the off-brand card and using WPA when it was new.

dragongodz

23rd October 2007, 11:22

Gave the LiveCD a go

what you have to remember aswell is that a livecd is sort of like a trial version. that is you can not make long term changes and add updates etc. its more to let you try out what its like and if you are interested in really using it then you install it. thats when you can take full advantage of it and set it up how you want.

Sometimes Ubuntu would boot up in my screens native resolution of 1360x768.... but sometimes it would boot up in 1024x768 and not let me choose any widescreen resolutions!

see above. some livecds will try to guess by the hardware it detects while others will just use a default resolution every time. again this is really a limitation of testing a livecd and shouldnt be such a problem with an installed version.

since you seem to have found the experience ok the next step would be installing as dual boot. that way you can really give linux a go while still using windows when you need to. if you are a bit paranoid then of course make a backup of your windows partition first so you can easily and quickly restore it all back etc.

another thing i would probably recommend to those used to windows is to try a distro that uses kde or one that you can select to use it aswell as gnome.

Sharktooth

23rd October 2007, 17:51

another guide in setting up ubuntu:
http://www.howtoforge.com/the_perfect_desktop_ubuntu_gutsy_gibbon

Mutant_Fruit

23rd October 2007, 23:21

One great thing that i haven't seen mentioned yet is the package management. Be it synaptic, YaST, yum or whatever.

Suppose you want a program that can record audio, a quick search in the package manager, a double click and 30 seconds later it's setup and ready to go. If i want a program to play back DivX's, once again, a quick search, double click, 30 seconds later it's ready.

If the program is in your package manager, it's unbelievably easy to install. Of course, if it's *not* in the package manager, it can be annoying and difficult (for a beginner) to get something compiled and installed.

Another thing is that you can get stuff fixed pretty fast if you take the time to report bugs. For example i was using MonoDevelop extensively over the summer and reported several dozen bugs (some of em just cosmetic 'bugs') and each and every one of them was fixed, sometimes within hours of me reporting them. Of course, you'd only get that kind of service on a really active project, not every project has that kind of time to spare. But that's not something that would really concern the average user.

Irakli

24th October 2007, 00:35

Sharktooth

24th October 2007, 00:40

coz most linux distros have repositories and package mantainers. so usually the end-user gets compiled binaries with "special" features and patches depending on the linux distribuition direclty from the repository (using the package manager) without needing to download the prog from the website (or whatever). it's just a one-click install...
there are also sources repositories (gentoo comes to mind) and package manager that will get the package sources from there and build the application automatically.
Obviously you can manually do that too... so you can apply your own (or preferred) patches and compile it with different flags to optimize it for your CPU... etc...
Think at sources like the freedom to do whatever you want with your OS.

Dark Shikari

24th October 2007, 00:54

I just wonder why, while 99% programs for Windows found on net either come with installer or in form of zip/rar/7zip/whatever archieve, most of the programs for Linux on the net are in the form of source code only...
Because in Linux, source code is often easier and more compatible.

All you have to do to install any program's source:

./configure (to configure it for your system--whether you're running BSD, Linux, or whatever)
make (to compile it)
make install (to install it)

That's it. Period. Simple.

Most programs have binaries, of course, but different Linux distros have different packaging mechanisms, so that requires you to have different versions for different distros.

Ubuntu, for example, uses the Debian packaging method, Aptitude, which is without a doubt the most popular. As such it has pretty much universal support, which means the user basically would never have to compile anything.

jmnk

24th October 2007, 06:42

Because in Linux, source code is often easier and more compatible.

All you have to do to install any program's source:

./configure (to configure it for your system--whether you're running BSD, Linux, or whatever)
make (to compile it)
make install (to install it)

That's it. Period. Simple.

I just can't resist - you are joking, right? I can honestly say I do not remember when was the last time I was able to compile from source with not a single error/warning/missing stuff/etc. Not to mention that once you manage to compile 'whatever' it is not entirely (or at all) clear where that 'whatever' is installed, or how to run it, or (God forbid) unistall it. But of course you are going to to say that one could just use checkinstall thingy or the like.
I use/like linux on daily basis - but it is --far-- from 'period. simple'. Don't get me wrong, it works perfectly fine if you happen to manage to install it and you hav efully supported hardware, and you do not try to install anything extra ordinary. But don't get me started on X server, or sound, or wireless - if you need to tweak anything to get it working.

Shakey_Jake33

24th October 2007, 06:50

I've installed Ubuntu onto my secondary machine (Barton 2600+) rather than mess with my main machine.

It's much easier to use than I expected! My last experience with Linux was in ~2003 with Mandrake, and it was a real pain, but this really does work pretty much out of the box!

Mind you, having less luck with the media side of things. My vids and stuff seem to run slower than in XP.

I really do need to learn how to compile etc I think, because source code seems to be where it's 'at' with Linux. I read a guide about getting CoreAVC working with mplayer in Linux, sounds great, 'cept it's dealing with source code.

Dark Shikari

24th October 2007, 07:03

I just can't resist - you are joking, right? I can honestly say I do not remember when was the last time I was able to compile from source with not a single error/warning/missing stuff/etc. For obvious reasons, compiling software requires the appropriate libraries! Fortunately, the configure script will usually give you quite specific errors telling you exactly what you need to install... even if the readme doesn't (which it usually does).

I installed a decently long list of libraries with a few copy-pasted commands to the commandline and I haven't had any errors/missing stuff/whatever problems in months except when the program specifically required some obscure library, in which case the INSTALL file made this quite clear.

Compare this to compiling on Windows, which requires not 5 minutes of preparation but more like 5 days of desperately searching and hacking together libraries and hoping things work.

Seriously, unless you have never seen a command line before in your life and cannot follow extremely simple instructions, compiling is a piece of cake. I know preteens who do it themselves regularly.

0. Make sure you have the basic build tools installed. sudo apt-get install build-essential does this.
1. Read the INSTALL file.
2. Follow any special instructions specified there.
3. Run ./configure.
4. If there are any libraries it says you need, sudo apt-get install them. Then repeat 3.
5. make
6. sudo make install

There, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

Not like you honestly ever need to compile anything for ordinary use of the operating system, of course. Its more of a leftover from the days of Slackware and the like than it is actually useful.

Shakey_Jake33

24th October 2007, 07:20

If it's as simple as you say, cool. I'll give it a go later. I'm command line literate because I used DOS for many years, i just expected there to be more to compiling than that!

It'll be needed to run the newest mplayer snapshots and the like I'd imagine.

jmnk

24th October 2007, 07:22

Seriously, unless you have never seen a command line before in your life and cannot follow extremely simple instructions, compiling is a piece of cake. I know preteens who do it themselves regularly.
this is just simply uncalled for.
I'm sure it is easy for you, and I'm happy for you. And I do not say it can't be done. Merely pointing out that what for you may indeed be 'Period. Simple' in practice means - and I quote:
- recognizing and solving quite specific errors telling you exactly what you need to install,
- a few copy-pasted commands to the commandline,
- following extremely simple instructions - I presume above and beyond ./configure & make & make install.
really, no need to get agitated, nobody has any agenda here.
BTW, as a practical question - would you know how to make xmms work under Centos5.0? Because my Centos5.0 uses alsa as sound, while xmms insists on using oss, and I cannot find xmms-alsa plugin for Centos5.0?
as a last note - I --have-- preteens who do stuff regularly - not all of it useful/necessary. So I do not buy that argument (-:

Dark Shikari

24th October 2007, 07:42

this is just simply uncalled for.
I'm sure it is easy for you, and I'm happy for you. And I do not say it can't be done. Merely pointing out that what for you may indeed be 'Period. Simple' in practice means - and I quote:
- recognizing and solving quite specific errors telling you exactly what you need to install,
- a few copy-pasted commands to the commandline,
- following extremely simple instructions - I presume above and beyond ./configure & make & make install.
really, no need to get agitated, nobody has any agenda here.And your "are you joking" comment wasn't uncalled for? I suggest that if you want a nice response, you don't make an obnoxious comment in the first place. My posts are merely a reflection of your attitude; nothing more, nothing less.

If you're flaming for my oversimplified explanation of "how to compile stuff", I was assuming that the user was knowledgeable enough to install the necessary build tools beforehand. When you give instructions on how to compile something using Visual C++, wouldn't you assume the person already has Visual C++ installed? In a guide to "how to drive a car", would you have steps 1 and 2 be to find and buy a car? Yes, its a bit more effort than driving the car alone, and perhaps buying a car itself is worthy of an entire guide!--but its assumed that the person already have done it.
as a last note - I --have-- preteens who do stuff regularly - not all of it useful/necessary. So I do not buy that argument (-:
My point was that if they can do it, anyone computer savvy enough to want to compile something should be able to do it. Ordinary users don't need to, just like ordinary users don't need to know how to edit the registry in Windows. Expecting compiling to be easy enough for Grandma to do it is, as such, not really necessary or reasonable.

jmnk

24th October 2007, 08:18

And your "are you joking" comment wasn't uncalled for? I suggest that if you want a nice response, you don't make an obnoxious comment in the first place. My posts are merely a reflection of your attitude; nothing more, nothing less.OK you have a point here. I did not mean any harm - but I suppose I should use other wording.

If you're flaming for my oversimplified explanation of "how to compile stuff", I was assuming that the user was knowledgeable enough to install the necessary build tools beforehand. When you give instructions on how to compile something using Visual C++, wouldn't you assume the person already has Visual C++ installed? In a guide to "how to drive a car", would you have steps 1 and 2 be to find and buy a car? Yes, its a bit more effort than driving the car alone, and perhaps buying a car itself is worthy of an entire guide!--but its assumed that the person already have done it.well, the thing is that your post seemed to indicate that compiling from source is quite often an easier option than installing from repository. I just do not see it that way. You are forced to do it because stuff you need is not in a given repository - but it is hardly an easier way.

My point was that if they can do it, anyone computer savvy enough to want to compile something should be able to do it. Ordinary users don't need to, just like ordinary users don't need to know how to edit the registry in Windows. Expecting compiling to be easy enough for Grandma to do it is, as such, not really necessary or reasonable.At least we agree here. Just do not state that it is 'Period. Simple' - giving impression that indeed anyone can do it. Everything (including using/compiling under Windows) is easy - once you know how to do it. It's the 'knowing' part - that you are assuming users have - this is what I object to.
anyway, thanks for comments, go SUSE, or Ubuntu, or Centos, or DSL, or Elive, or Mandriva, or well, any of those ~200 distros that are similar but different enough to drive people crazy :) But that is the beauty of it, isn't it.......

Dark Shikari

24th October 2007, 08:34

Just do not state that it is 'Period. Simple' - giving impression that indeed anyone can do it.Agreed, I did oversimplify the process. Its only a three-step process if you already have a prepared development environment, which is a process in its own right.

Sharktooth

24th October 2007, 14:51

well if you gonna mess with sources, that means your knowledge is adequate.
usually binary based distros (debian/ubuntu, suse, red hat/fedora, etc) have almost everything you need in their own "format". for example, even if a software is not in their repos, it's easy to find a .deb or a .rpm....
the source tarball is only the last resource.

Shinigami-Sama

24th October 2007, 22:50

Agreed, I did oversimplify the process. Its only a three-step process if you already have a prepared development environment, which is a process in its own right.

then theres now-a-days distros that have those libs already installed by default
it down to a couple pesky object files that aren't linked properly in distros now *cough*fedora*cough*

Mutant_Fruit

25th October 2007, 01:09

Compiling can still be hell unless the required dependencies are in your repositories.

I tried to compile some app for recording the desktop on my computer for one of those new fangled 'screen casts'. I grabbed the source, untarred, and ran ./configure. It warned about missing dependencies. I grabbed the missing dependencies source (as it wasn't in my repo either) and tried compiling that. It had a missing dependency which i got the source of. Turns out *that* had other dependencies and that was where i gave up.

Compiling is still hell even for those of us who have some idea what we're doing.

If the stuff is in your repository, then you're fine. It's no effort whatsoever. If it's not... you're back in dependency hell of 1990.

Sharktooth

25th October 2007, 01:25

that's why ebuilds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebuild) exist... (Gentoo!!! ... well ... Sabayon ...) :)

Shinigami-Sama

25th October 2007, 01:34

that's why ebuilds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebuild) exist... (Gentoo!!! ... well ... Sabayon ...) :)

I friggin <3 those

but it still is a bitch to get some apps working
the one I had the most trouble was LTSP
then I found a distro with it already installed and used that

klinika

25th October 2007, 12:35

If the stuff is in your repository, then you're fine. It's no effort whatsoever. If it's not... you're back in dependency hell of 1990.

that's why ebuilds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebuild) exist... (Gentoo!!! ... well ... Sabayon ...) :)

FreeBSD has a similar feature called ports. Makes installing and uninstalling a breeze. Unless indeed the program has not been added to the repository, but even then some or most of the dependencies usually are. Still doesn't make it much easier to uninstall the main program not installed through repository and know it's dependencies after install. Unless the ebuild system is that much more sophisticated.

Sharktooth

25th October 2007, 13:23

i didnt speak of BSD coz it's not linux. however, yes the .pbi packages are just "fire and forget".
however i love the gentoo repos coz they have tons of stuff, and almost always up to date, so you dont have to mess with out-of-repos installations.

klinika

25th October 2007, 14:07

I mentioned it because I recall the ebuild system being based on bsd ports system. Therefore being at least somewhat similar. But yes, I can see why you won't have to install out of repositories very often in gentoo. It's a luxury of the linux world :)

Shakey_Jake33

4th January 2008, 10:02

Had Ubuntu on my secondary machine for a while now, still very much learning it, but loved the experience thus far!

From a media standpoint, it's all very much still a headache. I'm still fighting with the the thing, with my video's on other machines over network not opening properly with many mplayer GUI's, or other little problems which see me having to find another mplayer GUI. I've had less headaches with xine /w Totem, though it's still a far cry from the (imo) simplicity of mpc and using directshow codecs, though I'm sure that's simply because I'm used to them.

Other little things I've still got to learn how to do include:

-In Windows, I have AC3Filter running so that it transcodes my 5.1 AAC's to 5.1 AC3 on the fly, to send over SPDIF. Not sure how to do this in Linux yet, though I assume it can be done because ffdshow has such functionality (so it's surely in ffmpeg/libavcodec).

-Used to using Haali Renderer! Everything looks comparitively worse in Ubuntu, though I've no idea if Linux even has the concept of a video renderer.

-CoreAVC really is keeping me on Windows tbh.

I'm definately going to be keeping my main machine on Vista 64 until I get the media side of things nailed once and for all, but the long term goal it to move over from Windows.

microchip8

4th January 2008, 10:44

1) if you're just watching movies/ listening to music, possibly not (depends what else you might want to do), though I personally prefer almost any O/S other than Vista.

a big LOL here. Ever used Linux yourself? What about MPlayer, VLC, Xine, Amarok, Banshee?? How can you say "possibly not" when I use Linux for years with those programs and didn't had any issues at all? All those have absolutely no problems playing video and audio (except for the DRM'ed crap). Inform yourself first before spewing incorrect information around!

2) with the latest releases on not too obscure hardware, probably not.

No, really depends on the distro which drivers they add as extra. Some brand new hardware might not work on Ubuntu for example but can/will work on openSUSE.

Sharktooth

4th January 2008, 19:22

1- uhm. have no idea. maybe some other linux user may enlight you.
2- yes, there are different video outputs. look at the mplayer, vlc or whatever-player-you're-using options... ;)
3- IIRC someone did some magic hackery to use coreavc in recent versions of mplayer (google)