...making Linux just a little more fun!
[ In reference to "Laptop review: Averatec 5400 series" in LG#108 ]
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
----- Forwarded message from Edward Blaize <edwardblaize@gmail.com> -----
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:48:06 -0500 From: Edward Blaize <edwardblaize@gmail.com> To: editor@linuxgazette.net Subject: 5400 series averatec & linux.hello, this is directed towards Ben, i just read his review of how the 5400 series worked with linux, honestly most of it was over my head, i didnt really know what he was talking about with all the technical stuff. having said that, i own an averatec 5400 series laptop, and have had it for 3.5 years and i love it. i am interested in starting to use linux and have tried several distros and cant get them to work. which one would he recommend to a non technophile like me who just hates windows and is willing to learn to program if i have to, but dont really have the time. i used to program in machine language, basic, and fortran77, but was a beginner. i have long since forgotten those things a lifetime ago.im looking for a distro i can install and be relatively easy to use and will function well on this machine. i want to set up a dual boot system with windows/linux. any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
----- End forwarded message -----
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * https://LinuxGazette.NET *
John Karns [johnkarns at gmail.com]
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Ben Okopnik <ben@linuxgazette.net> wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Edward Blaize <edwardblaize@gmail.com> ----- > > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:48:06 -0500 > From: Edward Blaize <edwardblaize@gmail.com> > To: editor@linuxgazette.net > Subject: 5400 series averatec & linux. > > hello, this is directed towards Ben, i just read his review of how the > 5400 series worked with linux, honestly most of it was over my head, i > didnt really know what he was talking about with all the technical stuff. > having said that, i own an averatec 5400 series laptop, and have had it > for 3.5 years and i love it. i am interested in starting to use linux and > have tried several distros and cant get them to work. which one would he > recommend to a non technophile like me who just hates windows and is > willing to learn to program if i have to, but dont really have the time. i
Well, I'm not Ben, but I'll toss out a recommendation that you try Ubuntu. There are some some variations within that branch of a Linux distro mainly to give a choice of the GUI that will install. My personal preference is KUbuntu, which will install the KDE desktop / window manager. Plain old Ubuntu will install the Gnome interface, which is preferred by some people.
XUbuntu carries a lighter weight GUI than either KDE or Gnome, so will run faster, and demand less memory resources from your machine. The nice thing about the install CD's for these flavors is that, AFAIK, all have the ability to boot and run right from the CD without having to install it. That's mainly for purposes of suitability testing, i.e. to give a glimpse at the UI and test for how well it will detect the devices on your machine.
If you don't want to fuss around too much tweaking the system configuration after installation, then Ubuntu can give you a system that won't require that much invested time. It usually does a pretty good job of setting itself up to leverage the power management features on laptops, which makes it a consideration Linux users of all experience levels. But of course, as with just about all Linux distros, it is very customizable, and there is virtually no limits to how you can tailor it to your personal tastes.
-- John
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 08:17:53PM -0400, Benjamin Okopnik wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Edward Blaize <edwardblaize@gmail.com> ----- > > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:48:06 -0500 > From: Edward Blaize <edwardblaize@gmail.com> > To: editor@linuxgazette.net > Subject: 5400 series averatec & linux. > > hello, this is directed towards Ben, i just read his review of how the > 5400 series worked with linux, honestly most of it was over my head, i > didnt really know what he was talking about with all the technical stuff.
Hi, Edward -
That's to be expected, since this is a technical publication in a
technical field. I'm glad that you found it useful, in any case.
> having said that, i own an averatec 5400 series laptop, and have had it > for 3.5 years and i love it. i am interested in starting to use linux and > have tried several distros and cant get them to work. which one would he > recommend to a non technophile like me who just hates windows and is > willing to learn to program if i have to, but dont really have the time. i > used to program in machine language, basic, and fortran77, but was a > beginner. i have long since forgotten those things a lifetime ago.im > looking for a distro i can install and be relatively easy to use and will > function well on this machine. i want to set up a dual boot system with > windows/linux. any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
For a guy who claims to be all techno-non-savvy, you sure do sling
around terms like "dual boot" and "distro" like an old hand! As
someone else here said earlier, Ubuntu is pretty good for beginners -
and works well for professionals also. There are many other distros,
including quite a few that you can run without installing (e.g.,
Knoppix, or Puppy Linux); I find that for many people starting with one
of those is less intimidating for just trying things out.
I'd like to correct one common misapprehension, though: you don't have to learn to program in order to use Linux. in fact, the skills you need to use it are the same ones that you need for using Windows. Not exactly the same - for one thing, you don't have to learn how to remove viruses and spyware, or to recover files destroyed by those - but using the GUI, etc., is going to be a familiar experience.
The difference is, if you want to learn to program, or run your own webserver, or get into any technical aspect of computing that you're interested in, Linux also makes that available and easy. It doesn't cost you a fortune, you don't have to agree to horrendous legal restrictions, you do own the software that you produce - and you have access to a community of people who have a tradition of sharing expertise and information freely.
So, come on in. The water really is fine.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * https://LinuxGazette.NET *
John Karns [johnkarns at gmail.com]
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Ben Okopnik <ben@linuxgazette.net> wrote:
> around terms like "dual boot" and "distro" like an old hand!As > someone else here said earlier, Ubuntu is pretty good for beginners - > and works well for professionals also. There are many other distros, > including quite a few that you can run without installing (e.g., > Knoppix, or Puppy Linux); I find that for many people starting with one > of those is less intimidating for just trying things out.
I don't know when they started including the feature, but the CD I installed from (Ubuntu 7.04) was also a runtime OS. I.e., at some point during initialization, the user is presented with a dialog box to choose installation vs. just running it. Presumably 7.10 functions that way as well.
I will note that I've read comments which assert that 7.10 seems to suffer some hardware compatibility issues not seen in the earlier 7.04.
-- John
Martin J Hooper [martinjh at blueyonder.co.uk]
John Karns wrote:
> I don't know when they started including the feature, but the > CD I installed from (Ubuntu 7.04) was also a runtime OS. I.e., > at some point during initialization, the user is presented > with a dialog box to choose installation vs. just running it. > Presumably 7.10 functions that way as well.
Its a live CD - Ie you can run it by booting of the CD to test hardware etc then run the installer off an icon on the desktop.
Never heard of it doing it the way you describe ;)
John Karns [johnkarns at gmail.com]
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Martin J Hooper <martinjh@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> John Karns wrote: > > I don't know when they started including the feature, but the > > CD I installed from (Ubuntu 7.04) was also a runtime OS. I.e., > > at some point during initialization, the user is presented > > with a dialog box to choose installation vs. just running it. > > Presumably 7.10 functions that way as well. > > Its a live CD - Ie you can run it by booting of the CD to test > hardware etc then run the installer off an icon on the desktop. > > Never heard of it doing it the way you describe ;)
Ok - it's been about 6 months since I installed it. A failing memory
playing tricks again.
-- JK
Martin J Hooper [martinjh at blueyonder.co.uk]
John Karns wrote:
> Ok - it's been about 6 months since I installed it. A failing memory > playing tricks again.>
No worries - I have a bad memory too sometimes!
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Quoting Ben Okopnik (ben@linuxgazette.net):
> I'd like to correct one common misapprehension, though: you don't have > to learn to program in order to use Linux. in fact, the skills you need > to use it are the same ones that you need for using Windows.
Actually, I think it's time we counter the hoary "you have to be a programmer to use Linux" farrago with a far more credible counter-meme: You really must be a programmer to stand a chance of not being horribly frustrated by MS-Windows.
Consider how many times we've heard from MS-Windows users that the poor security architecture, corruption-prone registry, spyware-infested proprietary software marketplace, fragile and fragmentation-tending filesystems, and so on have driven them to utter distraction. Obviously, the only effective counter-move must be to be an expert programmer within that environment, such that you have even a prayer of being able to protect your own code and data in a stable environment.
-- Cheers, "Reality is not optional." Rick Moen -- Thomas Sowell rick@linuxmafia.com
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxmafia.com]
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23:56AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ben Okopnik (ben@linuxgazette.net): > > > I'd like to correct one common misapprehension, though: you don't have > > to learn to program in order to use Linux. in fact, the skills you need > > to use it are the same ones that you need for using Windows. > > Actually, I think it's time we counter the hoary "you have to be a > programmer to use Linux" farrago with a far more credible counter-meme: > You really must be a programmer to stand a chance of not being > horribly frustrated by MS-Windows. > > Consider how many times we've heard from MS-Windows users that the poor > security architecture, corruption-prone registry, spyware-infested > proprietary software marketplace, fragile and fragmentation-tending > filesystems, and so on have driven them to utter distraction. > Obviously, the only effective counter-move must be to be an expert > programmer within that environment, such that you have even a prayer of > being able to protect your own code and data in a stable environment.
Actually, even that won't help much: no matter how good of a builder you are, your house will still sink if it's built on top of a swamp. But you're right to this degree: in a losing scenario like that one, being a programmer can lessen the pain even if it won't change the outcome.
The killer factor is that you can't get the source code - and even if you could, you're legally prohibited from changing it. Game, set, and match.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * https://LinuxGazette.NET *