Just a few extra notes on this topic...
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 11:05 +1000, Amos Shapira wrote:
> On 22/07/07, Rufi_Dukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering if there is anyone here who could help me by looking
> > at the quote below (from pioneer) and telling me if there are any
> > obvious specs that jump out and strike the reader as odd, or as
> > overkill, or under-resourced, or in any other way out of balance..
> >
> > i'm a newbie who is attracted to this deal because it comes with
> > ubuntu pre-installed (the only one, as far as i know, available to me
> > in australia)
> > BUT! i want to be sure that everything will work when i get it, bc i
> > want to hit the ground running with my ubuntu experience
> >
> > so, specifically:
> >
> > 1. if a company like pioneer says it will pre-install ubuntu, can one
> > be reasonably sure that they bed all the software in and test drive it
> > in the factory before shipping it to me?
>
>
> Ask Google?
>
> 2. can i expect that there will be no compatibility issues
The way I bought my computer, was to do plenty of research. Rather than
looking at pre-configured systems, I compiled a list of specific
hardware that I wanted and already knew would work under linux. Then I
took it to my local computer store and got the guy to put it together
for me special. You can even ask for it to be supplied without software.
(A naked computer - oh my!) It might be more expensive than getting a
Dell or whatever, but I got exactly what I wanted.
Of course this wont work quite as well if you are shopping for a laptop.
In that case I would agree that looking at the systems offered with
Ubuntu in the States and trying to get the equivalent system here. Even
if it means you have to buy Windows too.
> >
> > 3. how important is the 64/32 bit issue?
I have had a 64 bit system for more than two years. While there is a
definite "coolness" factor to having a 64 bit system (if you are
impressed by that sort of thing like I am), I am not convinced exactly
what the practical benefits to having a 64 bit system are. I have
encountered a few problems that needed to be solved that I would not
have had to deal with at all had I just gone with a i386 system, but
then if I didn't want to play around with my computer I wouldn't have
gotten into this whole linux thing, would I?
64 bit linux is very well supported by the distros that offer it, (far
better than 64 bit windows as far as I can tell.) There is a lot more
software compiled to run on it, a benefit of most of the software being
open source.
> Some things I learned about this issue in the last few days:
> 1. If you want Adobe Flash, Skype, Google Earth or many other proprietary
> programs to run then you need a 32-bit environment
Any sensible 64 bit distro will come with the 32 bit libraries (and
install them by default) side by side with the 64 bit libraries. I use
Fedora and it does just that.
With the 32 bit libraries installed, 32 bit programs should run as
normal. I have Google Earth and it runs perfectly. I have proprietary
games (Quake IV, Doom 3, Neverwinter Nights, all 32 bit only) and they
run just fine. I have Cedega (to run windows games (all 32 bit)) and it
runs... adequately. I have not tried Skype.
Adobe Flash is slightly different. It requires the 32 bit version of
firefox or it will not work at all. This is not a big deal. Simply
uninstall the 64 bit firefox and install the 32 bit firefox. On Fedora
using yum, the commands are simply:
sudo yum remove firefox.x86_64
sudo yum install firefox.i386
and install the flash plugin as normal.
If you are installing the downloaded plugin (ie, not from a repository
or rpm), you may need to fool the install program into thinking it is
running on a 32 bit system. (It is programmed to fail if it detects a 64
bit system) From memory the command becomes something like:
linux32 ./nameofflashinstaller
> 2. OpenOffice wasn't ported to amd64.
My install of Open Office reports being the x86_64 architecture. I may
be remembering things wrong, but I am sure that it has always been 64
bit.
> 3. It is VERY EASY to setup a useable 32-bit chroot environment which will
> make things run almost transparently for you ("mount --bind" and schroot
> magic :).
>
I have not yet had to use this technique yet, as just about everything
has worked without resorting to such techniques, although it is good to
know that there is another avenue I can try should I get really stuck.
I recall this was recommended when Cedega was having troubles with 64
bit systems, but the guys at Transgaming fixed the problem before I even
got around to trying it.
> To sum - you might have some learning to do but it'll work.
>
> 4. finally, is my method good? ie, would i better off just getting a
> > windows computer and then installing ubuntu from a CD (i am not a
> > natively brilliant adept at computers, so my way forward will have to
> > be with lots of good books, good advice and support)
>
>
> I'm always in favour of installing the OS yourself if you can. It's very
> simple with the latest crop of Linux distros and you might learn something,
> plus you can probably buy a PC without windows and save yourself the Windows
> license price.
>
> --Amos
How much of a newbie are you? Are you just starting out or have you been
using linux for a while?
While I applaud your desire to get a 100% MS windows free computer, I
trust this wont be your only computer?
Having linux only and nothing else available can force you to learn the
new way of things much faster than you would if you had your old windows
to fall back on, but it can also leave a bad taste in your mouth if
things don't work out perfectly. If there is some program that you *just
cannot* find a replacement for, or a piece of hardware that *just will
not* work no matter how much googling you do, it can add a lot of
frustration unnecessarily.
I, myself dual booted between the two systems for 2-3 years, with linux
becoming more and more my main system as I (slowly) learned how to use
it. Finally my Windows 98 partition was there only for a few old games
(and it was no longer allowed on the net). I was finally able to get rid
of it completely.
Many linux users might hate me for saying this, but you might want to
consider keeping windows around for this vital transition period. I.E.
buy the windows machine and install linux on it yourself for the dual
boot. The transition would be much slower, but also a bit less painful.
It's not something that works for everyone, but it worked for me.
Then again, that was a few years ago. Linux has matured spectacularly in
the years since then. Maybe nowadays it *is* just better to go for the
clean break.
Whichever way you go, I'm sure you will find Linux as rewarding as I
have.
Darren.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
