Is ubuntu ready for the world? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is ubuntu ready for the world?

redback

March 3rd, 2008, 10:22 PM

Hi folks,
I spent 17 years in the I.T. industry in and around Unix. Solaris, HP-UX and about 10 years ago Red Hat Linux. 7 years ago I became a teacher of I.T.
I have an opportunity in my current school to break the Microsoft stranglehold. I have explained all of the benefits of open source to my bosses and they agreed to me having a pilot. After 18 hours of effort I still cant get ubuntu to install and work on a toshiba laptop.
The sheer number of posts on this forum would suggest lots of other people have issues.
10 years ago I have happy memories of installing Red Hat on a pc with no problems. Perhaps a case of rose tinted glasses but I would have remembered if it was a hassle.
I need to make a business case to my bosses. They need to see an easy installation.
Microsoft make rubbish software. But at least it will usually install. Installation and support are the two main issues that the decision makers will concentrate on. Ubuntu will not acquire mass market appeal until it installs properly. Why do you think Billy Gates concentrates on getting the installation of his OSs to work effortlessly?

Any suggestions gratefully recived.

Red

dgoodma

March 3rd, 2008, 10:48 PM

Try Linux Mint, first on the Live CD. I found it "liked" my laptop better than "plain Ubuntu"; plus the interface might appeal.

http://www.linuxmint.com/

Ubuntu with more.

Old laptop, resource challenged? Try Xubuntu

Jay Jay

March 3rd, 2008, 11:19 PM

Microsoft make rubbish software. But at least it will usually install. Installation and support are the two main issues that the decision makers will concentrate on. Ubuntu will not acquire mass market appeal until it installs properly. Why do you think Billy Gates concentrates on getting the installation of his OSs to work effortlessly?

Really? The Internet is full of accounts of users who have experienced problems with failed installation attempts with every incarnation of Windows right up to Vista (http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=40150)

I still remember the wonderful times I had installing Win 9x and having to use two different graphics cards during the installation, otherwise the process would freeze and refuse to install. This from a software company that has unmatched global resources!

If you could post some more details on what happens during the installation attempts, we could then start to work towards a solution. :)

aysiu

March 3rd, 2008, 11:21 PM

If you could post some more details on what happens during the installation attempts, we could then start to work towards a solution. :) Click on redback's profile, and you can see there's a support thread, too.

Let's keep the support support and the discussion discussion.

Ecclesia

March 3rd, 2008, 11:35 PM

I'm not sure if Ubuntu is ready for the world in the sense that you're suggesting. Partly this has to do with the variety of video cards and their closed source drivers. There are a number of people who have recently had major stability issues and some of this has to do with video drives (particularly, apparently when using Compiz) I had problems installing Ubuntu on my new machine. It seems that Linux works really well when installed on hardware that is known to flawlessly work.

If I were going to make a switch in a business I would look for machines that ran hardware that was known to work flawlessly with Ubuntu - perhaps starting with Dell (if I were going to pitch it, since this seems to be the largest company that sells it pre-installed).

I too have an old Toshiba laptop. Standard Ubuntu will not install on it even though it has specs over requirements. I'm not sure why that's the case. I had even read on forums that others with my exact same laptop got it running no problem. I was able to get Xubuntu to run on it, however.

I think that Ubuntu is getting close to the moment when it would work for companies. I work for a church and we're contemplating switching entirely to open source. The problem is not so much the quality of Linux, but that everyone else seems to be programmed to use Microsoft products. If someone calls a company to support a product (from the copier to the DSL modem) Linux is almost never supported. I personally think it's shameful how many companies just wash their hands of supporting you as soon as you mention Linux/Ubuntu. I've stopped buying from these companies and only look for companies that are Linux friendly.

Northsider

March 3rd, 2008, 11:38 PM

Is it ready for the world? As soon as there is better (easier?) support for driver issues...

SunnyRabbiera

March 3rd, 2008, 11:39 PM

yes, ubuntu is ready for the world...
but the real question is... is the world ready for ubuntu? :D

redback

March 4th, 2008, 03:17 AM

Thanks to all replies,
I will try xubuntu and will post my results.

I didnt really intend to spark a discussion. I realise that should take place in a different forum. I was looking for suggestions like "try xubuntu".

I also accept that Microsoft WIndows has problems during installation. My o
My boss has a working system. He knows nothing about computers. He is happy to pay a price to retain his known working system even when told by experts that he could change to something which will save him money. wn experience of installing commercial unix on various platforms is largely problem-free. My experience of windows suggests that most problems occur when you start to use windows after installation.
He will not take the risk. Linux will be a viable alternative when I can show my boss that it works as good as windows. The day my boss agrees to go to Linux will be a scary day indeed for Billy Gates.

Red

redback

March 4th, 2008, 03:21 AM

Sorry about last post. It got messed up by a maths teacher.
It should have read

Thanks to all replies,
I will try xubuntu and will post my results.

I didnt really intend to spark a discussion. I realise that should take place in a different forum. I was looking for suggestions like "try xubuntu".

I also accept that Microsoft WIndows has problems during installation. My own experience of installing commercial unix on various platforms is largely problem-free. My experience of windows suggests that most problems occur when you start to use windows after installation.

My boss has a working system. He knows nothing about computers. He is happy to pay a price to retain his known working system even when told by experts that he could change to something which will save him money.
He will not take the risk. Linux will be a viable alternative when I can show my boss that it works as good as windows. The day my boss agrees to go to Linux will be a scary day indeed for Billy Gates.

Red

Ecclesia

March 4th, 2008, 11:26 AM

As someone who's also working on this switch in the workplace - I'd be glad to offer whatever suggestions I have. What type of business are you in? How often are computers purchased, etc?

In other posts that I've read, often the inability to run one application natively will keep Linux out of an entire work place. So you might want to figure out what your boss' favorite applications are, so that you can show him open source solutions that do what he needs.

In our church, part of the reason to switch is that software licenses are expensive and we don't have a large budget to play with. Money going towards technology could be going toward work in the community. As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely no reason to pay Microsoft large sums of cash just so that we can edit the newsletter and the weekly bulletin. However, it also needs to work with our current hardware, since we can't afford to buy more (that means printers, connection to the photocopier, etc) and we need a church database solution (which I'm currently looking into). The database solution will probably be the biggest stumbling block. I haven't had the opportunity to test our current software under WINE yet, but I'm just hoping that there's something better our there, since our current software seems to have some issues.

I'm trying to get software for projecting lyrics together. If I can show that we can save a few hundred dollars by using Ubuntu rather than upgrading proprietary stuff just for our projection system it would take a huge step in the right direction.

redback

March 4th, 2008, 09:28 PM

Hi,
I work in a school. One third of my I.T. budget is license costs. All to microsoft. My boss wants to save that cash if possible but is totally unwilling to take risks. I need a trouble free installation, office tools, access to internet and network volumes to make him believe that we can move to Linux.
Am trying xubuntu, suse, gos and fedora today. If they dont work I will need to give up. We are not going to buy new hardware so if my toshiba laptops are incapable of running some flavour of linux, so be it.
It almost seems like they have been designed NOT to allow linux to work.

Surely I am being cynical :-)

Red

aysiu

March 4th, 2008, 09:32 PM

I think a move to Linux is too drastic for the fearful-of-change.

A good approach would be to slowly switch your company over to open source Windows programs (http://www.opensourcewindows.org). This serves two major purposes.

1. It develops trust in open source in general. If your managers or bosses see that open source applications are cost-free and reliable, they would probably be more open to the possibility of moving to an open source operating system.

2. It gets people used to open source programs. Since most of the open source Windows programs are available for Ubuntu as well, getting people used to those application in Windows first will ease their transition to Ubuntu later.

scottro

March 4th, 2008, 11:21 PM

Laptops can be quite problematic, because of proprietary drivers. This doesn't mean anything to a boss, as a rule. "So, the bottom line is that you can't make it work, right? Yes or No?"

Some scenarios will work. For example, at my last company, there was a warehouse. The people needed Word and Excel, which could be done with OpenOffice--they weren't power users, very basic documents and spreadsheets. They needed basic email, none of the Outlook bells and whistles. They needed Internet and a terminal to access a program running on an AS400.

They also tended to get a lot of viruses as they were pretty unsupervised and tended to browse various unsafe sites. They also had relatively low end machines. Such a situation is a good one for Linux.

Yet, even on older vanilla hardware, you can run into issues. I remember when Feisty, I think, or the one before it, simply wouldn't even begin to install on anything with an older Matrox G200 or G400 card. The only way around it--at the time, and it was fixed--was to boot with the special options CD and install a backport. Such a thing, obviously, is bad for advocacy. :)

aysiu

March 5th, 2008, 12:06 AM

Laptops can be quite problematic, because of proprietary drivers. This doesn't mean anything to a boss, as a rule. "So, the bottom line is that you can't make it work, right? Yes or No?" That's why the migration would take a lot of planning. You wouldn't install Linux on random designed-for-Windows laptops. You would wait until said laptops were "too old" and then use the budget to buy Linux-preinstalled laptops.

redback

March 5th, 2008, 06:02 AM

Hi folks,
Very impressed with this forum. Lots of interesting stuff.

I have today tried edubuntu, xubuntu, gos linux, suse linux and fedora on my toshiba satellite L100 laptops. Basically, nothing worked. They all seemed to start the install but as soon as anything was sent to the screen the machines hung dead as a dodo. I think the video hardware is the problem and is insurmountable. No linux for me on these.

As luck would have it I was given 4 slightly newer pentium 4 toshiba laptops. xubuntu installed perfectly and is running sweetly. So did suse linux. My fedora dvd was corrupt so I will try that tomorrow. All of this testing was only possible because I had 10 students in my computer club helping. I will try edubuntu tomorrow and post back.

I will not spend any more time on the older toshiba satellite L100 laptops.

I could show my boss the xubuntu installation tomorrow and I know he would be impressed. I will do a bit of fiddling tomorrow to get it looking its best.

Thanks to all contributors. Your comments and opinions are much appreciated.

Red

barbedsaber

March 5th, 2008, 06:14 AM

hmmm, is Ubuntu ready for the world, well, its a hell of a lot more ready than vista.

Solicitous

March 5th, 2008, 07:28 AM

mdsmedia

March 5th, 2008, 07:51 AM

I personally think the question should be worded as "Is the world ready for Ubuntu?".
As we know one of the major upsides of Ubuntu (Linux) is the availability of free choice. Numerous text processing apps, web browsers etc. However the average human being (especially when it comes to computers) gets lost when it comes to making decisions, they essentially need to be told what to choose. I still think that to help increase uptake of Ubuntu is to not only offer it as complete working desktop environment, but to make the decision for them and tell them to use it!
So in short I feel Ubuntu can fulfill everybody's needs, but I don't think everybody is ready for it.Maybe you're right.

My mother recently purchased an eeePC and I asked her how she liked Linux. She said something along the lines of it not being Linux or any OS.

My point is that you can make Linux ready for everyone, but if they want to do something different or realise that their favorite app won't run on "x" OS then either they need to be shown that there is an alternative or they will continue to use the OS that runs their app.

redback

March 5th, 2008, 09:05 PM

I fully agree with solicitous.

I am spending time now creating that all encompassing environment which will meet all of my boss's requirements. One of those requirements is that it looks nice. That is why I will look at openoffice and star office and present the one which loks best.

My boss will see a complete working environment. I will effectively have made the choices for him. He will be happy and let me have an entire classroom of open source operating system and applications.

Need to go teach now.

Red

Ecclesia

March 6th, 2008, 01:04 AM

Redback,

I'm surprised that you haven't been able to get any of these linux flavors to work on your laptops. I had problems getting any of the Ubuntu brands to work on my Toshiba. I found that elive worked (I was using that for a long time), also a text based install might be more friendly. The standard Debian worked, and was similar to Ubuntu sans some of user friendly features.

I noticed that Slax ran really well. Now that I have a new machine I'm tempted to use the box as a platform for learning a little about Slackware. I never found out why, but this machine seemed to fly with slackware based distros.

I take it that you're using this at a school. If the computers are already licensed to use M$ Office you might want to install it via WINE, just to show your boss that it can be done. I prefer Open Office, but it's impressive to see windows programs running natively on Linux.

At my place of work we were looking at buying programs to display lyrics - they're usually pretty expensive. One look at Opensong on the Mac (our head pastor is a mac guy) and good as done... I'm still fuzzy on how to install it on Ubuntu (looks like it's compiled only for SUSE), but I'm sure I'll work through it. We might be entirely open source within the year.

antisocialist

March 6th, 2008, 02:43 AM

The day my boss agrees to go to Linux will be a scary day indeed for Billy Gates.

now, just out of curiosity, are they the same person?

antisocialist

March 6th, 2008, 02:51 AM

Hi folks,
Very impressed with this forum. Lots of interesting stuff.

I have today tried edubuntu, xubuntu, gos linux, suse linux and fedora on my toshiba satellite L100 laptops. Basically, nothing worked. They all seemed to start the install but as soon as anything was sent to the screen the machines hung dead as a dodo. I think the video hardware is the problem and is insurmountable. No linux for me on these.

not to poke fun or anything, but my satellite m45-s351 had a flawless install of ubuntu and only needed me to hardwire an internet connection to get the wireless driver up and running (because it is a proprietary driver). when I installed windows I had to use my other machine to download about 10 different drivers before I could get it to do much more than turn on and log in (took like an hour to load the first driver)

and in reply to aysiu saying that laptops made for windows can't run ubuntu:

mine seems to work just fine, why does everyone else complain?

it's like cars and bikes;
it has problems when you are using it, but when the repair man gets his hands on it miraculously it works like a dream

aysiu

March 6th, 2008, 02:56 AM

and in reply to aysiu saying that laptops made for windows can't run ubuntu:

mine seems to work just fine, why does everyone else complain? I didn't say that laptops made for Windows can't run Ubuntu.

This is what I said, in response to a hypothetical situation with a boss complaining about Ubuntu not working on laptops that previously had Windows running on them: Laptops can be quite problematic, because of proprietary drivers. This doesn't mean anything to a boss, as a rule. "So, the bottom line is that you can't make it work, right? Yes or No?"That's why the migration would take a lot of planning. You wouldn't install Linux on random designed-for-Windows laptops. You would wait until said laptops were "too old" and then use the budget to buy Linux-preinstalled laptops.

antisocialist

March 6th, 2008, 02:58 AM

I didn't say that laptops made for Windows can't run Ubuntu.

This is what I said, in response to a hypothetical situation with a boss complaining about Ubuntu not working on laptops that previously had Windows running on them:

well, to my sleep-deprived mind it's all the same

time to hit that nice shiny new memory foam pillow XD

redback

March 7th, 2008, 09:45 PM

Sleep deprived comments. Hmmmmmmmm.

Bill Gates is not my boss.

I had a moment of sweet satisfaction yesterday. I was showing my year 11 students the linux laptops. Two volunteers started surfing the web. The speed was very noticably faster.
"How come these laptops are so fast compared to the other laptops?",
I was asked by a young inquisitive face.
"Linux", I responded smugly.

Two students took my xubuntu boot disks home. One of those students appeared one Monday morning sporting an alienware laptop after I had informed him that they were the best. Jealous, me? Nah!!

Red

clcoyle

March 10th, 2008, 06:54 PM

I just installed Gutsy from scratch, and I have to say that it was much easier than any installation of Windows I ever did.

Sure, there are/will be issues. But I never had a seamless Windows install either. Ever.

I challenged my stepson, who tried a RedHat version a couple of years ago at the age of 12, to try Gutsy.

My jaundiced opinion is that if people spent even a fraction of the time on Linux as they have with Windows, it wouldn´t be nearly the issue itś all made out to be.

How many hundreds of hours and pulled hair have we had with Windows issues? In short order, I installed Gutsy, pulled in the extra stuff off the CD to get my MA111 wireless card to work (following simple guidance from here), and it was online getting info from Ubuntuforums on setting up other bells and whistles. No sweat.

A year or two ago I got Dapper working fine with an old laptop and a Linksys wireless card, and Gutsy seems even more (windows)-user friendly.

I think this time I won´t be going back. Too much good, not enough bad.

FWIW.

antisocialist

March 10th, 2008, 07:05 PM

I think this time I won´t be going back. Too much good, not enough bad.

FWIW.

thats what i like to hear :D

M_Hamada

March 13th, 2008, 01:04 PM

You know now there is Fluxbuntu, a lighter Ubuntu: http://www.fluxbuntu.org/ . The thing it works better on the older systems that even Xubuntu is slow on.

antisocialist

March 13th, 2008, 05:02 PM

You know now there is Fluxbuntu, a lighter Ubuntu: http://www.fluxbuntu.org/ . The thing it works better on the older systems that even Xubuntu is slow on.

if xubuntu is slow on your computer that means its time to get a new one.

Ecclesia

March 14th, 2008, 11:27 AM

if xubuntu is slow on your computer that means its time to get a new one.

I'm not a fan of comments like this. One of the things that's great about Linux is backwards compatibility. I love Ubuntu, but it's not exactly speedy on older machines (even in Xubuntu form, I hate to admit).

I found that Debian was a much better choice for my old toshiba laptop (now a media server in my living room). I'm tempted to learn more about slackware to increase its speed further. NimbleX flies on it, I'd love to see a good way to install this on a hard drive.

DrMega

March 14th, 2008, 11:41 AM

Why do you think Billy Gates concentrates on getting the installation of his OSs to work effortlessly?

I can't agree with that bit. There are two main versions of the Windows installer. There's the one that ships with a particular PC make and model,customised by the PC manufacturer. In my experience these usually lead to a flaky installation. Then there's the bog standard single user one that most will be familiar with. In the case of the latter, it takes ages to install. It raises prompts at various stages of the installation, meaning you have to sit around and wait for it. It also has a total disregard for any other OS that it has to coexist with.

With Ubuntu's installeron the other hand, the few questions it needs to ask all happen up front, so once you've given it the info it needs, you can go off and make a cup of tea and leave it to get on with it.

I find Ubuntu's installer incredibly easy and intuitive to use. I find package management really easy. The GUI is just as intuitive as anything MS have done, and the range and quality of apps is excellent.

I've worked in the IT industry for 11 years (not quite as long as you) as a developer on Windows, so I'm about as comfortable and familiar with the MS way of doing things as I'm likely to get. However despite this (or because of this) I prefer Ubuntu to Windows. Despite being a developer, when I go home I really can't be bothered to tinker very much. I just want stuff to work with the minimum of effort. Ubuntu delivers in this respect in terms of installation, maintenance and use.

aysiu

March 14th, 2008, 11:50 AM

popch

March 14th, 2008, 11:56 AM

I thought "Billy Gates" concentrated on getting his OS preinstalled. The installation of Windows by users is not usually effortless, and the degree to which it is easy usually has more to do with the driver CDs third-parties include with their hardware than any merits Windows has as an OS.

On the other hand, as long as users buy boxed versions, Bill Gates could not care less whether they actually use it. He would care whether they succeed in installing it to the extent to which Microsoft has to support those users. They are really very good at shirking that, so that does not matter, either.

Quote from the latest visit by a Microsoft sales rep: We do not sell solutions, we sell tools.

antisocialist

March 14th, 2008, 02:48 PM

One of the things that's great about Linux is backwards compatibility. I love Ubuntu, but it's not exactly speedy on older machines (even in Xubuntu form, I hate to admit).

I found that Debian was a much better choice for my old toshiba laptop (now a media server in my living room). I'm tempted to learn more about slackware to increase its speed further. NimbleX flies on it, I'd love to see a good way to install this on a hard drive.

ok, you want speed, get damn small, or get a new computer =D

mdsmedia

March 14th, 2008, 05:57 PM

I can't agree with that bit. There are two main versions of the Windows installer. There's the one that ships with a particular PC make and model,customised by the PC manufacturer. In my experience these usually lead to a flaky installation. Then there's the bog standard single user one that most will be familiar with. In the case of the latter, it takes ages to install. It raises prompts at various stages of the installation, meaning you have to sit around and wait for it. It also has a total disregard for any other OS that it has to coexist with.

With Ubuntu's installeron the other hand, the few questions it needs to ask all happen up front, so once you've given it the info it needs, you can go off and make a cup of tea and leave it to get on with it.

I find Ubuntu's installer incredibly easy and intuitive to use. I find package management really easy. The GUI is just as intuitive as anything MS have done, and the range and quality of apps is excellent.

I've worked in the IT industry for 11 years (not quite as long as you) as a developer on Windows, so I'm about as comfortable and familiar with the MS way of doing things as I'm likely to get. However despite this (or because of this) I prefer Ubuntu to Windows. Despite being a developer, when I go home I really can't be bothered to tinker very much. I just want stuff to work with the minimum of effort. Ubuntu delivers in this respect in terms of installation, maintenance and use.

I thought "Billy Gates" concentrated on getting his OS preinstalled. The installation of Windows by users is not usually effortless, and the degree to which it is easy usually has more to do with the driver CDs third-parties include with their hardware than any merits Windows has as an OS.

I have to agree with both of these.

One of the misconceptions, or old wives tales I believe, is that Windows is easy to install and the applications are "just better" in Windows.

I switched 2 1/2 years ago and found the installation of Ubuntu... it was Hoary Hedgehog at the time..... a breeze, with a little assistance from a HowTo I found on the web.

If I have to install Windows I thank my years of experience with it and my lack of fear of clicking the wrong button. Then hardware needs to be installed AFTER Windows' installation and that, despite arguments to the contrary, is NEVER straightforward. And finding the hardware drivers (hopefully you can still find the CD) and installing them can be problematic, with Windows fighting the installation all the way. Something which installed easily, previously, will throw up problems with a fresh install. Then software which was previously on the Windows system needs to be reinstalled. Find that program CD if you can.

I installed Linux first time and had most of the programs I needed already there. Hardware was already detected and installed. I'm not saying everything worked flawlessly. I still haven't got my scanner working in Linux, but I haven't tried really hard either. I still have problems with my printer, but once installed it works better in Linux than Windows. The number of times I've had to reinstall the Brother Control Centre in Windows I have lost count.

Installation of software is a cinch in Linux. As long as you're not trying to install a Windows based program. If I want something in Linux I find it in synaptic and a couple of clicks later it's installed and operating. Sure, some specific programs may require download and installation via CLI, but most are in the repos and available with a couple of clicks.

I guess I'm pretty modest as far as my software needs. I have one game which I play in XP. My tax software requires Windows (I'm a tax accountant). The tax agents' portal on my tax office's website requires Windows. But the plethora of quality available software in Linux is amazing. There is nothing in Windows which matches Kontact as a PIM. I use Outlook, at work in Windows and because I have 2 part time jobs, both using Windows, I use Google Apps and calendar as a stopgap, but Kontact keeps my life organised. Nothing in Windows matches GIMP for graphic editing. I can see you all saying GIMP doesn't match PhotoShop but who has the hundreds to afford PhotoShop?

I looked for a substitute for Outlook as a PIM in Windows before I switched to Linux. There aren't any which come close.

I try to avoid the "free as in beer" comparison because that's a given in Linux, but the number of high quality "free as in beer" tools available for Linux is phenomenal.

Is Ubuntu or Linux ready for the world? Absolutely. Is the world ready for Linux.... only if the world can get off its Windows merry-go-round.

antisocialist

March 14th, 2008, 08:26 PM

Nothing in Windows matches GIMP for graphic editing. I can see you all saying GIMP doesn't match PhotoShop but who has the hundreds to afford PhotoShop?

photoshop IS better, however it also IS 700$ more, which is a lot of money you could use for more important things, like a new GPU. however there is something just as good as gimp for windows, and it is called gimp. idk if you knew this but gimp can run on horrible (windows) machines as well as wonderful (linux) machines.

aysiu

March 14th, 2008, 08:34 PM

Nothing in Windows matches GIMP for graphic editing. I can see you all saying GIMP doesn't match PhotoShop but who has the hundreds to afford PhotoShop? GIMP is also available for Windows.

mdsmedia

March 14th, 2008, 08:49 PM

GIMP is also available for Windows.OK...fair enough, I was afraid that would come up, and wasn't sure what was available for both systems, but the argument is always "but you can't use PhotoShop...."or some other Windows based program"....the point is that there are alternatives that fill the role, to whatever extent. The difficulty is more that people using Windows want their WINDOWS BASED PROGRAM, not something which does the job just as well.

I don't use Scribus or Inkscape or any of those type programs, but they are good programs....apparently....which fill the void of some Windows based programs.

Some say that OpenOffice doesn't do some things Office does. But Office doesn't do some things OpenOffice does.

My point was that Linux offers some things that Windows doesn't. It works in reverse too, but if Windows died tomorrow I wouldn't miss anything.

jmos

March 15th, 2008, 01:08 AM

Antisocialist, earlier in this thread you said "my satellite m45-s351 had a flawless install of ubuntu and only needed me to hardwire an internet connection to get the wireless driver up and running (because it is a proprietary driver)."

I have the same laptop and have been unable to get my wireless working. While searching for an answer I found this thread. Can you tell me how you did it or link me to a thread describing how to do it?

At the moment I am being forced to use Windows for wireless connectivity and this is something that I would rather avoid due to security/stability issues. I would greatly appreciate any help you can give.

antisocialist

March 15th, 2008, 01:27 AM

jmos

March 15th, 2008, 02:03 AM

Thank you Antisocialist. I installed the restricted software modem driver and I am now able to connect to the internet using a wireless connection.

I have 0 beans for three reasons. The first reason is because I am new to using Linux. I first installed Ubuntu in November of last year. The second reason I have zero beans is because Ubuntu is so easy to use that I have not had any troubles using it. On my desktop everything worked perfectly with no effort on my end. I just purchased this laptop from a friend and getting the wireless to work was the only serious issue I had. The third reason is because of the fact that I am still new to Linux and Ubuntu and am therefore uncomfortable giving advice to others.

Switching from XP to Ubuntu was the best computer decision that I have made so far. I now only use XP for my phone modification software, Photoshop, and Fireworks.

When you installed Ubuntu to your laptop, did it make the font size for the username and password fields of your login screen super-sized?

antisocialist

March 15th, 2008, 03:02 AM