general question

[m spellman]

I have two AMD machines,one old AthlonXP and a newer dual core.

Both of them will run Mint--PCLINUX--Pinguy--Fedora 12 and Suse 11.3.

Neither will run UBUBTU 11.10. One will install then crash ( the newer machine but I have to attach an IDE cd drive because from a serial drive the installation begins but then the installer cannot find the media on the drive it just started the install from ) and the other the older machine just goes into kernal panic.

Now I understand that Mint--and Pinguy are based on Debian as is UBUNTU.

My understanding is also that PCLINUX and Pinguy are maintained by a very small volunteer staff while UBUNTU has a huge staff of Gurus.

So why is it that the other guys can write an installer that Just Works.

I realize that if I search the forums for answers and spend endless hours trying various solutions I may solve these issues but why should I have to.

If the little guys can do it why can't UBUNTU?

I am not a geek but I was wondering if the version 3 kernel or this new Unity thing may be the major issue.

This is not a high priority issue for me. The other distros are just fine. I just wanted to try Unity.

The team at AMAHI ( The free linux home server ) have also stayed away from UBUNTU in favor of Fedora because they said there were too many issues with UBUNTU however now they are giving it another try.

Just seems with all that technical knowledge they could do better.

[oldtimer7777]

There is a much more prefered way to install Ubuntu and that would be from a USB Live Flash Drive of Ubuntu 11.10. All you need to do is download and install your downloaded iso of Ubuntu onto a Flash USB Thumb Drive/Flash Drive stick. You boot from that USB Flash Drive of Live Ubuntu, and install from the icon on the Live Ubuntu Desktop. Piece of cake.

Instructions on how to create a live USB Bootable Flash Drive of Ubuntu 11.10:

http://www.ubuntu.com/download/ubuntu/download

And a walkthrough to guide you through the post installation:

https://debianhelp.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/to-do-list-after-installing-ubuntu-11-10-aka-oneiric-ocelot/

I have tried Fedora lately and found it to be much more problematic to install than Ubuntu or as flexible either. If you were going to be forced to use Fedora I would simply install Ubuntu 10.10 for now, and have a better system overall.


I have two AMD machines,one old AthlonXP and a newer dual core.

Both of them will run Mint--PCLINUX--Pinguy--Fedora 12 and Suse 11.3.

Neither will run UBUBTU 11.10. One will install then crash ( the newer machine but I have to attach an IDE cd drive because from a serial drive the installation begins but then the installer cannot find the media on the drive it just started the install from ) and the other the older machine just goes into kernal panic.

Now I understand that Mint--and Pinguy are based on Debian as is UBUNTU.

My understanding is also that PCLINUX and Pinguy are maintained by a very small volunteer staff while UBUNTU has a huge staff of Gurus.

So why is it that the other guys can write an installer that Just Works.

I realize that if I search the forums for answers and spend endless hours trying various solutions I may solve these issues but why should I have to.

If the little guys can do it why can't UBUNTU?

I am not a geek but I was wondering if the version 3 kernel or this new Unity thing may be the major issue.

This is not a high priority issue for me. The other distros are just fine. I just wanted to try Unity.

The team at AMAHI ( The free linux home server ) have also stayed away from UBUNTU in favor of Fedora because they said there were too many issues with UBUNTU however now they are giving it another try.

Just seems with all that technical knowledge they could do better.