PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu's Achilles' Heel: Tough To Install On Laptops



teched58
July 11th, 2007, 05:42 PM
HERE:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451

Ubuntu Linux's Achilles' Heel: It's Tough To Install On Laptops

InformationWeek article: The wildly popular Linux distro isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially if you try to install it on a laptop, our reviewer Alex Wolfe finds. Come along on his Ubuntu safari, as he hacks his way through bug-fraught installation attempts.

Espreon
July 11th, 2007, 06:46 PM
I'd trust that source for HP Lappies since I have heard some peeps have probs with them, but Ubuntu installs beautifully on my Mom's Lappy and it was bought Jan 2007!

Terl
July 11th, 2007, 06:49 PM
The thing is, laptops are finicky for just about everything. My son has a Dell laptop and tried to reinstall windows with the discs he was given. He wound up in driver hell and Dell had to remote in and fix stuff. And this was for Windows, which the laptop was supposed to be designed for!

Also, as with all hardware, if the manufacturers do not support Linux then we as users will suffer.

Espreon
July 11th, 2007, 06:51 PM
Guess what? My Mom's Lappy is a Dell also!

pyros
July 11th, 2007, 06:51 PM
I have to say, as I write this on my dell inspiron, that the article seems a bit sensationalist.

Canis familiaris
July 11th, 2007, 06:52 PM
I hope Dell offers Ubuntu preloaded laptop which "just works" in hardware out of the box outside the US especially in Asia in countries like India.

Ek0nomik
July 11th, 2007, 06:54 PM
I have Ubuntu on my laptop. The Live CD of 7.04 doesn't like many video cards by ATI found in laptops, so that is a major issue. Wireless networking is definitely an issue with Ubuntu as well, as the support for it is rather bland.

Both of these problems have been solved, sorta. The wireless on Ubuntu isn't as strong as it is on Windows. The video card issues have been sorted out though.

xubu_caapn
July 11th, 2007, 06:54 PM
The graphical installer enables you to get up and running quickly and easily. A standard installation should take less than 25 minutes. . .Once installed your system is immediately ready-to-use."

That didn't turn out to be the case. The download of the 697-MB Feisty Fawn image took me 40 minutes. (This was via my Roadrunner "high speed" cable-modem access at home. At work, where the link operates close to its 1-Mbps capability, the download took 18 minutes.)

What an idiot, he thought they were talking about the download speed. How could they possibly predict that anyway?

This is a stupid article. Here's another anecdote:
I've never had a problem with the Ubuntu installer. Never, not once, and I've uninstalled and reinstalled XKUbuntu numerous times, no three different machines.

It's very convenient that he chose an ancient piece of hardware and got all these off-the-wall errors, because it's clear where his bias is and where he wanted this article to say before he "tested" Ubuntu.

Ek0nomik
July 11th, 2007, 06:56 PM
The graphical installer enables you to get up and running quickly and easily. A standard installation should take less than 25 minutes. . .Once installed your system is immediately ready-to-use."

That didn't turn out to be the case. The download of the 697-MB Feisty Fawn image took me 40 minutes. (This was via my Roadrunner "high speed" cable-modem access at home. At work, where the link operates close to its 1-Mbps capability, the download took 18 minutes.)

What an idiot, he thought they were talking about the download speed. How could they possibly predict that anyway?

:lolflag: Good point. Downloading isn't part of the installation process, it's part of the "getting it into your CD drive" process.

hackle577
July 11th, 2007, 06:57 PM
It's very convenient that he chose an ancient piece of hardware and got all these off-the-wall errors, because it's clear where his bias is and where he wanted this article to say before he "tested" Ubuntu.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

infoboy
July 11th, 2007, 06:59 PM
I installed it on my IBM T43 with no issues. I was a breeze.....the only issue was getting my DVD to play movies. The Form was an excellent source to address my problem......best of luck.

Espreon
July 11th, 2007, 07:00 PM
I have Ubuntu on my laptop. The Live CD of 7.04 doesn't like many video cards by ATI found in laptops, so that is a major issue. Wireless networking is definitely an issue with Ubuntu as well, as the support for it is rather bland.

Both of these problems have been solved, sorta. The wireless on Ubuntu isn't as strong as it is on Windows. The video card issues have been sorted out though.

Actually What I hafta do with an ATI card is to install Feisty Beta then upgrade to Feisty Main release. Wireless is easily taken care of with Ndiswrapper and Ndisgtk (makes it so you don't hafta enter sudo modprobe ndiswrapper in the terminal to activate ndiswrapper). For me Ndiswrapper is pretty damn stable.
Good thing I am holdin on to that Beta CD or reinstalling is a pain in the ***

gn2
July 11th, 2007, 07:01 PM
This is where the Alternate CD comes into it's own.

My old Portege 3440CT won't run any Ubuntu Live CD after 5.10, but it currently runs 7.04 Xubuntu thanks to the text based installer and this guide: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/InstallingXubuntu

Espreon
July 11th, 2007, 07:01 PM
I installed it on my IBM T43 with no issues. I was a breeze.....the only issue was getting my DVD to play movies. The Form was an excellent source to address my problem......best of luck.

Actually you can play DVD movies, did ya install the libdvdcss codec? It works great for playing storebought DVDs! Well for me at least. Install it through Automatix or Synaptic.

technikalKP
July 11th, 2007, 07:12 PM
Windows has an advantage when it comes to installs. First, if a hardware maker wants to sell a product, it has to support Windows. They tweak and test and adjust their hardware/drivers until it works as it should. Ubuntu/Linux doesn't get this benefit - all the tweaking comes from the users. Secondly, with Windows, it's almost always installed as a single boot option on a machine so you never have to worry about partitions and whatnot. Ubuntu/Linux is usually set up a dual boot setup and forces the installer to deal with partitioning.

I'd like to see a comparision with a true clean install of both OS's on 'favorable' hardware. I find in those situation, Ubuntu installs very easily and much quicker than XP/Vista.

Canis familiaris
July 11th, 2007, 07:12 PM
Suppose he would have ordered Ubuntu at Shipit would he had said:

THE INSTALL OF UBUNTU TOOK 6 WEEKS

tgm4883
July 11th, 2007, 07:15 PM
Hmm, where to start.

1. I think the minimum system requirements for Ubuntu (in the RAM department) are inadaquite. Should be more like 512MB. Then again, the minimum system requirements for XP are 64MB of RAM. So what does minimum system requirement mean anyway?


what's a twenty year old engineering degree worth, anyway?

2. Zip. People that say things like that don't know how little it really means. Is that supposed to mean that he knows what he's talking about or what he is doing? All a degree means is that you can jump through hoops. It doesn't mean you know anything. And an Engineering degree? How does that translate into installing Ubuntu? Him having an Engineering degree doesn't mean he knows all and sees all. I wouldn't let him give me a proctology exam.

3. He keeps complaining about how long it takes to download (he did do it three times) and install. 25 minutes for a whole CD (or was it a DVD? Did he magically do something with that 20 year old engineering degree?) isn't that bad. Although I will agree with him that it is too long. My home connection only takes me 10. Maybe he needs to go shoping for a new ISP.


"All told, I had spent a good deal more than Ubuntu's promised 25 minutes to work my way through an unsuccessful installation".

4. I would guess that he is counting the downloads, time spent at forums, burning of the CD's (or DVD's?) plus the installation when he actually got it to install. All of this combined is more than 25 minutes, but is definetly not a standard install. And the promise that Ubuntu broke? "A standard installation should take less than 25 minutes." I see no promise there.


More problematically, in failing to install itself successfully, Ubuntu also screwed up the OS I already had on the system. After shutting down, removing the Ubuntu install disk, and restarting, the laptop was unable to load Windows XP.

5. Does Ubuntu really screw up your ability to boot to XP when Ubuntu doesn't even boot up into gnome? That in itself would be a serious bug.


However, there were still several problems. Most annoying was that the Ubuntu desktop did not use the full display. It was compressed, as if it had installed itself in safe-graphics mode.

6. Guess he needs to install his graphics card drivers (Had this problem on my compaq too whats with HP/Compaq anyway). He probably already knows that though, seeing how much time he spent on the forums with his super secret 20 year old engineering degree decoder ring. Had he tried to install Windows XP on the laptop, he would have found the same problem there. Guess thats the benefit of having your OS and drivers preloaded from the factory, you don't have to know **** to use it.



Sure, the guy had a rough time trying to install it, probably more than others (perhaps not more than others with an HP). But this is far from the norm. I believe if he had more RAM he would have had less problems, but thats just my opinion. The model he has allocates 64MB of RAM to video, so he is really trying to run in 192.

From my experience of installing Ubuntu on laptops (2 Dell's and a Compaq, soon to be a Gateway) it is really easy to install, and I had none of the problems he had (except the screen problem on the Compaq). I was able to just pop the live cd in and install on these systems. These systems range from value to mid range, but all had at least 512MB (although a few dedicated around 64 to video).

pyros
July 11th, 2007, 07:19 PM
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Amen to that. However, considering the supposed techinical background the author has, it sounds like sponsored FUD to me. Notice how he pimps the SLED desktop at the beginning?

hang on, my tinfoil hat is slipping... there we go.

I do like the comments though :) someone with an account there ought to link back to this thread...

gn2
July 11th, 2007, 07:19 PM
Ubuntu installs very easily and much quicker than XP/Vista.
.
Never a truer word written.

I've done enough installs to know that after you install Windows, you've got a long way to go to get a PC that's safe to go on the net, and capable of doing any useful tasks....

To get that job done you're looking at several hours of installs and re-boots and updates and re-boots and de-frags and disk cleans and windows updates and re-boots and BSOD's and re-boots and WTF stopped it all from working again and system restores and re-boots. And on and on it goes.

No thanks Bill.

stchman
July 11th, 2007, 07:19 PM
HERE:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451

Ubuntu Linux's Achilles' Heel: It's Tough To Install On Laptops

InformationWeek article: The wildly popular Linux distro isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially if you try to install it on a laptop, our reviewer Alex Wolfe finds. Come along on his Ubuntu safari, as he hacks his way through bug-fraught installation attempts.

I in no way consider myself an Ubuntu laptop installation expert but I have successfully installed Ubuntu on 3 laptops and 4 desktops with not much problem. Were they all 100% perfect painless? No. I did install XP on a friends PC and it took over 4 hours since YIM decided it was going to muck the Add/Remove up.

This guy is condemning a distribution's ability on a laptop with a laptop sample of (1). Now if he would have tried MANY laptops and gotten the same result then he would have had some data to back up his claim.

he failed to mention also that the overwhelming majority of Windows users buy a system with Windows pre-installed. The average Windows user in no way would be able to install Windows.

His 20yr old engineering degree, I guess that they taught him how to install Ubuntu in college 20 yrs ago.

I am an engineer and I work with many engineers that don't even know what Linux is much less how to install it.

I attribute the shortcomings of Linux to the hardware manufacturers. If they would write Linux drivers then there would be very little issue.

ThrobbingBrain66
July 11th, 2007, 07:23 PM
The graphical installer enables you to get up and running quickly and easily. A standard installation should take less than 25 minutes. . .Once installed your system is immediately ready-to-use."

That didn't turn out to be the case. The download of the 697-MB Feisty Fawn image took me 40 minutes. (This was via my Roadrunner "high speed" cable-modem access at home. At work, where the link operates close to its 1-Mbps capability, the download took 18 minutes.)

What an idiot, he thought they were talking about the download speed. How could they possibly predict that anyway?

This is a stupid article. Here's another anecdote:
I've never had a problem with the Ubuntu installer. Never, not once, and I've uninstalled and reinstalled XKUbuntu numerous times, no three different machines.

It's very convenient that he chose an ancient piece of hardware and got all these off-the-wall errors, because it's clear where his bias is and where he wanted this article to say before he "tested" Ubuntu.

I will take a 40-minute download over paying $300+ any day.

chrome saint
July 11th, 2007, 07:43 PM
Perhaps he should have read this article (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm) first and discovered he should have bought a Mac.

We could argue points against the article till we're blue in the face but the fact would still remain the the author wants to pay someone else to think for him when it comes to his operating systems. There is nothing wrong with that since it is the fundamental precept of capitalism, just be honest about it. Ubuntu lacks a monetary cost but it requires a time investment with some hardware and software.

I mean I still have a Win XP drive in this notebook (it has 2x80GB SATA drives) to play World of Warcraft on. I know full and well that WoW is able to be run under WINE, Cedega or other means inside Linux but I'm willing to trade the time it would take me to get it working for the time I have to spend keeping a dual boot configuration working. I may spend some time eventually getting WoW up and running on the Linux partition using one of the many very detailed guides available on here.

Some people are just more comfortable to have their hands held while doing their computing. This is fine as long as you realize you have to go where the helping hand takes you. Try to stray from that hand and you'll quickly find yourself alone and lost. Linux I think is better described as safety net where the community won't hold your hand but exists within reach. If you fall and reach for help it is there in spades but you have to make the effort.

Nervouswreck
July 11th, 2007, 07:55 PM
how can anyone complain about ubuntu installation no matter what troubles there are, and iv'e had plenty?

2 things make up for it:

1 its FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:KS
2 the quality of the product once you get it working is awesome. Besides, everything is tough on laptops they were made to be secondary computers. Desktop replacements are fairly new

aysiu
July 11th, 2007, 07:58 PM
There's no reason to have two threads about this... and posted in support areas.

This is a link to an article (presumably for the purposes of discussion), not a support request, so I've merged the two threads and moved it to the Community Cafe.

Should I perhaps also retitle the thread Desktop Linux's Achilles' Heel: Not Coming Preinstalled All the Time the Way Windows and Mac Do?

pyros
July 11th, 2007, 08:05 PM
Should I perhaps also retitle the thread Desktop Linux's Achilles' Heel: Not Coming Preinstalled All the Time the Way Windows and Mac Are?

Ahahahaha. Yes. Yes you most definitely should.

aysiu
July 11th, 2007, 08:08 PM
As a follow-up to my slightly facetious remark in the last post, I'd like to say there are very few people I know that I'd be comfortable handing a Ubuntu-preinstalled (say, Dell) laptop and a Vista CD, and saying, "Here. Install Windows. Shouldn't be a problem."

Maybe my dad and brother and my wife might be able to handle all the problems and driver-searching and installing. I doubt they'd like it, though.

pyros
July 11th, 2007, 08:27 PM
As a follow-up to my slightly facetious remark in the last post, I'd like to say there are very few people I know that I'd be comfortable handing a Ubuntu-preinstalled (say, Dell) laptop and a Vista CD, and saying, "Here. Install Windows. Shouldn't be a problem."

Maybe my dad and brother and my wife might be able to handle all the problems and driver-searching and installing. I doubt they'd like it, though.

I have to agree. That's something that always bugs me. Speaking as someone who worked in windows-based tech support for the better part of a decade, installing windows is almost never easy or straight-forward, and often is wholly dependent upon the hardware vendors support.

meuge
July 11th, 2007, 08:47 PM
I have to agree. That's something that always bugs me. Speaking as someone who worked in windows-based tech support for the better part of a decade, installing windows is almost never easy or straight-forward, and often is wholly dependent upon the hardware vendors support.

I would say that in my experience, getting a tightly locked and well-oiled Windows installation done and working, takes considerably more effort and time than Ubuntu... even if one needs to set up XGL and ndiswrapper.

On a machine that's compatible, there simply is no comparison - Linux installation takes under 1 hour including all configurations.

Atomic Dog
July 11th, 2007, 09:23 PM
Pfft. I have a HP laptop that I purchased 2 months ago. Intel processor, intel wireless, intel graphics. installed in like 20 minutes and everything relevant worked out of the box -even reads sd cards from the built in card reader. About the only thing that didn't work was the webcam, and I did get that working too.

Das he tried the install on a centrino duo HP laptop he wouldn't have had an article to write. just a post saying: I got the cd, installed it, connected to my wrieless and was up and running.

Vague
July 11th, 2007, 10:06 PM
As a follow-up to my slightly facetious remark in the last post, I'd like to say there are very few people I know that I'd be comfortable handing a Ubuntu-preinstalled (say, Dell) laptop and a Vista CD, and saying, "Here. Install Windows. Shouldn't be a problem."

My thoughts exactly.

floke
July 11th, 2007, 10:12 PM
I found myself willing Ubuntu never to work on his machine :)

tgm4883
July 11th, 2007, 10:38 PM
I found myself willing Ubuntu never to work on his machine :)

lol. That funny, I had to stop myself from emailing dell and telling them not to send him a laptop :)

Hex_Mandos
July 11th, 2007, 10:51 PM
It took me less than an hour to get Ubuntu installed and working in my laptop which is less than a week old. Everything works, too, including the card reader, graphics and wireless. Only DVD playback gave me some trouble, but that's because the hardware manufacturer didn't set the region correctly. It also costs 40% less than an equivalent HP. It almost seems designed for Ubuntu (and curiously, it has no 'designed for Windows' sticker).

Pumalite
July 12th, 2007, 12:25 AM
This happens only because people are leaving windblows in droves , and Microsoft is running scared. This is part of a planed attack on Linux and Ubuntu in particular ( the top gun). He is part of a paid cadre. There have been numerous appearances in different forums of people putting in question the usability of Linux in general and certain distros in particular. Why do you think the threat of patent lawsuits at the same time that Microsoft is trying to buy anything Linux?. Right now Linux is in more places and countries than ever. Countries have replaced their entire systems with Linux. Schools are doing the same. Linux is a philosophy and a style of life. It's an IDEA and as such is a looming threat to everything that Microsoft represents. We can expect more of this to come. The guy says he is an engineer; what a laugh! I'm a psychiatrist and the first time that I installed Ubuntu in a laptop it took me 30 minutes. Linux is the future and Microsoft knows it. I use only Linux and can do everything I did before in windblows and more. And I have a super stable system. I don't have to spend all my time cleaning and rebooting and reinstalling ( with the consequent loss of data). In a word; Microsoft is loosing and knows it.

vwbeamer
July 12th, 2007, 02:43 AM
I loaded 7.04 on my Dell Inspiron laptop with NO problems at all, even the wireless worked.

I upgraded to Mint 3.0 and the Beryl works perfect.

The computer works better with Linux. It dual boot with the XP home it originally shipped with.

init1
July 12th, 2007, 02:49 AM
HERE:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451

Ubuntu Linux's Achilles' Heel: It's Tough To Install On Laptops

InformationWeek article: The wildly popular Linux distro isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially if you try to install it on a laptop, our reviewer Alex Wolfe finds. Come along on his Ubuntu safari, as he hacks his way through bug-fraught installation attempts.
I am writing this from my laptop, using Ubuntu. I had no problems with installing feisty. Nor with using it.

aysiu
July 12th, 2007, 03:22 AM
Maybe the author of that article should check out the "Laptops that work perfectly with Ubuntu" thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=427464).

macogw
July 12th, 2007, 03:27 AM
Apparently they've never tried Debian...my experience wasn't too bad, actually. I just needed 3 packages to get wireless on Debian when I would've needed none for Ubuntu and I think 1 on Fedora. For people that need proprietary graphics drivers too though, I can see Debian becoming a nightmare

Ubuntu was a piece of cake for my lappy.

Oh, I'll agree with those who say Windows is harder to install. There's always wired internet on Ubuntu out of the box, AFAICT. In my experience, there is never wired internet on Windows out of the box. You need two computers to install Windows. One has to be working and online to download ethernet drivers. The other is useless because you can't download video and sound drivers until after you install ethernet drivers which they (somehow) expect you to download and install...without internet. At least on Ubuntu you can get a wired connection. Even if you can't get a GUI, you have a wired connection with which to install the drivers to get a GUI.

Sunflower1970
July 12th, 2007, 04:03 AM
I've had some minor problems with Ubuntu on my laptop. Nothing that I couldn't fix, or figure out though....(I'm in the process of reinstalling Feisty on my laptop...tried an upgrade from Edgy earlier today and I FUBAR'd it....if I can get suspend/hibernate to work with Feisty I'll be a very happy camper. I've read a few posts here and there that have some solutions. Just hoping one works for me :) )


There's always wired internet on Ubuntu out of the box
I'll have to disagree with this. I had trouble with Ubuntu on the laptop with wired internet. It just wouldn't connect no matter what I did. (this is to a cable modem not dial up). Luckily, the wireless PCIMA card I had worked out of the box with it, so I don't worry about the wired connection at all.

aysiu
July 12th, 2007, 04:07 AM
I'll have to disagree with this. I had trouble with Ubuntu on the laptop with wired internet. It just wouldn't connect no matter what I did. (this is to a cable modem not dial up). I think that's pretty unusual, though. In the vast majority of cases, Ubuntu will autodetect cable modem or DSL connections. Wireless, dial-up, or external USB modems usually require some kind of configuration.

Hex_Mandos
July 12th, 2007, 04:27 AM
Oh, I'll agree with those who say Windows is harder to install. There's always wired internet on Ubuntu out of the box, AFAICT. In my experience, there is never wired internet on Windows out of the box. You need two computers to install Windows. One has to be working and online to download ethernet drivers. The other is useless because you can't download video and sound drivers until after you install ethernet drivers which they (somehow) expect you to download and install...without internet. At least on Ubuntu you can get a wired connection. Even if you can't get a GUI, you have a wired connection with which to install the drivers to get a GUI.

Neither of those are true. There are some ethernet cards which are incompatible with Ubuntu (I've never met one, but they apparently exist), and in my experience XP ALWAYS connects to wired internet. Sure, ethernet cards that aren't Ubuntu compatible are rare, and maybe Windows doesn't connect for some people, but I've never had that problem across several computers.

Whether Windows (with its faulty security) automatically connecting to the internet is a good thing is debatable, though. An unpatched XP box without some kind of firewall takes only a few minutes to be attacked (I've seen minor exploits happen in the time between finishing installation and updating the system). Windows 2k wisely recommends the user to unplug broadband before installing, so that patches can be applied manually.

aysiu
July 12th, 2007, 04:34 AM
Every time (granted, only about four times) I've installed Windows, I've had to separately install a driver for ethernet to work.

Darkcloud
July 12th, 2007, 05:03 AM
That article was something else, his download time would have been reduced by using bittorrent or a download manager for windows and I have installed Ubuntuor Xubuntu on Dell Latitude C500 C600 and C610 , Inspiron 2500 as well as Compaq M300 M700 and E500 and I have down so many installs of Windows XP/2000 I lost count a long time ago all the installs that I did of Ubuntu/Xubuntu(which by the way he didn't even try) on each of the models were very good and reguired little of no extra help AND were very fast AND didn't require 3-4 hours of updates and driver seeks as Windows does. I have had some trouble with wireless but nothing some research and reading ( The forums being an excellent source of information) didn't help sort out. I also was quite able with some time to have the C500 playing movies upon insertion of the DVD. There is some issue of sound for some although I have yet to have that. In all I am so very happy with Ubuntu very. I agree that those that have not or have little experience with installing OS's or computers may have a great deal of trouble. I tell my friends and customers alike that if they want to have Linux system I am more than happy to install and configure it to their specifications first before they have it. And I am fairly new to Linux but I research read ask and learn. (one thing I forget to do though is to document what I found to make something work ](*,)

UBUNTU ROCKS!!!!

Hex_Mandos
July 12th, 2007, 05:39 AM
Every time (granted, only about four times) I've installed Windows, I've had to separately install a driver for ethernet to work.

Weird, but possible. Windows does take some time to get networked under some setups, but I've never seen a case in which Ethernet drivers are to blame.

Note that I don't disagree with the assertion that Windows is harder to install. It's just that I've never heard of anyone needing two computers or a driver CD to install Windows (just like I've never spent hours editing text files to configure Ubuntu)

thisllub
July 12th, 2007, 06:10 AM
The noapic / nolapic is a pain in the rear but it affects all recent linux distros and most machines as far as I know. It should default to off.

I had plenty of trouble installing Ubuntu on my laptop but it was worth it.

As for old engineering degrees, I had a support call from an engineer specifically employed to run a computer based maintenance system for a local council. It turned out he didn't even know how to use the Windows start menu to start the program.

aysiu
July 12th, 2007, 07:25 AM
Alexander Wolfe strikes again: Ubuntu Linux Ain't Easy As Dell (http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/ubuntu_linux_ai.html)


It's tough to challenge conventional wisdom, especially when that challenge raises doubts about the wildly popular version of Linux called Ubuntu. But doubts are exactly what I had after finishing my Ubuntu "safari", in which I worked through numerous glitches to get laptop and desktop installs up and running.

I'm now mystified as to why Ubuntu has become so widely accepted as the version of Linux for newbies to try. Anyone who doesn't want to become their own one-person support shop would be far better off spending $50 for a commercially supported release like Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, which installed for me without a hitch. As for enterprises, they certainly can't afford to go unsupported--they'd better spend that money if they're going to go open source. (Hey, it's still a lot cheaper than Windows.)

Dell's recent embrace of Ubuntu has given the distro additional momentum. It's what led me to my test, to see whether it'd really be all that easy to get the OS going on a randomly chosen laptop. (The desktop was an afterthought. I figured from all I'd read that that installation would be trivial, but it wasn't.)
You're making a very poor comparison here. You're saying that you don't think Ubuntu is a good OS because you had glitches trying to get it working on hardware that was designed for Windows. Then you go on to suggest that Dell made a bad decision due to the limitations you experienced with an HP laptop. That isn't very logical.

If you want to determine whether or not Dell made a good decision with Ubuntu you need to get your hands on a Dell system pre-loaded with it. Since you won't run into any hardware compatibility problems (unless perhaps external hardware) I can't help but wonder what you'll complain about. Too many applications to choose from? Hah!

EdThaSlayer
July 12th, 2007, 07:28 AM
The installation of Ubuntu went smooth on my laptop. I'm typing from it right now! But my laptop comes from Cyberpowersystems, not from a big computer company.

Kingsley
July 12th, 2007, 07:59 AM
It's dumb that the guy thinks his problems on that old laptop can pertain to other peoples' laptops. Ubuntu installed on mine with no major problems.

Miguel
July 12th, 2007, 09:17 AM
I know it's a bit off-topic, but what does exactly the noapic/nolapic option do? I know it's useful in case you run into weird problems such as in the review (did he check the md5sum?).

Vague
July 12th, 2007, 09:58 AM
If you want to determine whether or not Dell made a good decision with Ubuntu you need to get your hands on a Dell system pre-loaded with it.

Yeah, this is still something I don't really get. His gripe is that he had a tough time getting Ubuntu up and running. Is this something the average Dell user will have to deal with? I kind of doubt it.

Also, I like that he talks about how easily SLED installed for him. Doesn't seem like he tried to install SLED and Ubuntu on the same machine, though, so. . . who cares?

prizrak
July 12th, 2007, 02:07 PM
I had very little problems isntalling it on my convertible (tablet+laptop) everything worked but hotkeys and those were easily configured by installing a .deb of acerhk. As with anything pick your hardware and you will have no problems.

I don't know why people complain so much about wireless, the most popular laptop platform is Centrino and those come with Intel wireless. Also most laptops have pretty easily accessible wireless cards so they can be swapped out, last I checked an 802.11g miniPCI from Intel is like $20. Sure it's not a perfect solution but if you want Linux then it might be a necessary sacrifice.

ATI cards are very common in laptops but since Linux doesn't really have any games I would say it makes sense to get an Intel GPU based laptop, battery life is better that way anyway and Compiz fusion will work as well :)

fuscia
July 12th, 2007, 02:58 PM
i did a fresh install of feisty on my laptop, when i was drunk. it worked perfectly fine the next day when i was sober. i've never had a problem with installation, other than getting my netgear wireless working on my old desktop. i'm not sure i understand what the problem is.

Sunflower1970
July 12th, 2007, 03:25 PM
I think that's pretty unusual, though. In the vast majority of cases, Ubuntu will autodetect cable modem or DSL connections. Wireless, dial-up, or external USB modems usually require some kind of configuration.

I do agree this was unusual. It was the first time I had run into it, and I was kind of surprised. Especially since the thing had connected with XP to a wired connection just fine. I assumed Ubuntu would be the same. But, again, no worries. I have wireless working great on it, so I don't even think about a wired connection any more :D

zach12
July 12th, 2007, 03:29 PM
yes i had a few things that i mess with befor i had ubuntu up on my dell laptop but it was not too hard

Physicist
July 12th, 2007, 03:42 PM
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451&pgno=1&queryText=


Shall folks go there and post some comments ?

DeadSuperHero
July 12th, 2007, 03:48 PM
That person was just plain ignorant. Too judgemental, rude, and should have tried it on a desktop.

PartisanEntity
July 12th, 2007, 03:55 PM
I have installed Ubuntu on 4 laptops. My own Asus A6K, and three different Acer laptops belonging to friends and relatives. My experiences started with Dapper which is when I first started using Ubuntu. Only one laptop had trouble with an installation, this was one of the Acers and while trying to install Edgy Eft, I had to use the alternate CD and the installation seemed to take much longer than usual. Otherwise all other installations have gone well.

The article does bring up a valid point, installing an OS may be harder on laptops. But the author then jumps to a conclusion on which he bases his main argument that Ubuntu is not as easy as it seems.

It is a bit like trying to install Vista on a computer made in a pre-vista period and then to use this as a basis to say that Vista is quite hard to install or doesn't run well on laptops.

mholtum
July 12th, 2007, 03:56 PM
The guy sounds like a total moron. I have installed ubuntu on probably 60 machines and never had any issues I couldnt fix in less than 5 minutes.

aysiu
July 12th, 2007, 03:58 PM
I've merged this with the other thread on the same topic. I like your subject title more, though.

prizrak
July 12th, 2007, 06:07 PM
Neither of those are true. There are some ethernet cards which are incompatible with Ubuntu (I've never met one, but they apparently exist), and in my experience XP ALWAYS connects to wired internet. Sure, ethernet cards that aren't Ubuntu compatible are rare, and maybe Windows doesn't connect for some people, but I've never had that problem across several computers.

Whether Windows (with its faulty security) automatically connecting to the internet is a good thing is debatable, though. An unpatched XP box without some kind of firewall takes only a few minutes to be attacked (I've seen minor exploits happen in the time between finishing installation and updating the system). Windows 2k wisely recommends the user to unplug broadband before installing, so that patches can be applied manually.

Actually I've ran into many systems that didn't have wired on XP. They seem to be mostly Dell actually.

Hex_Mandos
July 15th, 2007, 04:21 AM
Windows does take some time to get networked under some setups, but I've never seen a case in which Ethernet drivers are to blame.

I need to correct myself. Today I installed 2k in a separate partition in my laptop. Ubuntu works perfectly with it, Windows not only needed drivers to get ethernet working, it also gave me a 640 * 480 resolution in 16 wonderful colors. No, not 16 million. Just 16. I hadn't experienced that since the Windows 3.1 days. Windows is evidently not ready for the desktop.

dickrounds
July 22nd, 2007, 09:33 PM
I use Ubuntu on my main computer-love it!

Tried to install it, Puppy, Koppix, DSL on my Dell C500 laptop with no success. Laptop came with Win 2k and will not boot from CD. I've tried everythinh I know.

Any suggestions?

****

RAV TUX
July 22nd, 2007, 09:49 PM
HERE:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451

Ubuntu Linux's Achilles' Heel: It's Tough To Install On Laptops

InformationWeek article: The wildly popular Linux distro isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially if you try to install it on a laptop, our reviewer Alex Wolfe finds. Come along on his Ubuntu safari, as he hacks his way through bug-fraught installation attempts.


I have installed Ubuntu on a Fujitsu Lifebook T4220....easiest install I have ever done, set up a dual boot to Windows.

RAV TUX
July 22nd, 2007, 09:51 PM
I use Ubuntu on my main computer-love it!

Tried to install it, Puppy, Koppix, DSL on my Dell C500 laptop with no success. Laptop came with Win 2k and will not boot from CD. I've tried everythinh I know.

Any suggestions?

DickYou may want to upgrade your BIOS....or change it.

Kannon
July 28th, 2007, 04:55 PM
I have to laugh at that article a bit... Generally I have slackware running on my computers, but my laptop was a bit... quirky, and it was difficult to get hardware working, nevermind periphirals. (Aiptek tablet.) The install of ubuntu ran perfectly, and my Atheros card worked by default, the package manager actually doesn't cause more problems than it solves, and the i915 card had DRI before I had to screw with it. I'd recommend it to anyone. The only issue I had was the install from the livecd didn't work. And I've had one problem. And that's more of a curiousity.

Depressed Man
July 28th, 2007, 05:04 PM
I feel like writing an article called Window's Achilies' Hell: Tough to Install On Laptops. Unless your running OSX (in which you don't have much of a choice in hardware anyway since your using what Apple picked for you) installing any OS is an exercise in how much patience and technological skill you have.

popch
July 28th, 2007, 08:30 PM
The article mentioned in the OP is clearly biased and poorly researched. In any event, the assertion made in the title is not strikingly truer for Linux than for any OS, as has been said before in this thread.

A case in point: I installed Feisty Fawn on my hp compaq nc 6220 without any problems worth mentioning. I had to fiddle a bit with the WiFi connection because the control panel widget appeared to have a problem resetting the hardware.

On the other hand, I tried to re-install Windows on the very same device using the installation material supplied with the machine by the manufacturer. The DVD did indeed boot but failed to find a valid image of an OS for the machine. Finally,. I had to re-install Windows from a generic Windows DVD and lost quite some time chasing down the drivers required by the machine.

Time to install Linux (without downloading and burning the CD): roughly 30 minutes (including first updates)

Time to install Windows (without downloading and burning the CD): roughly four hours (including first updates).

Time to download Ubuntu Linux: depends on speed of connection
Time to download Windows: are you kidding?
Time to locate and download drivers: YMMV

Windows Tough To Install

euler_fan
July 28th, 2007, 08:44 PM
I have to say, as I write this on my dell inspiron, that the article seems a bit sensationalist.

+1

I've done successful installs of 6.06, 6.10, and 7.04 on my Compaq v5000 (basically an HP Pavilion ) and 6.06 and 6.10 on a Dell Inspiron 1100. Plus both duel with windows.

And while wireless doesn't work out of the box on the Compaq, if I remember right it did fine on the older Dell. (Subsequent hard drive failure has bricked the machine except when running under a live CD.) Thank god for ndiswrapper :)

I agree with the others . . . it varies from machine to machine, brand to brand, and probably even day to day how an install is going to go ](*,)

possessedskier
July 28th, 2007, 08:50 PM
When I upgraded to Fiesty on my HP DV2000 laptop almost everything worked right out of the box. Had some minor issues connecting to my wireless network, but everything else (sound, mics, headphone jacks, web cam, card readers, USB, touchpad, suspend, hybernate, quickplay buttons) just worked. Not sure about svideo and modem since I don't use them.

Frak
July 28th, 2007, 09:27 PM
I've had problems installing XP and Vista on laptops too, because most Laptops are built in a way thats hard to be fully compatable with, due to semi-permenant parts, and because of that, it introduces the near impossibility to buy a laptop with chosen parts.
ex. you can change the HD but not the Video or Sound card.