IMHO: Don't fanny about with the Live CD, just install it

[Mr_JMM]

As the thread title says, I recommend that you don't bother running Ubuntu from the Live CD if you have the choice / the hardware / time / knowledge / don't mind re-installing and partitioning should the worst happen, which I did.

I was REALLY disappointed with Ubuntu from the Live CD and nearly didn't bother.

Once Ubuntu is installed it suddenly becomes this [que cinema esq deep voice over] "magnificant, awsome OS taking computers everywhere by storm".

No seriously, just install it. It really is a different animal.

I am (er, was, er am, er....) a die hard Windows man. Don't get me wrong, I f'ing hate Micro$oft as a company but I do love XP and Vista (Vista more so) so know that it really means something for me to praise Unbuntu this much.

Again, INSTALL IT -> TRY IT -> LOVE IT and cut out the annoying part.

One more thing: This IS an great community that I am proud to be a part of You will be to.

Thank you everyone.

=D>=D>=D>=D>=D>=D>=D>=D>

[ThrobbingBrain66]

You may find it annoying. But a LiveCD is a valuable resource. It is THE best way to test how a particular distro will work with your hardware. Once you determine everything works, you can actually use Ubuntu while installing it. Some people don't have the time/desire to install an OS that they don't know if they'll like.

Besides the reasons listed above, the LiveCD is also a very handy tool for solving a variety of issues you may encounter that leave your installation in an unbootable state.

The one thing I'd like to see implemented in the LTS though, is a feature I came across on Fedora's LiveCD. They allow you to either boot from the cd or load everything into memory right away, and then boot the OS. This allows you to run everything at full speed, as if it was already on your hard drive. It takes a little while to load the image into memory, but once it does, you really get the true feel of how Fedora will run on your machine.

[Mr_JMM]

It is THE best way to test how a particular distro will work with your hardware. Once you determine everything works, you can actually use Ubuntu while installing it.
Yes, it SHOULD be but on my system (and looking at a lot of the threads, on other peoples) the live CD didn't work very well. The biggest gripe was not connecting to the internet. As I said, I nearly gave up on Ubuntu after using the Live CD. Even when I did decide to install Ubuntu, it wasn't because I thought "wow, this is great. I have to install this" because that was the last thing I thought. I installed it because as a competent PC user I knew that it would probably work better once installed; Otherwise I would have written "COASTER" on it with a big fat marker and that would have been the end of it.


Some people don't have the time/desire to install an OS that they don't know if they'll like.
That is an example of something I listed under the term "...if you have the choice." but is also tagged to the previous comment.


Besides the reasons listed above, the LiveCD is also a very handy tool for solving a variety of issues you may encounter that leave your installation in an unbootable state.
Absolutely. I agree 100% with that. It's a well documented tip throughout the forums.


...feature I came across on Fedora's LiveCD...
Now THAT would be a damn fine addition, especially if it resolved some the issues I had whilst using the Live CD with respect to it not working with installed hardware as well as installed version.

Please note, I have a style of writing and speaking that often comes across as argumentative or patronising (that's "pat-tro-n-eyes-ing"] and I honestly don't mean to be; I hope that is the case.

:grin:

James

[BOZG]

I had the same issues as the OP though I don't think I was willing to give up that early (I was plenty of times after that). The Live CD ran terribly on my computer and nothing really worked so I decided to just partition the hard drive and test it out and it's definitely growing on me.

[ThrobbingBrain66]

Please note, I have a style of writing and speaking that often comes across as argumentative or patronising (that's "pat-tro-n-eyes-ing"] and I honestly don't mean to be; I hope that is the case.

:grin:

James

I have no issues with your style at all. Just excited at the possibility of a good discussion. :)

[Mr_JMM]

I have no issues with your style at all. Just excited at the possibility of a good discussion.
Bravo! Couldn't have put it better. As an insight, I used to be a moderator on the eXpansys forum. After 4,000 posts I honed my skills quite well. Hee hee.

[n3tfury]

the live cd is a great way to get a feel for ANY distro. if i can't stand it live, installing won't be much better. also, anybody that just installs an NEW OS for the reasons you mentioned, shouldn't be allowed near a pc.

[Chris S.]

The LiveCD, for newcomers, is best used to test if you like the general feel of Ubuntu. You can pop it in and load up a bare-bones version of Ubuntu, then play around and see if the style/operation is something you can handle, or something you'd like over what OS you're coming from. That's what the "try it out" advice is meant to convey--or should convey--and I would suggest all new users do that first before installing. It's not practical, nor is it advertised, as a means to fully test Ubuntu.

Perhaps there should be a disclaimer to this effect while the OS is loading from the LiveCD. "Please do not judge Ubuntu from this attempt to run it without installing it. It will work better once installed. Trust us. :)"

[HereInOz]

the live cd is a great way to get a feel for ANY distro. if i can't stand it live, installing won't be much better. also, anybody that just installs an NEW OS for the reasons you mentioned, shouldn't be allowed near a pc.

Bit harsh. What if, like me, they have a couple of machines sitting around, or are running a virtual machine install?

Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed near a PC? Now that is something my wife could really get excited about.
:-)

[Mr_JMM]

the live cd is a great way to get a feel for ANY distro. if i can't stand it live, installing won't be much better.
I covered that one when I mentioned that the experience I got from the Live CD was very very unpleasant on it's own merits, even more so once I could compare it with the installed version.


also, anybody that just installs an NEW OS for the reasons you mentioned, shouldn't be allowed near a pc.
Care to elaborate?

I feel a 'good discussion' coming...

:twisted::twisted::twisted:

[ThrobbingBrain66]

Allow me to elaborate for him-

I think he meant that anyone who would blindly (possibly because of a hate of MS) install a new OS on a production machine is being a bit irresponsible and naive. Having extra machines laying around or running distros in a VM are certainly different cases that don't necessarily apply here.

Anyway, I think the general concensus is that a LiveCD is a good thing, but we are exploring alternate, possibly better methods to implement it.

EDIT: also, I reported this as needing to be moved to the Community Cafe since it isn't a support request.

[Mr_JMM]

It's not practical, nor is it advertised, as a means to fully test Ubuntu.
"...if you have the choice" I'll amend that line for you.



Perhaps there should be a disclaimer to this effect while the OS is loading from the LiveCD. "Please do not judge Ubuntu from this attempt to run it without installing it. It will work better once installed. Trust us. :)"
Another fine and astute suggestion!

[Chris S.]

"...if you have the choice"? I don't understand. Or rather, I don't understand how choice applies to the convencience of the LiveCD. I can't choose whether it will run better. I can only choose whether I wish to install it, and that's dependent on how I like it's performance, feel, and compatability. Since the LiveCD is not really suited for testing performance and compatibility, then it should really only be used to judge the feel of Ubuntu.

Though, the only good advice I've heard is to use the LiveCD expressly for that purpose; not to test hardware (except when troubleshooting after-the-fact) or performance, but just the feel of Ubuntu. Maybe some people are mistaking the LiveCD's purpose, and giving bad advice too.

Similarly, the look and feel of Ubuntu is so flexible that the LiveCD doesn't seem like a good measuring stick in that dimension, but to a newcomer who will be spending his or her first few weeks looking at a brown background with two gnome-panels, that initial experience is a good idea of what they can expect upon first installing.

The major assumption is that I choose to install after judging the LiveCD. If my decision to not install based on the LiveCD is in error, then either the LiveCD does not present an accurate sample of full-fledged Ubuntu, or my judgement criteria are flawed, or both. The solutions then must be to correct the sample, correct the judgement criteria, or both. Regardless, I don't think people should skip the judgement part.

This is all from a newcomers perspective. After your first install, there's no need to use the LiveCD in that way. It then becomes a much more powerful tool.

[philinux]

I've an old pentium III the live cd ran like running through treacle but I got internet straight away with a router but no internet with dsl modem. But installed is the bees knees.

Also on live it would not print but installed no probs

[ThrobbingBrain66]

"...if you have the choice"? I don't understand. Or rather, I don't understand how choice applies to the convencience of the LiveCD. I can't choose whether it will run better. I can only choose whether I wish to install it, and that's dependent on how I like it's performance, feel, and compatability. Since the LiveCD is not really suited for testing performance and compatibility, then it should really only be used to judge the feel of Ubuntu.

Though, the only good advice I've heard is to use the LiveCD expressly for that purpose; not to test hardware (except when troubleshooting after-the-fact) or performance, but just the feel of Ubuntu. Maybe some people are mistaking the LiveCD's purpose, and giving bad advice too.
I think it's a mistake to claim that the LiveCD is not to be used for compatibility purposes. Certainly it's not always 100% accurate, but it is very good. Good enough to be the rule, rather than the exception anyway.


Similarly, the look and feel of Ubuntu is so flexible that the LiveCD doesn't seem like a good measuring stick in that dimension, but to a newcomer who will be spending his or her first few weeks looking at a brown background with two gnome-panels, that initial experience is a good idea of what they can expect upon first installing.

The major assumption is that I choose to install after judging the LiveCD. If my decision to not install based on the LiveCD is in error, then either the LiveCD does not present an accurate sample of full-fledged Ubuntu, or my judgement criteria are flawed, or both. The solutions then must be to correct the sample, correct the judgement criteria, or both. Regardless, I don't think people should skip the judgement part.

I think the best way to get the full look and feel of Ubuntu is to adopt Fedora's LiveCD method. Allow booting of the CD (like we have now) but also give an option where the entire image can be loaded to memory (requires ~1GB, however) so that everything runs fast, as if the OS were actually installed.

[Chris S.]

But, in the case of someone curious about Linux, maybe heard about it from a friend, and maybe not very computer savvy, as an example, then the LiveCD should be 100% compatible if it's to be used for that purpose. Very good simply isn't enough. The same rule applies to the performance. It should be fast enough for the user to feel comfortable. Like you said, you were nearly turned off from the LiveCD. (Edit: confused about who I was addressing, my bad)

When dealing with perspectives, it's not about the rule or the exception, it's about whether it is right for the individual. And as the LiveCD is distributed to a large variety of individuals, the final measure should probably be the bottom of the barrel. Someone who may not even know that they are running a LiveCD; someone who may think they're actually running Ubuntu without installing it.

You can deal with the rule and the exception, however, when designing around this. Thus, the correction in the design would be to improve the LiveCD (I like that Fedora idea) or make sure people know that it's not a good way to fully test Ubuntu.

I posit that when using the LiveCD to test Ubuntu, it's best only to focus on the look and feel. Compatibility and performance issues can be fixed later, but it's still important for the user to know that he or she can operate in an alien environment, even if its only temporary. Even if you told some people that they could make Ubuntu look and feel just like Windows, OSX, BSD, DOS, etc, they may scoff at the effort involved (however minor) and turn away from Ubuntu, and that's a valid reason for them to do so. The LiveCD reflects this, because it's always a major undertaking to install a new OS on a computer for the first time.

[n3tfury]

Bit harsh. What if, like me, they have a couple of machines sitting around, or are running a virtual machine install?

Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed near a PC? Now that is something my wife could really get excited about.
:-)

see what i mean? works for everyone ;)


I covered that one when I mentioned that the experience I got from the Live CD was very very unpleasant on it's own merits, even more so once I could compare it with the installed version.



i don't see how it could have been that drastic. i've not come across HUGE differences between the live and the installed. of course you should know it'll run faster installed, but other than that?


Allow me to elaborate for him-

I think he meant that anyone who would blindly (possibly because of a hate of MS) install a new OS on a production machine is being a bit irresponsible and naive. Having extra machines laying around or running distros in a VM are certainly different cases that don't necessarily apply here.

.

at least one person understood what i was saying. i guess i'll have to spell it out next time. thx throbbingbrain!

[ThrobbingBrain66]

But, in the case of someone curious about Linux, maybe heard about it from a friend, and maybe not very computer savvy, as an example, then the LiveCD should be 100% compatible if it's to be used for that purpose. Very good simply isn't enough. The same rule applies to the performance. It should be fast enough for the user to feel comfortable.

Demanding 100% accuracy isn't feasible. No piece of softare (with a significant number of lines of code) will ever be bug free. Certainly 100% accuracy is the goal, but fully acheiving it is next to impossible.


...someone who may think they're actually running Ubuntu without installing it.

That's the definition of a LiveCD :)


I posit that when using the LiveCD to test Ubuntu, it's best only to focus on the look and feel. Compatibility and performance issues can be fixed later, but it's still important for the user to know that he or she can operate in an alien environment, even if its only temporary.

I'll give you performance issues. There are a fair number of compatibility issues that cannot be fixed later. Sometimes, hardware just doesn't work in Linux (the internal card reader on my laptop is a good example of this).


You can deal with the rule and the exception, however, when designing around this. Thus, the correction in the design would be to improve the LiveCD (I like that Fedora idea) or make sure people know that it's not a good way to fully test Ubuntu.

I don't know how much improvement can be done specifically with the LiveCD. The LiveCD will mature right along side hardware detection. Fedora's method is something to think about, but it also requires ~1GB of RAM to function correctly. LiveCDs are dependent on hardware. It can only load files to memory as fast as your cd-rom drive can be read from.

[Incense]

The Ubuntu Live CD has saved my rear a couple times having to recover data off a system that would not boot. The Ubnutu Live CD is too slow to really just use as is, for me at least. Mint, PCLOS, and DreamLinux all run faster on my systems in live mode, and are actually quite usable. I would rather have the old text based installer rather then have to boot into a live session just to run the installer.

[ThrobbingBrain66]

The Ubuntu Live CD has saved my rear a couple times having to recover data off a system that would not boot. The Ubnutu Live CD is too slow to really just use as is, for me at least. Mint, PCLOS, and DreamLinux all run faster on my systems in live mode, and are actually quite usable. I would rather have the old text based installer rather then have to boot into a live session just to run the installer.

This brings to light a new issue. If it's true that some LiveCDs are faster than others, there has to be a reason for it. Maybe the file organization on the Ubuntu LiveCD is not as optimal as it could be.

For example, files absolutely needed to get the things running are loaded first (and as quickly as possible) while others are just loaded in the background. In theory, this would improve the responsiveness of the CD.

[n3tfury]

The Ubuntu Live CD has saved my rear a couple times having to recover data off a system that would not boot. The Ubnutu Live CD is too slow to really just use as is, for me at least. Mint, PCLOS, and DreamLinux all run faster on my systems in live mode, and are actually quite usable. I would rather have the old text based installer rather then have to boot into a live session just to run the installer.

so would i, but the new user wants a GUI, plain and simple. if they saw just a text based installer they might think that that's what they'll be dealing with when using Ubuntu, which we all know is not true at all.

for some folks it's all about presentation.

[Chris S.]

ThrobbingBrain66 (excelent handle), you hit the nail square on the head in response to my post. It's just not perfect, and it's unreasonable to expect perfection. So, change how people perceive the LiveCD instead. Let people know it's not perfect so they don't misjudge Ubuntu.

[ThrobbingBrain66]

ThrobbingBrain66 (excelent handle), you hit the nail square on the head in response to my post. It's just not perfect, and it's unreasonable to expect perfection. So, change how people perceive the LiveCD instead. Let people know it's not perfect so they don't misjudge Ubuntu.

Now that I think about it, I always throw out a warning to people when I give them an Ubuntu CD to try. I always tell them that it's going to load slowly because it's running from a CD instead of a hard drive. I guess I just never equated that to people being completely turned off to Ubuntu (and Linux in general) because of that experience.

[Incense]

This brings to light a new issue. If it's true that some LiveCDs are faster than others, there has to be a reason for it. Maybe the file organization on the Ubuntu LiveCD is not as optimal as it could be.

For example, files absolutely needed to get the things running are loaded first (and as quickly as possible) while others are just loaded in the background. In theory, this would improve the responsiveness of the CD.

One thing that really drives me mad, is that it's gotten worse with each release of Ubuntu. I can run the 6.06 live CD on my 256mb P4, and install it just fine. With 7.04 I can barely get the live cd to load, let alone install. The same system runs the other live distros I mentioned just fine. Perhaps gutsy has improved this, I'm not sure.

[ThrobbingBrain66]

One thing that really drives me mad, is that it's gotten worse with each release of Ubuntu. I can run the 6.06 live CD on my 256mb P4, and install it just fine. With 7.04 I can barely get the live cd to load, let alone install. The same system runs the other live distros I mentioned just fine. Perhaps gutsy has improved this, I'm not sure.

Not so much. The Gutsy LiveCD is still pretty slow. :(

This could be a good spec to add to the Hardy Herron wishlist.

[bapoumba]

Moved to the Cafe.

[Mr_JMM]

Thank you for moving the post. I (obviously, no choice ;-) ) agree.

Also, I would like to say that my original reasons for creating the thread was just to say that as a die-hard Windows fan trying to find reasons not to like Linux and being converted, that should anyones first impressions on Linux be the Live CD, then they shouldn't allow a negative experience of this Live version to be a deciding factor.

Instead, take on board the sticky threads in the Beginners Corner, note that I, as a Windows fan had just such an experience and bear it all in mind. Then, if they have even the slightest interest and if they feel that it's a viable option at this early stage of discovering Linux to install it then they should absolutely, 100% go for it. There is more than enough information and help available; Far more than ANY Windows forum will give them!

And as such thought it would be good to let beginners see it.

But yes, the thread has become a discussion and I'm proud of that. I love the community of Linux. As a biker I've already spent a fair few years in a 'community' and am pleased to have discovered another one.

I'm shutting up for a bit now to play with Kubuntu .......

:evil: :evil: :evil: