Ubuntu...

Ubuntu gave me a bad taste of Linux, thats for sure. The lack of support I received on the Ubuntu site and the inability for my E1705 to connect or ability to find a wireless network was ridiculous.

Now, the GUI is okay, its not all that fancy and is a little fuzzy (if thats the right word). I wasn't sure if I could install programs like Photoshop and Dreamweaver so I don't ever use Ubuntu.

I am not a HUGE fan of vista as I hate the security issues but other than that, I do like the GUI and Mac like appearance.

Anyone have any feedback on my wireless issues?

Thanks!
Mike

 

??? install Vista??? just a thought?

 

If you are using a Dell wireless card (as opposed to an Intel) then you will probably have problems using it in Linux. The problem is that Dell uses Broadcom chips that have a closed architecture. Therefore native Linux drivers are not really available. The best option is to use NDISWrapper which uses the Windows driver files. Unless you are willing to do some work, then you are kinda screwed.

 

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Driver/bcm43xx/Feisty_No-Fluff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w

 

Your GUI was "fuzzy" because it probably wasn't running at the native resolution. If you have an Intel graphics card, you need to install the 915resolution package, and if not, you probably want to install the nvidia drivers. Dell's machines don't properly detect their display resolutions very often, I believe it's a known problem.

 

Next time, I'd suggest you use more supported hardware with Linux. Do your research before making a purchase, stay away from Broadcom wireless and ATi graphics.

 

As I type, I'm using Ubuntu installed in a machine with an ATI card. The screen required 1920x1200 resolution and it took me forever to figure out how to install the correct drivers. The effort was worthwhile, though, because the machine works well, the text and graphics are sharp and clear, and I don't need Windows anymore. That means, too, that I don't need AV, antispyware, rootkits, HijackThis, etc, etc - at leas for now.

 

It's not necessarily easier for average (or normal) users to just get into Linux like that. Almost all of the Linux pros around here have extensive Windows knowledge, and migrating to something a little more powerful, stable, customizable and extensible was just a natural extension and evolution of their computing skills.

My point is that if you are NOT comfortable with Linux, it isn't a right move for you at the moment.

 

Opening your plea for help with this kind of attitude sure won't help you get the answers you want.

 

I wonder about that... personally, I think that someone completely new to computers would be able to use a distro like Ubuntu just as easily if not easier than Windows provided that:
a) someone else did the initial configuration (Windows boxes come pre-installed), and
b) they had someone to coach them through the basics (most Windows users have that as well I would think).

The problems however are that,
a) pretty much everyone nowadays has previous experience with Windows,
b) there are very few options for pre-installed Linux (Dell being the only mainstream one), and
c) there are very few people around who are capable of helping Linux newbies (I work at a IT Help Desk at my university, and out of the 20+ employees, there's only one other besides me who uses Linux as a main OS, and only about 3 others who have bothered to try a Linux distro at all).

Keep in mind however, that this is in regards to a hand-holding distro like Ubuntu, not an "expert" distro like Gentoo or Arch. Gentoo took me several attempts and close to a week's time to get it up and running the first time.

 

I am using an ATI card as well. Luckily, Ubuntu booted up in the native 1680 x 1050 resolution. It was awesome!

 

I went cold turkey to Ubuntu about two months ago to prove to myself that I didn't have to buy my OS and could use linux. I have had some problems and difficulties with it but on the whole it is maintained more than Windows in my opinion. Just never say "Oh I'll just plug this [random piece of hardware] in and it'll work." When I first reinstalled Ubuntu as the only OS, it took me three days to configure my wireless (a broadcom chip). But as long as your hardware is recognized, you are pretty much good to go.

I love the apt-get system and repositories. You never have to worry about where you are d/l from.

The initial file system is staggeringly bizzare if you have previously been a Windows user, but I am (slowly) getting used to it.

I like it but my new notebook coming will need direct x 10 and that blows any version of linux out of the water-- for now..

 

Congrats, Imark. Obviously, you lead a good clean life!

 

Open source drivers I assume. Too bad those of us with X1000+ series cards can only use FGLRX.

 

Hopefully this whole resolution mess will be fixed once and for all with the next release, since it will use the new configuration-less xorg.

On a side note, I just installed Feisty for the first time on my desktop, and unlike it's predecessors it detected my 1920x1200 resolution on my 2490wuxi. Well, once I installed the nvidia driver, it maxed out at 1280x1024 with nv. But all I had to do was install the driver and reboot, a huge improvement.

 

I agree, most of the time it's easier to learn something brand new than to learn something similar, but different.

Something I like about Unix-based file structures though is that it's built with multiuser environments in mind, and hence has a good file permission system in place.

Another thing to note, as stated by one of my professors last fall, in a Unix-based system, everything's a file. From a "directory", to mouse input signals, to various bits of system info, to the "black hole" that is /dev/null

 

I don't know, I didn't install any drivers, just the installed Ubuntu from the CD.

 

They'd be the open source ones then. Be careful if you buy a new machine, because those drivers wont work and you'll lose features.

 

As much as I am a *nix man, my opinion is that the basic file permission system is obsolete. This is one area where I think Windows is theoretically better. (Yes, I have to put the word theoretically there because in practice Windows uses its permission system poorly.)

Here's the reason. Controlling access on the basis of permissions for user, group and other (i.e. the owner of the file, a group and the rest of the world) is much too coarse for managing systems that are really used in a multiuser way. It does fine for a laptop used by only one user or a desktop machine used by family members. It does poorly in the enterprise.

Now, the traditional user-group-other system has been extended by the use of ACLs but the problem with ACLs is that various *nix vendors adopted incompatible solutions and that a lot of file management tools are just unaware of ACLs. It creates headaches for sysops.

 

Thanks for the tip. I think I will end up making that computer a dedicated Linux machine when I buy a new laptop, eventually. But who knows, perhaps Linux will really grow on my and I will just install it everywhere!

 

lemur, I agree, the basis for file permissions IS better in Windows, but, like you said, the implementation isn't there like it is in a *nix system.

And, so far, my only experience as an administrator is for my own home machines, so, for my usage, it's as good as it needs to be.