|
I am running Windows 7, and I figure that I will continue to run it until it is no longer supported - and as long as I continue to use my notebook system. Perhaps if Windows 8.x or 9 becomes something decent, I will continue on running Windows.
But I have read that a lot of organizations are running Ubuntu now, so I figure that it should have reached a high level of user & installation ease. My idea of an easy system to install is to be able to download the installation package, and then be able to install into a newly formatted disk with no issues - like I was able to do when I very recently did a complete system rebuild (of my Windows 7) from downloading (of course, I had to supply the product key.) Is Ubuntu up to this level yet? I can remember in the mid 90's when I had read that Linux was easy, blah, blah, blah, but in actuality it was pain in the a@@. The one thing that Micro$oft has done quite effectively is create an easily installable package, and with the proper support for any issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Download Oracle VirtualBox, fire up a VM, and try it out. All the fun without any of the damage.
But to answer your question, yes, installing Ubuntu is about as easy as installing Windows, its a LOT more user friendly than it was in the 90's and even more than it was in the mid 2000's.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Beyer wrote: Download Oracle VirtualBox, fire up a VM, and try it out. All the fun without any of the damage.
I think I will try that. I suppose that I would be able to do an install from a stick drive that would mimic having a newly reformatted hard drive.
|
|
|
|
|
I have it at home, and I've installed Ubuntu in 3 or 4 machines, usually dual boot with XP.
I found it easier to install than XP.
Day to day use is similar to W7 experience: the computer does what you expect, and you have to type an administrator's password to install or upgrade software.
Have fun,
Pablo.
"Accident: An inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable natural laws." (Ambrose Bierce, circa 1899).
"You are to act in the light of experience as guided by intelligence" (Rex Stout, "In the Best Families", 1950).
|
|
|
|
|
It's complicated. There are a lot of little things to consider.
As a desktop, IMHO Ubuntu is quite good. Except the mobile/tablet like interface, which is a horror, frankly - I was in the same room with guys working on Linux and the curses "where the f*** is terminal?" were quite funny (followed by sudo apt-get install gnome-session-fallback).
Now consider if the software available is good for you. Office, codecs, Flash, ODBC, gaming, development - there is a myriad of things that may or may not be available in the quality you may require.
Let's put it in this way: on Microsoft platform you will find less quality tools, and certainly you won't download sources and build yourself to just do it. But what is lacking in numbers you'll find it in quality: you won't find a Visual Studio if you need it, or Office (sorry, Open Office is no match for MS Office). That does not mean you won't do it with OO: if that's ok for you, by all means go for it.
I'd sum up Windows vs Ubuntu in this way:
1. System updates
Ubuntu: lots of packages; pros: pretty much same as on windows; cons: too many  , maybe have to filter a little
Windows: just what MS offers; pros: no need to know much about updates; cons: none
Verdict: pretty much equivalents. More choices on Ubuntu, if needed.
2. Installations.
Ubuntu: sudo apt-get install <whatever>; pros: just a command; cons: you have to know package name, stay in terminal; perhaps maintain a list of ppa's for non-canonical things.
Windows: double-click on msi/exe; pros: click/next/next; cons: locate and download package.
Verdict: Ubuntu more maneuverable. Also Windows can be scriptable via WU api (COM, vbs), but you need to write it yourself.
3. Browsers
Pretty much the same. Certain websites do not support Linux (Quickbooks, for example - just learned this).
Verdict: if you are in the need for IE for certain proprietary/custom things, you have to dig if you can do it with Wine. Less problems on Windows regarding plugins (but NPAPI is dropped by Chrome, Firefox also are going crazy with blocking...).
4. Gaming
Ubuntu: pros: honorable support, but not perfect; SteamOS is gaining traction, but there's much to the top. cons: Many games not running (or not running ok) on Linux. Occasional driver problems from main vendors; keep watching what NVidia does, for example.
Windows: Number one gaming platform. Cons: none.
Verdict: Windows.
5. Media.
Not an expert here, but I suppose are pretty much equivalents. Maybe occasional driver/apps glitches on Linux (the subject is vast and better dealt perhaps by someone who is actively working with media).
Verdict: draw.
6. Office. Repeating what I said before: MS is still better. Depending on what you need. Better collaboration with others (many times I was asked by various people about convertors, formats etc. - things that discourage the regular *other* user). You want to just send the file, not to spend 15 minutes on chat or remote installing OO to MS conversion tools on an ancient XP.
Verdict: Windows.
7. Development.
Ubuntu: pros: you can do what you want; cons: harder to work on; debuggers are weak.
Windows: pros: VS and others are top of the line; console also available; cons: less options than on Ubuntu.
Verdict: Up to you.
There are many things to be said. These are just my 0.02 ideas.
Hope that helps.
Nuclear launch detected
|
|
|
|
|
Cristian's response is great, I'll simply provide a two word answer to your subjectline question:
Still sucks.
You want elaboration? I think the hidden scrollbar thing on windows sucks. It takes mental and physical agility to position the cursor so the scrollbar shows up. Distracts from what I'm trying to do.
Look at the difference between, for example, the RubyMine IDE in Windows vs. Ubuntu. In Windows, the fonts are small and consistent. In Ubuntu, the fonts are all over the place, the tree control sucks (and I still haven't figured out how to make the font for the tree control smaller).
Personally, I also can't stand the Mac'ish application menu bar at the top of the screen. Of course, that would be fine if it were consistent! But no, some apps put their menus in their own windows, leading to more UI confusion.
So, at the end of the day, I do all my Ruby on Rails development in Windows. The only thing I have Ubuntu around for is the command window where I have to Telnet into some stuff that I haven't figured out how to set up the security keys for in PuTTY for Windows.
However, as someone else posted - download Oracle's Virtual Box and an Ubuntu VM, and you're all set to explore the wonderful world of open source. Even from scratch, and Ubuntu install is very simple.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I have it loaded on a VM using VirtualBox and it's a breeze to install and use.
I just recently got serious with it because I ordered a Beagle Bone Black and it has a version of Linux on it and I want to do some development.
|
|
|
|
|
Ten hours into 2014 here at GMT +0700.
Bob is ... errr ... rather the worse for wear this am, but I'm taking him for some local coffee that is also used to tan leather, and cure psoriasis, and he asks me to tell you that he's having a great time in the Land of Smiles, and he's sure ... if he could remember it ... that he had a sensational New Year's Eve [^].
“I'm an artist: it's self evident that word implies looking for something all the time without ever finding it in full. It is the opposite of saying : 'I know all about it. I've already found it.'
As far as I'm concerned, the word means: 'I am looking. I am hunting for it. I am deeply involved.'”
Vincent Van Gogh
|
|
|
|
|
Send him out our way at GMT-0700 for a taste of the dog... We'll cure him!
The locals are firing all manner of small arms tonight, in celebration I presume. I'm tempted to fire the .30-06 into the ground to demonstrate what a real gun sounds like, but I think I'll refrain in order to demonstrate what mature wisdom sounds like.
Happy New Year to all! 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: Send him out our way ... for a taste of the dog
We eat dogs in Thailand.
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize if this is too much about programming, but I didn't know where it would fit in the programming forum. It's about note-taking in tech books, not a particular language. If it's still bad, please let me know.
Over the past 4-6 weeks, I've been reading this 1000+ pg book trying to learn more about C#.
It's come to me that my method of absorbing information from this book (and perhaps tech books in general) is ineffective (either that or just slow as a snail). I've only been typing up the programs from this book if the topic was 100% new to me (the programs come with the book, so no need to type things up if you know the material in question). When I type out notes on what's going on alongside typing out the programs, I'm realizing that I'm just saying what's in the book, but shortened. So, I'm like a bad copy/paste function. Typing things out in my own words helps me recall things a little better, but not enough to justify the time I'm burning. It can sometimes take me a 90 minute study block to clear 5 pages (that's typing up a program AND notes, but still).
My method sucks, so I was wondering how you guys approach this type of thing. Do you just do the programs and comment as much as possible? What approach do you take to notes?
|
|
|
|
|
I read a lot of books, so here's my "method"...
Its not about retaining the information or doing all the exercises. For me, its reading the information and knowing in the back of my mind that there's a method for doing what I'm trying to do and recalling where I found that information. I can then go back and look up what I need to and get it done right.
Do that enough times and the things you use most often will stick with you without needing to go back to the reference. I retain enough information to know that there's something out there that can do what I need. I really don't need to remember it word for word, line for line, or method for method. I can look it up later.
This is why I really dislike most traditional testing. Its based on memory retention and not application. In the real world you are welcome to use as many reference materials as possible to accomplish your goal. Just know the methods are out there, worry about getting it exact when you need to apply it.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Beyer wrote: This is why I really dislike most traditional testing. Its based on memory retention and not application
Whoa. Do you have the other half of this medallion? 
I am with you 100% on this. I suck at tests, but I am strong when it comes to utilizing my knowledge and experience to solve the daily development tasks.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
I have a hard time with retaining what I read so my method is to read the book then pick a small project and if I get stuck I go back and re-read the appropriate section, then pick another bigger project and if I get stuck,...well you get the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
I have never typed in code from books or magazines or whatever.
I prefer to take a class with an actual teacher (no matter how stupid).
A major problem with books these days is that they have to spend more time teaching an IDE (including downloading, installing, configuring, etc.  ) rather than the actual language.
The book I have on BASIC-plus (1975, 1983) has exercises. 
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the book contains 700+ pages of drivel then it's not worth paying good money for; that's the way the publishers do it and would have us believe it needs to be. Crying in a bucket, I've got one book on my shelf that's 1370 pages.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
Septimus Hedgehog wrote: 1370 pages
That beats the 1207-page Visual Basic 2008 book I have that doesn't have even introduce if until chapter 18 on page 353.
|
|
|
|
|
Enter the code. Change the code to ensure I understand it, and what the possibilities are. Set my self tasks that further prove I've learned to do whatever it is.
Christian Graus
My new article series is all about SQL !!!
|
|
|
|
|
theres a big difference between a text book and a tech book - and it sounds to me lime you are using the latter as if it were the former.
i read a tech book, in a relaxed atmosphere, away from the computer. if there's something i want to try out, i mark it (post it on the page if a real book, bookmark it of ebook)
when i type in or download code, i tinker with it, making changes to convince myself that i understood whats going on.
i find that i usually end up coming back to the book later when I actually need to use a technique, as i will remember the existence, even if I don't recall the detail.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
I skim the initial bits of the books to get a feel, and then start a real project. The reading gives me a quick overview, and I don't worry too much about syntax and low-level details. I find I learn much more quickly by doing something, rather than just reading. The book supplies a reference, examples, and occasionally recommendations for best practices.
I also don't get too attached to the 'real project'. When I learned C# and WPF, it was for the UI application for a new product. I think I had four or five prototypes that I discarded completely and restarted from scratch.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I don't. At best, I take a very cursory look at a language's syntax and usage.
That New Guy wrote: My method sucks, so I was wondering how you guys approach this type of thing.
The best way I learn a language is to actually code something in it. For example, when learning Ruby, I banged out a simple implementation of the classic game Hunt the Wumpus[^].
Also, because I know other languages, I wrote a few articles here comparing Ruby with C# and F#.
So, my recommendation is, learn enough to do something and pick a simple task (simple games are great) that start exercising your knowledge. And try to stick first with language fundamentals, then start exploring the API's / frameworks, then move on to things like interfacing to databases, etc. For example, another Ruby investigation that I did was how to connect with SQL Server, rather than the more commonly supported open-source DB's.
Lastly, find someone willing to mentor you -- I have a fantastic Ruby on Rails mentor, and Google and Stack Overflow are great anonymous mentors as well - I still learn things about C# and F# from SO.
Hope that helps.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
That's one thing I wish I could do: find mentors, or at least 100% trustworthy sources of information. However, I don't have strong computer-wise connections from college, or even my last job, so I'd be starting from scratch in terms of finding a living being willing to guide me through.
|
|
|
|
|
That New Guy wrote: That's one thing I wish I could do: find mentors, or at least 100% trustworthy sources of information.
Well, that's one of the things I do, so I'm happy to critique code and offer < 100% trustworthy suggestions, haha.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so from all you guys' responses, programming is more important than note-taking because I can just reference the material later.
However, what do you guys think I SHOULD take notes on? Just A-HA moments I come across, or anything new that confused me before?
|
|
|
|
|
Intellisense autocompleted something (quite accidentally, I fat-fingered what I was typing):
I present you:
ECDiffieHellmanKeyDerivationFunction[^]
The description is equally esoteric:
Specifies the key derivation function that the ECDiffieHellmanCng class will use to convert secret agreements into key material.
So tell me, have you ever use a Diffie? 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
