My Ubuntu installation notes long! 3184

Sandman

The ATI binary drivers do actually work, they just aren't as good as Nvidia's.

As I recall, the option on Ubunut 6.06 says something to the effect of 'Boot into the live environment and install' (though not in those words).

There should also be an icon on the desktop labeled 'Install', buttuming this is the latest version of Ubuntu.

There's no other way to explain it, and the option *has* to be given. There are too many users with delicate parbreastion tables to do otherwise (like, say, everyone dual-booting Windows and Linux).

That should be evident when the network doesn't work. IIRC, it just takes your current network settings from the live environment, but I'm not totally sure about that.

Ubuntu will ship you free install CDs--they even cover shipping and handling. Takes 4-6 weeks though.

Uhh, I've got a machine that's substantially less powerful than that, and it's anything but sluggish. Runs great on my EPIA machine.

If you're in the live environment, that's because it has to read them off the (slow) CD.

What you're describing sounds like misconfiguration, or running in a live environment. I'm certainly not able to repeat your problem, but I don't have anything like your hardware either (I have many machines that are much weaker than yours, and two that are more powerful--neither group has problems like you describe).

They *do*. There's a rather nice search function, as well as package grouping by default. Look on the left hand panel.

That would be sacrificing the existing user base in order to gain a few new users. That's not going to happen. I know that Apple and Microsoft have taught you that screwing your existing userbase is acceptable, but the Linux community hasn't yet figured that out.

What makes you think that?

That wouldn't work very well at all. It would just cause more conflicts. Besides, dpkg locks its database when packages are being installed (which means users are going to have to wait before installing another application, using your method). What you're suggesting is beyond the scope of a mere frontend (and really isn't that great an idea).

I've found that severely broken packages are pretty rare, but other users undoubtedly discover differently.

Huh? I've never thought that default KDE looked anything like Ubuntu GNOME.

The whole thing is different. The defaults on the latest version of Ubuntu are apparently set to mimic the other as closely as possible (I don't have KDE installed in Ubuntu 6.06).

Yes, there is. Install other window managers, and select the one you want to use at the login screen.

Uhh, KDE and GNOME defaults are anything but 'nearly identical'.

That would be very annoying. Especially around update time.

Odd--I've used Ubuntu's recommended method a few times. Seems to work fine here.

Your Xorg.conf file got rewritten from the 'nvidia-xconfig' command. You'll need to set proper screen specifications again. You'll probably have to do it manually. This is likely why the method you used isn't mentioned in the help file.

It should be, but there are legal issues preventing that. Complain to Nvidia.

XGL is still in early development. That's why nothing uses it by default (yet).

A) Xorg was GPU-accelerated once you installed the Nvidia drivers. B) AIGLX is an alternative to XGL, though it's not ready yet either.

Quartz Extreme level GPU acceleration is already there, once you get video drivers that support hardware acceleration. XGL provides something more akin to Quartz2DExtreme--something that even Leopard won't have enabled OOTB.

Not really that big of a deal, especially if you have hardware accelerated rendering. Oh, and windows are double-buffered in XGL.

Because 'Applications' isn't a place on the hard drive. This isn't Mac OS X, why would you expect it to act the same?

Because nothing likeApplications exists on standard *nixes.usr-bin is the closest you get on a GNU-Linux box, but even that isn't really absolute. Besides, why should the user look at a bunch of strangely named binaries? Those that have business mucking about with the location of the binaries already know where they're going to be located, and might even have them bookmarked (which would add it to the 'Places' menu).

You launch them from the aptly named 'Applications' menu.

There's no magic involved. Menu standardization was a big thing a few years back. Packages take this into account.

How is this different from Apple dictating that applications should be inApplications?

I think that just about anyone could make the connection between those. Also, the simplified apt frontend *does* use GNOME menu naming for application groups.

That would be inconsistant with the rest of the interface. It doesn't prod the user anywhere else--why should it when it comes to installing-launching an application? Presumably the user already understands how to do this (they did, after all, launch Synaptic in the first place).

That would be a truly pathetic design for an application launcher, and complete anathema for a spatially-oriented environment like GNOME.

Are you using an old version of Ubuntu? Beagle is included OOTB in Dapper (Ubuntu 6.06).

In Ubuntu 6.06, you use the nautilus-beagle integration (the 'search' function in Nautilus). In others, you used the Best frontend.

Yes. I don't remember if buttons are bound to those function OOTB or

Why would they explain this? There's a labeled button on the keyboard for this--'Print Screen'.

I've seen some usability studies focusing on how users react to working in a GNOME environment. Some express confusion, and some take to it without trouble. I can cite several anecdotal stories of people having *less* trouble with GNOME than they do with OS X. I think there are people who naturally orient towards interfaces that do not hold their hand, and others who feel insecure without that ever present Big Brother.

A lot of your suggestions only make sense when viewed from the perspective of someone who thinks that hand-holding is a good thing.

Without *hiding* that foundation. That is the difference between how GNOME handles this, and how OS X handles it. It's like a transparent abstraction. In GNOME, it's obvious that you're still using a *nix of some kind or another. With OS X, Apple tries to keep that hidden from the user.

How is it hidden? Nautilus-GNOME defaults to places the user is likely to be working, but doesn't preclude them from browsing around where ever they want (that's what Finder does, by the way). Not an unreasonable buttumption to make. It certainly makes more sense than defaulting to the root directory and providing esoteric locations like '-lib-modules' or '-usr-share-doc' in Places, even though the (privileged) user might well be working with files in those directories.

Refined to the point of being nearly useless.

It's clear that Apple has a different idea of what makes a good UI. I don't think hiding the underpinnings is a good idea, neither do I consider hand-holding in the interface a desirable feature. Indeed, I would be tempted to turn towards a less capable interface, just to get away from the constant nagging that OS X and Windows engage in.

Only because you do not understand what comes OOTB with the Linux install. If you think XGL is roughly comparable to Quartz Extreme, then you need to learn what both actually are.