Revisiting Linux Part 1: A Look at Ubuntu 8.04
by Ryan Smith on August 26, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Installation
In terms of difficulty, right up there with making a good GUI is making a good installer. History is riddled with bad OS installers, with pre-Vista Windows being the most well-known example. Text mode installers running on severely castrated operating systems reigned for far too long. Microsoft of course improved this with Windows Vista in 2006, but even as late as the end of 2007 they were still releasing new operating systems such as Windows Home Server that used a partial text mode installer.
The reason I bring this up is that good OS installers are still a relatively recent development in the PC space, which is all the more reason I am very impressed with Ubuntu’s installer. It’s the opposite of the above, and more.
Right now Ubuntu is the underdog in a Windows dominated world, and their installation & distribution strategies have thusly been based on this. It’s undoubtedly a smart choice, because if Ubuntu wiped out Windows like Windows does Ubuntu, it would be neigh impossible to get anyone to try it out since “try out” and “make it so you can’t boot Windows” are mutually incompatible. Ubuntu plays their position very well in a few different ways.
First and foremost, the Ubuntu installation CD is not just an installer, but a live CD. It’s a fully bootable and usable copy of Ubuntu that runs off of the CD and does not require any kind of installation. The limitations of this are obvious since you can’t install additional software and CD disc access times are more than an order of magnitude above that of a hard drive, but nevertheless it enables you to give Ubuntu a cursory glance to see how it works, without needing to install anything. Live CDs aren’t anything new for Linux as a whole, but it bears mentioning, it’s an excellent strategy for letting people try out the OS.
This also gives Ubuntu a backdoor in to Windows users’ computers because as a complete CD-bootable OS, it can be used to recover trashed Windows installations when the Windows recovery agent can’t get the job done. It can read NTFS drives out of the box, allowing users to back up anything they read to another drive, such as USB flash drive. It also has a pretty good graphical partition editor, GParted, for when worse comes to worse and it comes time to start formatting. Ubuntu Live CD is not a complete recovery kit in and of itself (e.g. it can’t clean malware infections, so it’s more of a tool of last resort) but it’s a tool that has a purpose and serves it well.
Better yet, once you decide that you want to try an installable version of Ubuntu, but don’t want to take the plunge of messing with partitions, Ubuntu has a solution for that too. Wubi, the Windows-based Ubuntu Installer, allows you to install Ubuntu as a flat-file on an existing NTFS partition. Ubuntu can then boot off of the flat file, having never touched a partition or the master boot record (instead inserting an Ubuntu entry in to Windows BCD). This brings all the advantages of moving up from a Live CD to an installable version of Ubuntu, but without the system changes and absolute commitment a full install entails. Wubi installations are also easily removable, which further drives home this point.
Now the catch with a Wubi installation is that it’s meant to be a halfway house between a Live CD and a full installation, and it’s not necessarily meant for full-time use. As a flat file inside of a NTFS partition, there are performance issues related to the lower performance of the NTFS-3G driver over raw hard drive access, along with both external fragmentation of the flat file and internal fragmentation inside of the flat file. An unclean shutdown also runs the slight risk of introducing corruption in to the flat file or the NTFS file system, something the Wubi documentation makes sure to point out. As such Wubi is a great way to try out Ubuntu, but a poor way to continue using it.
Finally, once you’ve decided to go the full distance, there’s the complete Ubuntu installation procedure. As we’ve previously mentioned Ubuntu is a live CD, so installing Ubuntu first entails booting up the live CD – this is in our experience a bit slower than booting up a pared down installation-only OS environment such as Vista’s Windows PE. It should be noted that although you can use GParted at this point to make space to install Ubuntu, this is something that’s better left in the hands of Windows and its own partition shrinking ability due to some gotchas in that Windows can move files around to make space when GParted can’t.
Once the installation procedure starts, it’s just 6 steps to install the OS: Language, Time Zone, Keyboard Layout, Installation Location, and the credentials for the initial account. Notably the installation procedure calls for 7 steps, but I’ve only ever encountered 6, step 6 is always skipped. This puts it somewhere behind Mac OS X (which is composed of picking a partition and installing, credentials are handled later) and well ahead of Windows since you don’t need a damn key.
The only thing about the Ubuntu installation procedure that ruffles my feathers is that it doesn’t do a very good job of simplifying the installation when you want to install on a new partition but it’s not the only empty partition. This is an artifact of how Linux handles its swapfile – while Windows and Mac OS X create a file on the same partition as the OS, Linux keeps its swapfile on a separate partition. There are some good reasons for doing this such as preventing fragmentation of the swapfile and always being able to place it after the OS (which puts it further out on the disk, for higher transfer rates) but the cost is ease of installation. Ubuntu’s easy installation modes are for when you want to install to a drive (and wipe away its contents in the process) or when you want to install in the largest empty chunk of unpartitioned space. Otherwise, you must play with GParted as part of the installation procedure.
This means the most efficient way to install Ubuntu if you aren’t installing on an entire disk or immediately have a single free chunk of space (and it’s the largest ) is to play with partitions ahead of time so that the area you wish to install to is the largest free area. It’s a roundabout way to install Ubuntu and can be particularly inconvenient if you’re setting up a fresh computer and intend to do more than just dual boot.
Once all of the steps are completed, Ubuntu begins installing and is over in a few minutes. Upon completion Ubuntu installs its bootloader of choice, GRUB, and quickly searches for other OS installations (primarily Windows) and adds those entries to the GRUB bootloader menu. When this is done, the customary reboot occurs and when the system comes back up you’re faced with the GRUB boot menu – you’re ready to use Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn’t treat its first booting as anything special, and there are no welcome or registration screens to deal with(I’m looking at you, Apple). It boots up, and you can begin using it immediately. It’s refreshing, to say the least.
The actual amount of time required to install Ubuntu is only on the order of a few minutes, thanks in large part due to its dainty size. Ubuntu comes on a completely filled CD, weighing in at 700MB, while Windows Vista is on a DVD-5 at over 3GB, and Mac OS X is on a whopping DVD-9 at nearly 8GB. It’s the fast to download (not that you can download Windows/Mac OS X) and fast to install.
We’ll get to the applications in-depth in a bit, but I’d like to quickly touch on the default installation of Ubuntu. Inside that 700MB is not only the core components of the OS and a web browser, but the complete Open Office suite and Evolution email client too. You can literally install Ubuntu and do most common tasks without ever needing to install anything else beyond security and application updates. Consider the amount of time it takes to install Microsoft Office on a Windows machine or a Mac, and it’s that much more time saved. Canonical is getting the most out of the 700MB a CD can hold.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
195 Comments
View All Comments
sadf23ssaaa - Monday, March 22, 2010 - link
Welcome to our website:jordan air max oakland raiders $34--39;
Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;
Christan Audigier BIKINI JACKET $25;
gstar coogi evisu true jeans $35;
coach chanel gucci LV handbags $36;
coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $18;
CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $32;
jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $37;
EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $16;
coach okely Adidas CHANEL DG Sunglass $18;
zerobug - Monday, February 1, 2010 - link
Regarding benchmarks and Linux-focused hardware roundups, one thing worth of consideration is that while Microsoft places strong resources on O/S development to create features that will require the end users the need to get the latest and greatest powerful hardware, Linux places their efforts in order that the end user will still be able to use their old hardware and get the best user experience while running the latest and greatest software.So,the benchmarks could compare the user experience when running popular software on Microsoft and Linux O/S's, with different powerful machines.
For this, you could pick up some popular open source and proprietary (or their free equivalents) application that can run both Linux and W7. and compare the price, time and power consumption for retrieving, saving, processing, compiling, encrypting,decrypting compacting, extracting, encoding, decoding, backup, restore, nº of frames,etc, with machines in a range of different CPU and memory capacities.
abnderby - Thursday, September 3, 2009 - link
Let me say this, I am a Senior Software QA Engineer, I have been testing windows, windows apps, DB's and web sites for over 10 year now. I am what you could consider an windows guru of sorts.I have off an on always gone and tried linux from red hat 5, 6, ubuntu, suse, fedora etc... Linux is not and has not been ready for mainstream users. Sure simple email, word docs web browsing it is ok.
But in order to do many things I want to do and many advanced windows users the author and many commentors are right. Linux people need to get out of their little shell and wake up.
Linux has such great potential to be a true contenderto windows and OSX. But it lacks simple usability. Out of the box it can come nowhere close to MS or Apple offerings. The out of the box experience is truly horrible.
Hardware drivers? good luck I run RAID cards that have no support. Forget the newest graphics and sound cards. Connecting to shares just as the author mentioned a hassle of a work around.
Again as stated elsewhere Linux needs someone who programs and or scripts to get things done right. I have neitherthe time or patience for such. I use command line when needed. I would rather have 2 or 3 clicks and I am done then have to remember every CLI for every thing I need to do.
Time is money, time is not a commodity. Linus wastes too much time.
It is geting better with each distro true. But It has been 11 years from red hat 5?? and Linux is not a whole lot better than it was then.
What is needed if Linux really wants to make a stand in the desktop space, is a unified pull togeher ofall distro's. Sit down and truly plan out the desktop. Put together a solid platform that out of the box can really put the hurt on MS or Apple.
Look what Apple did with OSX! And how many developers are wrking on it? How many developers are working on Linux all distro's? OSX is a jewel in 7 years it has matured much farther than any *nix distro. And has a following that cannot yet be challenged by any distro available.
Why is it that when win2k came out Linux was claiming to be superior, and yet after 10 years of development it is hardly comparable to XP let alonevista/win 7 or OSX?
You guys really need to wake up and smell the coffee!
Penti - Monday, September 7, 2009 - link
Of course it's not ready for consumer desktops, there are no serious distributions for that.It means no DVD player OOB, no proprietary codecs, no video editing software, no proprietary drivers which works magically. Of course not is SLED and RHEL Desktop ready for normal users it's targeted for Linux admins to set up the environment. Community distributions won't have as easy time to be set up by those. Community distros will also always lack the above mentioned stuff. It's simply not legal for them to offer it OOB. OS X is actually older then Linux and ran on x86 before Apple bought Jobs NeXT company. It's also supported by an OEM. (OEM = Themselves). Which no Linux dist is. It also uses many GNU technologies like GCC, X11 (optional but included on disc), bash shell and so on, and of course SAMBA for SMB/CIFS, on the server edition they use a modified openldap server, dovecot and postfix for mail, Apache, PHP, Perl, MySQL etc. Stuff thats developed on Linux and has matured thanks to it.
There's a lot of problems with having just community supported stuff, but that doesn't mean it's useless or sucks. Sure the kernel aren't really helping getting drivers in there, by locking out closed source stuff but they end up useless if they are proprietary and not updated any way. For the servers just buy RHEL or SLES certified stuff and you get all the hardware support-needed. But on the other hand you wouldn't be much successful in running 7 year old video drivers in Windows either. Community distros definitively don't need to cease existing for the creation of a commercial one. But there will never be one linux and that's really the beauty of it not the course. It wasn't meant to be something rivaling windows and the kernel developers has no desire to create a distro. That's why we can see Linux in stuff like Android and Maemo. And from home routers to mainframes and supercomputers. For a commercial entity targeting that many devices wouldn't be possible. Not with the same basic code and libraries. There are definitively some top notch products and solutions based on Linux and GNU. But Linux doesn't want anything as it's not an entity. And it's really up to GNOME and KDE to create the desktop environment. It's not the distros that shape them and write all the libraries that software developers use to create their software. As there are no major consumer desktop distro maker there is also no one that can really steer them by sponsoring work and holding discussions either. Not towards a unified desktop environment for normal non-tech users anyway. Also GNOME and KDE has no desire to create a exclusive platform around their software. OS X is a innovative 20 year old OS (since commercial release) and is actually based on work before then (BSD code). OS X UI is really 20 years into it's making and builds heavily on the next/openstep framework. On other Unixes there hasn't been any such heritage to build on, X was an total mess on commercial Unixes and I would actually say it's a lot better and more streamline now. There's just Xorg now, sure there are a lot of window managers but only two major environments now so it's still better then when all the vendors had it's own and couldn't make up it's mind on which direction to go and standardize on. In the middle of the 90's there where like at least 4 major Unix vendors that all had their own workstations.
fazer150 - Friday, September 4, 2009 - link
which Linux distro have you tried? did you try the PCLinuxOS which is atleast as usable as windows xp, 2003?nilepez - Sunday, August 30, 2009 - link
Most end users are not comfortable with the command line. Linux, even Ubuntu, is still not ready for the masses. This shouldn't be confused with the quality of the OS. It's mostly GUI issue. I've also had some issues with installers failing. Some were solved from an xterm and others just didn't work.It wasn't a big deal in most cases, because there's generally another program that can get the job done, but for the typical home user, it's a deal killer. Nevertheless, I must give credit where credit is due, and Ubuntu has made huge strides in the right direction. The UI isn't close to Windows 7 and I suspect it's not close to OS X either, but Canonical is moving in the right direction.
Etern205 - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
See this is the problem with some of linux users, you guys are some what always closed in a nutshell. What you may think is easy does not mean the rest of the world will agree with you. In this day and age, people what to get things done quickly and use the least amount of time as possible. For Mac OS X and Windows getting a simple task done takes like 3 simple clicks, for Ubuntu performing the same tasks requires the user to do extensive amount of research just to complete it.I'm glad this article was written by a author who has not head into linux terriroty before and it shows the true side of linux from the perspective of a new user.
If you like to do ramen coding and so forth does not mean the others will. If linux want's to become mainstream, then they really need to stand in the shoes of Joe or Jane.
forkd - Saturday, October 31, 2009 - link
I use mac, windows and linux and I must disagree with your assessment of "this is the problem with some linux users"This article, and this site for that matter, comes from the perspective of a windows (and some mac) user looking at linux. More specifically Ubuntu. From this point of view of course Linux is difficult. A person who is linux focused thinks windows is difficult at first too and is likely to criticize. If you take the time to learn something instead of just criticizing something because it is different you may be a lot happier.
fepple - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
Check out all the usability studies the Gnome Project does, then come back and make some more generalization :)SoCalBoomer - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
Again - those are done by Linux people. His points are right on. . .someone a while ago did a "Mom" test, which is closer to what is needed, not people who know computers doing studies on usability.