What is Digg?206 Comments
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -27/+65Have you been drinking?
- 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28It's official because the word official is in the title...
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Ubuntu is very easy to install.
Installing the printer drivers, video drivers, dvd and mp3 codecs, etc, is another story.
Mod be down if I am wrong. Do not mod me down because you don't like my comment. - Tom_Riddle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30 Okay dude.
I don't know what version of XP you have.
But there is like 3 reboots
the first section is in Dos
the second section is graphical
then it reboots
installs hardware
and asks you to reboot again
then when that is done
you have to go through install all your drivers kuz the generic ones suck ass
Its like the ***** DMV
but worse. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23I recently installed Ubuntu and I was actually dissapointed at the number of options I was given. I wish there was some sort of "advanced" install with more options.
I wasn't given any choice of what packages to install, how to handle the swap partition etc. But at the same time it was one of the easiest OS's I've ever installed. - dolson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16How could you possibly miss the disk partitioning step, where you set up your swap partition?
- retral, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Yep, even though it's some linux fan's blog.
- rsteinke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17No no, don't burry that comment. Electing partitions is a difficult decision. Thank god I only do it once every four years.
If this is really what they're moving to for an installer I can't wait for Dapper to drop stable now. That looks *****-hot. - cybernetic798, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I haven't had a beef with user-friendliness of Linux installers for a few years now (ever since Fedora came out everyone seems to have adopted easy click-through installers). It's where you go after that. Even with sites like http://ubuntuguide.org the number of random-file-editing one has to go through for even simple tasks (configuring sound for example) makes Linux not viable for the desktop.
Part of the problem is that every single computer seems to have a different set of issues. I think perhaps before talking about desktop-friendliness, we must talk about standardization as a first step towards a better Linux. - rasbill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11what is it exactly that makes this "official"
- wastern, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11OS X still has the easiest install to date
i rarely defend windows, but the installer for XP was made 6 years ago...what were linux installs like 6 years ago, thats what you should be comparing it to. i installed a beta of vista and the installer sucked, but they might get better, who knows. it isn't fair to compare windows installer to anything right now until vista is released - danielsasona, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13One could argue that the step of having to enter a long CD key should count against your keystroke metric, since this is a step invented by Microsoft, not a necessary part of the OS install process. Those of us on the osx/unix/linux bandwagon don't generally need to deal with this minor humiliation.
- peerk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You are talking about configuring Ubuntu for more advanced options after the installation of Ubuntu.
This article is just talking about installing Ubuntu.
Here is the difference. After I do a windows install I usually set the windows options to what I prefer and install some necessary programs. This isn't part of the windows installation. - purpleplatyduck, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20@ramibotros: "I had no patience for that..." perhaps it's not as much an issue with Linux not working as it is you being unwilling to take a couple simple steps. And it sounds likely you just need more RAM if it takes ages to load. Or try the newest release, might have better driver support.
On the subject of drivers, I must say that Ubuntu has Windows beat hands-down on driver detection and installation. When doing a clean Windows install, I need at least drivers for at least 6 different pieces of hardware to even make the machine run everything, whereas the only thing Ubuntu had trouble with was mounting my shared FAT partition (dual booting was even a breeze). - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12heh, nope, I don't know how to do those things once I'm in Linux. I'm a Linux n00b but I know enough to know what packages I want and what size swap I want (given a good graphical interface to do these things).
- Lomi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13As far as driver detection, I have to agree, it even detected my logitech mx3100, and most of the buttons work right out of the box so to speak.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10damnit, let me go start a wordpress blog, and I can counter this by saying "Official: XP is easier to install than Linux".
Note that I said "official", so that means its right. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The point of it is to be easy to install, not to give you all of the power/flexibility in the world. Being a linux power user as you seem to be, I'm certain that you know how to do all of those things after the OS is installed, which means it may take a bit more time for you to do, but you don't have to be worried about it during the install process.
- chriszma666, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It looks pretty easy. I still perfer using the normal text install, but thats just me. It's amazing all the linux-haters on this site though....
XP isn't the only OS in the world, why don't you get off the bandwagon and try something else. - dolson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Uh, that won't work. You can't just make a counter-claim and expect it to trump the first.
Hmm... How about you put "XP easier to install than Ubuntu! Netcraft confirms it!" ? That should do it. - skatingrox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7*ahem* I hate to ask this, but did you use the Quick Format option under windows? Windows installer formatting has taken 15 seconds at most for me on a 200GB hard drive.
- Chakz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18Why bury a truthful comment? Windows is amazingly easy to install, in fact I made an unattended setup just to make it that much easier. Pop in the disc, hit reset, come back when it's done. Doesn't get easier than that.
- TwistedMenta, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Well I'll admit that I find XP hundreds of times easier to install than Ubuntu. My biggest problem in installing Ubuntu was selecting a partition to install it on since it made next to no sense. XP on the other hand was choose a partition and hit enter.
Yes I know that the Ubuntu team are working on that problem and at least they now have a graphical interface for the installer which will make it easier for regular people to install. But considering that Windows has had one from at least Win98SE(earliest that I have installed) Ubuntu should've had one ages ago. - Darrelc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9XP is easier, and I'd like to know why a wordpress web log is "official".
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It's official. Man on blog confirms it!
And nothing I saw in those screenshots looked "easier". What I did see was a more powerful (but complicated) configuration procedure, and lots of comments about there being bugs in the beta product. And that's just in the setup procedure. What am I missing here? - RonDutt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Hmm yes it *comes* out '07, but there are BETA's and ALPHA (Longhorn/Blackcomb) releases floating all over the Internet. And I must agree, it is quiet a simple and easy install for the latest Vista build.
~ Proud Microsoft Beta Software Pirater - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10And DOS is easier to install than both... but, like Linux, it won't run any of the programs I need to use every day, either.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes and yes. The beauty of Ubuntu is that if you try it and like it, you can install it without having to switch to an install CD, and that is the point of this article.
However, the direct install CD does not have a GUI installer (it is an NCurses installer, which looks like step one of an XP/2000 install), which will have similar, but not identical, steps to follow, which might be confusing to some people. I think the Ubuntu team is working on fixing this in one of the upcoming versions (where the install disk will simply start up X11 and start up the quick installer [minus gnome, etc]). - PicklePower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This guy used the Live CD to install it...you don't always have to use the Live CD to install Ubuntu, do you? You're able to boot right from one of the CDs directly into the install process, aren't you?
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6With Ubuntu you get a minimal default package set that is both reasonable and useful, after that you install packages piecemeal. You also most definitely get to pick swap size, graphically.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9This isn't easier than XP at all. Besides, if you need an easy idiot-proof installer, maybe you ought not be installing Linux right now.
- pHr34kY, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8My record is installing Ubuntu 5.10 in 22 minutes. That's from power-on to first login.
Windows spent longer than that formatting my 80GB hard drive! (Ubuntu formatted it in about 5 seconds!)
Oh, and Windows tends to be repetitive. I think you need to tell the installer what country you live in about 8 times. - MOGua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Operating System Missing"
I got this last night when I tried to install Ubuntu Dapper beta2 from live cd. I had to run fdisk and change the active partition to get Windows to boot.
I usually use the installer CD, I was just curious...
*I love Ubuntu, running it with AIGLX on my core-duo; simply amazing. - ericnmu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9It's Official: I'm going to have Taco Bell for dinner sometime next week.
- scheper, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11If you want full control, you shouldn't really go Ubuntu, but Gentoo instead.
- SBelyea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Can we take a moment to notice Windows XP came out in 2001, whereas Dapper is coming out in 2006? You would kind of hope advances in installers had been made over the course of half a decade. This is nothing more than distro posturing.
- daboochmeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5At one point in the process (forget where) you can go into "Expert" mode, where you have all the partitioning flexibility you could want (even lets you setup LVM volume groups and logical volumes, etc.).
Still ... for installs for power users -- I really liked SUSE's 10.0 install. - danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@RuskiBanger
Just cuz you don't know how to use linux doesn't mean it takes forever to get it up and running. I'm relatively new and I can set up everything in about 30min. Learn how to use a computer. - ACalcutt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4um....maybe i am misreading this....but unless you are using an unatended disk the winodows install allows you to partition the drive...put windows on whatever drive/partition you want....and to install on a partition without formatting
- StinkyPudding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm a linux noob, just recently installed Ubuntu on my Dell laptop. The only issue I had at installation was finding a driver for my broadcom wireless card. Linux has been a blast for me, I've learned more about how computers work through Linux than all my years with Windows. Other than playing games, everything I do on Windows I can do on Ubuntu.
- AngryBacon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is a more advanced install, although this may have changed with the new livecd-installer, but thats still in beta anyway.
To get to the more advanced install, type expert when it gives you the first prompt for boot options. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4...and it's that kind of thinking that has ensured that only geeks will run Linux.
- Anchoret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I've installed Ubuntu 5.10 (current version) a bunch, and as desktop Linux goes it's very good.
What I would point out here is that a crash-free install, which is nice, doesn't mean that you actually have a proper setup. You probably are running your video card on VESA rather than the correct Linux driver, you don't have the right codecs for your multimedia work, your wireless card probably won't work with the features you need, etc., etc., etc.
A crash-free Ubuntu 5.10 install doesn't mean you're anywhere near finished, and it's blatantly dishonest to present it as such. "Automatix" is a help in getting a more complete working setup, and I don't know that by the time you've completed that you've saved any time or grief over an XP install. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't hate Linux... just like I don't hate bicycles. But nether will allow me to do what I need them for on a daily basis.
- Genma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8parent sounds intoxicated but we know he means! to label something easy should consider the entire package! not picking it apart to influence the others! those who really want to make a difference should tell it like it is! the article got me excited with with overuse of exclamation marks too! but then I saw the rest. either way I'll be giving it a go when the final is out. just wish the fanboys would quit being so sensational.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5installing new apps is extremely easy in both ubuntu and fedora.
Just go to the applications menu on the top left corner and click "Install Applications". It couldnt be easier, and it is certainly far better than the way it work on windows or OSX. - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The vista installer is more or less complete functionality wise. Its just an issue of removing the bugs and making it look pretty now.
- vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6for my printer to work I just had to choose it from a list
`sudo apt-get install gstreamer0.8-mad`
install libdvdcss
I still partly agree, video (meaning drivers/codecs) in ubuntu/linux is a pain in general - BeyondALL, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Have you ever tried installing Vista? It's the simplest consept ever, except you miss most of the usual options.
I'd like Vista (and other OS'es) to hava a direct install og the option for a advanced install.
With XP I have a unattended CD made with nLite, really nice :) - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5so?
this is the advantage of releasing every 6 months instead of every 6 years. -
Show 51 - 100 of 206 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is