Tips on moving to Linux?

[cgutjahr]

Maybe you guys can take the "Linux sucks" discussion to some other thread?

1. What type of Linux would be the most widely compatible and still good on a system from about 8 years ago (specs above)?

Ubuntu is the most beginner friendly one, has the biggest and most friendly user base (i.e. very easy to get help) and comes with comfortable workarounds for problems like proprietary drivers.

Ubuntu switched to a new desktop a few years ago though. The change is not as extreme as the one in Windows 8, but it's driven by the same idea ("same GUI on Desktop and handheld/touch devices") and it might take some time to get used to it.

If Ubuntu's desktop ("Unity") is not your cup of tea, use Linux Mint instead. It's based on Ubuntu, but uses more traditional desktops.

2. For my purposes (gradual immersion), should I create a partition on the 160GB hard drive for Linux, or buy a 32GB or 64GB USB stick and install on that?

Ubuntu (and Linux Mint, IIRC) can be tested using "Live" DVDs/USB sticks. You might want to try that first.

Ubuntu can also be installed in parallel to an existing Windows install, without having to reformat your existing harddisk partitions. There even used to be an option to install Ubuntu into a directory on your Windows partition, that's a killer feature if you just want to "check it out" - not sure if that option is still available.

3. Any tips or good guides on creating a dual boot system?

If Linux is the second OS you install, the install process usually takes care of everything - including stuff like importing Firefox bookmarks from the Windows partition.

5. Any tips on creating a Linux partition on a hard drive WITHOUT having to destroy and re-install the XP partition that already exists there (i.e. Swissknife?)?

Ubuntu does that for you. You should still create backups first, obviously.

7. Are all Linux strains compatible? I don't want to be stuck with a Linux branch that can't run common binaries.

Mostly compatible, but might require some work. If you choose one of the big distributions (again: Ubuntu), you won't encounter Linux software that you can't run. Ubuntu and Mint are compatible (mostly, depending on what versions of what libraries a particular Ubuntu/Mint version is using.).

8. In future, will I always need a Windows XP partition to run my legacy Windows XP applications, or is Wine under Linux good enough now?

Depends on the apps. Wine is quite usable for a lot of stuff, games might need a problem.

Personally, I'd simply install Virtualbox and run WindowsXP under Linux. For safety reasons, make sure it doesn't have net access. Virtualbox can hide the actual Desktop and make the windows of your Win applications behave like windows of native applications (move them around on the desktop etc.)

The things I am going to miss most are the EXCELLENT (truly outstanding) quality of WinVICE and WinUAE emulators on Windows.

VICE on Linux should be as good as WinVICE, FS-UAE is using a different approach than WinUAE (Launcher + Emulator excutable, + "ingame" menus that can be used via Joystick) but is very good already and improving constantly.

[cgutjahr]

Hey, I almost forgot:

There's another, more important decision to make when checking out Linux: Which Desktop to use - on Linux, you have a choice. Ubuntu and (AFAIK) Linux Mint come in different 'flavours', using different Desktops.

Simplified overview:

KDE: Imagine a traditional Windows desktop with a ton of configuration options thrown in.

Gnome 2: The Mac approach - not many configuration options, but trying to give the user a simple and elegant default look and feel.  Abandoned by the original developers, now continued by a new team as "MATE")

Gnome Shell/Unity: Two projects trying to create a GUI that fits all kind of devices. They got rids of the traditional desktop elements ("Start" menu, some sort of dock/taskbar etc.) replacing them with new ideas, like: touch the top left corner of the screen to get a stylish overview over all running apps, click on the one you want to switch to.

XFCE/LXDE: Basically clones of Gnome2, with an emphasis on using fewer ressources. Good for older machines with less memory.

[cgutjahr]

Anectodally?  Its still poor if 1 in 5 are not happy.

It's 1 in 6. And while these numbers are completely made up of course, 1 in 6 would still be a major improvement over Windows.

No-one runs operating systems, they run applications. Its a core app that runs on the Linux platform. It matters.

"Windows is a pile of crap because of all the malware"
"Windows sucks because it has Origin, Uplay and all that DRM crap"

Blaming Linux for any alleged problems in LibreOffice is stupid for several reasons. For once, nobody's forcing you to run LibreOffice: there are various commercial alternatives, like Kingsoft Office and Softmaker Office. You can even run MS Office under Wine, if you really have to.

And if you "have to use Powerpoint collaboratively" - maybe, just maybe that's not the most fair test case for LibreOffice? I know it's a common complaint, but if you're expecting LibreOffice to be a 100% compatible drop-in replacement to MS Office, you (a) don't have a clue about Microsoft's history apparently and (b) look like you are just making up excuses for bashing LibreOffice. If your employer wants you to use Powerpoint collaboratively, that's what you use, obviously. I'm not blaming British car manufacturers for mounting the wheel on the wrong side of the car - I simply don't buy British cars for use on German streets (Yay, a car analogy!)

I was very open to Linux in 2007.

I tried Windows in 1987, and I was very open to it. I can tell you from personal experience that Windows is a total pile of crap.

Btw., what's the Windows version that was current in 2007? Vista? Enough said.

In 2007, Ubuntu was less than a year old - give it a try now. I'm not using it myself, but I usually install it for people who are sick of Windows or want to try Linux for some reason. I didn't get any complaints so far.

small update caused some conflict somewhere.

There are problems like that, with any OS. I never encountered one of them myself, and from what I see in the forums, not many other people do. You do have to keep an eye on what hardware you use, of course. Drivers usually take a short while to arrive/mature after a new product is released.

I actually think the rock solid and idiot proof software update mechanisms on Linux - that keep all of your software up-to-date automatically - are one of the best things about Linux.
 

How do I fix it?  Oh lucky i dual booted with XP to get online to work it out
[...]
Thats right if you go Linux, keep a Windows machine handy-you'll need it.

Erm... these days you simply boot from a Linux Live DVD or a USB stick. The same Linux Live DVD a Windows user would have to use in a similar scenario, btw. (due to lack of Windows Live DVDs).

The OP needs to hear the good and the bad- and no its not the user's fault either.

"The bad" being "it totally destroyed my machine in 2003"? That's not going to help much, since he has no clue if he's going to encounter hardware issues with his setup - booting a live DVD should give him a clue, and he might want to list his hardware here so people can point out potential troublemakers (there aren't many left in 2014).

For anything else, the sane approach would be to install Linux in a virtual machine - provided his hardware is up to the task.

I'm not saying Linux doesn't have its problems. But having Windows users (of all people) complain about "terrible UI issues" or "random dependency problems" is pure comedy.

[cgutjahr]

I myself keep Windows around because its simply the easiest to use.

It isn't - it's simply the one you know better. How much Windows experience do you have, and how much Linux/Unix experience?

I often struggle with Windows, simply because I'm not used to it as much as I'm used to Linux.

it IS a harder OS to maintain and when it crashes it gets ugly.

How is Linux "hard to maintain"? Once you get it running, it mostly maintains itself.

But I agree that if you do run into problems, it gets a little hairy - but a bit of research on the net usually delivers a solution. And again: Windows problems often require changes in the registry and similar low-level interaction with the system. That fits my definition of "ugly" aswell ;-)

On the other hand, I've had Ubuntu around for the last several years and its really easy to install and works pretty well.

I think it comes down to:

1. do you have hardware that's not properly supported?
2. are you messing with the system without really knowing what you're doing?

Many Windows users trying out Linux seem to struggle with the second one. E.g. they're used to always having the latest version of Firefox and Thunderbird on their system, while their distribution stays with one major version for months and only delivers security and bugfix updates in the mean time.

The former Windows user wants to change that, so he starts googling for a solution, adding repositories to the package manager or downloading and installing packages without having a clue what he's doing and what problems that may cause.

If your hardware is supported and you stick with the package manager for installing software, you're in operating system heaven AFAIC.

[cgutjahr]

So I choose the first option "Install Lubuntu alongside Windows XP..."

They probably went too far when simplifying the install process? Think about it: you asked the installer to install "alongside" Windows XP", not to replace it - I guess that's why the installer won't let you select the first HD... Bad choice, obviously.

I wouldn't recommend using the partitioning tool if this is your first time installing Linux. It's actually easy to use (you should be familiar with the concept from using the Amiga's HDToolbox) and it will warn you when data gets destroyed - but better be safe than sorry.

I recommend disconnecting the media HD before starting the installation process.

[cgutjahr]

Cracking open the case and fiddling with IDE cables just to install an OS is not my definition of "just works" or "user friendly".  I'm discouraged to say that this is not a wholly positive first impression of Linux/Lubuntu.

I agree to a certain extent - your setup could have been handled better. But keep in mind that...

1. you could have solved the problem using the installer, if you had used the partitioning tool
2. installing Windows alongside Linux isn't possible at all - so far Linux beats Windows hands down, as far as you are concerned

[cgutjahr]

Number 2 is an utter falsehood.  I have several systems at home that have Windows 7 installed along side Linux.

I was talking about installing Windows without having your existing operating systems wiped off the disk - which isn't possible.

It's just a pity for your argument that it was Linux that was causing the problem. It sounds like you'd defend Linux to the end.

I wasn't making an argument, I was joking. You know, I tried to illustrate that by putting a smilie behind it - stupid me.

ral-clan was disappointed with his his very first Linux experience - I'm simply trying to put that in context. Yeah, that was a (minor) bug, but a slight inconvenience while doing things that Windows can't do at all isn't exactly a reason to ditch Linux.

Maybe he should try reinstalling WIndows XP on his 160 GB HD (it doesn't even support 160 GB out of the box, does it?) to realize what he's been putting up with so far

(psxphill: that last paragraph was another joke)

[cgutjahr]

What they should do is make two partitions on that 160 GB HD, install WinXP on one of those partitions, and after that Linux on the other. Problem solved.

That's more or less what he's doing (shrink the Windows XP partition without data loss, install Lubuntu in the free space).

Of course it does, why wouldn't it?

I'm really not an expert on Windows, but the way I remember it the original Windows XP had a 128 GB limit. If your install CD already contains SP1, you should be fine, but I think you couldn't create partitions bigger than 128 GB otherwise, you had to 'fix' them with partition magic later on, IIRC.

I might remember it wrong, and it's only become an issue because people had to use XP for so long, my apologies for bringing it up. Let's go back on topic and discuss the merits and problems of WIndows 8.1 please

[cgutjahr]

Again, you're spreading falsehoods.

Of course you can install Windows after Linux (the "after" part being my whole point) - if you're willing to create the necessary partitions from within Linux and manually restore and modify the Master Boot Record after installing Windows. But I wouldn't call that "Windows offering the same install options as Linux", so I jokingly told ral-clan he shouldn't blame Linux for not being user friendly.

Better now?

[cgutjahr]

No, you're still spreading falsehoods.  Every system I have in my home had Windows installed first, and then I installed Linux.

This is  now the fourth (and definitely the last) time that I tell you I'm talking about the other case where one is trying to install Windows after Linux.

Please read what you're replying to, it would have saved both of us quite some time.

[cgutjahr]

It also identifies another undesignated 3GB partition on the disk (not sure what that is).

Linux uses a separate partition called "swap" or "swap space" for saving virtual memory to disk. This results in better performance, and said partition can not be invalidated since no filesystem is involved.

So I hope I'm covered.

I don't have experience with backing up multi boot setups. But as far as Linux is covered, backing up your home directory (/home/USERNAME/) usually means everything you want to keep is save. You can (re)install Linux or install it on a different computer and after copying back the contents of your home directory, everything is set up the way it used to be. You'll have to reinstall the additional applications you were using of course, but their configurations have been preserved aswell.

(Most of these important config files and directories are hidden files starting with a dot. navigate to your home directory and press Control-H to see them)

[cgutjahr]

You made earlier statements that it was impossible to have Windows and Linux coexist on the same system at all.

My first post in  this thread says: "Ubuntu can also be installed in parallel to an existing Windows install, without having to reformat your existing harddisk partitions".

Not sure what thread you're reading, certainly not this one.

[cgutjahr]

Not sure if I should install AVAST for Linux, AVG for Linux or COMODO for Linux.

You don't need to install any of them. They all just scan for Windows malware, they're intended for people running stuff like mail servers.

Just install all available software updates as soon as they're available (it's automated, anyway), and stick with the official software repositories - or at least be very careful what other repositories you add. You won't encounter any malware issues that way.

[cgutjahr]

For God's sake, why isn't there an app for this that doesn't require the use of a terminal?

There is, of course. It's just a lot easier to tell him "open terminal and type 'foo'" than writing half a novel explaining where to click, what it's called and how it will react.

I feel like I'm back in the '80s with crap like this.

Then use Synaptic and the Gnome System Monitor (or whatever equivalent Lubuntu is using) to do the tasks described above.

The rest of us will enjoy the beauty that is the Unix terminal in the meantime.

[cgutjahr]

All distro's are on this hamster wheel to up the version number that stability is secondary to having the latest.

And on top of that, Linux is making our children gay! I saw it with my own eyes!