New hdd coming would like to do straight Linux [Archive]

ericacek

04-10-2007, 09:14 PM

and i'm a total noob at Linux ;) i just wanna say Windows byebye (still keep it on my old hdd though)

Ok i found here on the forums it would probbably be a smart thing to put my hdd in as primary before installation and that i can accomplish - i hope ;)

I also picked my Linux version here:

http://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/

but guess what? i dont even know how the heck download those iso files using http mirror. If i click it it shows me some directory of 4 files and than what do i do? It seems very unintuitive for the file to not download by straight clicking it or even right click save target as.

I mean this simple little thing which is probbably very easy when one knows how to do it will stop TONS of people cause it is not straight forward and has no explanation how to actually download it, that said i'm a noooob but hey there is plenty outthere.

All efforts need to be made for maximum simplicity and straight forwardness :) Linux for the win ;)

please help a noob ;) thank you :)

je_fro

04-10-2007, 09:22 PM

I think what you mean by "intuitive" is actually "the way it works on windows."
That is not the case here.
Anyway, nobody I know of downloads all the debian install cd's. We look for a "netinstall" cd and then install from that. You'll need a little technical information about your computer, such as how it acquires and IP address (most people use routers, and that's DHCP). Anyway, download this image and use whatever burning software you've got to burn a "disc image" and off you go. Find a debian installation walkthrough before you start though.
(right click save as)
http://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/linux/debian-cd/current/i386/iso-cd/debian-31r5-i386-netinst.iso
(read this)
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/2016/The-Very-Verbose-Debian-3.0-Installation-Walkthrough

happybunny

04-10-2007, 09:25 PM

Hi. Welcome to linux and justlinux.com.

I like your choice of distro's, too.

If you have good internet access go here instead: http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/

Grab the 'stable" version of the netinstall CD/DVD of your correct CPU architecture.

When you click it, you will get a huge list of files to pick from....get this: debian-40r0-XXXX-netinst.iso of which ever CPU you have.

Burn that to a CD and boot your new machine off of it.....

The install has become pretty easy...mostly just defaults.

There are many "how to install debian" guides out there...find one and you can say byebye to Windows forever

ladoga

04-11-2007, 05:34 AM

Grab the 'stable" version of the netinstall CD/DVD of your correct CPU architecture.

I would suggest "testing" version for everyone running debian on desktop unless they have a good reason to run "stable".

Right now it doesn't make a big difference as Etch just went from testing to stable, which means that both branches are virtually identical. This will change over the time ofcourse. New software will be available in Debian Lenny ("testing"), while Debain Etch "stable" is frozen and only gets security updates.

As you say netinstall image is a must. :)

ladoga

04-11-2007, 06:31 AM

I also picked my Linux version here:

http://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/

Great choice. :D

but guess what? i dont even know how the heck download those iso files using http mirror. If i click it it shows me some directory of 4 files and than what do i do? It seems very unintuitive for the file to not download by straight clicking it or even right click save target as.

I mean this simple little thing which is probbably very easy when one knows how to do it will stop TONS of people cause it is not straight forward and has no explanation how to actually download it, that said i'm a noooob but hey there is plenty outthere.

I think it's pretty straight forward for those who know what they are after. There are many types of installation methods and many types of architechtures supported. It wont simply work with one download button.

Say we are here...
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
If i want netinstall image for my CPU architechture (i386) it's easy to find it there and i click on i386. Which sends me here:
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/i386/iso-cd/
then i just click debian-testing-i386-netinst.iso to download it.

All efforts need to be made for maximum simplicity and straight forwardness :) Linux for the win ;)
Given the number of archs and options I think that it is as simple as it can be.
Debian also makes wgetting the lastest daily image from CLI easy, by having constatly same filenames and urls. So for me that's as simple as it possibly can get. No need to even open the web browser.

please help a noob ;) thank you :)
I think with simple and easy you mean something like this:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download

Best thing in linux is that almost everyone can find a distro that fits his/her needs. Ubuntu might be simplicity for you, while Debian is simple for me ;)

saikee

04-11-2007, 06:45 AM

I differ somewhat on the choice of the distro.

If one must have a Debian I would suggest Knoppix.

There is nothing wrong with Debian but being a mainstream distro it gives priority to stability at the expense of staying with older kernels and software. The worst part of it is everything is long and complicated by the modern statandard. To start with you have download several CDs.

Knoppix is a more modern variant of Debian. Only one iso image to download. It can run on itself as a Live CD. Knoppix installer is one of the easiest to work with and ask for the minimum number of questions. It is a lot easier on a newbie.

One can have Debian later when one has gether a basic understanding of Linux.

For my money I would probably try Slax as I can log in as root to the GUI there. It mounts all my partition (so does Knoppix but not Debian) and so I could work on my Windows files immediately in Linux, play MP3, see photos, edit documents etc. Knoppix does not permit a root user in GUI without some hacking.

IsaacKuo

04-11-2007, 11:29 AM

I'd recommend Debian Stable (Etch) instead of Debian Testing (Lenny). Sure, it will get old and out of date, but a newbie isn't going to notice any of that until he buys new hardware in the future which Etch doesn't support.

I think you should stick with Debian Stable unless/until you have a reason to use Debian Testing.

I'd recommend the net-installer, as everyone else did also, unless your internet connection is very slow.

I'd recommend downloading Knoppix also. It's a great LiveCD, and gives you a way to access your files and repair your system if you do something that blows up the OS. I'm not so sure about the Knoppix hard drive install, though...it's something of an afterthought.

Hmm...overall, I'll second the recommendation to start off with Knoppix. A Knoppix hard drive installed system is rather quirky, and not quite compatible. Eventually, the quirks will get to you and you'll go to a normal Debian install.

Also, Knoppix is awesome for the impatient. You can actually browse the internet and play a game of Frozen Bubble during the install!

ladoga

04-11-2007, 04:33 PM

There is nothing wrong with Debian but being a mainstream distro it gives priority to stability at the expense of staying with older kernels and software. The worst part of it is everything is long and complicated by the modern statandard.
That's what testing (the sweet spot IMO) and unstable (bleeding edge) branches are for. And hell...even stable has currently 2.6.18 kernel.

To start with you have download several CDs.

Not true. Netinstall or businesscard (32MB!) images are way to go unless you're cut from internet.

ericacek

04-11-2007, 05:26 PM

wooot, thanks you guys for all the replies, i'll check it out soon and post my progress here :)

What i mean by simple is this:

Say im a house wife who has computer with Windows on it and doesn't know much bout computers. Someone says something about Linux - still i have no clue other than ok it's some other OS. At this point i might be willing to try it.
At this point there needs to be super simple 1 click Linux install of any kind which you simply download like any other file in windows by simply clicking it. Than pop up window comes up saying install, you click that. Done.

If it's any more complicated than that huge amounts of people wont even try it. It could be minimalistic simple Linux version created for the "Hook effect" only with only basic stuff on it. If people have to start burning CDs a lot of them will just say forget it and it stops right there.

I'll ilustrate my situation. I have 250G harddrive coming my way, ideally i would download a Linux file using my windows right now. By just clicking it like any other file. Than my hdd arrives. I install Linux on it by just clicking install and choosing the path.
When it comes to downloading manuals on how to install and finding out all kinds of stuff prior to doing it mass amounts of people will just simply not go there.
Or the install itsself would have a little menu where the basic info i need would be asked of me preferably with build in software which would automatically find that info for me :)

Anyways i'll update here on my progress ;) and thanks again

je_fro

04-11-2007, 06:13 PM

See, I'm kinda glad there's a bit of a "filtering process" that keeps most people from ever popping in that install CD. Can you imagine the flood of people coming here and whining "OMG! I can't download .exe's and install spyware?!? Linux SUX!" if a major computer manufacturer ever started preloading linux and relying on community-based support?
Oh, wait, there is one: http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2187517/dell-linux-set-shake-market

*sigh*

Anyway, if all your hardware is very commonplace then ubuntu has got about a 6-click install from what I hear...

happybunny

04-11-2007, 08:32 PM

UbuntuUbuntuUbuntuUbuntuUbuntuUbuntuUbuntuUbuntuUb untuUbuntuUbuntuUbuntu

Have you heard about Ubuntu? http://www.ubuntu.com/

Maybe a double click install...possibly 3 clicks.

Chess007

04-11-2007, 11:52 PM

simplicity is what you want? How about this, lets compare installs.

To install Windows:

You put the Windows cd in, you click some things, enter some information and then enable your firewall. (Hopefully you dont have wired ethernet connected or you will get spyware/viruses within a matter of minutes.) Average life of a Windows machine directly connected to the net without a firewall on = 10 minutes.

After firewall is enabled, hook in the the ethernet cable, and use windows update to download all the critical updates. This can literally take hours! With multiple restarts!

To install Ubuntu:
Request a free cd. Its sent to you at no cost, not even shipping.
https://shipit.ubuntu.com/

You put the cd in, restart Windows, and if its a live cd (I think it is) wait a little bit and Ubuntu comes up. If you want to install it, there's soemthing to click on I belive and then you click some things, enter some information and its installed.

Notice that there's no multiple restarts. Notice that you dont have to wait hours and hours while your computer updates and restarts. Also notice that its free!

The way ubuntu is set up, if you double click on a .deb (a program file, think of it like a .exe) it trys to install. There's also a program called a package manager that has literally thousands of programs you can download, install and use for free - all with a few clicks.

I's say go ubuntu not pure debian.

je_fro

04-12-2007, 12:11 AM

Whoops, I didn't mean to link to such a lame article that's based on bogus information from that jackass Rob Pretenderle.

ericacek

04-12-2007, 01:00 AM

:) hmm it looks like i will have to check this ubuntu thing ;)
thanks guys for the replies

IsaacKuo

04-12-2007, 02:04 AM

Whether you try Ubuntu or Debian, do NOT go around installing .deb files! Instead, use Debian's package manager (Ubuntu uses Debian's package manager).

In Windows, you've probably become used to hunting around on the web for software and then downloading them and then manually installing them one by one by clicking. You think that's easy?

Ha! With Debian's package management system, the computer goes and finds/downloads software. But what makes Debian's package management system so great is that it will determine if any other software needs to be installed or updated, and there is a high quality of testing out those updates.

If you just install a .deb file, then the result will be little better than what you had in Windows. The package management software may not keep the software up to date automatically.

Just one piece of advice if you go with Ubuntu--unfortunately, there are a bunch of Ubuntu fans who irrationally HATE Debian. Why? I don't know. Just don't become one of them. Ubuntu's great; so is Debian.

ladoga

04-12-2007, 11:48 AM

Just one piece of advice if you go with Ubuntu--unfortunately, there are a bunch of Ubuntu fans who irrationally HATE Debian. Why? I don't know. Just don't become one of them. Ubuntu's great; so is Debian.

That's something I noticed too. It's quite naive and uninformed attitude me thinks.

Either these people don't have any experience using Debian or they are ones that would want Debian to be a ready tailored desktop distro. To latter I would say: What's the point? Ubuntu is just that!

What these people fail to see is that Debian is a foundation, a very versatile, stable and easy to use base over which you can tailor you own kind of system. You can select excellent stability and security of the stable release or live on the bleeding edge using unstable. You can select the apps and the user interface for your desktop/server/PDA/lappy/whatever according to your needs.

These exactly the reasons why Debian is used as basis of so many other distros. That's why it's used on so many devices ranging from Nokia N800 Internet Tablet with it's ARM11/PowerVR CPUs (yes, it's running Debian GNU/Linux as its default OS, out of the box) to Sun servers with 64-bit SPARC.

I always recommend Ubuntu to people who don't want to configure and install every application by themselves and I think it's a great distro. But comparing Debian and Ubuntu (as in which one is better) is simply not possible, it depends completely of needs of the user. For anyone who wants to build his own kind of system and interface Debian is clearly leaps and bound better, because thats what it's intended for. For people who want something ready and preconfigured by someone else, but immediately usable, Ubuntu is way better choice.

I think I know what I'm talking about. I've used every Ubuntu release since it's first incarnation Warty (2004.10), but all my personal computers are currently running Debian testing. In my experience the software in Debian testing is more stable than what's available in Ubuntu. Some Ubuntu packaged apps are outright broken. It's pretty similar situation to Debian unstable's and results from no testing required or even being possible before issuing the package into repositories. In debian such packages could never pass into testing, nevermind stable. Otherwise both distros are of similar good quality.

retsaw

04-12-2007, 12:18 PM

Say im a house wife who has computer with Windows on it and doesn't know much bout computers. Someone says something about Linux - still i have no clue other than ok it's some other OS. At this point i might be willing to try it.
At this point there needs to be super simple 1 click Linux install of any kind which you simply download like any other file in windows by simply clicking it. Than pop up window comes up saying install, you click that. Done.

Other people have mentioned Ubuntu already, but no-one has mentioned this installer (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/install.exe) for it (I'm linking to the wiki page rather than the main download site since it has more info about the project). It is an unofficial installer and it is still in beta, but it does almost exactly what you want. It carries out the whole installation from Windows and then modifies the Windows bootloader to boot Ubuntu (note: it does not yet work on Vista because MS changed how the bootloader works) which runs from a file on your Windows partition. It may not be a single click, but is no more complicated than most installers for Windows.

mrrangerman43

04-12-2007, 02:35 PM

retsaw

04-13-2007, 06:23 AM

retsaw

Linux is linux and windows is, well, less than linux IMHO If I were to move to Spain to live, I would be forced to learn their language to survive. If the windows community wants to come over to the world of linux, I say great.(I'm doing it) But they should do it the linux way, this tring to make linux like window will only hurt linux. What is so hard about burning a .iso image and booting to it? If they're not willing to learn even that, and they do get a linux system up and running, when they do run into a problem, they'll just through up their hands and quit. And after that, everyone they talk to about linux will get a negative outlook on it.
But if they go into linux with the additude of learning, and doing it the linux way, they will, I think have a more rewarding outcome.

What is difficult about burning an .iso? Well, people do come along to linux forums every now and then with trouble booting the CD because they didn't burn it correctly as an .iso, so I think the problem there is that Windows doesn't make it easy to do so. Another problem is that you may not have a spare CD-R. Another is that your only machine is a laptop without a CD drive, yes it is still possible to install Linux in this situation, but it isn't easy especially for a newbie.

The real advantage of the Windows installer however, is that it allows anyone to install Ubuntu just like they would any other Windows program. This allows them to try out Linux properly (LiveCDs are slow and aren't easily customizable) without risking anything, they don't have to repartition their hard drive, they can still use everything they are familiar with while the installation is taking place and if they don't like it they can uninstall it the same as any other Windows program, which is easier than removing a conventional Linux install.

If the user decides they like it, they can then try a proper Linux install afterwards and they will be more motivated to work through any problems since they now know they like it.

Having an extra installation method is in no way a bad thing. Suggesting that they should use a less convenient, more difficult installation method because it make them learn more is, IMO, a bit elitist.

saikee

04-13-2007, 12:49 PM

I probably go half way in this one.

The installer suggested in Ubuntu forum involves a special version of Grub to be installed inside Windows.

While there is nothing wrong to learn a special Grub I would view that is a hindrance to me to learn the real thing. If this user sees the real Grub he/she may not even recognise it, knows where to find its configuration, edit it etc

mrrangerman43 has a good point that in the long term it is better to learn Linux if one intends to survive in it.

I find many things in Linux can be "reasoned it out". Thus the sooner one is familar with it one is in a better position to master it.

There are some Windows users looking short term expediency and specially tailored routines, scripts, programs etc may help them.

retsaw

04-13-2007, 04:48 PM

While there is nothing wrong to learn a special Grub I would view that is a hindrance to me to learn the real thing. If this user sees the real Grub he/she may not even recognise it, knows where to find its configuration, edit it etc

The main difference is that you can install it from Windows, it still has a menu.lst file in the exact same format as the normal version of GRUB.

But that is beside the point, the average user shouldn't need to edit GRUB or know how the internals of Linux works, all the average user should have to learn is the new UI and programs.

Sure, if you are installing Linux with the intention of learning it, then you may be better off going the with a traditional install, but that is still debatable. The first time I installed Linux on an x86 machine*, I actually partially formatted the Windows partition even though I had a spare hard drive for Linux, fortunately I did manage to repair it, but I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't have. This is always a risk with a traditional install, although possibly mitigated by an intelligent installer which won't overwrite FAT32/NTFS partitions and will only resize them if necessary. This risk is avoided completely with this unofficial Ubuntu installer.

Also when I started with Linux way back in 2002, I started off using Mandrake with Lilo as a bootloader, since I now use Arch Linux with GRUB, there is very little that I still use now that I learnt then. I don't think it is really important where you start off with Linux, you can learn something from any Linux and when that distro starts to limit you, then you can move on to a distro that lets you do more stuff for yourself.

* My first Linux experience was on my Amiga.

ericacek

04-14-2007, 02:48 AM

Other people have mentioned Ubuntu already, but no-one has mentioned this installer (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/install.exe) for it (I'm linking to the wiki page rather than the main download site since it has more info about the project). It is an unofficial installer and it is still in beta, but it does almost exactly what you want. It carries out the whole installation from Windows and then modifies the Windows bootloader to boot Ubuntu (note: it does not yet work on Vista because MS changed how the bootloader works) which runs from a file on your Windows partition. It may not be a single click, but is no more complicated than most installers for Windows.

Very nice link retsaw, i completely agree with their reasoning as to why this is the way to spread Linux wider and easier.

Btw just got my hdd(250G) so ubuntu is coming soon into existence on my custom build overclocked 4 years old AMD barton 2500+ with 1.5 gig ram hehe

So a noob question here, what shall i do? just hook it up and let windows format it? and go from there? or run Ubuntu on my old one and use that to format the new one? If it makes any difference which i'm not sure ;)

saikee

04-14-2007, 06:44 AM

If it is my money I hook up the new disk as a slave drive so that it is a hdb in Linux (or sdb if this is your second Sata).

Since I am installing Linux I would use Linux to partition it. The program that you will find in every Linux is fdisk and I would use cfdisk, both are available in terminal mode in a booted up Ubuntu which can be used as a Live CD, by command
sudo cfdisk /dev/hdb
I recommend the Linux basic tool like fdisk or cfdisk for partitioning as they do not do formatting which should be understood a totally different operation.

When you create a partition you only write 16 bytes in the partition table and the partition is untouched. When a partition is formatted a filing indexing system is written in the actual partition.

I would just create a logical partition of 10Gb and then another 1Gb. I would highlight the second partition and choose "Type" and select Type 82 to make it a swap. If nothing is done to the first partition it will be automatically Type 83 suitable for Linux installation. Select "write" the the two partitions will be formed. No need to format.

I would reboot to enable the BIOS to update information about the new partition table, activate the Ubuntu installer and tell it to install in the first 10Gb partition. It is the installer's duty to format the partitions before using them.

This will leave 3 partitions in the hard disk. hdb1 is an extended partition with an open end for me to add a maximum of 60 logical partitions in future if I wish to. The first 10Gb partition will be named hdb5 and the swap will be hdb6. It makes perfect sense to me but a Windows user may wonder where is hdb2 to hdb4. Any Linux can be installed in a 10Gb partition and blowing away 250Gb by using the whole disk is the user's choice.

ladoga

04-14-2007, 01:41 PM

So a noob question here, what shall i do? just hook it up and let windows format it? and go from there? or run Ubuntu on my old one and use that to format the new one? If it makes any difference which i'm not sure ;)
It doesn't matter really. Though there's not much use to partition it in windows as it cant format any other filesystems than it's own.

If you want it simple, just run the ubuntu installer and do partitioning there.

If you want to learn how to use fdisk or cfdisk, then do as saikee says. Note that if you're going to run ubuntu installer from windows as an executable, then it's no go and you will have to partition using installer itself.

I agree that learning how to use command line partitioning tools never goes to waste, but you will surely have time for that later on.

je_fro

04-14-2007, 02:15 PM

Yeah, I'd leave the main master HD alone and install the new drive as slave. These will be detected in linux as hda and hdb. I'd boot the install CD, and create the paritions like so:
hda1 - 512 MB swap
hda2 - 60 GB (mountpoint /)
hda3 - 60 GB ext3 (mountpoint /home)
hda4 - ~130 GB FAT32 (mountpoint /mnt/shared)

john2240

04-16-2007, 09:09 AM

i would have thought a 1gig swap would be more in order depending on how much ram there is, weird stuff happens when you have more ram than swap
Yeah, I'd leave the main master HD alone and install the new drive as slave. These will be detected in linux as hda and hdb. I'd boot the install CD, and create the paritions like so:
hda1 - 512 MB swap
hda2 - 60 GB (mountpoint /)
hda3 - 60 GB ext3 (mountpoint /home)
hda4 - ~130 GB FAT32 (mountpoint /mnt/shared)

je_fro

04-16-2007, 09:14 AM

nope...I have more ram that swap on every box I own....and I never make a swap partition bigger than 512MB, ever.

john2240

04-16-2007, 11:34 PM

nope...I have more ram that swap on every box I own....and I never make a swap partition bigger than 512MB, ever.
funny, how did you do that?
everytime i did it there was always a problem, more often with ubuntu than any other
anyway, next install i'll give it a try just to see whether i can get it to work

IsaacKuo

04-16-2007, 11:51 PM

I never make a swap partition bigger than 512megs either, and on three of my workstations there's no swap at all (they run diskless).

I don't use Ubuntu, but the diskless workstation How-To I used was for Ubuntu, so obviously the guy who wrote that how-to had no problem with a swap-less Ubuntu.

je_fro

04-17-2007, 12:16 AM

When you run out of memory, it doesn't just do "weird stuff". In my experience the machine hard locks or reboots or just kills X and starts over. Even with the heaviest desktop stuff running, if you've got a gig of ram, you shouldn't need more than 256-512MB.

ericacek

04-18-2007, 12:34 AM

Update:
Ok installed Wubi 7.04 on clean brandspanking new hdd and can not boot it - getting Error 17 which wubi developers can not do anything about at this time - the only thing left to do is to lobby Grub programmers. Swopping boot sequences in bios doesn't help.

So back to Debian it seems and burning a CD, lets see if i still remember how to buuurn ;)

Also i noticed Ubuntu is about 3 times the size of Debian .iso file does that mean more functionality or not really?

:) the DvD burning program i used to use was a trial version and is now expired, any tips on a burning DvD software preferably free appreciated ;). Thanks you guys

saikee

04-26-2007, 09:10 AM

ericacek,

If you install any Linux and ask its boot loader to be placed in the MBR, which is the fist sector of the first bootable disk in the booting queue arranged in the Bios, then this Linux will "always" boot. What is out of control is the existing boot loader will has its MBR overwritten rending the existing systems unbootable. You can then proceed to amend the new boot loader to boot the existing systems.

Alternatively you can tell the new Linux to keep its boot loader inside its root partition (therefore keeping the existing MBR intact) and amend the existing boot loader configuration file to boot the new Linux.

Grub Manual is full menu searchable by Google. That is enough for most Linux users. I never read anything else.

If you search "Grub error 17" in the Internet it will return "grub: error 17, cannot mount selected partition" meaning GRub is having difficulty to mount the partition you are asking it to boot. Usually this partition does not exist or wrongly setup by the installer. All is revealed if you take a look at /boot/grub/menu.lst of the new Linux, assuming you know where to find it.

Regarding the difference between Debian and Ubuntu you will find a full set of Debian should be about 5 discs. If it is only 1/3 the size of Ubuntu then you may have just got the network-install version enough just for the front end to the internet and will need to install the full system via a network.

psych-major

04-26-2007, 05:48 PM

So going with the housewife example....

I recently acquired a used PC that I refurbished and gave to my mother-in-law.
The problem:
she lives 2,400 miles away, and she needed all her data from the old Win98 PC moved over to the new WinXP one that was still at my house...

The solution:
I shipped her an external USB hard drive formatted to ReiserFS and a Ubuntu live CD. When it arrived, I had her call me. She turned on the computer, put in the Ubuntu CD and booted, but the BIOS was set to boot from hard drive.
I looked up the manual for her IBM PC and walked her thru changing the boot order to CD, and viola, coming up to Ubuntu.
She was immediately impressed by the look and feel of Ubuntu, and commented that it was running faster and smoother than Win98. This is from CD, mind you...
Anyway, had her go to Places, showed her where her Win98 data lived, and had her plug in the USB external drive. It didn't automount like it usually does, but no worries, had her go to applications, accessories, terminal, and type in the mount command. Viola, USB hard drive opened in a new window.

In local hard drive window, control+A, control+C. In USB drive window, control+V. All files are copying over.

When it finished, had her shut down, pull the CD and USB drive, and boot back to Win98. She mailed the USB drive back to me, and kept the Ubuntu CD for future use.

The point to this whole exercise is that there is NO WAY I could have pulled any of this off without the smooth, dummy-proof interface of Ubuntu. She was so impressed that I considered talking her into using it, but decided not to as she is nervous to try anything new.

To relate it to this thread specifically, if your research has led you to Debian, than you should check out Ubuntu. You'll be up and running in no time, there's a good chance everything will work "out of the box" and you can then take your time and explore this Linux thing at your leisure.

I have been running my corporate laptop on Ubuntu Edgy for a little over 6 months now, and I'm not going back.

(And for the record, I still run Slackware on my file server. Ubuntu is cool, but Slack is bulletproof!)

psych-major

04-26-2007, 05:51 PM

:) the DvD burning program i used to use was a trial version and is now expired, any tips on a burning DvD software preferably free appreciated ;). Thanks you guysHere is an excellent freeware CD/DVD burning tool. Enjoy!
http://www.imgburn.com/

dalek

04-27-2007, 11:46 PM

Well, I'm not going to tell him to try Gentoo since everyone has him confused with all the other distros. LOL It's the beauty of Linux over windoze, you have choices.

Stick with something easy right now. Later on if you see you like Linux, you can try some other distros.

:D :D :D :D :D

blackbelt_jones

04-28-2007, 12:33 AM

I would reccomend kanotix over knoppix, it's a version of knoppix that's configured for a better hard drive install.

In case it's not clear, all of the versions of Linux that have been discussed in this thread are debian-based distributions.

I would be surprised if all the advice you got here has left you feeling confused and overwhelmed. My fist few months of learning linux were frustrating and horrible, but once you learn it, it's learned, and believe me, it's better.

The world is full of people who'll tell you that learning Linux is a waste of time. Nearly all of those people have one thing in common; they've never learned Linux. People who've learned Linux who think it's a waste of time are a whole lot harder to find.

People who got Linux running on the first try may be common, or they may be rare. I don't know, but I'm sure not one of them.

blackbelt_jones

04-28-2007, 12:54 AM

Whether you try Ubuntu or Debian, do NOT go around installing .deb files! Instead, use Debian's package manager (Ubuntu uses Debian's package manager).

In Windows, you've probably become used to hunting around on the web for software and then downloading them and then manually installing them one by one by clicking. You think that's easy?

Ha! With Debian's package management system, the computer goes and finds/downloads software. But what makes Debian's package management system so great is that it will determine if any other software needs to be installed or updated, and there is a high quality of testing out those updates.

If you just install a .deb file, then the result will be little better than what you had in Windows. The package management software may not keep the software up to date automatically.

.

This is awfully good advice, and it's something I had to learn the hard way. Whatever Linux you use, get to know your package manager. Ubuntu and Debian use a command line application called apt-get, which has a graphical frontend called synaptic. My favorite distro is openSUSE which uses a package manager called YAST. Fedora uses a tool called YUM. Mandriva uses something called urpmi, if you can believe that. These are all fairly simple tools that make finding software really easy nearly all of the time. There are other ways of getting software, but your package manager will have you covered 97 percent of the time.

ericacek

04-28-2007, 06:19 AM

Ok update, i finally got to burn me 3 DVDs - iso

Now i have an issue however ;)

I decided to go with Debian the safe version not testing, i got cable so connection is good, got 3 DVD iso Debian files i386 burnt and ready - the newest version. Btw the iso files claimed to be 4.4, 4.4 and 4.3 gig but really were around 300 MB each why is that? Doesn't make sense to me to make 3 Dvds when it would all fit on 1 but hey i'm a noob ;) was i supposed to burn it all on 1?

Put it in, boot from CD (the first one out of 3) and woalaaa Debian set up comes up, i can go through language choices but thats it, next i get "can not find file on CD, make sure its consistent" so for now i will try to reburn the first DVD and see if that helps.

Also my new HDD is still empty but i did format it using Windows if that makes any difference.

Ok guys thank you for all your comments and tips and hopefully this time i'll get it going :)

psych-major

04-28-2007, 10:14 AM

Sounds like you only got about 300 megs of what really is a 4.4 GB file.

If you have cable internet, and want Debian...do the net install as suggested above, Otherwise download the Ubuntu Edgy CD and be done n a few minutes.

saikee

04-28-2007, 10:48 AM

It has been a year or two since I last installed my Debian which is probably the worst distro in term of user-friendliness. Even Gentoo has moved forward offering one-stop Installation/Live CD. I run boot Woody and Sarge and am comparing Debian with 100+ installed distros.

A Kanotix or a Knoppix iso image if mounted on a loop back device will install in between 5 to 6 minutes asking only 5 to 6 questions.

If a newbie want to try Linux stay away from Debian. If he or she must use one on a server then perseveres.

dalek

04-28-2007, 11:15 AM

Heck, I been using Gentoo so long I forgot it had a installer now. I been using Gentoo for about 4 years now I guess. Same install too.

:D :D :D :D :D

ericacek

05-02-2007, 07:51 PM

Ok so i gave up on Debian after reading the walkthrough install, i just don't think i wanna go through that quiet yet. That said i honestly don't like the african music and color theme of Ubuntu and in the end will probbably go through the hassle and get me Debian installed.

However function wise and installation wise Ubuntu is awesome :) overall.
I used netinstall iso burned DVD stable, updated files but stopped short upgrading to 7.04 as that is likely going to take hours.

I have observed few things i think need improvement. Screen resolution 1440 * 900 is not supported? Thats not cool ;) it's the natiove of quiet a few widescreen LCDs including mine :). When i attempt to play certain video files i get message telling me "can't play file plugins missing" however it doesn't tell me what pluggins nor where to find them :).

Also while installing i set partitioning to auto and it made partition of my new HDD 117.7 G for partition 1 so i thought i still can do whatever i need with the rest of the HDD however when i start Ubuntu it seems it claims the entire 250G of the HDD which is not what i wanted it to do. My original HDD is almost full so i wanted to split the new one half Linux half windows for now.

As always all comments appreciated :)

saikee

05-03-2007, 04:38 AM

If you put yourself into Ubuntu position what can you do if someone offers the entire disk to do automatic partitioning? You use the whole disk as this minimises confusion. The user asks for it!

An installed Linux footprint seldom larger than 5Gb with the rest as personal data. All my Ubuntu or Debian if that matters are each held in 5Gb partitions.

To get out of this hole use gparted to resize the partitions to reclaim the hard disk space. It is recommeded that you run the latest gparted as a Live CD as a Linux doesn't like its partitions being resized while in operational mode.

ericacek

05-03-2007, 05:24 AM

saikee

05-03-2007, 06:27 AM

Seem to me that you should clone the original Windows hdd into the new hdd so that the difference in capacity between the two disks becomes unallocated space.

Assuming you hook up the original Windows disk as hda and the new disk as hdc (with the hdb taken by the CD drive) you can boot up any Linux Live CD, say using Ubuntu, and carry out the cloning by just one command in root console
dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdc bs=32768
On completion if you the unplug hda disk and put it away as the back up for the rainy day, unplug hdc disk and connect it to the hda position then you can start using the new disk right away. You don't need to prepare the hdc disk as everything inside will be overwritten. I often use a raw disk straight off a sealed bag after the purchase.

Having satisfied Windows works exactly as before but in the new 250Gb disk you should resize the Windows partition if you need to by downloading the latest gparted Live CD which can relaibly resize XP.

Once you have Windows partition expanded to the size you wish you can then boot up the Linux Live CD and use its cfdisk programmove to partition the remaining disk space.

I would create two logical partitions 1Gb and 10Gb which will be called hda5 and hda6 if your Windows does not use any logical partition before. There is no need to format them. All partitions created by Linux will be type 83 suitable for any Linux installation. You need to alter the type to No. 82 for hda5 to make it into a swap. Altering the partition type is a standard feature in any Linux partition software like fdisk, cfdisk and sfdisk.

It is a good practice to do a reboot everytime you partition a hard disk.

Once you have the partitions ready just boot up Ubuntu CD and "instruct" its installer to install the Linux in the 10Gb partition hda6, have the boot loader in the MBR and you should end up with a perfect dual boot system with Windows occupying half your 250Gb disk as intended, Ubuntu working in 10Gb hda6 and have over 100Gb space ready to add Debian ( or any number of Linux like Gentoo or Knoppix) when you are ready.

You will find putting a Linux into a single partition is a lot easier to maintain, to boot, to resize and ultimately to move around between partitions, between hard disks and between computers.

je_fro

05-03-2007, 09:21 AM

I tried to manually partition it but it was not intuitive and made no sense to me so i skipped that.
Very little in linux will be intuitive...you're going to have to read documentation, unfortunately.

psych-major

05-03-2007, 10:21 AM

That said i honestly don't like the african music and color theme of Ubuntu and in the end will probbably go through the hassle and get me Debian installed.Go to gnome-look.org. There are many themes and styles to choose from. You don't have to settle for the default.
I have observed few things i think need improvement. Screen resolution 1440 * 900 is not supported? Thats not cool ;) it's the natiove of quiet a few widescreen LCDs including mine :).That's exactly the res I'm running now. I get 1680x1050 on my laptop screen, and 1600x1200 on my old 21" CRT. You probably need to load the native driver for your video card. 7.04 will most likely have it included if you use a fairly recent nvidia or ati model.
When i attempt to play certain video files i get message telling me "can't play file plugins missing" however it doesn't tell me what pluggins nor where to find them :). go here (http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~djm/ubuntu/) and step through the instructions. Ubuntu chooses to not include certain proprietary packages for legal reasons.

As always all comments appreciated :)

ericacek

05-03-2007, 09:58 PM

Good tips :) thanks again guys and i'll update again when something happens on my end :)
My Brain is prolly gonna smoke a bit hehe ;)

ladoga

05-08-2007, 03:37 AM

It has been a year or two since I last installed my Debian which is probably the worst distro in term of user-friendliness.
*cough*

With small downloads (which major distro offers smaller iso images?) and installation that is straightforward and quick (10-15min total for base install) I find it exceptionally easy in terms of installation. If you want ready to use desktop, then that's another story. But if you want base which upon you can easily build a desktop/server/whatever that suits your needs then i cant imagine any other distro that would be more user friendly.

Maybe you should try it again. Take Etch or Lenny and install from business card or netinstall .iso (40 or 180MB, your pick.)

Latest installer images for "testing":
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/i386/iso-cd/

Installer images for "stable":
http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/4.0_r0/i386/iso-cd/

ladoga

05-08-2007, 03:55 AM

Btw the iso files claimed to be 4.4, 4.4 and 4.3 gig but really were around 300 MB each why is that?
http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#small-dvd

Anyways. If you have an internet connection then the netinstall images would be way to go. IMO full DVD or CD sets are only useful for someone who doesn't have access to internet or maybe for people on dial-up.

On another note...if you wan't something that just works, no tuning needed I would recommend to stick with Ubuntu. In Debian you'll have to do more than just install codecs and do little editing of /etc/X11/xorg.conf to set up your display resolution.

Distros differ from eachother more than desktop theming and have different target audiences. As a rough generalization:

Ubuntu is a desktop oriented distribution. Ready to use gnome user interface with all the bells and whistles. Target audience is from noobs to more experienced users who are not interested in customizing their system, but rather want something that just works.

Debian is a flexible distribution. Sort of skeleton which upon one can customize a system that fits their needs. Target audience are users who already know what they want and are willing to hand pick software according to their needs.