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
brennans - Sunday, August 30, 2009 - link
I use both XP64 and Hardy (Ubuntu 8.04).I am also a power user.
Both these operating systems have pros and cons.
Cons for XP64:
1. It does not recognize my hardware properly.
2. Finding 64 bit drivers was/is a mission.
Cons for Hardy:
1. It does not plug and play with my hardware (i have to compile the drivers).
2. Not as user friendly as windows.
Pros for XP64:
1. Windowing system is super fast.
2. User friendly.
Pros for Hardy:
1. Recognizes my hardware.
2. Command line tools are awesome.
Conclusion:
I think that the article was good.
I am one of those people who has always had problems installing windows straight out of the box and thus find that paying a large amount of money for their buggy OS is unacceptable.
I can get a lot of stuff done with Hardy and it is free and if I find a problem with it I can potentially fix that problem.
I also find it unacceptable that manufacturers do not write software (drivers or application software for their devices) for Linux.
For me, it is difficult to live without both XP64 and Hardy.
ciukacz - Sunday, August 30, 2009 - link
http://www.iozone.org/">http://www.iozone.org/JJWV - Sunday, August 30, 2009 - link
How can people use something like Aero and its Linux or OSX equivalents (that pre-dates it if I am not mistaken) ? The noise is just hiding the information. Transparency is one issue, another are those icons that are more like pictures : one looses the instant recognition. With Aero knowing which is the active window is not something obvious, you have to look at small details. The title of the window is surrounded by mist making it more difficult to read. Even with XP the colour gradient in a title bar is just noise : there is no information conveyed by it.The OS GUIs are more and more looking like those weird media players, with an image of rotary button that is to be manipulated like a slide button.
The evolution of all applications to a web interface reminds me of the prehistory of personal computers : each program has its own interface.
The MS Office Ribbon UI is just in the same vein: more than 20 icons on each tab. The icon interface is based on instant recognition and comprehension, when you have so many it turns into a mnemonics exercise. And of course with MS one does not have a choice : you just have to adapt to the program. An end user is only there to be of service to the programs ;-)
If i want to look at a beautiful image I will do it, but the when I want to write an letter or update a database all those ultra kitsch visual effects are just annoying.
As a summary the noise is killing the information and thus the usability.
Ronald Pottol - Saturday, August 29, 2009 - link
The thing with windows has been seen before, back in the win 3.1-OS/2 days it was found that while one instance of excel didn't run any faster under OS/2, two in separate VMs (ok, not technically the same thing) ran in about the same time as one on windows.I like the package management, and hate when I have to install something that doesn't support it, it means I have to worry about updates all my self. If they have one, they I get updates every time I check for Ubuntu updates, very handy. Nice to get the nightly Google Chrome builds, for instance (still alpha/very beta).
Frankly, supporting binary kernel drivers would be insane. Now they are stuck supporting code they cannot look at and cannot fix, they cannot fix their mistakes (or are stuck emulating them forever). If they supported them, there would be even more of them, and when they wanted to fix something broken or that was a bad idea, they would have to wait a reasonable amount of time before doing it, so it would be supported. Frankly, I don't see why people don't have automated frameworks for doing this and automated deb/rpm repository generation. I add their repository, when I get a kernel update, perhaps it is held up a day for their system to automatically build a new version, but then it all installs, instead, I am stuck with having to run a very old kernel, or not having 3D on my laptop, for instance.
cesarc - Sunday, August 30, 2009 - link
I found this article very interesting, because is oriented to windows user and is helpful to them because you just didn't die trying it.But you can't blame ubuntu (or any distro), about the pain in the ass a video card's drive could be to install, blame ati and nvidia for been lazy, and if using wine for playing games is not as good as playing in windows blame games company for don't release a GNU/linux version.
Also, the thing about why GNU/linux overpass windows in file management is because ntfs is a BAD file system, maybe if windows somehow could run under ext3 would be even better than it is.
And why your negligence to use a console (stop saying cli please), you are not opening your mind trying to use GNU/linux as a windows just because it is not windows is a completely different os. Look from this point of view... something that you can do in windows with 5 clicks maybe you can do it in GNU/linux in just one line of bash code. So, sometimes you will use GUI and others you will use console and you will find that having this options is very comfortable. So start using the console and do the same article a year later.
I hope some day have a paid version of GNU/linux (still open source), that could pay salaries to programers to fix specific issues in the OS.
In the other hand, when you do the IT benchmark is very disappointing that you don't use linux with those beautiful Xeons. Servers environment is were GNU/linux get stronger. And Xeons with windows are just toys compared with unix on sparcs or power architectures.
PS: try to get 450 days of uptime in a windows 2003.
rkerns - Saturday, August 29, 2009 - link
Ryan,Thanks for your good work.
Many people considering linux are still on dial-up. These are often folks with lesser expertise who just want to get connected and use their computer in basic ways. But getting connected with dial-up is something of an adventure with many distros and/or versions. Ubuntu 9.04 has moved away from easy dial-up, but Mint7KDE includes KPPP for simple dial-up connection. Mint7KDE has other nice features as well.
I am asking you to expand your current picture of the landscape to include people who want to use linux with a dial-up connection. This of course would have to include a brief discussion of 1) appropriate modems and 2) distro differences. Thanks,
r kerns
William Gaatjes - Saturday, August 29, 2009 - link
GRATIShijg hijg hijg hijg
hijg hijg hijg hijg
lgude - Saturday, August 29, 2009 - link
Really glad to find this in depth article after all this time. Thank you Ryan. I too have run Ubuntu as my main OS even though most of my experience is in Windows and have had similar experiences. Because this was a very long article it got into detail about things like the Package Manager or the multiple desktops that I have not seen discussed elsewhere from a user perspective. As someone else pointed out it is moot what people would like or complain about if they were moving from Linux to Windows or OSX, but imagine for a moment if they were used to getting the OS and all their apps updated in one hit and were asked to do it one app at a time and expected to pay for the privilege!If you go on with the Linux series I'd like to see discussion of the upcoming Ubuntu and other distros - I've been impressed with SUSE. I'd also like to see projects on how to build a Linux server and HTPC - including choice of distro and the kind of hardware needed. I'm less sure of where benchmarking is really useful - the tradition of detailed benchmarking at AT arose from the interest in overclocking and gaming which I think is a much lesser consideration in Linux. More relevant might be comparisons of netbook specific distros or how to work out if that old P4 will do as a home server. There is a lot of buzz in the tech world about things like Symbion, Chrome OS, Moblin, Maemo on portable devices that could possibly draw new readers to the Linux tab at AT. A great start in any case.
jmvaughn - Saturday, August 29, 2009 - link
I just wanted to say thank you to the author for a very thorough article. After reading it, I decided to use Ubuntu for a PC I'm building out of spare parts for a retired friend who's on fixed income. My friend just uses web, e-mail, and some word processing, so this will be perfect.The article gave me a good idea of what to expect -- a good honest appraisal with all the good and bad. After installing Ubuntu 9.0.4, I am very impressed. The install was very quick, and easier than XP. Everything is quite snappy, even though it's running on a AMD 3800+ single core processor and an old hard drive.
xchrissypoox - Saturday, August 29, 2009 - link
I only skimmed the article (I saw the part on gaming being poor), I'd like to see a comparison of several games using the same hardware on windows and linux (results given in fps). If this has been mentioned sorry and good day.