Ubuntu

[jinn]

http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2009/06/09/ho ... r-desktop/

[bacteria]

Thanks for the tip, i'll give it a go.

[flamepanther]

Could you provide more detail about your video issues? I'm using Ubuntu on an nVidia chipset and have no problems. Type of monitor? Under what conditions is the issue most evident? Etc.

For image editing, I've been using The GIMP for a long time. There's a learning curve involved, but it's a very good, powerful tool.

[lisalover1]

Ubuntu 10.10 was just released on 10/10/10 [yesterday], and has gotten reviews of 10/10. I just upgraded a few hours ago, and I've been loving all the upgrades. It is much faster to use, as well as in startup and shutdown times, and there have been some really fancy updates to the Software Center, making it look a lot like the App Store.

[bacteria]

Been using Ubuntu for a while now and like it. Far better than Windows on many levels.

Had problems recently though, had two computers, one running Windows on a 80Gb drive, and a different computer with a 200Gb and 500Gb drive (the 200Gb drive being the main one, the 500Gb for backups). For some strange reason, for a while, I had to access the files on the 500Gb drive so Ubuntu would recognise the drive was present, so I could play my MP3's which were stored on that drive - inconvenient but got used to it. Then, the 500Gb drive would not "mount" and when doing updates on the 200Gb drive (Ubuntu 10.10) it froze and I had to reboot - ok, however the next time I rebooted the computer (days later), the computer didn't recognise the 200Gb drive either - did once, and managed go get some files copied (using LiveCD option on Ubuntu). My LiveCD for Ubuntu 10.4 didn't want to work anymore, the 10.10 version did but of course as the hard discs weren't present as far as the computer was concerned, that's as far as it went. Moved the 500Gb drive to my Windows computer, Windows couldn't read the disc as it was formatted by Linux of course, but didn't allow me to format the drive either, which I hoped for, just reported the disc as "healthy".

Initially, the Ubuntu 10.10 installation disc didn't recognise the 80Gb drive in the Windows computer, but then did, rebooted a few times, still ok after that, so installed, and using it at the moment - Ubuntu 10.10 installed, and all updates and programs I need.

Wondering if my other computer has a faulty motherboard (it was a little flaky sometimes, even on Windows) and it somehow fragged both of the hard discs so they couldn't be recognised even by another computer (so can't format them - which is strange, my old Windows PC (now Ubuntu not Windows) recognised the 80Gb and 500Gb drive in BIOS, and showed the drive in Windows but wouldn't give it a drive letter or allow formatting) - or did something else happen? I guess my old computer (quite a powerful one, only 3 years old) is toast? Removed the 500Gb drive, only using one 80Gb drive which is big enough for everything I have anyway (21Gb spare at the moment).

I don't file share, download anything remotely "dogdy" off the net or open attachments or anything like that; I just use Ubuntu and some of its included programs and use Firefox (with noscript and WOT for protection when browsing for new sites for modding info) and that's it.

I lost some files due to the failed drives, however not much as use an external hard drive for backups (fortunately).

Regards Openquake - I notice on Quakelive they so a Linux version of Quake 3 (browser) now, so you can play the proper version - not tried it yet though!

[Hatta]

Yeah, sounds like a hardware issue. If you can't boot a linux live CD and mount your drives then it's almost certainly hardware. Hate it when that happens. :/

[bacteria]

Yeah, nevermind - bought a SATA hard disk to USB gadget, you slap in the hard disk into the unit and off you go - confirmed one of my other drives is fine, the 500Gb one was seen in Ubuntu but not visible, however got it ok in Windows XP (via my laptop) and deleted the partition, so can not format it and get the drive working again! Yay! £30 well spent; also, gives another backup facility too.

[Hatta]

That's odd. Sometimes a drive will be picked up by the kernel, but the GUI misses it. Usually it will show up on a live CD though. Dunno what happened here.

[bacteria]

Yeah, odd - didn't show on the LiveID disk either; showed on the "places" but if you clicked it, only eventually gave an error; in the disk utility program it just gave a continual hourglass symbol; didn't allow you to format the drive or mount or unmount it either.

Are there viruses on Ubuntu that can wreck a computer motherboard like that, or was I just unlucky? Would be interesting to know; although i'll probably just buy a new barebones computer off Novatech, with motherboard, CPU, heatsink and fan and 4 Gb RAM in a case for about £170-£190 and have done with it - like I did on my current computer - I have a perfectly fine graphics card, monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard disks; only need a barebones computer again.

One other question, when formatting a disk it goes to standard option of master boot record and Ext4, are these the best for Ubuntu? That's what my current drive is set to (with Ubuntu installed), it had NTFS on it before (as was Windows XP); my 500Gb drive and 200Gb drives need to be formatted NTFS as that's the only option I get off Windows. Spoke to someone today in Maplins who seemed to think drives for Ubuntu should be format to GUID and not master boot record, and also Ext3 not Ext4. Is he correct, if so, why, and does it make any difference and worth doing; does Ubuntu get unstable for example or what? If that's the case, when why would Ubuntu set defaults as master boot record and Ext4 off Ubuntu 10.10 ? Thoughts?

[Hatta]

Are there viruses on Ubuntu that can wreck a computer motherboard like that, or was I just unlucky?

Not that I'm aware of. It would be pretty big news if it were. Probably just the luck of the draw with the motherboard.

One other question, when formatting a disk it goes to standard option of master boot record and Ext4, are these the best for Ubuntu?

I have always used MBR, just because that's what I'm used to and I haven't needed the extra features GUID provides. I am pretty sure you will need MBR to boot Windows XP anyway. As long as everything boots, and you don't need partitions over 2TB, it doesn't much matter which way you do it.

As for the file system, Ext3 has been around forever and is extremely stable. I built my system when Ext4 was brand new, so I stuck with tried and true ext4. These days even Google is using Ext4, so I'd feel comfortable using it too. Ext4 does have some nice features like journal checksumming that will help ensure the integrity of the file system. Either way, it's not a big deal. File systems only really matter when you're serving up a high availability database or some such.