Which programs/apps can you not live without on Ubuntu/other distro

mrapoc · May 07, 2008, 15:17:04

I have put my laptop back onto ubuntu (dual boot with xp) as i got sick with vista...again

haha

What can you not live without on your linux machines? As its a laptop I doubt i can run compiz but yeh..

State your programs and what you like about it.

Dangerjunkie · May 07, 2008, 22:24:11

Hi,

I think you may be surprised about what it can run. Linux is far more frugal with resources than Vista. For example my old 1.5G Pentium-M Acer with a 400MHz FSB and 1.5GB of RAM was faster running Linux than a brand new Sony Vaio 2G with 800MHz FSB and 2GB of RAM running Vista.

The apps I love and wouldn't want to be without would be:

Mozilla Firefox (Web browser)*
Mozilla Thunderbird (Email)*
GIMP (Graphics - Photoshopalike)*
KFTPGrabber (FTP)
Pidgin (Instant Messenger)*
Wireshark (Network analyser)*
Xine (DVD Player - Needs libdvdnav and libdvdread) **
Adobe Reader *
OpenOffice.org (MS-Office equivalent) *
Synaptic Package Manager
Ark (archiver)
SecondLife (3D virtual world /messenger / game) *
Eve-Online (Game) *
Kate (Text editor)

* = Windows version also available

** = This combination will play unencrypted DVDs. To play encrypted, shop-bought DVDs you will need libdvdcss. The use of this is probably illegal as it cracks the copy protection in order to play the disc and doesn't give a brass ******* about region codes. I will leave it up to your conscience whether or not you want to install this.

If you install the ubuntu-restricted-extras and kubuntu-restricted-extras (if you use KDE) packages you will get many copyright/patented encumbered, useful things (like libdvdcss, adobe reader and flash)

Cheers,
Paul.

mrapoc · May 07, 2008, 22:39:17

Ace deffo checking it out.

ill also give compiz a whirl...

When i was experimenting I found amarok fairly nice at playing my music collection altho it was a pain at times

so far the new ubuntu is very fast 8)

D-Dan · May 07, 2008, 22:44:08

Synergy (also available for Windows). IMO, one of the most useful progs around, and the first thing I install after a clean install (well - except with Windows - when you gotta install a multitude of drivers first)

Steve

greenfedora · May 10, 2008, 08:32:26

I can't live without my wireless network, which Ubuntu won't (easily) recognise.

Yes I could faff around with ndiswrapper and probably get it to work but, although I'm happy to spend time messing about with a Linux server, I just want a desktop to install and run. This, for me, is where Linux still fails as a desktop.

I'm no fan of Windows, particularly Vista, but at least it installs and runs (mostly anyway).

When a Linux distro arrives that just installs and runs on both my desktop and my laptop, I'll convert.

As it stands I'll most probably go the Mac route next time I upgrade (which is underlying Linux anyway).

Dangerjunkie · May 10, 2008, 09:16:48

Hi,
Hardware support has come on in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. Which wireless card do you have please?

Cheers,
Paul.

greenfedora · May 10, 2008, 09:33:57

Hi Paul,

Quote from: Dangerjunkie on May 10, 2008, 09:16:48
Hi,
Hardware support has come on in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. Which wireless card do you have please?

I have a Broadcom 4321AG. It can be configured (as described here) but that was the point at which I stopped experimenting.

First I downloaded the 'standard' ISO image and that was no good, so I then had to download the 'alternate' ISO image. Then I spent time messing about with noacpi settings and such (as per the Ubuntu help files) to try and get wireless working. Then I investigated some more and found it needs ndiswrapper. But then I thought I don't really want this hassle for a desktop.

Don't get me wrong though, I really do like Linux - I was a sysadmin on it for years - but I don't see it as quite 'there' yet as a desktop, for which I simply want to press go and install (which Windows does successfully, despite whatever other complaints I have about it).

I'm sure Linux will get there eventually.

mrapoc · May 10, 2008, 11:10:42

Have you tried the latest ubuntu 8.4 or w/e

All i did for my previously unrecognised wireless was, go to restricted drivers, enabled it, rebooted and voila

easier than windows by far

what cd burners/movie converters/burners (basically nero replacement) do we use?
Also media player?

Dangerjunkie · May 10, 2008, 12:15:50

Hi,

I know this is no consolation but the problems you're having aren't the fault of the Linux developers. Broadcom have always been unwilling to release details of what software needs to do in order to make their hardware work.

There are two theories about why this is. The first is that Broadcom are a big supplier to the US military and seem to have the military mindset that everything should be a secret (either that or the civilian wireless chips share technology with their military products.) The second theory is that the US forbids wireless devices that can be tuned outside the channel range that is legal in the US (which are less channels than we have) so they are trying to avoid trouble from the FCC for selling a product that can be "easily" changed to transmit on the European or Japanese frequencies.

Broadcom's wired Ethernet chips seem to work well with Linux. My last 2 laptops have had them and they have both worked fine out of the box so it's only wireless that seems to be the issue.

Other manufacturers don't seem to have the same attitude. For example, Intel are been very helpful to the Linux community of late. My last laptop has a ProWireless 2200 BG Intel card and my current one has their latest and greatest 4965 AG-Draft-N multibander. Intel make the firmware for the cards available and both work fine (other than the LED on the 4965 not working but I understand that is fixed in the latest driver release and should roll out soon.)

Broadcom don't seem to have worked out that this is costing them business. Many of the Linux users I know won't buy a machine with Broadcom wireless in it. The good news is that things can only get better.

I'm sure this can be fixed. I'll PM you.

Cheers,
Paul.

greenfedora · May 10, 2008, 13:05:47

Quote from: Dangerjunkie on May 10, 2008, 12:15:50
Hi,

I know this is no consolation but the problems you're having aren't the fault of the Linux developers. Broadcom have always been unwilling to release details of what software needs to do in order to make their hardware work.

There are two theories about why this is. The first is that Broadcom are a big supplier to the US military and seem to have the military mindset that everything should be a secret (either that or the civilian wireless chips share technology with their military products.) The second theory is that the US forbids wireless devices that can be tuned outside the channel range that is legal in the US (which are less channels than we have) so they are trying to avoid trouble from the FCC for selling a product that can be "easily" changed to transmit on the European or Japanese frequencies.

Broadcom's wired Ethernet chips seem to work well with Linux. My last 2 laptops have had them and they have both worked fine out of the box so it's only wireless that seems to be the issue.

Other manufacturers don't seem to have the same attitude. For example, Intel are been very helpful to the Linux community of late. My last laptop has a ProWireless 2200 BG Intel card and my current one has their latest and greatest 4965 AG-Draft-N multibander. Intel make the firmware for the cards available and both work fine (other than the LED on the 4965 not working but I understand that is fixed in the latest driver release and should roll out soon.)

Broadcom don't seem to have worked out that this is costing them business. Many of the Linux users I know won't buy a machine with Broadcom wireless in it. The good news is that things can only get better.

I'm sure this can be fixed. I'll PM you.

Cheers,
Paul.

Hi Paul,

I'm pretty certain I can fix it, simply by using ndiswrapper, if I was inclined to do so.

I also quite agree with you that a lot of it isn't the fault of Linux.

My point is this: I don't need to change and it's not as if I had to pay for Vista (it came with the laptop). Also, if I did change I'd have to run Parallels/VMWare to support things like Visual Studio, which I need. That in itself wouldn't stop me changing if I really wanted to, but when the first ISO didn't work and then, after using the second ISO, I got the networking problems, I just decided it wasn't worth my while to pursue Ubuntu on my laptop.

I'll most likely try again at some point in the future (although, as I said, I may go for a Mac instead) and if I get a clean install from the outset I might give it more consideration as a desktop.

When it comes to servers - having used/administrated both Linux and Windows - I'd always have Linux as my first choice. For a server I am happy to mess about at the command line - in fact I even prefer the control it gives me.

See what I mean?