Trying Linux again... not an encouraging start.

Andylusion

Platinum Member
Jan 23, 2014
21,293
6,418
360
Central Ohio
Alrighty... so having talked with some Linux fans, I was re-energized to try installing Linux yet again. Now, I realize already that some of the Linux Zealots are going to flame me, and that's fine. That's what the ignore feature is for.

But just to head off a small fraction of the flame bait before it happens.... I am a big fan of Linux becoming a dominate player. Few mainstream computer users are more hopeful than myself, that Microsoft someday either goes out of business, or becomes a seller of a super high end version of Linux.

So, you don't need to preach to the choir, I'm one of you....

Nevertheless.... The following are my observations as to why Linux will not go mainstream until these things are permanently fixed.

So my guinea pig for this was a Gateway Solo Laptop. It's a laptop, with a Pentium 3, at the hyper space speed of 0.7 Ghz. oooOOooo... flyin. Adding to that, the massive 256 MB of ram, and this sucker is set for Window 2000.

Remarkably good condition for it's age, and everything works perfectly. At work, production has stalled out completely. So I have spare time to play around, and thought this would be a great time to test my Linux muscles.... which don't exist yet.... but maybe someday.

So I looked up what Linux distribution would be perfectly good for a older but finely functioning system such as this.

I found Legacy OS to be the top suggested Linux for my system.

I used a USB flash drive to install the distro, and things honestly went well. I had a very good feeling about this, and eager to see what it could do. But things went down hill, and very fast.

First, it loaded into grub.... with a confusing menu. hda1, fd0, /dev/hda1, press c for help (none of which was helpful), type cat /boot/grub/usage.txt.... why?

Come people. The hard drive is completely empty, there is only one operating system there, just load the OS, and go.

I managed to get that set to Linux, although I still have to select and enter it every time I boot up, as if there was any other option.....

Minor problem you say? Again, if you want Linux to be mainstream, then you need it setup so that people who don't know linux are not sitting there staring at /hda1 , fd0, /dev/hda press c for help.

But I pressed on. It boots up, and it seems snappy and fast. Great. First stop, let's see if we can connect to the internet. The Windows system had been using a Linksys Wireless G PC Card to connect to the wifi.

The system promptly detected the card, and loaded drivers, specifically 3C95X drivers. For those who don't know, that's a 3Com Ethernet adapter, which of course is not the linksys driver for a linksys card, and doesn't work.

Ok, no problem. I had this happen before... just select the correct driver from the list..... from... the list.... which doesn't have the WPC54G Linksys Card. Ok, no problem..... I'll just download the drivers for the card on the USB drive, and install them.

So I just have to find the drivers..... for the WPC54G Linux.... which doesn't exist! Alrighty... ok... Linksys must be one of those extremely rare never used brands...

What to do. Load a windows driver! Oh you can do that? How? Using the Windows driver loader.... which is called? 'ndiswrapper' Who the heck came up with 'ndiswrapper', and how the heck is a normal average person suppose to know that 'ndiswrapper' really means "window driver loader"??

Ok ok... I signed up for this. So I go get the window WPC56G driver, put it on the USB, and......... ok.... where's the USB? No USB drive.... I can install linux from a USB flash drive, but never us it again? I hunt around for mount USB, and find it, while I discover "start pdrive auto mounting daemon". Well... why would I not want drives to auto mount? You think I plug in my USB just for the amusement of seeing it hang off the side of the computer?

So I load that up, and then re-install the USB drive. It pops up!.... and then a window telling me that the USB was connected pops up, and asks me if I want to unmount it....... really.... I JUST plugged it in... of course I want to unmount the sucker before I use it.

Disappointment is growing, but I move on. Load 'ndiswrapper', and click on the USB drive, (which I have to hunt for under /dev/ instead of just clicking on the USB drive)..... blank screen. New window pops up "Report on loading of module: No module was loaded".

BTW, side issue here. I've noticed that in Linux, they tend to say an entire paragraph, where four words would do "No network driver loaded". I don't need five paragraphs to say "It didn't work".

As of yet, I have not been able to find any links, or suggestions on how to fix the network driver, and the laptop doesn't have built in Ethernet. I would *ASSUME* that built in ethernet would have been easier to get running.

But my fun doesn't end there. So I thought, ok maybe I can't fix that, but perhaps I can at least watch a movie on it. So I look and behold there were a total of 5 media players installed. That seems odd to me. If all of them work, why install 5? Put the best one on there, and let people choose to install something else if they prefer. It's a waste of space, and confusing.

Of course, the key words were "if they work". Out of Kaffeine, Kmplayer, Mplayer, Smplayer, and VLC.... None of them worked. Every single one in turn, failed to play any of the several movies on the USB. Really?

Well how about a DVD? I popped in the Matrix, Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan. All 5 media players failed to play the DVD. The closest I got was a really old DVD, Running Man with Arnold, and it even failed after getting through the opening credits.

Really? This Distro was released in 2012, and it can't play a single DVD or regular movie file? Am I missing something? This is what other Linux Users 'recommended'?

Not to be deterred... I went and looked around for updates to Kaffeine. I downloaded the file, and went back, and expanded the file onto my laptop... and nothing happens. "Wrapper exited with a error."

I can't even get Kaffeine to expand, let alone install it. Further, I can't even find the existing Kaffeine on my system that doesn't work, to uninstall it. How does that work?

On my Mac, I go to the 'applications' folder, and find the application... and I delete it. Then I install the new one, normally by doing something extremely difficult called 'click and drag'... which works about like it sounds.

On this, I can't even figure out what folder the application is in, nor can I right click the application from the applications menu on the desk top, to select "show file", which would then go directly to it.

So then I decided, instead of messing with Kaffeine, perhaps a more well known media player would be easier. VLC, has been around for ages, and it's almost a defacto standard. So I went to VLC site, and got this....

VideoLAN - Official page for VLC media player, the Open Source video framework!
Windows
Get VLC for Windows
Mac OS X
Get VLC for Mac OS X
Sources

You can also directly get the source code.
GNU/Linux
Get VLC for Debian GNU/Linux
Get VLC for Ubuntu
Get VLC for Mint
Get VLC for openSUSE
Get VLC for Gentoo Linux
Get VLC for Fedora
Get VLC for Arch Linux
Get VLC for Slackware Linux
Get VLC for Mandriva Linux
Get VLC for ALT Linux
Get VLC for Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Other Systems
Get VLC for FreeBSD
Get VLC for NetBSD
Get VLC for OpenBSD
Get VLC for Solaris
Get VLC for Android
Get VLC for iOS
Get VLC for QNX
Get VLC for Syllable
Get VLC for OS/2

This right here illustrates the entire problem.

VLC for Mac OS X.

VLC for Windows.

VLC for Linux........ 11 different options. Do you see Legacy OS on there? So I did some hunting, and found that Legacy OS was built on Puppy Linux. Do you see Puppy Linux on that list? So I did some more hunting and found....... nothing. I have no idea which of those versions will work on my system.

At this point, I called it a day. I was done, at least for now. The most simple tasks are like pulling teeth. This is why Linux will be years and years before getting to be mainstream.

The most amusing part was "setting the time". Yes, Setting the time, was funny. The clock was wrong, so I click 'setclock', because spaces are too hard for names. A window popped up to set the clock. So I set it, and clicked 'done'. The screen goes black..... nothing..... waiting.... still nothing.... system is completely dead. 30 seconds..... 45 seconds.... Just as I'm reaching for the off button thinking the system locked up on the difficult operation of setting the clock, the screen pops back, with a window in the center saying "Screen may go blank, but will return"........... Really...... *after* the screen goes blank for almost a minute, it now wants to warn me that it might go blank, but it will come back.

Setting the clock causes the screen to blank out? And it doesn't warn you of this, until after it happens?

Seriously people.... Linux has a long long long long way to go before normal average people are going to use it.
 
Last edited:
Alrighty... so having talked with some Linux fans, I was re-energized to try installing Linux yet again. Now, I realize already that some of the Linux Zealots are going to flame me, and that's fine. That's what the ignore feature is for.

But just to head off a small fraction of the flame bait before it happens.... I am a big fan of Linux becoming a dominate player. Few mainstream computer users are more hopeful than myself, that Microsoft someday either goes out of business, or becomes a seller of a super high end version of Linux.

So, you don't need to preach to the choir, I'm one of you....

Nevertheless.... The following are my observations as to why Linux will not go mainstream until these things are permanently fixed.

So my guinea pig for this was a Gateway Solo Laptop. It's a laptop, with a Pentium 3, at the hyper space speed of 0.7 Ghz. oooOOooo... flyin. Adding to that, the massive 256 MB of ram, and this sucker is set for Window 2000.

Remarkably good condition for it's age, and everything works perfectly. At work, production has stalled out completely. So I have spare time to play around, and thought this would be a great time to test my Linux muscles.... which don't exist yet.... but maybe someday.

So I looked up what Linux distribution would be perfectly good for a older but finely functioning system such as this.

I found Legacy OS to be the top suggested Linux for my system.

I used a USB flash drive to install the distro, and things honestly went well. I had a very good feeling about this, and eager to see what it could do. But things went down hill, and very fast.

First, it loaded into grub.... with a confusing menu. hda1, fd0, /dev/hda1, press c for help (none of which was helpful), type cat /boot/grub/usage.txt.... why?

Come people. The hard drive is completely empty, there is only one operating system there, just load the OS, and go.

I managed to get that set to Linux, although I still have to select and enter it every time I boot up, as if there was any other option.....

Minor problem you say? Again, if you want Linux to be mainstream, then you need it setup so that people who don't know linux are not sitting there staring at /hda1 , fd0, /dev/hda press c for help.

But I pressed on. It boots up, and it seems snappy and fast. Great. First stop, let's see if we can connect to the internet. The Windows system had been using a Linksys Wireless G PC Card to connect to the wifi.

The system promptly detected the card, and loaded drivers, specifically 3C95X drivers. For those who don't know, that's a 3Com Ethernet adapter, which of course is not the linksys driver for a linksys card, and doesn't work.

Ok, no problem. I had this happen before... just select the correct driver from the list..... from... the list.... which doesn't have the WPC54G Linksys Card. Ok, no problem..... I'll just download the drivers for the card on the USB drive, and install them.

So I just have to find the drivers..... for the WPC54G Linux.... which doesn't exist! Alrighty... ok... Linksys must be one of those extremely rare never used brands...

What to do. Load a windows driver! Oh you can do that? How? Using the Windows driver loader.... which is called? 'ndiswrapper' Who the heck came up with 'ndiswrapper', and how the heck is a normal average person suppose to know that 'ndiswrapper' really means "window driver loader"??

Ok ok... I signed up for this. So I go get the window WPC56G driver, put it on the USB, and......... ok.... where's the USB? No USB drive.... I can install linux from a USB flash drive, but never us it again? I hunt around for mount USB, and find it, while I discover "start pdrive auto mounting daemon". Well... why would I not want drives to auto mount? You think I plug in my USB just for the amusement of seeing it hang off the side of the computer?

So I load that up, and then re-install the USB drive. It pops up!.... and then a window telling me that the USB was connected pops up, and asks me if I want to unmount it....... really.... I JUST plugged it in... of course I want to unmount the sucker before I use it.

Disappointment is growing, but I move on. Load 'ndiswrapper', and click on the USB drive, (which I have to hunt for under /dev/ instead of just clicking on the USB drive)..... blank screen. New window pops up "Report on loading of module: No module was loaded".

BTW, side issue here. I've noticed that in Linux, they tend to say an entire paragraph, where four words would do "No network driver loaded". I don't need five paragraphs to say "It didn't work".

As of yet, I have not been able to find any links, or suggestions on how to fix the network driver, and the laptop doesn't have built in Ethernet. I would *ASSUME* that built in ethernet would have been easier to get running.

But my fun doesn't end there. So I thought, ok maybe I can't fix that, but perhaps I can at least watch a movie on it. So I look and behold there were a total of 5 media players installed. That seems odd to me. If all of them work, why install 5? Put the best one on there, and let people choose to install something else if they prefer. It's a waste of space, and confusing.

Of course, the key words were "if they work". Out of Kaffeine, Kmplayer, Mplayer, Smplayer, and VLC.... None of them worked. Every single one in turn, failed to play any of the several movies on the USB. Really?

Well how about a DVD? I popped in the Matrix, Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan. All 5 media players failed to play the DVD. The closest I got was a really old DVD, Running Man with Arnold, and it even failed after getting through the opening credits.

Really? This Distro was released in 2012, and it can't play a single DVD or regular movie file? Am I missing something? This is what other Linux Users 'recommended'?

Not to be deterred... I went and looked around for updates to Kaffeine. I downloaded the file, and went back, and expanded the file onto my laptop... and nothing happens. "Wrapper exited with a error."

I can't even get Kaffeine to expand, let alone install it. Further, I can't even find the existing Kaffeine on my system that doesn't work, to uninstall it. How does that work?

On my Mac, I go to the 'applications' folder, and find the application... and I delete it. Then I install the new one, normally by doing something extremely difficult called 'click and drag'... which works about like it sounds.

On this, I can't even figure out what folder the application is in, nor can I right click the application from the applications menu on the desk top, to select "show file", which would then go directly to it.

So then I decided, instead of messing with Kaffeine, perhaps a more well known media player would be easier. VLC, has been around for ages, and it's almost a defacto standard. So I went to VLC site, and got this....

VideoLAN - Official page for VLC media player, the Open Source video framework!
Windows
Get VLC for Windows
Mac OS X
Get VLC for Mac OS X
Sources

You can also directly get the source code.
GNU/Linux
Get VLC for Debian GNU/Linux
Get VLC for Ubuntu
Get VLC for Mint
Get VLC for openSUSE
Get VLC for Gentoo Linux
Get VLC for Fedora
Get VLC for Arch Linux
Get VLC for Slackware Linux
Get VLC for Mandriva Linux
Get VLC for ALT Linux
Get VLC for Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Other Systems
Get VLC for FreeBSD
Get VLC for NetBSD
Get VLC for OpenBSD
Get VLC for Solaris
Get VLC for Android
Get VLC for iOS
Get VLC for QNX
Get VLC for Syllable
Get VLC for OS/2

This right here illustrates the entire problem.

VLC for Mac OS X.

VLC for Windows.

VLC for Linux........ 11 different options. Do you see Legacy OS on there? So I did some hunting, and found that Legacy OS was built on Puppy Linux. Do you see Puppy Linux on that list? So I did some more hunting and found....... nothing. I have no idea which of those versions will work on my system.

At this point, I called it a day. I was done, at least for now. The most simple tasks are like pulling teeth. This is why Linux will be years and years before getting to be mainstream.

The most amusing part was "setting the time". Yes, Setting the time, was funny. The clock was wrong, so I click 'setclock', because spaces are too hard for names. A window popped up to set the clock. So I set it, and clicked 'done'. The screen goes black..... nothing..... waiting.... still nothing.... system is completely dead. 30 seconds..... 45 seconds.... Just as I'm reaching for the off button thinking the system locked up on the difficult operation of setting the clock, the screen pops back, with a window in the center saying "Screen may go blank, but will return"........... Really...... *after* the screen goes blank for almost a minute, it now wants to warn me that it might go blank, but it will come back.

Setting the clock causes the screen to blank out? And it doesn't warn you of this, until after it happens?

Seriously people.... Linux has a long long long long way to go before normal average people are going to use it.

Puppy Linux is a pain to set up. Try something like Lubuntu.
 
Puppy Linux is a pain to set up. Try something like Lubuntu.

Thanks, but I already did. Unless (L)ubuntu is significantly different than Ubuntu, I installed Ubuntu and it ran so unbearably slow, it made Window 2000 look like a speed demon. I could literally go to the bath room, and dump, and come back, and it would still be loading. Once it was up, I could click on things, go get a cup of tea, and come back just in time for it to pop up. Way way way too slow.

Is 'lubuntu' something different?
 
Puppy Linux is a pain to set up. Try something like Lubuntu.

Thanks, but I already did. Unless (L)ubuntu is significantly different than Ubuntu, I installed Ubuntu and it ran so unbearably slow, it made Window 2000 look like a speed demon. I could literally go to the bath room, and dump, and come back, and it would still be loading. Once it was up, I could click on things, go get a cup of tea, and come back just in time for it to pop up. Way way way too slow.

Is 'lubuntu' something different?

Ubuntu is designed for modern hardware. It plays well against Windows 7 on an I7 4600K, but you're right that it's a dog on an old Pentium 3.

I have a VERY old copy of PC-BSD that runs really well on old X86 hardware. It's not really Linux, it's Unix - but almost all Linux software runs on it. PC-BSD is no hassle, install it and it runs - no Debian bullshit to contend with. Older Red Hat will run well also, but is just as much of a pain as you describe.
 
Puppy Linux is a pain to set up. Try something like Lubuntu.

Thanks, but I already did. Unless (L)ubuntu is significantly different than Ubuntu, I installed Ubuntu and it ran so unbearably slow, it made Window 2000 look like a speed demon. I could literally go to the bath room, and dump, and come back, and it would still be loading. Once it was up, I could click on things, go get a cup of tea, and come back just in time for it to pop up. Way way way too slow.

Is 'lubuntu' something different?

Yes, it's a lighter weight distribution than Ubuntu, specifically designed for older PC's.
 
Puppy Linux is a pain to set up. Try something like Lubuntu.

Thanks, but I already did. Unless (L)ubuntu is significantly different than Ubuntu, I installed Ubuntu and it ran so unbearably slow, it made Window 2000 look like a speed demon. I could literally go to the bath room, and dump, and come back, and it would still be loading. Once it was up, I could click on things, go get a cup of tea, and come back just in time for it to pop up. Way way way too slow.

Is 'lubuntu' something different?

Yes, it's a lighter weight distribution than Ubuntu, specifically designed for older PC's.

Alrighty sir. I will absolutely try it. I wanted to learn more about Linux, and I'll do it. Here's hoping for a good outcome.
 
Thanks, but I already did. Unless (L)ubuntu is significantly different than Ubuntu, I installed Ubuntu and it ran so unbearably slow, it made Window 2000 look like a speed demon. I could literally go to the bath room, and dump, and come back, and it would still be loading. Once it was up, I could click on things, go get a cup of tea, and come back just in time for it to pop up. Way way way too slow.

Is 'lubuntu' something different?

Yes, it's a lighter weight distribution than Ubuntu, specifically designed for older PC's.

Alrighty sir. I will absolutely try it. I wanted to learn more about Linux, and I'll do it. Here's hoping for a good outcome.

It should work, I have run it on older machines myself, but anything works in theory. Good luck, let us know how everything turns out for you.
 
The main determinant for computer speed on a Linux box is the windows manager. Ubuntu (for example, what I run) is an OS and then a windows manager runs on top of that. Ubuntu runs Gnome by default. I always switch to KDE. Since a couple versions ago the default Gnome setup is a beast to run. I absolutely hate it. One can turn all the bells and whistles off but that might be a little tricky or it might be really easy, I never bother to try. I don't know, I never liked Gnome to begin with. Since KDE is not the default windows manager on Ubuntu it can be a little tricky to manage some things.

This is based on you being pretty unfamiliar with all this stuff and don't feel like running through web search and tutorial videos. Seems like you are willing to put in the effort to have a nice Linux setup. I recommend the latest version of Ubuntu and the KDE window manager. By default KDE will not kill your CPU and RAM. Best of luck. Netflix won't run on Linux by the way.
 
Thanks, but I already did. Unless (L)ubuntu is significantly different than Ubuntu, I installed Ubuntu and it ran so unbearably slow, it made Window 2000 look like a speed demon. I could literally go to the bath room, and dump, and come back, and it would still be loading. Once it was up, I could click on things, go get a cup of tea, and come back just in time for it to pop up. Way way way too slow.

Is 'lubuntu' something different?

Yes, it's a lighter weight distribution than Ubuntu, specifically designed for older PC's.

Alrighty sir. I will absolutely try it. I wanted to learn more about Linux, and I'll do it. Here's hoping for a good outcome.
You have 256megs of memory? Ubuntu will need at least twice that to run, it was using the hard drive for memory. Lubuntu stands for "Laptop"ubuntu and uses the LXDE lightweight desktop vs the KDE you are using. Or you could try Xubuntu, using the XFCE desktop. There's no way you can run Gnome 3 on your system, I have trouble with 2 gigs of ram so I run Gnome "classic".
 
Alrighty... so having talked with some Linux fans, I was re-energized to try installing Linux yet again. Now, I realize already that some of the Linux Zealots are going to flame me, and that's fine. That's what the ignore feature is for.

But just to head off a small fraction of the flame bait before it happens.... I am a big fan of Linux becoming a dominate player. Few mainstream computer users are more hopeful than myself, that Microsoft someday either goes out of business, or becomes a seller of a super high end version of Linux.

So, you don't need to preach to the choir, I'm one of you....

Nevertheless.... The following are my observations as to why Linux will not go mainstream until these things are permanently fixed.

So my guinea pig for this was a Gateway Solo Laptop. It's a laptop, with a Pentium 3, at the hyper space speed of 0.7 Ghz. oooOOooo... flyin. Adding to that, the massive 256 MB of ram, and this sucker is set for Window 2000.

Remarkably good condition for it's age, and everything works perfectly. At work, production has stalled out completely. So I have spare time to play around, and thought this would be a great time to test my Linux muscles.... which don't exist yet.... but maybe someday.

So I looked up what Linux distribution would be perfectly good for a older but finely functioning system such as this.

I found Legacy OS to be the top suggested Linux for my system.

I used a USB flash drive to install the distro, and things honestly went well. I had a very good feeling about this, and eager to see what it could do. But things went down hill, and very fast.

First, it loaded into grub.... with a confusing menu. hda1, fd0, /dev/hda1, press c for help (none of which was helpful), type cat /boot/grub/usage.txt.... why?

Come people. The hard drive is completely empty, there is only one operating system there, just load the OS, and go.

I managed to get that set to Linux, although I still have to select and enter it every time I boot up, as if there was any other option.....

Minor problem you say? Again, if you want Linux to be mainstream, then you need it setup so that people who don't know linux are not sitting there staring at /hda1 , fd0, /dev/hda press c for help.

But I pressed on. It boots up, and it seems snappy and fast. Great. First stop, let's see if we can connect to the internet. The Windows system had been using a Linksys Wireless G PC Card to connect to the wifi.

The system promptly detected the card, and loaded drivers, specifically 3C95X drivers. For those who don't know, that's a 3Com Ethernet adapter, which of course is not the linksys driver for a linksys card, and doesn't work.

Ok, no problem. I had this happen before... just select the correct driver from the list..... from... the list.... which doesn't have the WPC54G Linksys Card. Ok, no problem..... I'll just download the drivers for the card on the USB drive, and install them.

So I just have to find the drivers..... for the WPC54G Linux.... which doesn't exist! Alrighty... ok... Linksys must be one of those extremely rare never used brands...

What to do. Load a windows driver! Oh you can do that? How? Using the Windows driver loader.... which is called? 'ndiswrapper' Who the heck came up with 'ndiswrapper', and how the heck is a normal average person suppose to know that 'ndiswrapper' really means "window driver loader"??

Ok ok... I signed up for this. So I go get the window WPC56G driver, put it on the USB, and......... ok.... where's the USB? No USB drive.... I can install linux from a USB flash drive, but never us it again? I hunt around for mount USB, and find it, while I discover "start pdrive auto mounting daemon". Well... why would I not want drives to auto mount? You think I plug in my USB just for the amusement of seeing it hang off the side of the computer?

So I load that up, and then re-install the USB drive. It pops up!.... and then a window telling me that the USB was connected pops up, and asks me if I want to unmount it....... really.... I JUST plugged it in... of course I want to unmount the sucker before I use it.

Disappointment is growing, but I move on. Load 'ndiswrapper', and click on the USB drive, (which I have to hunt for under /dev/ instead of just clicking on the USB drive)..... blank screen. New window pops up "Report on loading of module: No module was loaded".

BTW, side issue here. I've noticed that in Linux, they tend to say an entire paragraph, where four words would do "No network driver loaded". I don't need five paragraphs to say "It didn't work".

As of yet, I have not been able to find any links, or suggestions on how to fix the network driver, and the laptop doesn't have built in Ethernet. I would *ASSUME* that built in ethernet would have been easier to get running.

But my fun doesn't end there. So I thought, ok maybe I can't fix that, but perhaps I can at least watch a movie on it. So I look and behold there were a total of 5 media players installed. That seems odd to me. If all of them work, why install 5? Put the best one on there, and let people choose to install something else if they prefer. It's a waste of space, and confusing.

Of course, the key words were "if they work". Out of Kaffeine, Kmplayer, Mplayer, Smplayer, and VLC.... None of them worked. Every single one in turn, failed to play any of the several movies on the USB. Really?

Well how about a DVD? I popped in the Matrix, Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan. All 5 media players failed to play the DVD. The closest I got was a really old DVD, Running Man with Arnold, and it even failed after getting through the opening credits.

Really? This Distro was released in 2012, and it can't play a single DVD or regular movie file? Am I missing something? This is what other Linux Users 'recommended'?

Not to be deterred... I went and looked around for updates to Kaffeine. I downloaded the file, and went back, and expanded the file onto my laptop... and nothing happens. "Wrapper exited with a error."

I can't even get Kaffeine to expand, let alone install it. Further, I can't even find the existing Kaffeine on my system that doesn't work, to uninstall it. How does that work?

On my Mac, I go to the 'applications' folder, and find the application... and I delete it. Then I install the new one, normally by doing something extremely difficult called 'click and drag'... which works about like it sounds.

On this, I can't even figure out what folder the application is in, nor can I right click the application from the applications menu on the desk top, to select "show file", which would then go directly to it.

So then I decided, instead of messing with Kaffeine, perhaps a more well known media player would be easier. VLC, has been around for ages, and it's almost a defacto standard. So I went to VLC site, and got this....

VideoLAN - Official page for VLC media player, the Open Source video framework!
Windows
Get VLC for Windows
Mac OS X
Get VLC for Mac OS X
Sources

You can also directly get the source code.
GNU/Linux
Get VLC for Debian GNU/Linux
Get VLC for Ubuntu
Get VLC for Mint
Get VLC for openSUSE
Get VLC for Gentoo Linux
Get VLC for Fedora
Get VLC for Arch Linux
Get VLC for Slackware Linux
Get VLC for Mandriva Linux
Get VLC for ALT Linux
Get VLC for Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Other Systems
Get VLC for FreeBSD
Get VLC for NetBSD
Get VLC for OpenBSD
Get VLC for Solaris
Get VLC for Android
Get VLC for iOS
Get VLC for QNX
Get VLC for Syllable
Get VLC for OS/2

This right here illustrates the entire problem.

VLC for Mac OS X.

VLC for Windows.

VLC for Linux........ 11 different options. Do you see Legacy OS on there? So I did some hunting, and found that Legacy OS was built on Puppy Linux. Do you see Puppy Linux on that list? So I did some more hunting and found....... nothing. I have no idea which of those versions will work on my system.

At this point, I called it a day. I was done, at least for now. The most simple tasks are like pulling teeth. This is why Linux will be years and years before getting to be mainstream.

The most amusing part was "setting the time". Yes, Setting the time, was funny. The clock was wrong, so I click 'setclock', because spaces are too hard for names. A window popped up to set the clock. So I set it, and clicked 'done'. The screen goes black..... nothing..... waiting.... still nothing.... system is completely dead. 30 seconds..... 45 seconds.... Just as I'm reaching for the off button thinking the system locked up on the difficult operation of setting the clock, the screen pops back, with a window in the center saying "Screen may go blank, but will return"........... Really...... *after* the screen goes blank for almost a minute, it now wants to warn me that it might go blank, but it will come back.

Setting the clock causes the screen to blank out? And it doesn't warn you of this, until after it happens?

Seriously people.... Linux has a long long long long way to go before normal average people are going to use it.

Quick question,
How many P3s, and for that matter, P4s are still in circulation..............?
Hell, duo core is nearly an antique these days.
 
Yes, it's a lighter weight distribution than Ubuntu, specifically designed for older PC's.

Alrighty sir. I will absolutely try it. I wanted to learn more about Linux, and I'll do it. Here's hoping for a good outcome.
You have 256megs of memory? Ubuntu will need at least twice that to run, it was using the hard drive for memory. Lubuntu stands for "Laptop"ubuntu and uses the LXDE lightweight desktop vs the KDE you are using. Or you could try Xubuntu, using the XFCE desktop. There's no way you can run Gnome 3 on your system, I have trouble with 2 gigs of ram so I run Gnome "classic".

Lubuntu is smaller than Xubuntu. You might get a low spec box to run XFCE, but he'd be better off with Lubuntu. Just to give you an idea, the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/RASPBERRY-MODEL-756-8308-Raspberry-Pi/dp/B009SQQF9C"]Raspberry pi's[/ame] run LXDE.

Lubuntu places the system requirements at 256 to 512. If he got Ubuntu to install, the Lubuntu should install. KDE is terrible, I have only gotten one box to run it.

A little background on me: I used to buy old computers at corporate auctions. Because I hate Microsoft's licensing policies I have been using Linux distros for operating systems on used computers. Microsoft and Apple make beautiful, functional operating systems, and MS Office is the best thing going if you ask me, but there are too many limits on their systems and too many vulnerabilities.

The thing about the Ubuntu releases is I've never had to search for drivers the way you have to with a Windows install - they either have them or find them for you.

I had 2-3 PIII boxes running Lubuntu 10.04, but they had 512 RAM. I'll be interested in hearing how this works out for him.
 
Last edited:
Alrighty... so having talked with some Linux fans, I was re-energized to try installing Linux yet again. Now, I realize already that some of the Linux Zealots are going to flame me, and that's fine. That's what the ignore feature is for.

But just to head off a small fraction of the flame bait before it happens.... I am a big fan of Linux becoming a dominate player. Few mainstream computer users are more hopeful than myself, that Microsoft someday either goes out of business, or becomes a seller of a super high end version of Linux.

So, you don't need to preach to the choir, I'm one of you....

Nevertheless.... The following are my observations as to why Linux will not go mainstream until these things are permanently fixed.

So my guinea pig for this was a Gateway Solo Laptop. It's a laptop, with a Pentium 3, at the hyper space speed of 0.7 Ghz. oooOOooo... flyin. Adding to that, the massive 256 MB of ram, and this sucker is set for Window 2000.

Remarkably good condition for it's age, and everything works perfectly. At work, production has stalled out completely. So I have spare time to play around, and thought this would be a great time to test my Linux muscles.... which don't exist yet.... but maybe someday.

So I looked up what Linux distribution would be perfectly good for a older but finely functioning system such as this.

I found Legacy OS to be the top suggested Linux for my system.

I used a USB flash drive to install the distro, and things honestly went well. I had a very good feeling about this, and eager to see what it could do. But things went down hill, and very fast.

First, it loaded into grub.... with a confusing menu. hda1, fd0, /dev/hda1, press c for help (none of which was helpful), type cat /boot/grub/usage.txt.... why?

Come people. The hard drive is completely empty, there is only one operating system there, just load the OS, and go.

I managed to get that set to Linux, although I still have to select and enter it every time I boot up, as if there was any other option.....

Minor problem you say? Again, if you want Linux to be mainstream, then you need it setup so that people who don't know linux are not sitting there staring at /hda1 , fd0, /dev/hda press c for help.

But I pressed on. It boots up, and it seems snappy and fast. Great. First stop, let's see if we can connect to the internet. The Windows system had been using a Linksys Wireless G PC Card to connect to the wifi.

The system promptly detected the card, and loaded drivers, specifically 3C95X drivers. For those who don't know, that's a 3Com Ethernet adapter, which of course is not the linksys driver for a linksys card, and doesn't work.

Ok, no problem. I had this happen before... just select the correct driver from the list..... from... the list.... which doesn't have the WPC54G Linksys Card. Ok, no problem..... I'll just download the drivers for the card on the USB drive, and install them.

So I just have to find the drivers..... for the WPC54G Linux.... which doesn't exist! Alrighty... ok... Linksys must be one of those extremely rare never used brands...

What to do. Load a windows driver! Oh you can do that? How? Using the Windows driver loader.... which is called? 'ndiswrapper' Who the heck came up with 'ndiswrapper', and how the heck is a normal average person suppose to know that 'ndiswrapper' really means "window driver loader"??

Ok ok... I signed up for this. So I go get the window WPC56G driver, put it on the USB, and......... ok.... where's the USB? No USB drive.... I can install linux from a USB flash drive, but never us it again? I hunt around for mount USB, and find it, while I discover "start pdrive auto mounting daemon". Well... why would I not want drives to auto mount? You think I plug in my USB just for the amusement of seeing it hang off the side of the computer?

So I load that up, and then re-install the USB drive. It pops up!.... and then a window telling me that the USB was connected pops up, and asks me if I want to unmount it....... really.... I JUST plugged it in... of course I want to unmount the sucker before I use it.

Disappointment is growing, but I move on. Load 'ndiswrapper', and click on the USB drive, (which I have to hunt for under /dev/ instead of just clicking on the USB drive)..... blank screen. New window pops up "Report on loading of module: No module was loaded".

BTW, side issue here. I've noticed that in Linux, they tend to say an entire paragraph, where four words would do "No network driver loaded". I don't need five paragraphs to say "It didn't work".

As of yet, I have not been able to find any links, or suggestions on how to fix the network driver, and the laptop doesn't have built in Ethernet. I would *ASSUME* that built in ethernet would have been easier to get running.

But my fun doesn't end there. So I thought, ok maybe I can't fix that, but perhaps I can at least watch a movie on it. So I look and behold there were a total of 5 media players installed. That seems odd to me. If all of them work, why install 5? Put the best one on there, and let people choose to install something else if they prefer. It's a waste of space, and confusing.

Of course, the key words were "if they work". Out of Kaffeine, Kmplayer, Mplayer, Smplayer, and VLC.... None of them worked. Every single one in turn, failed to play any of the several movies on the USB. Really?

Well how about a DVD? I popped in the Matrix, Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan. All 5 media players failed to play the DVD. The closest I got was a really old DVD, Running Man with Arnold, and it even failed after getting through the opening credits.

Really? This Distro was released in 2012, and it can't play a single DVD or regular movie file? Am I missing something? This is what other Linux Users 'recommended'?

Not to be deterred... I went and looked around for updates to Kaffeine. I downloaded the file, and went back, and expanded the file onto my laptop... and nothing happens. "Wrapper exited with a error."

I can't even get Kaffeine to expand, let alone install it. Further, I can't even find the existing Kaffeine on my system that doesn't work, to uninstall it. How does that work?

On my Mac, I go to the 'applications' folder, and find the application... and I delete it. Then I install the new one, normally by doing something extremely difficult called 'click and drag'... which works about like it sounds.

On this, I can't even figure out what folder the application is in, nor can I right click the application from the applications menu on the desk top, to select "show file", which would then go directly to it.

So then I decided, instead of messing with Kaffeine, perhaps a more well known media player would be easier. VLC, has been around for ages, and it's almost a defacto standard. So I went to VLC site, and got this....

VideoLAN - Official page for VLC media player, the Open Source video framework!
Windows
Get VLC for Windows
Mac OS X
Get VLC for Mac OS X
Sources

You can also directly get the source code.
GNU/Linux
Get VLC for Debian GNU/Linux
Get VLC for Ubuntu
Get VLC for Mint
Get VLC for openSUSE
Get VLC for Gentoo Linux
Get VLC for Fedora
Get VLC for Arch Linux
Get VLC for Slackware Linux
Get VLC for Mandriva Linux
Get VLC for ALT Linux
Get VLC for Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Other Systems
Get VLC for FreeBSD
Get VLC for NetBSD
Get VLC for OpenBSD
Get VLC for Solaris
Get VLC for Android
Get VLC for iOS
Get VLC for QNX
Get VLC for Syllable
Get VLC for OS/2

This right here illustrates the entire problem.

VLC for Mac OS X.

VLC for Windows.

VLC for Linux........ 11 different options. Do you see Legacy OS on there? So I did some hunting, and found that Legacy OS was built on Puppy Linux. Do you see Puppy Linux on that list? So I did some more hunting and found....... nothing. I have no idea which of those versions will work on my system.

At this point, I called it a day. I was done, at least for now. The most simple tasks are like pulling teeth. This is why Linux will be years and years before getting to be mainstream.

The most amusing part was "setting the time". Yes, Setting the time, was funny. The clock was wrong, so I click 'setclock', because spaces are too hard for names. A window popped up to set the clock. So I set it, and clicked 'done'. The screen goes black..... nothing..... waiting.... still nothing.... system is completely dead. 30 seconds..... 45 seconds.... Just as I'm reaching for the off button thinking the system locked up on the difficult operation of setting the clock, the screen pops back, with a window in the center saying "Screen may go blank, but will return"........... Really...... *after* the screen goes blank for almost a minute, it now wants to warn me that it might go blank, but it will come back.

Setting the clock causes the screen to blank out? And it doesn't warn you of this, until after it happens?

Seriously people.... Linux has a long long long long way to go before normal average people are going to use it.

Quick question,
How many P3s, and for that matter, P4s are still in circulation..............?
Hell, duo core is nearly an antique these days.

They're around, probably at Goodwill stores. I got some at an auction a year or so ago. I don't even know if a computer store would offer them.
 
Thanks, but I already did. Unless (L)ubuntu is significantly different than Ubuntu, I installed Ubuntu and it ran so unbearably slow, it made Window 2000 look like a speed demon. I could literally go to the bath room, and dump, and come back, and it would still be loading. Once it was up, I could click on things, go get a cup of tea, and come back just in time for it to pop up. Way way way too slow.

Is 'lubuntu' something different?

Yes, it's a lighter weight distribution than Ubuntu, specifically designed for older PC's.

Alrighty sir. I will absolutely try it. I wanted to learn more about Linux, and I'll do it. Here's hoping for a good outcome.

Once you try it there's no going back. I keep a Windows laptop around for my MS Office, but everything else is Linux.
 
Lubuntu is smaller than Xubuntu. You might get a low spec box to run XFCE, but he'd be better off with Lubuntu. Just to give you an idea, the Raspberry pi's run LXDE.

Lubuntu places the system requirements at 256 to 512. If he got Ubuntu to install, the Lubuntu should install. KDE is terrible, I have only gotten one box to run it.

A little background on me: I used to buy old computers at corporate auctions. Because I hate Microsoft's licensing policies I have been using Linux distros for operating systems on used computers. Microsoft and Apple make beautiful, functional operating systems, and MS Office is the best thing going if you ask me, but there are too many limits on their systems and too many vulnerabilities.

The thing about the Ubuntu releases is I've never had to search for drivers the way you have to with a Windows install - they either have them or find them for you.

I had 2-3 PIII boxes running Lubuntu 10.04, but they had 512 RAM. I'll be interested in hearing how this works out for him.
I've installed nVidia drivers but it was an option, it worked before but is better with the propriety driver. Some licensing thing, I think. Everything else worked on install and I have a lot of crap plugged in.

How does MS Office compare to LibreOffice? Have you tried it? I never had MS Office so don't know how the open source version stacks up.

256 is a small amount of memory, he ought to bump it up if he can.
 
Lubuntu is smaller than Xubuntu. You might get a low spec box to run XFCE, but he'd be better off with Lubuntu. Just to give you an idea, the Raspberry pi's run LXDE.

Lubuntu places the system requirements at 256 to 512. If he got Ubuntu to install, the Lubuntu should install. KDE is terrible, I have only gotten one box to run it.

A little background on me: I used to buy old computers at corporate auctions. Because I hate Microsoft's licensing policies I have been using Linux distros for operating systems on used computers. Microsoft and Apple make beautiful, functional operating systems, and MS Office is the best thing going if you ask me, but there are too many limits on their systems and too many vulnerabilities.

The thing about the Ubuntu releases is I've never had to search for drivers the way you have to with a Windows install - they either have them or find them for you.

I had 2-3 PIII boxes running Lubuntu 10.04, but they had 512 RAM. I'll be interested in hearing how this works out for him.
I've installed nVidia drivers but it was an option, it worked before but is better with the propriety driver. Some licensing thing, I think. Everything else worked on install and I have a lot of crap plugged in.

How does MS Office compare to LibreOffice? Have you tried it? I never had MS Office so don't know how the open source version stacks up.

256 is a small amount of memory, he ought to bump it up if he can.

Yeah, another 256 of RAM would help a lot. I used to cannibalize other computers to add more RAM.

My company has sent me to MS Office classes at the community college nearby. I know very little of all there is to know, but the things you can do with MS Office are amazing. Libre Office lacks some of the capabilities MS Office has, particularly in spreadsheets, and it doesn't have anywhere near the templates MS Office has. I am also a fan of Outlook but Evolution is okay.

If you are not an accountant or someone who deals with numbers for a living, Libre Office is perfectly fine. You can probably do anything a home user needs to do.

Now having said that, someone will probably make a liar out of me :D
 
Last edited:
Quick question,
How many P3s, and for that matter, P4s are still in circulation..............?
Hell, duo core is nearly an antique these days.

Oh my goodness millions. Millions and millions.

Now, in 'my world', there's none. My world, being the world of super geeks and geekets, where anything that's over 3 years old needs replaced.

Only in Geek world do you hear things like "My heavens man! You only have a Phenom II Dual Core running 3.1 Ghz? And ONLY 4 GB of ram?! My word! Does it need coal? Did you get that chip at the bottom of a bag of doritos? I can't believe you don't have the FX-9590 4.7 Ghz, 8-core CPU! You are such alooozer!"


But out here in the real world, once computers reached a level that they could do all of the fundamental actions required by most business, in many many cases you simply don't need, and companies won't get higher end systems.

The company I'm working for now, has roughly 50 to 60 computers, and all of them are P3s. None of them are faster than 600 mhz or so.

My company makes printers, commercial grade, long duration cycle printers. Not typical chinese plastic 'use for 1 year and junk' printers, but ones that go into Kiosks, that must work for between 5 to 10 years, with minimal maintenance.

Well what kind of computer is required to send a test file to a label, ticket, or receipt printer? Honestly a cell phone could do it. A P3, is more than enough to open a serial number recording file, check company e-mail, and access our file server to get test files.

I've been at a number of companies that all used really old systems. I was working at the repair shop of a dealership, and all the mechanics were using old reliable P3 computers, to make their repair tickets, and send notes to customers.

You really don't need anything better than that, and of course, you don't want a $3000 computers sitting in a dirty grimy, bug infested shop floor, especially went a $100 P3 will do everything you need.

Additionally, while most of the 1st world has moved on, the 3rd world has not. Millions, literally millions on millions, of P3s and P4s are shipped to 3rd world countries constantly. I was actually working at a company that specialized in selling P3 systems into Africa, for $75 to $100 per unit. One lot of 1,000 units.... obviously is a good $75K to $100K.

Now, I will say that the Chromebooks, as limited as they are, really put a dent in that market, but I wager you could still get $35K to $50K for a big lot of P3s and P4s.

Prices might have dropped since I was there. It's been a few years.

But the point is, yes there are MILLIONS... of P3s and P4s out there. 486s, not so much. Pentium 1s, not so much. Pentium 2, very rare. But P3 and above, there are tons. More than you would think, by far.
 
256 is a small amount of memory, he ought to bump it up if he can.

Lubuntu is smaller than Xubuntu. You might get a low spec box to run XFCE, but he'd be better off with Lubuntu. Just to give you an idea, the Raspberry pi's run LXDE.

Lubuntu places the system requirements at 256 to 512. If he got Ubuntu to install, the Lubuntu should install. KDE is terrible, I have only gotten one box to run it.

A little background on me: I used to buy old computers at corporate auctions. Because I hate Microsoft's licensing policies I have been using Linux distros for operating systems on used computers. Microsoft and Apple make beautiful, functional operating systems, and MS Office is the best thing going if you ask me, but there are too many limits on their systems and too many vulnerabilities.

The thing about the Ubuntu releases is I've never had to search for drivers the way you have to with a Windows install - they either have them or find them for you.

I had 2-3 PIII boxes running Lubuntu 10.04, but they had 512 RAM. I'll be interested in hearing how this works out for him.

Once you try it there's no going back. I keep a Windows laptop around for my MS Office, but everything else is Linux.

Well I made my attempt....

I may have error'd by implying I used Ubuntu on this specific machine. I used it on another similar system, that had quite a bit more memory. May have been a P4 too, not sure. It was a long while ago.

I've never had Ubuntu, of any version, on this system, because I assumed if it was so miserable on the other, it can't possibly be better or usable on this one.

And.... as it turns out, I'll never find out.

So I went to the Lubuntu web site, and started checking things out.

I find it ironic that "(L)ightweight Ubuntu" Lubuntu, has a LIGHTER Lightweight Ubuntu version.

The full standard so called "lightweight Ubuntu" is pretty heavy... so heavy there's no possible chance of installing it on this system.

But they have an "Alternative Lightweight Ubuntu" or "Alt Lubuntu", for "older systems".

So I downloaded the ISO, burned a CD, and popped it in the drive, let it boot up, and...... crash.... hard crash to. Made all kinds of pretty lights all over the screen. A very odd crash for sure.

But I won't give up so easily. I try a few more times, with the same result. Sum ting wong.

I go back and look up the specs again, and notice apparently older systems doesn't include P3s or less than 512 MB of ram. Fail.....

Then I notice a "Minimal Lubuntu".... Really?.......

You make a version of Ubuntu specifically to be "lightweight", and then you have to have two more separate versions of the "lightweight" version, to be lighter than the lightweight version?

So there's Lubuntu, then Alt-Lubuntu, and now Minimal Alt-Lubuntu.

And EVEN THEN.... they have a "Minimal Core" and "Minimal Standard".... really? You have to have two different versions of the Minimal Alternative Lightweight Ubuntu.... you know... just in case.

This is like the punch line to a bad joke. Seriously?

Ok, so I download the Minimal Alt Lubuntu ISO, burn another CD, and pop it into the system.

It loads up, hit install, starts asking me language, keyboard, blaw blaw blaw.... and then I assume it starts installing..... nope... That would be wrong.

Instead it comes up and complains it can't find a network connection. Well... yeah. That's why I burned you to a CD doofus. I don't have a network connection.

So I explore the options available on the screen, and all of them come back to "I want internet now!". Dur.... I just burned a 700 MB cd media, for this.

Back to the website I find that unlike the Lubuntu, which my system can't use, and unlike Alternative Lubuntu, which my system crashes on, Minimal Lubuntu absolutely requires a *WIRED* internet connection.

:eusa_shifty: Are you serious? Is the Americas funniest nerd videos?

The only reason I burned two CDs, and am even trying "Lightweight Ubuntu" "Lighter Lightweight Ubuntu" and "Minimal Lighter Lightweight Ubuntu" is because I can't get the wireless to work, and you want me to shove a cat 5 cable up the USB port or something?

Seriously! If there is any version of Ubuntu that should not need an wired internet connection, it's the "Minimal Lighter Lightweight" version.

This was rather amusing, and not very frustrating. It's not frustrating when you can't get passed step 1. If I had installed, and then spent hours on hours on hours trying to do something simple, like play a movie, that was frustrating. This was more amusing. I only wish I had known about the system requirements before burning two CDs.

By the way, I agree, upgrading my hardware would obviously fix all this.

This laptop is just a toy, not vital business use machine. It's something of a time waster to play with at work. If I can find some ram for 50¢ I'll consider it, but I'm not putting a ton of money into it. I bought it for $20, 3 years ago.

Regardless.... Obviously Lubuntu, Alt-Lubuntu, and Mini-Alt-Lubuntu, is a no go..... I'll have to find a different version of Linux to try, unless you have another suggestion.
 
Last edited:
256 is a small amount of memory, he ought to bump it up if he can.

Lubuntu is smaller than Xubuntu. You might get a low spec box to run XFCE, but he'd be better off with Lubuntu. Just to give you an idea, the Raspberry pi's run LXDE.

Lubuntu places the system requirements at 256 to 512. If he got Ubuntu to install, the Lubuntu should install. KDE is terrible, I have only gotten one box to run it.

A little background on me: I used to buy old computers at corporate auctions. Because I hate Microsoft's licensing policies I have been using Linux distros for operating systems on used computers. Microsoft and Apple make beautiful, functional operating systems, and MS Office is the best thing going if you ask me, but there are too many limits on their systems and too many vulnerabilities.

The thing about the Ubuntu releases is I've never had to search for drivers the way you have to with a Windows install - they either have them or find them for you.

I had 2-3 PIII boxes running Lubuntu 10.04, but they had 512 RAM. I'll be interested in hearing how this works out for him.

Once you try it there's no going back. I keep a Windows laptop around for my MS Office, but everything else is Linux.

Well I made my attempt....

I may have error'd by implying I used Ubuntu on this specific machine. I used it on another similar system, that had quite a bit more memory. May have been a P4 too, not sure. It was a long while ago.

I've never had Ubuntu, of any version, on this system, because I assumed if it was so miserable on the other, it can't possibly be better or usable on this one.

And.... as it turns out, I'll never find out.

So I went to the Lubuntu web site, and started checking things out.

I find it ironic that "(L)ightweight Ubuntu" Lubuntu, has a LIGHTER Lightweight Ubuntu version.

The full standard so called "lightweight Ubuntu" is pretty heavy... so heavy there's no possible chance of installing it on this system.

But they have an "Alternative Lightweight Ubuntu" or "Alt Lubuntu", for "older systems".

So I downloaded the ISO, burned a CD, and popped it in the drive, let it boot up, and...... crash.... hard crash to. Made all kinds of pretty lights all over the screen. A very odd crash for sure.

But I won't give up so easily. I try a few more times, with the same result. Sum ting wong.

I go back and look up the specs again, and notice apparently older systems doesn't include P3s or less than 512 MB of ram. Fail.....

Then I notice a "Minimal Lubuntu".... Really?.......

You make a version of Ubuntu specifically to be "lightweight", and then you have to have two more separate versions of the "lightweight" version, to be lighter than the lightweight version?

So there's Lubuntu, then Alt-Lubuntu, and now Minimal Alt-Lubuntu.

And EVEN THEN.... they have a "Minimal Core" and "Minimal Standard".... really? You have to have two different versions of the Minimal Alternative Lightweight Ubuntu.... you know... just in case.

This is like the punch line to a bad joke. Seriously?

Ok, so I download the Minimal Alt Lubuntu ISO, burn another CD, and pop it into the system.

It loads up, hit install, starts asking me language, keyboard, blaw blaw blaw.... and then I assume it starts installing..... nope... That would be wrong.

Instead it comes up and complains it can't find a network connection. Well... yeah. That's why I burned you to a CD doofus. I don't have a network connection.

So I explore the options available on the screen, and all of them come back to "I want internet now!". Dur.... I just burned a 700 MB cd media, for this.

Back to the website I find that unlike the Lubuntu, which my system can't use, and unlike Alternative Lubuntu, which my system crashes on, Minimal Lubuntu absolutely requires a *WIRED* internet connection.

:eusa_shifty: Are you serious? Is the Americas funniest nerd videos?

The only reason I burned two CDs, and am even trying "Lightweight Ubuntu" "Lighter Lightweight Ubuntu" and "Minimal Lighter Lightweight Ubuntu" is because I can't get the wireless to work, and you want me to shove a cat 5 cable up the USB port or something?

Seriously! If there is any version of Ubuntu that should not need an wired internet connection, it's the "Minimal Lighter Lightweight" version.

This was rather amusing, and not very frustrating. It's not frustrating when you can't get passed step 1. If I had installed, and then spent hours on hours on hours trying to do something simple, like play a movie, that was frustrating. This was more amusing. I only wish I had known about the system requirements before burning two CDs.

By the way, I agree, upgrading my hardware would obviously fix all this.

This laptop is just a toy, not vital business use machine. It's something of a time waster to play with at work. If I can find some ram for 50¢ I'll consider it, but I'm not putting a ton of money into it. I bought it for $20, 3 years ago.

Regardless.... Obviously Lubuntu, Alt-Lubuntu, and Mini-Alt-Lubuntu, is a no go..... I'll have to find a different version of Linux to try, unless you have another suggestion.

Go to this page:

Lubuntu 12.04 (Precise Pangolin)

The first link will say:

"PC (Intel x86) desktop CD"

Download it and try that. If you go to the "alternate install" you'll get the 20 questions thing again. Keep us posted.
 
Can you boot to a usb drive? If so it might be better to run the OS from there. I believe the internet connection is for upgrading, was there an option to install and upgrade at the same time? There typically has been for me. You would want to just install if you can. I would try something different than a Ubuntu distro, like Puppy Linux:

Puppy Linux Community Home - Getting Started
You don't have to install Puppy (to hard disk) to use it. Simply burn the ISO to CD/DVD and boot the PC or laptop with it. Once booted, you can then install it to USB flash (see the Setup menu), so you can use it for booting the PC when a CD is not available.
You don't have to save data to hard drive to work with Puppy. You can save data to USB flash or even to Internet storage (like www.drop.io ). When installed to USB flash, Puppy consumes only a little over 100 MB, or about 256 MB with OpenOffice. You can use the same USB flash (where Puppy is installed) for saving data.
 
Yes, I have puppy Linux. Legacy OS is a Puppy Distro.

I just got Lubuntu 12.04 installed. Unlike the other versions, the Alternative Lubuntu 12.04, allowed me to install without a network connection. It still asked for one, but I could hit "go back", and skip to the next step, which installed.

So I now have a bootable functional version of Lubuntu on the system.

However, I still can't get the wireless to work, and unlike Puppy, I can't figure out how to install the drivers. I'm still working with it.

I still had some really crazy error screens. As I mentioned before, Linux seems to spend two paragraphs to say want could be summed up in a few words.

Instead of simply saying "could not find network connection", it had several paragraphs. "Lubuntu network device installer failed to dectect a network device. (skip down) It appears the device installer could not find a network connection. IF you believe this that this is an error, click back and detect network hardware again. If you need to...." and on and on and on.

I could have summed that up with "Network Connection not found. Try again? Installed custom drivers? Skip?"

I don't understand why Linux programmers think they need to have a Encyclopedia Britannica response to what otherwise is a simple self explanatory issue.
 

Forum List

Back
Top